Mel update

Melanie Phillips has a theory concerning defecting Tory MP Robert Jackson: he’s left the Tories because he’s an antisemite.

Her logic [*] is that he supports the EU and defended the Palestinians in an Economist debate. Therefore he must be an antisemite; therefore he must have left the Tories because he can’t stomach Michael Howard. The fact that Michael Howard has been in the job for years (and is likely to be out of it within months) is but one of the many glaringly wrong things in the analysis [*].

Unsurprisingly, the dribbling right are taking the fact that nobody sane has mentioned this theory as evidence that the liberal establishment is inherently antisemitic.

Update: as Simon suggested in the comments, I’ve now emailed Mr Jackson to let him know about Mel’s article and to ask him if he has any comments on it.

[*] This word is used in the most tenuous possible sense.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized by John B. Bookmark the permalink.

11 thoughts on “Mel update

  1. Also the motion he proposed in the Economist debate was not that "those who were opposed to antisemitism were the new McCarthyites". Her own article in the Observer about the debate makes that clear.

    One of her problem is she’s obsessed with conspiracy theories. However I think I prefer her when she’s peddling her own one about this being a country ran by Muslims in which non-Muslims are second-class citizens.

  2. Isn’t it a bit legally dodgy for her to imply that Jackson left the Tories because he doesn’t like Jews very much?

    I certainly wouldn’t be averse to contacting him to establish his own view on this question.

  3. My oh my. I return regularly to Melanie Phillips site with grim fascination. I am gobsmacked by the intensity of her efforts to whip up hatred against Muslims.

  4. Of course he’s an antisemite. He never denied it until we started accusing him of it. And why would anyone vote Labour? It just doesn’t make sense.

  5. Yes, that "I am pleased to have a Prime Minister who is a Christian." statement is very worrying. Yes. Because it made me realise that, in all the weddings and funerals and christenings I’ve attended, I’ve never been to a synagogue, not even once. This must mean all my friends and relatives are anti-semites too! Oh Jesus Christ… What am I going to do?

  6. I had to don a skull-cap once while doing some background research on a film project in a Jewish study centre, but since I was wearing it under clearly false pretences I suppose that must make me an anti-Semite too.

    Isn’t it a bit legally dodgy for her to imply that Jackson left the Tories because he doesn’t like Jews very much?

    Simple answer: yes. Complex answer: it would depend on whether Jackson could convince a libel jury that such a claim was defamatory and professionally damaging. There are certainly a great many people for whom such a slur would unquestionably be libellous, but in general people don’t sue unless they feel that it’s likely to cause serious damage to their reputations. In the case of a blog post, a libel action would run the very real risk of giving the original accusation much greater circulation.

  7. Also no-one takes anything she says seriously. So the damage to your reputation is very slight.

  8. Of course he’s an antisemite. He never denied it until we started accusing him of it. And why would anyone vote Labour? It just doesn’t make sense.

    I hope you’ve signed your Loyalty Pledge, citizen.

  9. Matthew Turner

    You stated:

    "One of her problem is she’s obsessed with conspiracy theories. However I think I prefer her when she’s peddling her own one about this being a country ran by Muslims in which non-Muslims are second-class citizens."

    Care to provide a link for that?

Comments are closed.