Oh dear, poor Labour Party in the United Kingdom. Am I the only one who cannot see what Jeremy Corbyn is being accused of or what proof is being presented? It appears that both Jews and Gentiles are acting ‘all offended’ because a certain definition of anti-Semitism is being disputed. The writers of this definition were so concerned that it may not be understood, that they attached a number of examples. These examples are what the Labour Party chose to ignore in part or whole.

And yet, how many definitions of anything need examples to explain the definition? Surely the art and science of writing a definition is that it must be exact and succinct? It’s like having a Highway Code explaining the rules of the road – ‘drive on the left’ and then needing examples of what driving on the left is, in case there is an ambiguity that might cause a collision – someone might confuse ‘left’ with ‘right’.

I thought I would look on-line for a definition of anti-Semitism in www.dictionary.com. Here it is;

1. Discrimination against or prejudice or hostility towards Jews.

As a Gentile, I find that a pretty good definition. I like it because the word ‘Jews’ could be substituted with any self identifying groups or individuals suffering prejudice. For example, ‘anti-Islamicism’ is;

1. Discrimination against or prejudice or hostility towards Muslims.

Since we live in an age, at least in Western Europe, where respect is given to freedom of worship and cultural and racial differences, we might embrace this definition. No examples are necessary unless you wish and need to define ‘Jew’ or ‘Muslim’. That could lead to problems, I agree, since tracing heritage back to Shem the son of Noah, might be time consuming.

Certainly the Nazi party had to invent their own definition of what a Jew is, to the point of obscene absurdity. In apartheid South Africa, Chinese people were defined as ‘black’ and Japanese ‘white’.

So as with all third party attempts at political correctness, their voice is usually insulting to the persons or group that the third party is trying to defend. Surely in any society other than that overseen by the Red Queen, White Queen, a Mad Hatter and Flamingo, the only party who has the right to be offended by prejudice, is the party at whom the offence is directed.

In this case, let them declare themselves victim of a ‘hate crime’ which is (from the same dictionary);

1. A crime, usually violent, motivated by prejudice or intolerance toward an individual’s national origin, ethnicity, colour, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or disability.

How wonderful that most western societies today, defend these groups – in courts of law if necessary. So if anyone has evidence that anyone in the Labour Party of the United Kingdom has committed this offence, let the courts decide.

I am afraid that the political correctness mob within the labour party baying out of a misplaced self-righteousness, for the blood of Jeremy Corbyn, are not acting in the interests of whom they seek to defend.

If any person identifying themselves as ‘a Jew’ wishes to complain, then go ahead, and bring the evidence. You may have to stand in a long line of Muslims as they too are suffering considerable prejudice in the United Kingdom and other countries in Europe and the United States at the present time, as are many other individuals and groups listed above. Jews are after all equal amongst mankind and deserve no more or less at right to be offended– unless they consider themselves chosen by God? In which case I refer us all to the question posed by Alice;

‘Who in the world am I?

The answers to this question might have you believing six impossible things before the Labour Party conference. Am I a south west Asian, Akkadian, Canaanite, Phoenician, Hebrew or Arab?