Antisemitism has been in the news rather a lot lately.
Diane Abbott has been accused of antisemitism for suggesting in a letter to the Observer that Jews have not suffered from racism to the same extent as black people because they are not so visibly distinctive. Currently she is suspended from the parliamentary Labour Party, pending an investigation.
And the Guardian has been accused of antisemitism for publishing a cartoon of Richard Sharp, the departing Chairman of the BBC, which exaggerated the Jewishness of his features in a manner reminiscent of Nazi propaganda.
‘Antisemitism’ means very different things to different people. Some have argued that Abbott’s letter was antisemitic because she appeared to suggest that there is a ‘hierarchy of racism’; others would say that her comments were not antisemitic because she said nothing directly to disparage Jewish people. Some have argued that the Guardian cartoon was antisemitic because it played into ‘antisemitic tropes’; others would say that cartoonists always exaggerate the features of the public figures they lampoon, it is their job.
There are endless arguments within Jewish organisations and in Jewish publications over the meaning of the term ‘antisemitism’. At one extreme are those who regard any condemnation of the State of Israel as ‘antisemitic’; at the other are those who argue that use of the term ‘antisemitism’ should be restricted to the verbal or physical abuse of Jewish people for being Jewish.
The Labour Party alone has four different Jewish groups which distinguish themselves by their competing definitions of antisemitism (Jewish Labour Movement, Jewish Voice for Labour, Labour Against Antisemitism and Socialists Against Antisemitism). Shades of the People’s Front of Judea and the Judean People’s Front from Monty Python’s Life of Brian.
This lack of clarity over the definition of antisemitism has enabled people to exploit the term for political ends: what I have described in previous articles for the Daily Sceptic as the ‘weaponisation’ of antisemitism.
In January, I wrote about the smearing of Andrew Bridgen MP by Matt Hancock in the House of Commons as ‘antisemitic’ for having tweeted that the Covid vaccine programme was “the biggest crime against humanity since the Holocaust”. I described the smear as “patently ludicrous… part of a concerted campaign to ‘weaponise’ antisemitism, to use antisemitism as a cudgel with which to beat anyone who speaks out against the Covid regime.”
In February, I wrote about an attack by the Guardian on GB News presenter Neil Oliver for “indulging conspiracy theories… spreading ideas linked to antisemitism”. Oliver had referred in his programme to a “silent war” against the British people and to plans to impose a “one-world Government”, which supposedly echoed ‘antisemitic tropes’. I argued that these accusations were “so flimsy that they’re hardly worth rebutting“, and that they had been inspired by Mark Steyn’s recent departure from GB News: the Guardian sensed weakness and was looking to cause further trouble for a conservative broadcaster.
Now a similar line of attack has been used to persuade Fox News to sack its leading presenter, Tucker Carlson.
Many theories have been put forward by commentators to account for Carlson’s dismissal, such as his criticism of the conduct of the war in Ukraine, his revelation of what happened at the Capitol on January 6th 2021, and his discussion of the influence of the pharmaceutical industry on the broadcast media.
Some or all of these likely played a part in persuading Fox News to sack Carlson.
But another explanation is to be found in the persistent campaign for Carlson’s dismissal conducted by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL).
The ADL was established in 1913 in the aftermath of the lynching in Georgia of a young Jewish man called Leo Frank after he had been convicted of the murder of a local girl – widely considered to be a travesty of justice – and the state Governor had commuted his sentence from the death penalty to life imprisonment.
The ADL has campaigned tirelessly against antisemitism for more than a century. It is much better funded and more influential than comparable organisations in other countries (such as the Campaign Against Antisemitism here in the U.K.).
The ADL has often been accused of exaggerating the extent of antisemitism to persuade people to give it more money, but it used to keep focused on combating hostility to Jewish people (and to the State of Israel).
Then in 2015 the ADL appointed as its Director Jonathan Greenblatt, who had previously worked as Special Assistant to President Obama.
Greenblatt’s appointment was a controversial one: he has been accused in many quarters both of politicising the ADL in a pro-Democrat direction and of stretching the definition of ‘antisemitism’ to encompass the entire ‘progressive’ agenda. According to his detractors, anything that Greenblatt disapproves of, he condemns as ‘antisemitic’ – whether it actually has anything to do with antisemitism or not.
Greenblatt was never going to be a supporter of Tucker Carlson, who has been an outspoken critic of both the Democratic Party and the ‘progressive’ agenda. Greenblatt was particularly riled when Carlson started talking two years ago about the ‘Great Replacement Theory’, the notion that the Democratic administration is promoting the immigration of large numbers of people from developing countries because they are more likely to vote Democrat.
