Hope you had a good nights sleep. Sounds like you needed it.
I don’t know what you have against New Zealand. Shows that your aguments are poor when you start having a go at the posters country. New Zealanders are fortunate to have a good leader and every one I have met is really nice. Are you really from Denmark? You must be the most bitter, vitriolic person in that country. Oh yeah, and read Uri Avners article, you might learn something about Israel.
Ok clairobscur, I’ll bite… allow me to quote the bit about the judges again
Okay… they caught three men attacking a synagogue and religious school… You give me a possible motive other than anti-Semitism?
The three men were really pissed at the local rabbi?
The three men just * like totally hate* gefilte fish?
The three men simply felt like some random destruction? (but isn’t the choice of target odd?)
The three men… what?
I’m serious… what motive do you ascribe to these folks? And no… not what lies they used during a trial… I’m talking about what actual motivated these men to attack a Jewish religious institute?
As for ‘institutional anti-Semitism’, well… how about De Gaul? Or is calling a victim an aggressor… I dunno… rational? If not anti-Semitism, what was the basis for De Gaul’s irrationality?
How about Vichy collaboration with the Nazis?
As for the fire I’m more than willing to credit you with being right… but it smacks of terribly poor jurisprudence if it’s true… if it was the night watchman who caused the fire and lied, why wasn’t he brought up on charges?
Okay…
They attack a synagogue, and the motivation isn’t primarily religious/racial/cultural hatred? I mean, honestly, what other possible motivation could they have had? The synagogue ruined their view of the skyline?
I think that when you single out a religious group and attack them, the burden of proof lies on your to prove it wasn’t a hate crime.
And, no, the whole 'anti-Semitic-kneejerk-response", while fun to say, is bull. Yes, very often anti-Jewish and anti-Israel sentiment go hand in hand. Not always, but very, very often. Or will you tell me that attacking a synagogue is a political act? And if it’s political, doesn’t that mean that people are attacking Jews because of Israel? Which, um, means that anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are, in that case, the same thing?
Sorry, should’ve clarified my position.
[The earlier attacks all came within 24 hours each hours of each other at the weekend in or near major cities.
* About 15 masked assailants smashed two cars into a synagogue in Lyon and set it on fire.
* A man fired a shotgun twice at a kosher butcher's shop in a village near the southern city of Toulouse.
* Arsonists tried to burn down a synagogue in Strasbourg, in the east, but failed to do serious damage.](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1904547.stm)
Surely those weren’t all the result of the same night watchman?
And, of course, the French response was
[quote]
…the government in Paris argues that the attacks are mainly the work of Muslims of North African origin and must be seen in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
In other words… motivated by hatred of Israel, people are attacking Jews… in the French government’s own words, right? So, that means that, in their own words, due to the state of Israel’s existence/actions, French Jews are being targeted… now if that isn’t a blurring of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism I don’t know what is!
I will also note, that sort of response certainly is not consistent with opening up a national debate. It’s a dodge. And I’ve just shown you the implications of their own statement.
Conceded.
I am not expert on French culture and chose to believe a cite.
If you are really interested I can do a few month’s worth of research and come up with the facts to justify a position rather than a secondary source.
Damn… I"m not allowed to? Where do I go to see about getting such an allowance? Is there a long waiting period?
But… you listed one episode of an internal dispute in the Jewish community… one of Jews who went nuts and tried to attack Muslims and stabbed a cop, and one of a Jew who doesn’t believe any of the statements the PA makes…
This is a flipside that could, by some stretch of the imagination, show that the Jewish community is racist and trying to ‘get’ the Muslims?
I don’t think you’re proven it wasn’t an anti-Semitic attack. I’m not sure what evidence one could even bring forward short of a personal grudge… Seriously, what do you see as an extenuating circumstance?
antechinus
Read the French government’s own position: That this is a spillover of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Are Jews who live in France Israeli?
Nope.
So if one is attacking Jews because they’re angry at Israel, doesn’t that mean that, oh… anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are the same thing in that instance. ?
You see, more often than not, people simply refuse to look at the facts. The standard response whenever anybody who is anti-Israel is also anti-Jewish is called out is that “oh, everybody always mixes up anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism” That conveniently ignores the reality of the specific instance, just like you’ve done.
I’ve shown how anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are, at least in several instances, and in the words of the French government, the same thing.
Now, did I or anybody else make the claim that criticism of Israel’s policy was anti-Semitic? No, that’s a strawman.
