It is a race in that membership in the system (even without belief!) is passed through a genetic connection — you cannot choose not to be Jewish if you are born in. However, because Judaism recognizes conversion, the religion cannot be purely racial (you cannot convert to another race). Therefore, it is easiest to say that it is a religion with racial/genetic components.

Are the Jews a race? Both the Jews themselves and the Nazis agreed on that one, that yes, the Jews are a race.

Sure, those anti-Catholic things can (but are not always) racist. Sectarianism hatred of Irish Catholics is the same as racism…

Watch the whole video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJjSzXkm55o

@ Pierce – the concept of conversion to Judaism is not one that’s unanimously accepted. Many think that Judaism is a distinct race, and not a shared system of belief. On the other hand, I come from a Jewish family but I don’t link myself to the religious beliefs, I rejected them a long time ago. I feel far more connection to my German family than I do to Israel. So not even Jews are comfortable or secure with how to identify themselves…

Judaism was not considered a race until hitler decided to enact his t4 race hygiene program in 1933 , the jews were defined as a race by eugenicists so that hitler could discriminate against them under a biological basis and not just their beliefs , the very foundation of israel is based on the nazi invented belief that the jews are a race. Since then because of close ties inside the jewish community, like travellers certain traits are found commonly that would not appear in people who identify themselves as a “european caucasian” race.

Sephardic Jews are ethnically of middle-eastern origin, like their other semitic cousins the arabs, which they are not to fond of being reminded of.

Ashkenazi Jews are turkic asians ethnic origin, a people called the Khazars who converted to Judaism.

None of them are ethnically of ancient European descent. Apparently the nazis had a problem with them for the same reasons King Edward or whatever kicked them out of England, for subversion of the control of the state and native people, it was said they had a disproportionate amount of control of the banks, media of the countrys they migrated into. And ended up twisting and contorting the original nature of the country while always doing and promoting their own people, while trying to disenfranchise and destroy feelings of group cohesiveness among the indigenous peoples of the countrys they migrated into.

Dr. Kevin McDonald enunciates to some extent and in more detail what I am talking about above:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gg3p5fh7lfo

Let me make clear, I believe Jews are entitled to their own nation state, secure and free from attack or invasion. Just like any nation of people, with a unique ancestral and cultural heritage. Just as white Europeans are and just as the Palestinians are.

Having said that in Jerusalem, I found the nicest areas to be the Jewish quarter, there are supposed to be 4 quarters, the muslim, the Jewish, the Armenian and the Christian quarters, yet to be honest, I found the muslims to practically be in dominancy socially and physically in all the quarters, bordering on hostile to non-muslims, even on all the borders of the Jewish quarter.

I dunno. Maybe because the Germans with the collusion of the Vicky French tried to exterminate every member of that religion a few years ago, so they’re a bit sensitive about the whole hating the Jews lark. Strange, huh?

Oh thanks for reminding me about WWII and the holocaust James. Well as we both know, the Vichy Government and the National Socialists are no longer in existence. We’ve all seen racist and ignorant anti-Jewish comments (not here, but Youtube etc.), but what about all of the other groups who experience hatred and vilification online? My issue is that if the French courts feel the need to clamp down on Twitter and expose racists and bigots, then why are they focusing on ONE religious group (yet bizarrely refer to it as a racial group)? Protect everybody if you feel protection is necessary, simple as that.

From the article “identify the authors of racist or anti-Semitic tweets” I presumed it was any racist groups, not just anti-Semitic ones… ?

@ James – please be careful with this “the Germans tried to exterminate the Jews” line. One of the most sinister and long-lasting results of the Nazi regime is that it created the myth that somehow “the Germans” and “the Jews” are mutually exclusive. Many of those killed in the death camps, both Jews and homosexuals, considered themselves properly and fully German, and proud to be so, before the rise of the fascists. Even today this is an issue for the Jewish families who returned to what they considered their home-towns after the war and were, and in certain case, still are, treated as foreigners and outsiders. They’re not. The death-camps should be seen as a result of very nasty strain of anti-nationalist or selectively-nationalist belief in which a insane government ordered firstly the murder of it’s own people before expanding this to the murder of of nationalities.

