Barry,

It is self-evident that Susan Chandler's comments are anti-semitic and she deserved to be thrown out of the party. I also agree with you about the selective condemnation of Israel.

However, I cannot agree that it is inapropriate to mention that someone is a Jew in a story about them - whether they have covered themselves in glory or in shame. This applies not only to Jews but to people of all religions - Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Buddhist.

Someone's religion is an important fact in our understanding of who they are. If they are devout it is arguably the most important fact. It would only be wrong to identify a Jew's religion if this was done on a selective basis when they had done something wrong and not when they had done something good, thus giving a biased impression of the Jewish community's overall contribution to society.

Duncan 73

Why precisely is a person's religion an important fact in our understanding of who they are? What assumptions are you making by hearing that they are Jewish?

You may as well say someone's height, marital status, colour of eyes etc. is important which, in most cases, it clearly isn't.

This is one of the most fundamental points about antisemitism and racial / religious prejudice in general. How can you assume an understanding of who someone is from their religion or racial background? It is behaviour that is important not their being.

Dear Barry,
Loved your story and presentation
All you said is accurate
Regarding the golfclub rules, they were "no Jews,Catholics nor professional sportsmen"
My club in 1955 was Bonnie Doon and this rule applied.
Jews to Monash and RC's to St.Michaels.
I have never voted labor but I have always admired your various stances
I thought you lived outside Canberra at Bungendore
Rommel

Note that I am NOT calling for laws that prevent the media from mentioning the ethnicity, religious adherences, political ideologies, etc. of anyone they are covering. If a newspaper wants to write "So-and-so, who is a greedy Jewish bastard, defrauded widows and orphans of millions of dollars" that is their right in a society that values freedom of speech.

Similarly I would defend the right to deny the Holocaust.

In other words, I might not like what people say but I shall defend their right to say it.

In what follows I am simply expressing a PERSONAL VIEW on what I consider appropriate. It is, if you like, the policy I would follow if I were a media mogul.

The test I would apply is this:

Is ethnicity, religious belief, ideology, etc part of the story?

For example if, as has happened, a Jew uses a Jewish charity as a cover for money laundering then clearly the ethnic and religious connection is a part of the story and should be mentioned.

Likewise if terrorists kill 200 plus people on Bali "in the name of Allah" then clearly the Muslim connection is an important element of the story.

But if someone who happens to be a Muslim robs a bank because they want the money then Islam is not part of the story. I would NOT have a headline "MUSLIM ROBS BANK."

NOW FOR THE ISRAEL QUESTION.

Clearly many attacks on Israel are motivated by Jew hatred.

However Israel should not be immune from criticism. Further, people also have the right to question the whole concept of a Jewish state.

Equally clearly many attacks on Islam are motivated by racism.

However Islam, like Israel, should not be immune from criticism. Further, people have a right to discuss and decide for themselves whether Islam constitutes a danger.

Islamophobia is as legitimate as Israel-o-phobia.

> I hoped that anti-Semitism would gradually fade away. Regrettably, that has not been the case. It is alive and well <
And, regretably, obviously growing.

Aaaaw.

Did somebody call paw wittle tweety bird a nasty name.

Get over it and move on.

You address these twits and you just empower them.