In April 2021 Greenblatt wrote to Suzanne Scott, the Chief Executive of Fox News, calling for her to sack Carlson, on the grounds that “the ‘Great Replacement Theory’ is a classic white supremacist trope that undergirds the modern white supremacist movement in America. … This is not legitimate political discourse. It is dangerous race-baiting, extreme rhetoric.”
Greenblatt also spoke to a meeting of the World Federation of Advertisers calling on its members to boycott Fox News on account of Carlson’s “promotion of the antisemitic replacement theory”.
In September 2021 Greenblatt renewed his call for Carlson to be fired, stating that “for Tucker Carlson to spread the toxic antisemitic and xenophobic ‘Great Replacement Theory’ is a repugnant and dangerous abuse of his platform.”
Carlson heard about this second attack live on air from his former colleague, Megyn Kelly, who asked him how he felt when “sure enough, the ADL comes after you”.
“The ADL?” Carlson replied. “Fuck them.” He continued:
The ADL was such a noble organisation that had a very specific goal, which was to fight antisemitism, that’s a virtuous goal. I think they were pretty successful over the years. Now it’s operated by a guy who’s just an apparatchik of the Democratic Party.
It’s very corrosive for someone to take the residual moral weight of an organisation that he inherited and use it for partisan ends.
The Great Replacement Theory is in fact not a theory, it’s something that the Democrats brag about constantly.
The problem Carlson has faced in talking about the Great Replacement Theory is that it has also been cited by people who have carried out antisemitic and other racist hate crimes. In May 2022 a white supremacist shot and killed 10 people in a supermarket in a black neighbourhood of Buffalo, New York. He cited the Great Replacement Theory as the reason for his attack, and claimed that “the Jews” were behind it.
The shooter never mentioned Carlson, and he expressed hatred for Fox News. But this did not stop the ADL from making the link. Greenblatt issued a statement that “the individual who allegedly carried out this attack was heavily influenced by white supremacist ideology, including the virulently antisemitic and racist ‘Great Replacement’ conspiracy theory. … More must be done – now – to push back against the racist and antisemitic violence propounded by the far Right.”
On April 24th this year, as soon as Carlson’s departure from Fox News was announced, Greenblatt danced on his grave, posting on Twitter that:
It’s about time. For far too long, Tucker Carlson has used his primetime show to spew antisemitic, racist, xenophobic and anti-LBGTQ hate to millions. @ADL has long called for his firing for this and many other offenses, including spreading the Great Replacement Theory.
The criticism of Carlson in connection with the Great Replacement Theory is an example of what the Germans call ‘contact guilt’ (Kontaktschuld, similar to ‘guilt by association’). Carlson has talked about the Great Replacement Theory, and so have bad people who hate Jews. So Carlson is somehow associated with these bad people.
The Jewish Chronicle published an article celebrating Carlson’s departure from Fox News in which it criticised him for discussing the Great Replacement Theory, which it said had also been cited by people responsible for antisemitic violence, while adding a caveat that “Carlson has never been found to have directly advocated violence against Jews”.
Well, exactly. Carlson has never said anything antisemitic. That notion comes entirely from his critics.
The Guardian argued that Carlson was actually a “fascist” and that, although he had been “careful to avoid explicitly antisemitic statements”, his “antisemitism” was “clearly dog-whistled”.
The American Jewish magazine the Forward also accused Carlson of “promoting antisemitic dog whistles”, adding that Carlson’s refences to the Great Replacement Theory were “always just veiled enough to maintain plausible deniability against accusations of antisemitism”.
‘Dog-whistle antisemitism’ refers to the use of coded language that is apparently intended to be understandable to antisemites but not to anyone else. Just like ultrasonic dog whistles which are audible to dogs but not to people. Anyone can be accused of ‘dog-whistle antisemitism’, because it doesn’t require any actual evidence of antisemitism, and is therefore an accusation against which it is impossible to defend oneself.
We are now in a situation in which the definition of antisemitism has been widened so far as to be almost meaningless. As was pointed out by fellow GB News contributor Dominique Samuels after the Guardian’s attack on Neil Oliver, “if everything is antisemitic, then nothing is”. The real problem of antisemitic abuse and violence gets buried under a mountain of gobbledegook.
And because almost anything can be described as antisemitic, the accusation of antisemitism can be weaponised against any political opponent who contradicts the officially sanctioned narrative, even though he or she has said nothing about Jews at all.
As Oliver pointed out to James Delingpole, nobody complains when people on the other side of the argument, such as Klaus Schwab and Ursula von der Leyen, talk about one-world Government. They are not accused of being antisemitic, yet as soon as a sceptic mentions globalism or one-world Government, the accusations of antisemitism begin. “Just Kafkaesque nonsense,” said Oliver.
