That would be the No Irish need apply of the late nineteenth century in the US then.
But at least we didn’t intern our own citizens in the second world war because of their ethnicity.
Don’t get into a passing contest unless you know its outcome.
Oh, and Dred Scott which covered both the North and South.
I wasn’t aware that I was in a passing contest. 
I think that was caused by the Niihau Incident. Americans were scared shitless after Pearl Harbor.
George Takei’s family was interned in Rowher, in my state of Arkansas, where we Irish immigrants held slaves.
So perhaps we can just stop the beggar my neighbour competition where people post historical injustices and just keep to the original question.
Pissing contest. Damned autospell.
What is the original question? George Galloway is an ass, the UK’s speech laws are idiotic, and people shouldn’t beat people up on the street because they say things the other person doesn’t like.
Of course.
Are you referring to the US, Canada or Australia.
The last two are Commonwealth countries aren’t they.
Beyond that, I’m not sure why you’re bringing up private businesses in the US engaging in discrimination against Irish Catholics in the 19th Century since in Great Britain this continued to happen on a regular basis well into the late 1980s.
I’d recommend learning a bit more about history before engaging in pissing contests.
Anyway the question is, why are Jews in the UK still considered “an out group”(to use your wording) while Jews aren’t considered as such in either the US or Canada.
The other question is what could we do to make the UK more enlightened and help them join the 21st Century regarding their attitude towards Jews?
My personal recommendation would be to start insisting that people who think that most British Jews are more loyal to Israel than the UK and those who say they “don’t know if they are or aren’t” are highly ignorant and, at best, engaging in snobbish anti-Semitism.
What recommendations would you make?
And towards freedom of expression.
Then why did you end your opening post by proclaiming
What the above paragraph seems to be saying is that if pro-Israel critics are going to call people like George Galloway “anti-Semitic” than others will start accusing all Jews of being responsible for Israel’s actions.
How then can you now claim your original post wasn’t about the idea that such attacks on Galloway and people like him would lead to anti-Semitism?
I assume you consider it anti-Semitic to claim all Jews are responsible for Israeli actions after all.
Thanks in advance for your response.
I would recommend that you keep to the original question and stop bringing up inter-nation attacks. Only the US interned its own citizens to its shame.
Again you suggest that only the UK has a problem with Jews (and others) not being integrated. This is plainly false.
And continued pressure by radical christians reinforcing their claim that Christianity is the norm for the USA and deriding other religions is far more problematic than in the UK.
I don’t think you know what an out-group is:
For instance I am English but live in Scotland. I happen to be very supportive of moves to Scottish Independence and prefer Scottish politics and social structure to England. I have lived here for a decade, yet I shall die as a member of an out-group- English in Scotland. My children will be Scots by culture and heritance but I shall never be.
If one maintains a religion or national identity that sets one apart from a valued majority, one is in an outgroup even if the group and its members are otherwise highly valued.
As I said, it is a two way street. If anti-Israel feeling is identified by pro-Israel groups as anti-semitism, then they are diluting the difference between state and religious affiliation themselves. If they are doing so, then others will follow
It doe not lead directly to anti-Semitism, but if the two are conflated by Israel (as is often the case) then it becomes much more difficult to hol;d the line that there is a rational difference between criticising the state and criticising all adherents to that religion.
Do you believe that it is possible to hold that the Israeli State is engaging in acts which, were it not for the protection of the USA, would lead to accusations of war crimes and other breaches of international obligations, and yet at the same time to remain free of the taint of anti-Semitism and free from accusations thus?
Yet more petty national squabbling.
I’ll tell you what, maybe the Brits will get a little more Freedom of Expression when Americans are allowed to live slightly longer by the police exercising reasonable restraint. Police killings in the USA are legion. In the UK they make headline news.
As I have said, this is not a debate about who has the best nation, but about how nations should be fairly criticised. Continuing to post silly nationalistic barbs is just diverting the argument.
I’m trying to directly address the subject under discussion: as per your first sentence, he ran afoul of an unbelievably stupid law, which led to him being “questioned under criminal caution”.
If you reply to that by criticizing an unrelated American law, and I reply by criticizing an unrelated British law, and on and on – sure, that could be what you just said: a petty way of diverting, and et cetera. But how can it be a petty diversion to criticize the law you mentioned right there at the start?
Because the question was not about the stupidity or not of that law, but about how appropriate it is to criticise States for their policies on such things as launching missiles into opposing territories. Concentrating on petty side issues just diverts the discussion.
The question is- is there any difference between criticising Israel and criticising other States over their policies. Should there be?
Are we still discussing a two way street here?
Then I would say “How appropriate is it? Why, it’s so appropriate that no one should be questioned under criminal caution for doing so!”
Russia (to use your example) has exhibited brutal behavior towards its ethnic minorities and swallowed up chunks of its neighbors’ territory. Have any U.K. politicians declared Russia-free zones in their districts and announced that Russians are not welcome there? Pakistan alternately plays footsie with terrorists and slaughters its own citizens during anti-terrorist military campaigns. Have any rabble-rousing U.K. politicians declared that their home city is off limits to Pakistanis (one can imagine the resulting riots making Ferguson, MO look like a haven of racial calm)?
What the hell does lawn care have to do with this?
Which is continuing the diversion from the question being considered.