iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Dan Sohege @danielsohege.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

You mean this David Miller?

Antisemitic tweet calling synagogue security a militia

Tweet: "Never forget Mehdi Hasan is a supine bootlicking Zionist shabbes goy."

Tweet: "Do me a favour and stop talking about the Jews and their victimhood. Jews are the genocidaires. Stop them before you try and stop us."

Miller quote tweeting someone arguing that the US and Israeli armies should be merged: "#PaxJudaica"

100

Reposted by sasha baker

Herein lies one of the biggest recurring, and escalating, issues with hostile anti-asylum policies, they don't tackle gangs. Instead they penalise the victims of gangs. It isn't the gangs piloting boats, it is normally people seeking asylum who are forced to by the gangs. inews.co.uk/news/represe...

inews.co.uk

I represented the pilot of a mega dinghy. Why Channel migrants are still arriving

Defence barrister Audrey Mogan has seen firsthand why new legislation is bound to fail

615574

Reposted by sasha baker

Matthew Hodson @matthewhodson.bsky.social · 05/10/2026

40% of surveyed HIV organisations had run out of stocks of vital products, such as PrEP or HIV tests, as a result of cuts to international aid funding, led by Trump. More people will acquire HIV. More people will die of AIDS. “This is not a distant risk – it is already happening.”

theguardian.com

Shortages of crucial HIV medicines due to aid cuts are a ‘warning’, say experts

More than half of organisations providing HIV care surveyed by International Planned Parenthood Federation said they had run out of stock at some point during past 12 months

05333

I haven't seen this. Do you have an example?

300

I'm a Jew. I'm not a Zionist. Nothing you've said has anything to do with Cable Street.

310

And I can now understand procedurally why it did – but come on, the party should have been ready to explain that!

020

It's not like the key piece of information here is remotely accessible either. There's a lot of bad faith attacks going on here, but also a lot of people who wouldn't normally be taken in (me included yesterday) who've been really triggered by the amendment to protect Jewish members failing.

120

All of the statements coming out of the party right now should contain something like: "This motion only determines the party's public policy platform, and has no bearing on disciplinary procedures". But they seem to think "trust me bro" is enough and I don't get it.

120

The catastrophic comms failure here is that no one speaking in an official capacity has done any of the legwork to explain *why* the motion will not target Jewish members for e.g. attending a Zionist shul. And I now understand it won't, but only after a long argument with a random Green member.

Some Jewish Greens have expressed concern that this will mean they could face disciplinary action for belonging to Jewish organisations that officially support Zionism, even synagogues. Supporters of the motion, which was led by a group called Greens for Palestine, have said this would not happen.

350

They do basically all lead with the Islamophobia, but with the former group it's because it's what actually animates them, and with the latter I think it's more because Islamophobia is a lot more socially acceptable.

030

That's just not true. There are far-right Zionists (Tommy, etc.) and far-right anti-Zionists (assorted neo-Nazis) and both have a strong presence among current UK street fash.

130

So you agree that none of the people involved on any side were particularly thinking about Zionism at the time? I'd like say it's more on the nose that 90 years after cable street we once again have fascists trying to march through Whitechapel to target migrant communities.

I think this has been a pretty disastrous comms failure, but I acknowledge that I have contributed to that, so I'll shut up now.

050

I know the Greens have a difficult task with comms, both because much of the media are liable to take a lot of their actions in bad faith, and because they are structured much more democratically than other parties.

150

In that context I can also understand why an amendment about Green members who are also members of a shul or Jewish community org that would be Zionist failed – because it had no bearing on anything in the motion.

120

I misunderstood the meaning of part of the motion (specifically this part). It read to me as if it was related to internal policy/disciplinary processes, but it isn't. This significantly changes my view on the motion as whole.

Zionism, as defined above, will be treated as any other form of racism,
and this motion will be implemented by the Anti-Racism Policy Working
Group as appropriate and in accordance with its ordinary practice.

131

I will QT my original post to clarify the misunderstanding so as not to perpetuate misinfo further

000

I'm sorry – I think we were talking past each other. I know you said several times it had nothing to do with disciplinary issues – but I took that it mean it had a bearing on other internal policies and wasn't clear which ones. I now understand you meant it is all externally facing.

100

Ok - thank you for clarifying. That was something I genuinely misunderstood. My apologies. That significantly mitigates the problems I had with it.

