| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:The moral character of Julian Bell: an open letter to the leader | |
| Posted by: | Andrew Farmer | |
| Date/Time: | 31/05/19 09:10:00 |
| Julian Bell has now responded in respect of the two neglected issues. It illustrates the wisdom of being a “persistent complainant”, even though the Council discourages and vilifies “persistent complainant behaviour”. Well, it would do, wouldn’t it! Mr Bell has written in respect of Richard Burgon: “Richard Burgon’s comments from 2014 certainly have the potential to be in breach of the IHRA definition. I am aware he has expressed his regret for them, but I do think he needs to go further and provide both a full apology and clearly demonstrate that he now has a genuine understanding that the generalised and sweeping use of the term ‘Zionism’, as he appears to have done, is dangerous and unacceptable – and that support for the Palestinian cause does not justify – or require – such statements.” I have written to thank Mr Bell for this statement with which I agree. I did not point out, of course, that Burgon lied about having said it. In respect of the other matter, Mr Bell pointed out that the New Zealand massacre occurred in the “run up” to a full Council meeting and it was on the basis of a resolution of that meeting that the statement was made. I do not find this a convincing reason why the Sri Lanka massacre was not commented upon. It is clearly not the case that the Council can make such pronouncements only upon the basis of a full Council resolution. The CEO, for instance, made a statement in respect of the Manchester massacre. I have suggested to Mr Bell that the Council should have a clear policy in respect of making statements about non- local issues, beginning with whether it is appropriate at all. Cynics call it “virtue-signalling”. |