“of other nationalities” – apologies

Niklaus

Jews do regard as having a separate and distinct racial and cultural ethnicity from the host nation they migrated into, for every generation down. I would like to know who were the authors of Germany’s surrender in ww1, who authored the treaty of Versailles which devastated Germany, with millions starving, made homeless and dying of disease. Who burdened Germany when they were in the gutter, with austerity like Ireland is now, who burdened the 3rd world with debt slavery and then sovereignty acquisition in recompense when the 3rd world could not pay the debts? Just like today, and who authored todays world recession.

Banks like Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and the rest of the wall st gang, and their buddies in the US federal reserve and US treasury, and just what tribe are they from?

Hmm, some people would have us believe that a certain tribe are the little innocents in all this. Who is slaughtering the Palestinians and encroaching on their land?

I would like to see the evidence for this supposed holocaust, because the research I have done so far shows quite the opposite, there is more evidence against it, that means I have no option but to say for now, I can see no evidence for it happening, if you can point me to solid, good decent substantial evidence, then I would have to say it did, but going on what I have researched, it did not and was not the event it is portrayed as.

Jamie
I don’t think the outcome will just be Naming and Shaming as you delicately put it. Such behavior is a serious breach of the French Criminal Code and you may well see prison sentences.
This would be a healthy outcome as Digital warriors have become very emboldened recently with the majority not having the intelligence to know that the Internet is a legal record that can bit you under Civil and Criminal Law.
Let’s see the consequences for those who malign Politicians by name on this site day after day.
It would take only one very quick case and the tills will be filled with the rattle of money!

Is it Illegal to be a racist now?

No but in some countries it’s illegal to illicit hatred towards groups and rightly those who do deserve to be prosecuted or at least take responsibility for their actions on such forums. I reckon the Journal.ie would become a far happier place if such measures where forced on here!

Well Fukface, I don’t think it’s illegal to be racist, but I’m fairly sure it’s illegal to racially abuse another person..

It’s illegal in France to make anti-semitic comments and incite anti-Semitic feeling. It’s illegal in Germany to promote or publish Neo-Nazi beliefs ( unless you can show you are publishing this as objective analysis of the Neo-Nazi movements ). Twitter ran the risk of violating to
Hose laws in Germany, so they backed down. This is a repeat of the same. For Twitter it’s a pragmatic legal decision, not a philosophical debate on free speech.

Jamie, I gave you a red thumb, I thought ‘how dare you call someone a fukface’. Some ppl call their kids mad names these days. That’s his name.

Nikolaus

Not true. Germar Rudolf, a once anti-Nazi gave was asked to give his scientific findings of his chemical analysis of the HCL (zyklon B) content of the so called gas chambers in Auschwitz, his findings showed there could not have been any gassings due to the low content of the reagent of what is termed Prussian Blue. He simply presented his findings and was jailed for showing scientific findings that went contrary to the law stating that you cannot disagree that it happened. He was sentenced to 3 years. He is not the only one, this is what in other eras’ would be called a witch-hunt.

In France stating the disproportinate role of zionists in world banking and their role in the deliberate global implosion, is deemed anti-semitic even though the numbers and people in the majority are indeed zionist. Stating truth is now anti-semitic. If semites did not attack the west, there would be no anti-semitism, there is no anti-semitism without semitism.

I think this is about anonymity of speech.

This is not a freedom of speech issue – it concerns Cowards who up to now have hidden behind a curtain of secrecy whilst Bullying people around the Globe.
I strongly advocate that no non de plumes should be allowed in any blogging medium , be it Newspapers, Books , Websites , Twitter or Facebook type sites.
Our local newspapers always insist that they have the full name , address & telephone & it is fully verified, before they will print a letter to the Editor.
Surely the same standards should extend to All Media too ?

Sometimes pseudonymity is required.

Sometimes it’s abused.

Not everyone who is pseudonymous (if that’s even a word) abuses pseudonymity.