It could even be argued that Diane Abbott has suffered in a similar way. Far be it from me to defend Abbott, who by denying the Jewish experience of racism showed an apparent ignorance of the concerns of the very large population of ultra-orthodox Haredi Jews in her own constituency – the ones who dress out of 18th-century Lithuania – who are subjected to racist abuse on a daily basis.
But there is an argument to be made that the majority of Jews today do not suffer from racism in the same way as blacks because they do not stand out so conspicuously. Whether or not one agrees with this argument, it is not clearly not beyond the bounds of civilised debate – though Abbott made it very poorly in her letter to the Observer.
Why, one might wonder, was Abbott suddenly excommunicated from the parliamentary Labour Party following her letter, despite having apologised (again badly expressed)? Was she suspended for reasons of morality? Or because the present Labour leadership saw an opportunity to rid itself of one of the last remaining high-profile supporters of Jeremy Corbyn? To this extent, one could argue that antisemitism was weaponised against Abbott too.
None of which serves the interests of Jewish people, whose welfare should surely be the focus of all discussions about antisemitism. Baroness Anderson, who as Ruth Smeeth was subject to a good deal of antisemitic abuse when she was a Labour MP under Corbyn’s leadership, was interviewed on GB News about Abbott’s suspension. “I’m tired of my identity being used as a political football,” Anderson said. “Suddenly from 2016 onwards, the only bit of my identity that seemed relevant for certain people was the fact I also happened to be Jewish.” I can see her point.
Andrew Barr is the founder of Jews for Justice, which campaigns for free speech and civil liberties from a Jewish perspective. The first public Jews for Justice debate will be held in North London on the evening of Monday May 22nd. Email here for more information.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I don’t plan to read a 70 page opinion from another country’s supreme court about their own affairs but the quoted passed raises some philosophically interesting points and is not as clear cut as Gorsuch implies.
In some places, the dissent gets so turned around about the facts that it opens fire on its own position. For instance: While stressing that a Colorado company cannot refuse “the full and equal enjoyment of [its] services” based on a customer’s protected status, the dissent assures us that a company selling creative services “to the public” does have a right “to decide what messages to include or not to include”. But if that is true, what are we even debating?
Think of two extremes.
It would be quite shocking to return to the days where a landlord would refuse to offer a room based blatantly on race (remember “no Irish, no niggers”). This kind of thing is presumably the basis of the idea that a company – or an individual – cannot refuse full and equal enjoyment of services.
On the other hand suppose a publisher were asked to design a web site (or printed material) with blatantly racist content. In this sense a company should have the right to refuse to include these messages.
The distinction is between refusing services based on who is receiving the service (particularly if this is based on race, gender, sexual preference etc) as opposed to refusing to provide certain kind of services independently of who is asking for them. This is merely an extension of a fairly obvious right to refuse to make or do anything if you think the object or service is immoral.
I don’t know the details of the Lorie Smith case but it may well be poised between these two cases. Remember that her concern was not that she might be forced to included certain material in web sites but that she might be forced to offer her services to gay couples. The service being offered is in some senses the same service that is being offered to heterosexual couples but the fact that the couple is gay might be taken to imply an approval of gay relationships.
It is not obvious to me that the dissent is self-contradictory.
I discussed this in my previous article (and I didn’t want to repeat myself here), but it’s important to recognise the distinction between providing goods and services (e.g., hotel rooms, newspapers, etc.) where speech is only incidental and those where it is important (e.g., writing an article or creating a custom website). Public accommodation laws prevent one refusing to sell goods and services in the former category to someone because of their race, sex, etc.; but when speech is implicated (e.g., writing an article in favour of slavery), one can refuse if one has an objection to it.
The left has tried to claim there’s no distinction between the two, but they end up getting tangled in knots, because they can’t say that people can’t express themselves how they want (because of clearly established law), but at the same time they also have to say that if they want to win. The quote neatly, I think, highlights that central problem with their arguments.
I’d recommend you read Gorsuch’s opinion – it’s not 70 pages long, and it’s very legible and well-explained. It’s on pages 7–32 of the PDF (pages 1–26 of the paper document).
The fundamental point is that if I rent someone a hotel room, I’m not being compelled to say something I don’t believe, but if that person asks me to write or create something objectionable, that’s a different matter.
The fundamental point is that if I rent someone a hotel room, I’m not being compelled to say something I don’t believe, but if that person asks me to write or create something objectionable, that’s a different matter
OK I just read your previous article and you make some good points. I am still not convinced that this primarily about free speech. Almost any product or service can bear a message (think golliwogs). And those services that do include speech or text are not typically taken to be the opinions of the person/company providing the services – certainly no one thinks the content of wedding web sites is the opinion of the web site designer!