000

I don't see much discussion of the parts of the motion relating to external policy. Do you?

100

The reason the discussion about Zionist shuls is happening is because the amendment was rejected. Maybe you think it was proposed in bad faith; I'm open to that if you have evidence. But seems unlikely the Green members proposing it hate the party.

100

Even if all of this stuff turns out to be fine, wouldn't it have been better to establish that first?

100

I can't find the party's policies re: discrimination (referenced in the code of conduct) online so it may be it has no bearing on them. But that just seems quite unlikely to me.

100

I know you can disagree with party positions. I would assume (and I may be wrong - again, open to being corrected here) that the anti-racism policy group deals with some disciplinary matters relating to racism

200

Ok you have read it. I don't think the motion in isolation is worrying – beyond not personally being a fan of how vague parts of it are. What I'm concerned about – as I have said many times now – is how it may bear on other policies.

100

To be clear, I'm not saying the party would lose a legal challenge on either those grounds or others. Maybe it would be fine. I just think it throws up a lot of complicated issues requiring knowledge people may not have when voting.

000

Obviously not – did you read the full policy document? I'm talking about the whole internal policy section and the way it interacts with other policies, like the party's general commitment to national self-determination and the implementation of policies against racism.

200

I suppose you're right that disagreeing strategically doesn't centre Palestinians (or the others whose civil liberties are under attack for pro-Palestine activism), but neither does allowing the whole public conversation to be defined by whether or not people will be kicked out for going to shul

100

On the (to my mind secondary) issue of the press being awful about it – of course they'd be awful whatever happened but the left does need a strategy to deal with that because it is clearly damaging to left-wing political projects.

100

You seem extremely sure it is impossible to bring a legal challenge on a basis of a policy that has been formally adopted but not yet implemented, and your argument seems to hinge on that. Show me proof of that and I'll gladly concede the thing I saw as the biggest issue isn't really a problem.

200

Well they get claimants with standing to bring legal challenges – but you understand what I mean

000

Hostile lawyers are typically the people who bring legal challenges.

200

But also, I think it sucks that debating the meaning of "Zionism is racism" and its impact internally has almost completely overshadowed the important external political commitments the party made today.

100

Secondly, my contention is that when something is inflammatory and open to legal challenge, it's a bad idea to have it be ill-defined, bear heavily on other policies many of the people voting likely haven't read, and not have undergone legal review before becoming official policy.

100

First of all, I'm pretty sure a person with standing can challenge a policy they think will discriminate against them even if it hasn't yet been used to discriminate against them.

100

I'm pretty sure the Jews who fought fascists at Cable Street didn't just *feel* unsafe – they were attacked by fascists and abandoned by the BoD and the JC. Most of them weren't Zionists and neither was even the BoD then – so how is it relevant exactly?

I'm sure the party will now take legal advice to try to ensure it is applied in a non-discriminatory way, but then why not take that advice before putting it to a vote?

100

If you're sued by a transphobe I think you should fight it, but if you lose that's bad for both your org and trans rights. And if you win that might set an important precedent, but it has also taken resources away from campaigning.

And anti-trans campaigners have claimed some Green Party internal policies have defied the SC ruling, but as far as I can see the party took legal advice and came up with ways to comply without being transphobic.

It has (aside from losing the Shahrar Ali case) managed to kick out transphobic members legally as far as I'm aware. And if it hasn't that is a bad thing because it ties up resources in fighting legal battles rather than political campaigning.

Its political stance on trans rights? Or internal policies designed to promote trans inclusion?

100

But here it feels like the thing that is probably most controversial but least material has become the story. Just feels like an easily avoidable error.

040

I'm not saying the left should never pick fights over rhetoric. When the government is trying to ban phrases like "from the river to the see" – absolutely it was right not to budge on that, even though some people (imo wrongly) think the phrase is antisemitic.

130

Genuinely not accusing anyone involved of antisemitic intent, but it does feel like there's a tendency on display here that values rhetorical maximalism over material successes, and I can't say I like it.

180

It's good GPEW is democratic, but maybe internal democracy should come after policies have been reviewed to ensure they comply with equalities law when adopted in combination with other existing internal policies?

150

Passing a motion in support of Palestinian liberation, a one-state solution, de-proscribing Palestine Action and ending prosecutions of pro-Palestine protesters is a great thing. Does it really need to be combined with nebulously defined internal policies almost certain to get the party sued?

281