Did I say that willfully ignoring the facts in order to blame Israel ala De Gaul is anti-Semitic? You bet I did.
Did anybody ever say that all Jews must support all of Israel’s actions? Or is that another strawman?
(it’s very easy for you to defeat my arguments when you’re making up what my arguments are and then shooting down strawmen)
By the way, it’s funny that you use clairbuscur to prove your point when she directly contradicts your cite…
More problems with your cite
First, and most obvious:
Due to some Jews’ support of Israeli policies, Muslims are attacking any Jew…
You honestly going to argue that anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are totally separate?
Second, if people were attacking Muslims because they were “enraged at TV photos of Al Queda” Wouldn’t we, rightly, denounce them as racist assholes?
Moving on
So is your author an idiot or a propagandist?
He assumes that 1) Jews vote as a block 2) Jews voted for the administration 3) if Jews did, then they’re responsible for whatever the administration does.
Idiocy.
I’ll also note, your author is a member of Gush Shalom. Cool enough, but I’ll remind you that Israeli peace activists march, while Palestinian peace activists are murdered by their countrymen as ‘collaborators’
Jus’ a lil’ tidbit worth mentioning.
apolgies to antechinus, got you confused with someone else posting in this thread.
Thats OK, it was too disjointed to read anyway. 
FinnAgain. You are behaving in exactly the same divisive manner as Sharon. We should be trying to get people of all religions and ethnic backgrounds to live together in peace, not separate them into ghettos.
When you have a society where different creeds and races living together there is less racism.
This is why Sharon is being a fuckwit. He should not be trying to link Israel with Jews. There are idiots out there who think they are attacking Israel by harming Jews.
That is the point of my OP. Fair enough, I agree like most that the Israeli governments behaviour is very bad, but Jewish people in general are good and peaceful and live all over the world.
Okay… no offense, but * what the fuck???*
Did you honestly read my posts as calling for millitant balkanization along racial/cultural lines?
Or was I just saying that the world needs to acknowledge that anti-Semitism is a larger issue than they like to think and that it should be dealt with?
I honestly have no idea how to address your point, as it bears not even a passing resemblance to my argument…
…
…
…
Um…
Israel is linked with Jews. It wasn’t Sharon’s wacky idea.
Yes, there are idiots out there who attack Jews because of Israel (whether or not they think they’re hurting Israel remains to be proven to me). As such, Sharon was reminding Jews that they’ve got a place to be free from that sorta shit.
Okay…
But still, why exactly is it wrong for Sharon to say “if your country or its citizens are opressing you, come to Israel?”
I’m only going to answer this one for now, because though references to the attack and to the sentence were easy to find, it took me a long time to find more details and infos about the trial.
The three men were caught while breaking into the synagogue. On the same day, a school situated in the same town was destroyed in a fire caused by cocktails molotov.They apparently denied having been involved in the attack of the school, and stated that they weren’t motivated by antisemitism, but only intended to burglarize the synagogue.
So, I’m afraid you’ll get only the “lies they used during the trial”. But I remind you that I was responding to your statement about the antisemitism of judges. Judges aren’t supposed to rule on the basis of the “motives they ascribe” to the defendants, let alone the motives you or I would ascribe. Basically these men were sentenced for breaking into the synagogue. Nothing more. Lacking evidences that they would also be guilty of the attack against the school, and lacking evidences that their motive was antisemitism rather than greed, I can’t see a reason why the aggravating circumstances should have applied.
So, it seems to me that the judgment was perfectly appropriate. You can’t sentence people on the basis that a crime was commited on the same day and that they could possibly be guilty of it too. Norcan you sentence them on the basis of the intents you ascribe to them, as long as they were caught before they had the opportunity to act upon these intents. To do so, they would have had to be caught defacing the synagogue, for instance.
Or at least you shouldn’t. Because actually, you didn’t have much of an issue condemning the judges for the antisemitic motivations you ascribed to them (and on the basis of an innacurate information conflating the two separate attacks…though the wide majority of the references I found conflated them too).
In your response, you’re switching topic, from “the judges were antisemites” , which was the underlying statement I attacked to “I don’t buy the attack wasn’t motivated by antisemitism”, which is a completely different statement. Not an honest debate tactic.
As for the other case (the watchman), I wouldn’t know since the story dropped from the media’s radar when it was established that it wasn’t an antisemitic attack, and I don’t intend to spend one more hour finding out the details. So I don’t know if he was tried. Actually, I didn’t even verify whether or not we were talking about the same case.
clairobscur, you miss my point. Even if they didn’t firebomb a school…
A judge’s job isn’t just to listen to whatever the defendants say and believe it…
For instance, they were going to break into a synagogue and rob it? Of what???
