Why did the leader of an organisation which campaigns aggressively to protect Jewish interests, accompanied by a colleague equipped to record what happened, and ensuring that his Jewishness was obvious, go to an area where he knew there would be a large number of people protesting against Israel, and try to walk where he expected to be unwelcome, or even generate a violent reaction?
Maybe he simply wanted to make a point, or raise awareness. Or perhaps he was hoping to cause trouble, and generate sympathy for his cause?
Notwithstanding my choice of words for the headline, your framing of the question is ALMOST EXACTLY the question I was actually addressing (except I would have chosen the word "actively" rather than "aggressively").
And my answer, as set out in the article, was not a million miles from yours. I say that Falter wanted to make a point and generate a change in police policy over the marches. (And, as a result, raise awareness.)
Dear Simon, I hope you and all my Jewish friends will attest to my belief that I am not consciously prejudiced against anyone because of their “race”, skin tone, sexual orientation , sex, marital status, disability etc. That I benefit from white privilege is a given and I also may not be aware of all my unconscience biases but given his role, Gideon Falter, knew exactly what he was doing and courted the publicity ( that is what activists/ campaigners do). I deplore what the STATE of Isreal is doing and had I been able -as I have been on past marches on other political subjects-I too would have marched to call for a ceasefire. I criticise the Police a lot, but they have to prevent as many problems as they can. It is not easy, under pressure, to always say something in the most “diplomatic” of ways.
Clearly, we agree that Gideon Falter knew exactly what he was doing (that is the premise of my piece).
And, if you have seen my reply to Hakko, below, you will have seen that I agree with regard to the policeman's language (but not his threat of arrest because that is just a mistaken understanding of the law).
I'm not sure what point you are making in relation to the Israeli action. I don't know whether Falter agrees or disagrees with Israel's action. The point he makes which I address in my article is that, whilst (all) the marchers are opposed to Israel's actions in Gaza, some of them are also behaving in an antisemitic fashion which, he says, is making parts of London not safe for Jewish people during a march. (I have read a number of similar reports, but not seen for myself.)
I find myself in exactly the same place as Caroline and Peter. Falter was very deliberately trying to incite violence, and convert a peaceful demonstration into one the media would portray as violent.
What the media doesn’t seem to focus on is the battle taking place for the title of victim. The demonstrators were legitimately trying to bring attention to the desperate plight of the Palestinians living in Gaza. If I’m being charitable, Falter was trying to draw the attention off this, onto the equally desperate plight of the hostages.
The issue reminds me of a very good Channel 4 documentary called Defiance, about the battle of Southeast British Asias against right wing racists in the 80s. The media fell into the trap set by the racists of making the Asians look like the perpetrators of violence.
Falter has nonetheless been very successful in drawing media attention onto his actions. Mission 75% accomplished!
Cannot both things be true? That the constable was out of order and the marches are unlawfully inciting racial hatred and support for terrorism?* If a 16-year old autistic girl can be dragged out of her house for saying a WPC looks like her lesbian nan, where on the scale of offenses does saying being openly Jewish could be a breach of the peace fall? It seems to me that sanctioning constables might have the same effect as hanging admirals, which can only be a good thing.
*As a US citizen I don’t pretend to know the ins and outs of speech regulation in the UK, although I believe outright expressions of racial animus are criminal offenses.
Yes, of course. Threatening to arrest Falter was clearly wrong, as was barring his way. And that would be the case whether the marches were safe or dangerous. UK police should not arrest victims (or potential victims) in order to keep them safe.
I don't, however, think describing Falter as "plainly Jewish" would, or should, be taken as offensive or racist. The use of "openly", rather than "plainly" does carry a different connotation (for example, that it is something that ought perhaps to be hidden), but I am inclined to cut the officer quite a lot of lack for mixing up those two words in the heat of the moment.
Simon
Rephrase the question as
Why did the leader of an organisation which campaigns aggressively to protect Jewish interests, accompanied by a colleague equipped to record what happened, and ensuring that his Jewishness was obvious, go to an area where he knew there would be a large number of people protesting against Israel, and try to walk where he expected to be unwelcome, or even generate a violent reaction?
Maybe he simply wanted to make a point, or raise awareness. Or perhaps he was hoping to cause trouble, and generate sympathy for his cause?
Notwithstanding my choice of words for the headline, your framing of the question is ALMOST EXACTLY the question I was actually addressing (except I would have chosen the word "actively" rather than "aggressively").
And my answer, as set out in the article, was not a million miles from yours. I say that Falter wanted to make a point and generate a change in police policy over the marches. (And, as a result, raise awareness.)
Dear Simon, I hope you and all my Jewish friends will attest to my belief that I am not consciously prejudiced against anyone because of their “race”, skin tone, sexual orientation , sex, marital status, disability etc. That I benefit from white privilege is a given and I also may not be aware of all my unconscience biases but given his role, Gideon Falter, knew exactly what he was doing and courted the publicity ( that is what activists/ campaigners do). I deplore what the STATE of Isreal is doing and had I been able -as I have been on past marches on other political subjects-I too would have marched to call for a ceasefire. I criticise the Police a lot, but they have to prevent as many problems as they can. It is not easy, under pressure, to always say something in the most “diplomatic” of ways.
Clearly, we agree that Gideon Falter knew exactly what he was doing (that is the premise of my piece).
And, if you have seen my reply to Hakko, below, you will have seen that I agree with regard to the policeman's language (but not his threat of arrest because that is just a mistaken understanding of the law).
I'm not sure what point you are making in relation to the Israeli action. I don't know whether Falter agrees or disagrees with Israel's action. The point he makes which I address in my article is that, whilst (all) the marchers are opposed to Israel's actions in Gaza, some of them are also behaving in an antisemitic fashion which, he says, is making parts of London not safe for Jewish people during a march. (I have read a number of similar reports, but not seen for myself.)
Good article Simon
I find myself in exactly the same place as Caroline and Peter. Falter was very deliberately trying to incite violence, and convert a peaceful demonstration into one the media would portray as violent.
What the media doesn’t seem to focus on is the battle taking place for the title of victim. The demonstrators were legitimately trying to bring attention to the desperate plight of the Palestinians living in Gaza. If I’m being charitable, Falter was trying to draw the attention off this, onto the equally desperate plight of the hostages.
The issue reminds me of a very good Channel 4 documentary called Defiance, about the battle of Southeast British Asias against right wing racists in the 80s. The media fell into the trap set by the racists of making the Asians look like the perpetrators of violence.
Falter has nonetheless been very successful in drawing media attention onto his actions. Mission 75% accomplished!
Cannot both things be true? That the constable was out of order and the marches are unlawfully inciting racial hatred and support for terrorism?* If a 16-year old autistic girl can be dragged out of her house for saying a WPC looks like her lesbian nan, where on the scale of offenses does saying being openly Jewish could be a breach of the peace fall? It seems to me that sanctioning constables might have the same effect as hanging admirals, which can only be a good thing.
*As a US citizen I don’t pretend to know the ins and outs of speech regulation in the UK, although I believe outright expressions of racial animus are criminal offenses.
Yes, of course. Threatening to arrest Falter was clearly wrong, as was barring his way. And that would be the case whether the marches were safe or dangerous. UK police should not arrest victims (or potential victims) in order to keep them safe.
I don't, however, think describing Falter as "plainly Jewish" would, or should, be taken as offensive or racist. The use of "openly", rather than "plainly" does carry a different connotation (for example, that it is something that ought perhaps to be hidden), but I am inclined to cut the officer quite a lot of lack for mixing up those two words in the heat of the moment.