Should everyone suffer because some do?

You mean Eddie Barrett is your real name ? and I thought it was just a clever anagram of your real name
Bertie Darted

I can assure you that I always use my name when speaking , writing , playing, working or blogging !

I agree Karen, Twitter has resisted releasing this information to Governments because its not always sought for a legitamate reason (think Egypy, China etc), however this wounld seem to be a clear cut case, so I cant see the logic in it. They shoul release it on moral grounds instead of waiting to be legally obliged to.

Who gets to define “racist” behaviour.
Punching a guy because he’s black is obviously racist.
But some people would say that speaking for immigration controls is racist too.
Personally I dislike any law that dictates what you can or cannot say.
Actions should be illegal, not speech.

“Who gets to define “racist” behaviour.”

The law.

The “Law”? Who’s that?

@ Karen. As far as I’m concerned, Twitter should have no obligation to deal with racist and prejudiced idiots. If they want to, then more power to them but having the French courts in on this is absurd. They’re simply a provider of a service which wouldn’t exist if people didn’t use it. If someone is that way inclined, let them be, the only people they’ll impress are other idiots. To paraphrase Frank Zappa, stupidity is our most abundant natural resource.

@Yes Damocles, but how and by what criteria are they defined? Should religious texts be banned because they condone genocide, rape, slavery, stoning and the murder of homosexuals?

The law, legislators … initially the government, later judges by their rulings and ministers with their instruments.

How can you not know this? Where did you think legislation came from?

Inflammatory speech often leads to violent actions. Belfast recently, for example. As far as the internet goes, cowards who hide behind fake accounts to bombard someone else with hateful racist abuse should be exposed. It’s not acceptable, and might go some way to curbing it if people are held accountable. I know it may not be a popular view, but it’s my opinion anyway.

I know where the law comes from.

Just because something is the Law doesn’t make it right.

“The law, legislators … initially the government, later judges by their rulings and ministers with their instruments” deciding what you can or cannot say is a step towards Totalitarianism.

I sure as hell don’t want Inda Kenny deciding what I can say or not say…

“I sure as hell don’t want Inda Kenny deciding what I can say or not say…”

Better get him ousted from power then.

I don’t need to oust Enda Kenny from Office to stop him from deciding on what I can or cannot say because this is still a free country when the “legislators … initially the government, later judges by their rulings and ministers with their instruments” can’t willy nilly decide what I can or cannot say.

Which is why I said “Personally I dislike any law that dictates what you can or cannot say.”…

Yes Karen and then flogged and tortured and burned at the stake . That’ll be an end to that then. Now

I agree with the concept of free speech, but what i dont agre with is, individuals who create false identities to harrass and abuse others just because they do not agree with their colour, religion, nationality or even their views. There should be no access to any site without a traceable identity, which cannot be seen on the site but can be used by the admin to trace the individual in the event of a complaint. If you have a big mouth you better have a big bank account to back it up. It might make people think twice before they target others.

Well put Kathy.

“There should be no access to any site without a traceable identity, which cannot be seen on the site but can be used by the admin to trace the individual in the event of a complaint.”

And that wouldn’t be open to abuse at all. Would it now?

#Damocles. Why would it be abused, If someone took offence to something you said and reported you the admin would have access to your details if it was found that your comments were, racist, incitement, bulling, etc. I’m not talking about someone who goes on a page and gives their opinion i’m talking about someone that creates an account just to abuse others. We have all seen them hidng behind their troll identities. If you dont have the Balls to stand by what you say then dont post it.

Who is the Admin of a site? How do we know they are responsible? How do we know how secure the site is? Do we all have to give all our personal information to every site we use? How do they verify these things? What happens if someone hacks the site? Does everyone have to give their information or only people who “sound” pseudonymous? Can I set up an account in the name “Henry Smith” and post with impunity? What if the admin to one of these myraid sites I give my personal information to leaves his laptop on a train?

Have you considered any of these points?