If cash was their goal, it seems that a business that actually handled cash would be the target. If precious artifacts were their goal, you’d think they’d knock over a jewelry store or something…
Do torah scrolls go for big bucks on the black market in France?
Or were they attempting to vandalize and/or steal from a synagogue and coming up with a ridiculous argument after the fact?
I know I’m being semi-flippant, but… seriously… what were they hoping to rob? (it seems far more likely that they were aware of France’s laws and were trying to get a lesser sentence by lying their asses off)
Seriously… if the judges bought such an obviously fake story, either they didn’t do their jobs, or they’re anti-Semitic… which would you rather believe?
As for punishing them for a crime they haven’t committed… isn’t breaking and entering a crime in France? If you break and enter with the intent of causing damage, isn’t that a crime?
And , simply for the record, stating that the judges ignored an obviously anti-Semitic crime is not shifting the blame or a dishonest tactic, it’s simply part of the debate. I’m allowed to discuss both the actual crime and the judges’ reaction to it.
Moreover, it gets to the point of the argument… if the three men committed an obviously anti-Semitic act, and the judges let them go with a slap on the wrist, doesn’t that speak to the culpability of both parties?
P.S. I admit I am totally ignorant of French jurisprudence. If I’ve somehow stated something in error about the French legal system please correct me.
You said:
"I don’t see a problem with Sharon reminding French Jews that whenever their countrymen start burning down a few too many synagogues, that they might wanna leave. "
and again in the same post you asked this question:
“But still, why exactly is it wrong for Sharon to say “if your country or its citizens are opressing you, come to Israel?””
So you are saying that the solution for Jews to leave France, or wherever, and move to Israel is a good one. ‘Balkanization’ is your own strawman. To clarify my position:
Jews should not move to Israel just because people (like you) are telling them that ‘anti-semitism’ is rampant in whatever country they are citizens of. Even if there is anti Jewish behaviour, which there has always been just like there has always been anti Catholic or anti Muslim, Jewish people should stand up to it with the help of the nation that they are citizens of.
The idea of ‘anti-semitism’ abroad is being uses as a political tool by Sharon. This tactic is cynical, dirty and destructive.
OK, linked is not the best word there. Israel and Jews aren’t one and the same. It’s like people attacking Catholics if they are upset with Silvio Berlusconi. It is Sharons wacky idea to continue to reinforce the confusion that attacking one is attacking the other.
I don’t get that. Seems to me it’s quite a basis that you can’t sentence someone for something he didn’t do. You can’t just make assumption about what he was thinking. To take an extreme example, you can’t just state “I’m pretty sure you actually thought about killing him the day before, so I’ll make that a 1st degree murder”. You have to get some evidence that the murder was premedited besides your “gut feeling”.
It’s the same here. They were breaking into a synagogue. There’s no way to know what they were thinking, no way to know what they would have done inside. Even if there isn’t anything valuable, they could have assumed there would be something to steal in the synagogue. As long as you don’t have any evidence, like say, catching them while they are drawing svastikas on the walls, you can’t sentence them for a crime they could have possibly commited or could have thought about committing, according to you.
None of the above. They did their job which is to sentence people for crimes they actually commited, not for crimes the judge think they could have commited if they had not been caught.
Did you really read my post? Yes, breaking and entering is a crime in France. And that’s precisely for this crime that they were sentenced.
You’re allowed to discuss both, but you were responding to a post where I was only adressing the issue of the judge reaction.
Except that it’s not an obviously anti-semitic act. Or else beating the crap out of a Jewish guy or stealing his car would also be an antisemitic act. And it isn’t except if you can show some evidences that he was targeted specifically because he was Jew, like say using racial slurs while beating him. Synagogues don’t enjoy any particular protected status making any crime commited in them a hate crime.
I don’t think there’s any need to be familiar with french jurisprudence, here. It’s a quite common concept that you can only be sentenced for a crime you commited, not for one that you could possibly have commited at some future point in time in the judge’s opinion.
Now, there might have been evidences that these guys actually intended to vandalize the synagogue and that the judge ignored. They could have had pots of paint, “Svastikas drawing for dummies” and “the protocol of the elders of Zion” in their pockets. In which case you would have a point. But I see no reason to assume that it was the case.
