London Police; You Look Jewish...

[seer]

Siding with the Jew haters again...

Outrage at pro-Hamas protest as London cop threatens man with arrest for 'openly Jewish' appearance

Calls grow for London police chief's ouster for allowing 'mobs rife with anti-Jewish racists and terrorist sympathizers,' to protest in UK capital

The Metropolitan Police in London face accusations that they capitulated to radical pro-Hamas activists last weekend by threatening to arrest a British Jew because his presence was deemed provocative to a mob of anti-Israel protesters.

A shocking video published by the British Campaign Against Antisemitism from the pro-Hamas and anti-Israel march shows a Metropolitan Police officer ordering Gideon Falter, the CEO of the Campaign Against Antisemitism, not to cross a street because of his "openly Jewish" appearance. Falter was returning from a Saturday synagogue service and was wearing a kippah, or skullcap.

The London cop even threatened Falter with arrest. He accused Falter of "a breach of peace with all these other people." Falter was with five other people, some of whom were also wearing skullcaps.

Falter said, "The ensuing outrage forced the Met to apologize yet again. This time, it was for their appalling, abject victim blaming, which had come from the top and showed that after six months, Sir Mark’s Met still does not get it and is not about to improve unless there is a change of leadership."

Falter continued, "What happened to me was the inevitable conclusion of six months of inertia and contextualizing crimes away by a Met that has curtailed the rights of law-abiding Londoners in order to appease mobs rife with anti-Jewish racists and terrorist sympathizers."

https://www.foxnews.com/world/outrag...ish-appearance

[rogue06]

Siding with the Jew haters again...

I keep telling ya, this sort thing will keep happening because there are no consequences. The only way it's going to stop is with massive lawsuits. Bankrupt a jurisdiction or two and watch how fast the word gets out.

[Starlight]

Keeping protesters and counter-protesters apart to keep violence to a minimum during demonstrations is something police routinely do. So nothing to see here.

From the thread title, I had assumed it was some sort of racist judgement based on facial features. But, in actual fact, it was about what the man was wearing, that identified him as belonging to a group. In the video of his interactions with the officer, who was nothing but polite and verbally firm with him, the man confirms he is Jewish and that the identification based on what he is wearing is correct. The officer, out of concern for the Jewish man's safety, does not want him to place himself in the path of the pro-Palestinian protesters.

The officer's conduct is entirely reasonable: He is polite, non-violent, acting out of concern for public safety, and is not being racist.

Simply put, anyone who thinks this is anti-Semitism is a complete moron, or deliberately lying. They are also dangerously crying wolf, and by doing so reducing the chances that people take claims of anti-Semitism seriously in future. And by doing that, they are themselves a threat to Jews.

P.S. I see that the man involved is himself the chief executive of the organisation pretending the whole thing was anti-Semitic. So it seems it's just a vanity project on the part of himself. I wish he wouldn't endanger Jews everywhere by undermining the validity of claims of anti-Semitism in order to inflate his own ego.

[seer]

I keep telling ya, this sort thing will keep happening because there are no consequences. The only way it's going to stop is with massive lawsuits. Bankrupt a jurisdiction or two and watch how fast the word gets out.

Just as bad in the US.

White House condemns ‘blatantly antisemitic’ protests as agitators engulf Columbia University

The White House called the protests 'blatantly Antisemitic, unconscionable, and dangerous'

The White House condemned "in the strongest terms" ongoing anti-Israel protests at colleges across the U.S., including at Columbia University in New York City, on Sunday, saying they have no place anywhere in the U.S.

"While every American has the right to peaceful protest, calls for violence and physical intimidation targeting Jewish students and the Jewish community are blatantly Antisemitic, unconscionable, and dangerous – they have absolutely no place on any college campus, or anywhere in the United States of America," White House Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates said. "And echoing the rhetoric of terrorist organizations, especially in the wake of the worst massacre committed against the Jewish people since the Holocaust, is despicable. We condemn these statements in the strongest terms."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/whi...bia-university

[seer]

Keeping protesters and counter-protesters apart to keep violence to a minimum during demonstrations is something police routinely do. So nothing to see here.

