EUMC Definition


By Jonathan Hoffman
December 1, 2011
Share

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
• a
• b
• c
• d
• e
• Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:
• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
• b
• c
• d
• e

Some on this blog try to argue that the use of the word "could" implies some doubt: "it could but then again it could not"

That is clearly nonsense. Why have a Definition and then rule everything out?

The "could" is unconditional. It used in the same way as for example a mother saying to a child "You could go and wash your hands before tea" meaning "Go and wash your hands"

There really is no ambiguity. It takes an antisemite to argue that there is....

Advis3r - Your earlier comment about this was absolutely correct

COMMENTS

happygoldfish

Fri, 12/02/2011 - 13:33

Rate this:

0 points

Jonathan Hoffman:

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to: …

Some on this blog try to argue that the use of the word "could" implies some doubt: "it could but then again it could not"
That is clearly nonsense. Why have a Definition and then rule everything out?
The "could" is unconditional. …

sorry, jonathan, but that is nonsense

"could" is almost inevitably conditional!

in this case, "could" is conditioned by the phrase following it

"could, taking into account the overall context, include …"

in other words, the definition lays down categories of antisemitism, but deciding whether any text which falls within a particular category is actually antisemitic depends on the overall context


Advis3r

Fri, 12/02/2011 - 14:08

Rate this:

0 points

Thank you happygoldfish I think we already knew that. However in context do you agree/not agree that what Flynn said was anti-Semitic?


happygoldfish

Fri, 12/02/2011 - 16:40

Rate this:

0 points

Advis3r: Thank you happygoldfish I think we already knew that.

then why are some people saying the opposite?

However in context do you agree/not agree that what Flynn said was anti-Semitic?

what on earth are you talking about? who is flynn? what did he say?

why is it apparently normal behaviour on this forum to criticise someone out of context, without bothering to quote them and without even providing a link?


Rich Armbach

Fri, 12/02/2011 - 17:37

Rate this:

0 points

And there will rarely be agreement on whether particular words in the particular context are anti semitic.So the whole enterprise is not very helpful really.

Which just goes to show that for a group of people to sit round a table thinking they can determine the meaning of a word or expression is very foolish indeed.Language doesn't work like that.

Equally foolish is other people thinking they can use the outcomes of the deliberations as a kind of etymological Torah.


Jonathan Hoffman

Fri, 12/02/2011 - 17:52

Rate this:

0 points

yuo've proved you are a jew-hater. end of.


Mary in Brighton

Fri, 12/02/2011 - 18:01

Rate this:

0 points

I assume, Jonathan, that when you refer to the EUMC definition in the future, you will have taken all this on board?


happygoldfish

Mon, 12/05/2011 - 11:48

Rate this:

0 points

Rich Armbach: And there will rarely be agreement on whether particular words in the particular context are anti semitic.So the whole enterprise is not very helpful really.

that's a standard racist's excuse … there is no antisemitism, because there can't be any agreement on what antisemitism is!

Which just goes to show that for a group of people to sit round a table thinking they can determine the meaning of a word or expression is very foolish indeed.Language doesn't work like that.

language works exactly like that … what on earth are you talking about?

Equally foolish is other people thinking they can use the outcomes of the deliberations as a kind of etymological Torah.

i agree that treating the examples in the FRA (EUMC) working definition as if they were divinely inspired, or part of a constitution or an international treaty, is foolish

btw, the EUMC (European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia) is now called the (EU)FRA (Fundamental Rights Agency of the European Union)

for more details, see http://www.european-forum-on-antisemitism.org/working-definition-of-antisemitism/

the full text of the officially-titled Working Definition of Antisemitism is available at http://www.european-forum-on-antisemitism.org/working-definition-of-antisemitism/english/

jonathan, it will be better in future if, instead of saying that something is defined by category (f) of the FRA definition as antisemitic, you say that it is antisemitic and that it falls within category (f)

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.

LATEST COMMENTS