Wow… just… fucking wow.
And yep, that’s a strawman when you put a deliberately bizzaro spin on what I said.
If your ‘group’ is being persecuted, if you feel they’re being persecuted, you have every right to move somewhere where you’ll feel safe. I mean… what the fuck??? If you don’t feel safe, you’re now some kind of racist hate monger for leaving and going somewhere new?
Everybody can get alone just fine, but that doesn’t mean we need to force people to stay in a dangerous or unpleasant situation.
So no, no balkinazation, just being allowed to be where you feel most comfy. I would point out, if Jews were safe in France, there’d be no need for them to leave, now would there?
Okay… where to start…
Please show me anywhere where I, or anybody else, has said “if you’re Jewish, you’re not allowed to follow your own judgement and must do what I say?” Why is providing an alternative or telling people they should leave if they feel unsafe a command to both leave and feel unsafe? That’s just wacky…
And, how ironic. While I’m not telling anybody what to do, you are.
Jews should stand up to it, eh? What if, oh, they don’t want to? What if they don’t want to fight and instead would like to go somewhere they don’t have to fight? Pretty fucking rotten of them, right?
Why isn’t it the responsibiliity of the country they live in to stop that sort of shit without intervention from the minority that’s being opressed/harassed in the first place???
Really?
How about the reality of global anti-Semitism is being used to cement the unity of the Jewish state?
Then again, you probably won’t admit that there is a global problem with anti-Semitism. However,from London to Amsterdam, you can hear people say things like “Don’t be such a Jew!” Odd that the very structure of the language has become anti-Semitic… odd, that.
I don’t think it’s a ‘gut feeling’
I think if you break into a synagogue with the intent of vandalizing and/or robbing it, that’s pretty clearly a hate crime.
Or shall we call Kristallnacht “an outpouring of anti-Zionist sentiment with no religious motivations at all”?
This issue seems to hinge on the fact that the criminals had to be abysmally stupid or racist… but I’m curious, what do they have to do to qualify as a hate crime? Is it only the drawing of swastikas, or is the desire to invade a house of God, desecrate that building and perhaps steal some stuff enough of a case for hate?
I really do wish you’d stop using that strawman.
I have never said they should be sentenced for a crime they never committed.
I have said they should be charged with breaking and entering, and that an attempt to rob/vandalize a synagogue is inherently a hate crime.
Please stop saying that I have suggested they be tried for a crime they didn’t yet commit.
No, I didn’t reaaaaaaly read your post. I used my third nostril to whiff-read the aura of your post and then had my monkey type out a response… Slack baby, it’s all about the Slack!
I was however confused as you kept bringing up your strawman. Since you keep saying they can’t be sentenced for a crime they didn’t commit, I was wondering if you felt breaking and entering wasn’t a crime, as they obviously committed it. As I’ve already stated, I think that breaking into a synagogue with the intent of vandalizing/desecrating/robbing the joint is inherently a hate crime.
Beating up a guy who you find out after the fact is Jewish,and desecrating a place of worship that is known to be Jewish are certainly not equivalent in any way, shape, or form.
Which goes to the point I was making.
A minority in France has been targeted by an increasingly vocal segment of the population bent on intimidation at the very best.
It then behooves the French to protect French Jews and their places of worship from attacks that are obviously not motivated by anything but hate.
So when someone desecrates a synagogue, especially when their ‘excuse’ is paper thin, it’s reasonable to assume that the only logical motive is, well, the only logical motive.
Unless French anti-Semites now get to use the “Idiocy” defense. Maybe the next guy to throw a Molotov cocktail through a synagogue window can say it wasn’t motivated by hate, he just wanted to roast marshmallows.
You use this strawman again!
You’ve admitted that breaking and entering is a crime, so they can certainly be sentenced for that.
And if their intent is to break and enter in order to desecrate a religious site, how on earth is that not a hate crime?
And that you’re ignoring.
What on earth do you think going into a synagogue and robbing it is if not vandalism?
Or were they somehow not going to take/disturb/wreck anything ?
I just think it’s a very convenient dodge for them, and you’re being far too literal minded.
If the only way to show there is an attempt at hate and intimidation is to have swastikas drawn or for someone to say “I am doing this because you are a Jew”, then most hate crimes are ignored via definition.
From your argument, it seems that any French thug who wants to attack Jews and spread fear only has to break into a synagogue, wreck the place, take/destroy religious artifacts, and then claim their only motive was theft.