From the thread title, I had assumed it was some sort of racist judgement based on facial features. But, in actual fact, it was about what the man was wearing, that identified him as belonging to a group. In the video of his interactions with the officer, who was nothing but polite and verbally firm with him, the man confirms he is Jewish and that the identification based on what he is wearing is correct. The officer, out of concern for the Jewish man's safety, does not want him to place himself in the path of the pro-Palestinian protesters.

The officer's conduct is entirely reasonable: He is polite, non-violent, acting out of concern for public safety, and is not being racist.

Simply put, anyone who thinks this is anti-Semitism is a complete moron, or deliberately lying. They are also dangerously crying wolf, and by doing so reducing the chances that people take claims of anti-Semitism seriously in future. And by doing that, they are themselves a threat to Jews.

Then why did the Met apologize? And I don't expect an anti-Semite like you to side with the Jews here..

[KingsGambit]

Keeping protesters and counter-protesters apart to keep violence to a minimum during demonstrations is something police routinely do. So nothing to see here.

From the thread title, I had assumed it was some sort of racist judgement based on facial features. But, in actual fact, it was about what the man was wearing, that identified him as belonging to a group. In the video of his interactions with the officer, who was nothing but polite and verbally firm with him, the man confirms he is Jewish and that the identification based on what he is wearing is correct. The officer, out of concern for the Jewish man's safety, does not want him to place himself in the path of the pro-Palestinian protesters.

The officer's conduct is entirely reasonable: He is polite, non-violent, acting out of concern for public safety, and is not being racist.

Simply put, anyone who thinks this is anti-Semitism is a complete moron, or deliberately lying. They are also dangerously crying wolf, and by doing so reducing the chances that people take claims of anti-Semitism seriously in future. And by doing that, they are themselves a threat to Jews.

P.S. I see that the man involved is himself the chief executive of the organisation pretending the whole thing was anti-Semitic. So it seems it's just a vanity project on the part of himself. I wish he wouldn't endanger Jews everywhere by undermining the validity of claims of anti-Semitism in order to inflate his own ego.

The man stated that he was in the area returning home from synagogue and not even to antagonize the protesters. How is being accosted while returning home from synagogue a "vanity project"? Especially since the Met initially publicly confirmed that his presence, even in that context, was unwelcome.

The practical effect of using this as a means of policing whereas even unrelated bystanders end up threatened with arrest practically renders major portions the public square off limits to Jews, which is anti-Semitic in practice.

[Starlight]

Then why did the Met apologize?

Standard media response to bad press.

And I don't expect an anti-Semite like you to side with the Jews here..

You were warned. Now you're going on ignore.

[Starlight]

How is being accosted while returning home from synagogue a "vanity project"?

The vanity project part is where he uses his own organisation to publicize a news story about himself, and has gotten himself on the front page of papers through this.

That might not have been the cause of the incident, but it's the cause of the incident being in the headlines.

You are free to believe his unevidenced claims about how the situation occurred if you wish. There's also a difference between "I was minding my own business, taking the most direct route home, and was stopped" versus "When I was travelling home, I saw a protest happening, so tried to approach because I had views on the subject, and was stopped".

The practical effect of using this as a means of policing whereas even unrelated bystanders end up threatened with arrest practically renders major portions the public square off limits to Jews, which is anti-Semitic in practice.

? There was a specific protest march happening at that specific time. The police were present at the protest march to make sure everything stayed peaceful, as they tend to do at such marches. There are typically some limitations on freedom of movement as a result, as police try and keep separate the people involved in the protest from bystanders or counter-protesters.

If that infinitesimal level of movement restriction with some people not being allowed to enter that particular usually-public area at that particular time offends your libertarian sensibilities, I would remind you that the existence of private property is a thing that means most areas are off limits to most people most of the time.

[KingsGambit]

? There was a specific protest march happening at that specific time. The police were present at the protest march to make sure everything stayed peaceful, as they tend to do at such marches. There are typically some limitations on freedom of movement as a result, as police try and keep separate the people involved in the protest from bystanders or counter-protesters.