@ Malcolm I think Twitter’s problem is, while they’d like to say that their communications network is separate and independent from the content it carries ( you can’t blame a phone network for nuisance phone calls ), in Germany it is illegal to distribute Neo-Nazi propaganda. This is a very problematic law in Germany, well-intentioned but often dangerous, as is threatens the channels of free speech. But it is the law, and if Twitter hadn’t blocked those accounts, they themselves would have been open to prosecution. I’d imagine it’s the same case in France. The law and the technology are not fully compatible.

@ What is the law argument – ultimately, saying you don’t like a law is well within your rights, but it only leaves you not liking a law, it doesn’t change the law itself. Unless you’re prepared to hire a lawyer and invest a huge amount of time in trying to change that law, you can’t do anything except express and opinion. And an opinion is simply subjective. Either a long, expensive campaign or a landmark case that creates as a be set of precedents, these are the only ways that opinion can be turned into fact.

#Damocles, There speaks a man hiding behind a false identity, i dont even have to click into your profile to know that. If you don’t want your personal information revealed then you shouldn’t be on the internet, any site, have you not heard of cookies, but people deliberately using false identities to abuse other should be held accountable. Just my opinion.

“There speaks a man hiding behind a false identity”

Ooh. Got me there.

What have I done that merits you or every nutter on the interweb knowing my identity?

Actually there are ways of addressing your concerns and mine.

But it’s no small task and relies on setting up some trust agreements that don’t involve you me and everybody else on the interweb giving our personal details to a dozen or more site admins.

#Damocles. What about the nutters hiding behind the false identities, which is my point, do you honestly think that just because your using a false name via twitter you can go about the internet incognito on ever other site???
Traceable accountability thats all i request.

Well I’ve been using this identity for about 20 years so …

Question is who defines what racist is, that is the whole point. There are things being outlawed now that have nothing to do with hate or racism or hate or whatever people are fashionably calling it now.

Twitter has only been in existence since March 2006………………

Yes, but the difference is that there a French law making it illegal to deny the Holocaust, so the Jews are a “special case”…though it won’t be a special case for long as the French are going to make Armenian Genocide denial illegal too.

With the Jews, as I said, the harshness is probably Vicky Guilt.

But I’d be against such laws and against arresting people for being “offensive”, racially or otherwise…

Not mention the bloody bondholders, for a start.

not riot

@ Liam – I agree about how things “should be”, but how things should be is not the reason for Twitter’s dilemma. Both Germany and France do have laws that limit what certain people can and cannot say, and these laws Cabot simply be ignored. Twitter is in the merde because it is unclear whether they are liable for what users of their network say on their network. Maybe these laws shouldn’t be in place, but they are.

@ Nikolas – “Both Germany and France do have laws that limit what certain people can and cannot say” If what you say is true that only certain people being allowed say what they want then this situation is gone from bad to a whole lot worse, the only way for a law like this to be truly free of bias is that anything that could be considered offensive, is offensive, but the downside to this is that everyone will be fearful of opening their mouths for fear of being prosecuted, and it will get to the stage where no one will say anything as what is considered offensive is a matter of opinion, and therefore Germany and France as well as any other country is wrong to impose such a law.

Yes, these laws, although well-intentioned, are wrong because they are extremely dangerous and give certain groups a justification to say that they’re being unfairly silenced. These laws are in no way new, it’s just that technology has brought these laws into focus. Before now in Germany there was a “gentleman’s agreement” by the traditional media not to push the issue. Neither the government nor mainstream media wanted the Neo-Nazis to have a voice, so the issue of free speech wasn’t even questioned. Most of the extremists in Germany were hard-left, not hard-right, they weren’t effected by the laws, so it wasn’t in their interests to protest against them either. The problem is that saying that these laws are bad does nothing towards repealing them. They are there, and er can’t wish them away, so we’re obliged to act within their strictures or risk being found legally guilty of breaking them. It’s a bit like saying you don’t believe that illegal drugs should be illegal; that’s only and opinion and it won’t help you case in any way if you’re arrested for possession of illegal drugs.

Laws are not always right or moral. They are there to be contested. So yes we do have a right and indeed moral duty to oppose and break laws that are unjust and immoral.