“Well gee your honor, we dun thought there were some burried tresure in there, we sure did! Never crossed our minds that we were gonna be desecrating a Jewish place of worship… you mean, Jews use synagogues to pray? Nawwwww, really?”
Err…nope. A hate crime must be motivated by hate, not by greed.
No comparison between breaking a door and Kristallnacht. Anyway, these guys weren’t caught consistently breaking the door of everything Jewish in the neighborhood. They were caught breaking in one building
Invading the “house of god” isn’t an aggravating circumstance. There’s nothing about sacrilegious actions in french law, and if you ask me there shoudln’t be. Stealing stuff isn’t a hate crime, either.
That said, I dig out the exact wording of the law, which is the following :
Which would translate more or less like that :
The aggravating cirumstance must be ** established in an objective way ** and is characterized only when the delict is preceded, accompanied or followed by statements, writings, depictions, items or actions of any nature breaching the honor or esteem of the victim, or of a group of persons the victim belong to, as a result of his belonging or non belonging, real or assumed, to a specific ethnicity, nation, race or religion.
So, no, wishing to steal something in a synagogue isn’t a hate crime, and IMO shouldn’t be. And “I’m pretty sure they were motivated by anbtisemitism” isn’t establishing the motivations in an objective way. And I’ve no issue with that. Or else, once again, assaulting somebody who’s wearing a kippa, or even who happens to be Jew despite the assaulter not knowing he is would be a hate crime.
You can’t base a sentencing on mere assumptions. That stand true for any kind of crime.
That’s precisely what you’re doing. You think they should be sentenced for a hate crime when there’s no evidence that a hate crime was or would have been committed. The only crime commited is breaking and entering.
They have been charged with breaking and entering. And I strongly disagree with the idea that robbing a synagogue should be considered a hate crime. Or else, once again, victimizing someone who you know is Jew would be a hate crime too. And there is an infinite number of reasons for victimizing a Jew which aren’t related to him being Jew.
And I disagree with that. And so does french law. And so do the french “general principles of law”. You can’t been sentenced on the basis of mere assumptions. In this case you can’t be convicted of a hate crime if you can’t prove the “hate” part.
They didn’t desacrate anything. They were breaking a door or something similar. And it’s equivalent in principle. In both cases, it’s not established that the crime was motivated by racial hatred. What you’re doing here is asking the defendant to prove he isn’t guilty. It’s not enough to prove that he knew the guy he assaulted was jewish, you must prove that he assaulted him because he was Jewish. Similarily, it’s not enough to prove that these guys knew that the place they were breaking and entering into was a synagogue, you must prove that they did so because it was a synagogue.
Which is done, for instance, by stationning police officers in front of synagogues, which is regularily the case for the synagogue across the street. But throwing away the rule of law in order to be more efficient isnt acceptable. “I think they are obviously motivated by hate” isn’t a good enough reason to establish a hate crime anymore that “I think they’re obviously out to kill me” is a good enough reason to charge someone with attempted murder.
Maybe. But “it’s reasonnable to assume” isn’t a valid basis to sentence someone.
You don’t “assume” a criminal is guilty. You must prove it.
That would be because it’s not a strawman. You indeed want them to be sentenced for a crime they didn’t commit. Breaking a door isn’t a hate crime. Even if it’s the door of a synagogue.
They can and they have been.
Notice the “if”. They said they intended to burglarize the place. And you can’t prove otherwise, since they were caught before the act.
Robbing is robbing. It is not desacrating, vandalizing, or anything else (assuming that “desacrating a place of worship” would be an existing crime). It’s not in itself a hate crime. And “breaking and entering” even less so.
Justice is generally rendered in a very literal minded way. And for good reasons.
Definitely. But the fact that you have to prove that someone is guilty results in many crimes being ignored. It’s nothing new. And it’s exactly the case here. Lacking evidences of the aggravating ciurcumstances, there’s no aggravating circumstances from a legal point of view.
What you’re asking for is sentencing people on the basis of a “gut feeling”. Definitely not the way justice is (or at least should be) rendered in western democracies. If you can understand why someone can’t be sentenced for murder when there isn’t evidences that he commited a murder, you should be able to understand why someone isn’t going to be sentenced for a hate crime when there’s no evidences that a hate crime was commited. There’s a difference between “crime” and “hate crime”, and you must prove both the “crime” part and the “hate” part in the latter case.
Thanks for the clarification. I hadn’t heard of these events.