If that infinitesimal level of movement restriction with some people not being allowed to enter that particular usually-public area at that particular time offends your libertarian sensibilities, I would remind you that the existence of private property is a thing that means most areas are off limits to most people most of the time.

Even if one accepted this logic, there would have to be reasonable limits because your viewpoint of uncritically allowing all protesters unique vantage point of an area would mean that nobody who disagrees with the Yellow Vest Protests in France could use the highways in the first place.

The mention of private property being off limits is a non sequitur. This is why I specified public areas, in particular the main commons of a city. Not all public spaces are equal in import, which is incidentally why I find the American idea of "free speech zones" in small enclosed miles away from where public figures speak (and where anybody is likely to pass by) to be problematic.

[NorrinRadd]

Standard media response to bad press.

You were warned. Now you're going on ignore.

Oh noze! Put on Ignore by the Chief Ignoramus! How mortifyin'!

[Starlight]

Even if one accepted this logic, there would have to be reasonable limits because your viewpoint of uncritically allowing all protesters unique vantage point of an area would mean that nobody who disagrees with the Yellow Vest Protests in France could use the highways in the first place.

Commonly cities have booking/permitting process for rallies/protests/marches. These place reasonable limits on the protests and allow different groups to have use of the public space at different times. These also allow police to have an appropriate level of presence, based on their judgement, to limit any violence.

Obviously, there can be cases where the protesters refuse to follow the permit process, or where the protests are so heavily attended or so widespread they might intentionally or unintentionally overrun such city permit limitations.

Given the strong police presence at this particular protest in the video, and the fact that the police seemingly weren't engaging with the protesters themselves, it seems reasonably safe to assume this protest was being held in accordance with the city's rules on protests.

I can't say I at all understand your complaints here. Someone had a protest march... that is totally normal. Police were present... that is totally normal. Police prevented people not affiliated with the protesters from engaging them, in order to keep the peace... that is totally normal. Jewish people are in no way prevented from booking and holding their own protests.

[KingsGambit]

I'm sorry, I'm trying to use the quote function and my computer is going haywire, so I'm going to remove them altogether.

Lack of engagement from a Met officer doesn't hold much water as to what's reasonable here given the widely reported incident the other day where an officer argued that the usage of a swastika in that context would be permissible despite hate speech laws

 I think the last paragraph moves the goalposts a little. You're talking about prevention of engagement, but what was at issue here was not any alleged engagement, but his presence ("you are openly Jewish"), and by which his account (which I have no evidence to doubt) was not aimed at that goal.

[Ronson]

Oh noze! Put on Ignore by the Chief Ignoramus! How mortifyin'!

Oh, the irony

[Starlight]

You're talking about prevention of engagement, but what was at issue here was not any alleged engagement, but his presence ("you are openly Jewish"), and by which his account (which I have no evidence to doubt) was not aimed at that goal.

The police officer didn't want the person in the immediate area of the protests. Presumably because he thought it could incite violence. Such an action is done for the safety of the Jewish man as much as anything else.

I am still baffled by what you feel was the problem with what happened. You're suggesting I'm moving "the goalposts a little", but I'm just baffled by what you're actually complaining about... I have zero idea what you think the goalposts are because I have zero idea what you think the problem is, given I can't see any problem.

[mossrose]

The police officer didn't want the person in the immediate area of the protests. Presumably because he thought it could incite violence. Such an action is done for the safety of the Jewish man as much as anything else.

I am still baffled by what you feel was the problem with what happened. You're suggesting I'm moving "the goalposts a little", but I'm just baffled by what you're actually complaining about... I have zero idea what you think the goalposts are because I have zero idea what you think the problem is, given I can't see any problem.

I wonder if the danger to the Jewish man would have been alleviated if the police had moved the pro-Hamas, anti-Israel protesters away from the Jewish synagogue on the sabbath.  Maybe even arrested a few of them for inciting violence.

I bet that would have worked even better than arresting the Jewish man for leaving his place of worship and walking away.