Nevertheless I support the right of anyone or any organisation to refuse to provide services or products they genuinely consider to be immoral. This has to be somehow combined with the requirement not to refuse services/products based on the race/gender/sexuality of the recipient. For some services/products this is easier than others.
Wedding web sites are particularly tricky. Most wedding websites are just about where to go, timings, the order of service, what to wear, accommodation. If you removed the pronouns and photographs it would be hard to tell whether it was a heterosexual marriage or a homosexual marriage. (My son is getting married next month so I am up-to-date on this!). What makes the site controversial is the fact the recipients are gay.
I will try to find time to read the mere 26 pages of Gorsuch’s opinion but I suspect the court made the correct decision – I just think the dissent deserved more respect than you implied.
I think it’s pretty simple, MTF. If I am the one providing the service, I and only I decide if I provide it, and I am under no obligation to state my reasoning.
Assuming I am not the State, with a monopoly on certain services, then a person is free to look elsewhere for the service they would have received from me.
That would be my starting point, instinctively.
However some non-state providers of goods and services are effectively monopolies – for example water companies, train operating companies, your local leisure centre provider. Also organisations acting in concert or copying each other or going with the prevailing wind can simply all decide to, for example, refuse to serve people not wearing “covid face coverings” or those not “vaccinated against covid” – and if you think that’s impractical and the market would not let it happen, what about banks refusing to provide banking services to known conservative/free speech organisations and individuals?
So if the service is a room to let or say dentistry then there is nothing immoral in me refusing it to people on the basis of colour or sexual preference as long as I don’t say why?
MAK can give his own answer but my answer would be that something being immoral and being illegal are different things. Most/all illegal things would generally be considered immoral but not all immoral things should necessarily be illegal.
I agree – obviously you can have immoral laws. I guess we are discussing the morality of the law.
My point was more that I might consider a dentist refusing to treat people on the basis of their colour or sexual preference to be immoral but would not necessarily say it should be illegal, though to be honest I am not sure exactly what I think the ideal way of dealing with this is.
I take your point. Not every immoral behaviour should be illegal. This is such a complicated and subtle area. One consideration is that making something illegal can change what is normal and acceptable – so the public idea of what is moral follows the law. I am thinking of things like drinking and driving as well as blatant discrimination. But I digress …
The left had Roe vs Wade, which used (and subsequently tossed aside) a mentally ill, young, pregnant woman who wasn’t going to have an abortion and, indeed, didn’t have an abortion, in order to create a hypothetical case that made abortion legal, so it’s kind of amusing that when a verdict based on hypotheticals goes a different way from the way they want it, they now claim falsehoods.
Roe vs Wade was crazy. At the time the amendment they used to justify it was ratified, I think abortion was illegal everywhere in the US, so the people who ratified it cannot possibly have thought it conferred a right to have an abortion.
Dear downvoter, please explain the flaw in my logic.
They never do, do they? Cowards.
The attacks on Justice Thomas are despicable and silly. He has kept to an originalist line from the start of his tenure, so to claim he is being influenced by gifts is absurd. There’s no evidence for it. From the start he has come in for extra vitriol from the left because he is a black conservative.
As Candace Owens has put it, they don’t like black people who leave the Democrats’ ‘plantation’!
“Supreme Court Upholds First Amendment – Lefties Go Wild”
I lurv headlines like this.
In the not too distant past many people worked as servants. They had to address the people they served with specific titles, names and pronouns. In addition the servants had to do their master’s and mistress’s bidding. It would have been unwise to contradict any of the subservience that was demanded. The Industrial Revolution, WW1 and WW2 allowed many people to escape subservient work.
Now we have a group of people demanding that they are addressed in very specific ways and that they can demand any trade or person to make or do things as they decide without question. The difference between working as a servant or being on the receiving end of the alphabet activists is you could leave an employer and find someone better as a servant, whereas to mis-gender or mis-pronoun or refuse to do what is demanded can result in destructive fines and a criminal record. Why is it OK that one group can demand subservience of others with the backing of the law.
“Bogosity”
Respect.
Apparently Quantum Bogodynamics is a thing, standard unit the Bogon.
“Colorado could have found out about, leading them to apply penalties and force her to attend a re-education camp. She wanted to avoid that.”
My God, Colorado?! Or North Korea
or China?…Why the hell has Colorado got a re-education camp? Have all 54 States got re-education camps? What time do you have to get up? What do you get for breakfast? Does the forced indoctrination include mandatory brainwashing booster injections?
We have lost America, I tell you.