I guess my point was that it was wrong to point the rise in anti-Semitism solely on the non-immigrant European population.
And FinnAgain: I only handled the IHT and BBC articles because the rest of the links you provided since my post were blatantly biased. I was not about to take an article from boycottfrance.com as a fair and balanced account of the history of anti-Semitism in France (although it might qualify as a Fair and Balanced account). Nor was I going to take an 1860 court case (when anti-Semitism was the norm) as an example of the state of anti-Semitism in France today. If you wanted me to not cherry-pick, you should provide cites from objective sources and not from propaganda mouthpieces.
It’s clear that your mind’s made up on this issue, and I shall not attempt to debate it with you further.
clairobscur, I already pointed out that greed is a ridiculous and untrue motivation obviously cooked up after the fact in order to get a lesser sentence. There’s noting to rob in your average schule.
In any case, I suppose you and I will simply have to disagree on this one.
Even if it may be ‘the law’. It sure as hell aint justice.
Ahhh. I love it when people do that!
I come out with facts, and then they claim “oh, those objective data points are, um… .biased! And someone already made up their mind based on those objective data points, so, um. Lla la la la la la la! I can’t heaaaaaaar youuuuu! la la la la la!”
Claiming an inability to argue on a factual basis doesn’t mean you won the argument, it means you just gave up in an attempt to make your position look unassailable. Try again.
Let’s see exactly how these folks who’ve decided to boycott France has commuted a Fox News style disinformation campaign…
(before you quibble, it may very well be true that a handfull survived, but ‘very nearly all’ would probably still be quite sufficent)
(** clairobscur** you might wanna pay special attention to the above two, especially when you claim there’s no institutional/governmental anti-Semitism in France)
With de Gaulle’s personality, he might have meant that as a complement, though…
Force people to stay in a dangerous sutuation??? What dangeous situation are you talking about? Being blown up by terrorists in Israel?
Can you understand this: The nation that the Jewish people are citizens of should make it safe for them, just as is done for people of other creeds that are citizens of that nation.
Read the post again. I am saying that you said “‘anti-semitism’ is rampant” and that “that the solution for Jews to leave France, or wherever, and move to Israel is a good one.”
I disagree with these points.
So this is anti-semitism? Aha. You want people to escape this behaviour. I can imagine all the Muslims, Poms, Witches, Greeks, Buddists running away from Australia when someone calls them a nasty name.
News just in…
Anti-Catholic behaviour on the rise in the USA as criminals vandalise church (and leave wallet behind).
Good job ignoring half of my sentence.
“Dangerous or unpleasant.”
Or are you now going to deny that some French Jews might find France to be unpleasant to live in as a Jew?
I no can undertand. I dum.
Fact remains, you have zero right to force people to stay where they don’t want. They don’t have to wait for the nation they live in to make things okay, they can move.
Ok… you’re saying I said that? Please quote where I said “that the solution for Jews to leave France, or wherever, and move to Israel is a good one.”
Or did I simply say it’s a valid one and people should be allowed to make it and Sharon is perfectly entitled to extend an offer?
Personally I’d never move to Israel, too scared of being blown to bits. But hey, if that’s what you want to do, it’s your right. Whether you’re French, Australian, or Nigerian.
Um… yes… that’s anti-Semitism… or should I assume you’re so blind that you don’t see how making the name of a religion into a slur is, well, a slur?
How is it any less racist to say “You’re such a jew!” than “You’re such a nigger!”
Both are racist, both are disgusting. Both should not be tollerated. But you’ve got an agenda… you’re trying to prove there’s no anti-Semitism, so when Europeans use the word Jew as a curse, you see… what exactly? Some friendly name calling?
If Australians were using the word “muslim” as a curse word, I’d feel pretty unhappy living there if I was a Muslim.
Jeez… I was unaware that Catholics are a minority in America and that they’re regularly the victim of discrimination. You do of course have a cite to prove a history of American anti-Catholicism?
I will also point out that Catholics (unless I"m tremendously mistaken) take communion. Which means there’s cash on hand. Unlike a synagogue.
But yes, If a guy broke into a church, turned over some pews, stole the Host, took crucifixes… or had the intent to do that, I’d say it was a hate crime, yep.
I am having a hard time believing you think anyone is saying that people should be forced to stay anywhere. People can go wherever they bloody well please, no one is saying otherwise. If your comprehension skills are this poor then, yes maybe you dum.
Fact remains, Sharon is still a fuckwit for encouraging division between Israel and Europe.