To think this so called art exhibition in Margate is nothing short of a hate crime

I've just read you 15.45 post GrannyGravy : 'Lemonandjam I would like the law to protect all citizens of U.K. from those who hate them and hide behind art work. As it appears that at the moment it doesn’t protect Jews, as Judaism has become the same as Zionism for some.

How would you actually word that revised law then so that it includes artists who make art against Zionism, ie making art expressing their political view against Zionism? If artists are not allowed to express their political views would it also be against the law for posters to express their political views on Gransnet for example?

I appreciate 'Zionism' has become the same as Judaism for some but is that is that how the law sees it? Ie Zionism is defined as a political view- and at the moment we have free speech laws in the UK for expression of political views.

Oreo

You haven’t said what you think about this exhibition as yet Sixandahalf
At least Graphite is clear about excusing it as art.
There’s no excuse for it of course.

I commented fairly early on.

Many Thanks .

So! An exhibition displaying "Grotesque anti semitic tropes including imagery of Jewish people or Israelis eating babies with blood dripping teeth, demon like figures and references to "blood libel"and Jewish lobbies". Some images specifically targeted individuals and denied Hamas atrocities on October 7th" were deemed " no offence has been committed" by Kent Police Officers. Which begs the question, who are these people to make that judgement? do they know anything about contextual anti Jewish propaganda and how it has been used against them for centuries, tropes that have manifested time and time again to scapegoat their communities, demonise them and finally kill them!!!! ...and here we are again, but it's feckin' art so that's ok then! ..Furthermore do the Jewish people here in Europe ever kick off in the same murderous way as those who were insulted by the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. So much so, in the aftermath we had a load of posturing politicians march through Paris with banners proclaiming "Je suis Charlie Hebdo" yeah of course you were Charlie Hebdo, you bunch of posturing, grandstanding pseuds, like that brought peace to Paris until later in the year the city was rocked by the Bataclan attack.

Some mother on MN was arrested mob handed and marched off to police cells for an on line spat with a trans woman where she said something along the lines of "actually you're not a woman at all you're a man" the actual truth! for which she gets arrested.

Right now, I'm of the opinion we do have a two tier system relating to hate crime and it's shocking and sickening what certain people can get away with these days.

I wonder if anybody who defends Collings' 'art work' would like to comment on his sharing a tweet that stated Hamas had nothing to apologise for as they had done nothing wrong. He is endorsing that the rapes, murders and kidnappings of October 7th were not wrong. Why would that be? Is it because it was Jews that were raped, murdered and kidnapped? Just because someone claims not to be antisemitic doesn't make them so.

I don’t think most sensible people dislike Jews in general, why would they, but they do dislike what the Israeli government has been/is doing.
I don’t think that people supporting Gaza and the West Bank support Hamas. Again why would they.
I do believe that Israel has now lost its post ww2 ‘protection’ from criticism. That means for the first time the Jewish state can and is being openly criticised when previously no one felt comfortable doing so.
This has made things uncomfortable for Jews, over the world sensitive to this criticism seeing it as personal attacks, when generally, that is not the case.

LemonJam

So far nobody has suggested a law wording change- so be it.

I answered 🤦‍♀️

So far nobody has suggested a law wording change- so be it.

Allira 15;22: My post was in response to Lemonjam's above which twisted what I said.

Allira I have not quoted or referred to you or any other poster directly- thus you are incorrect in accusing me of twisting your words. I have quoted the law and invited posters generally, not you specifically, who feel the law is not fit for purpose as it stands to suggest a different form of words so fit for purpose in their view.

By the time Connolly deleted the post that saw her jailed, just three and a half hours later, it had been viewed 310,000 times and reposted 940 times.

Page 2:

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Lucy-Connolly-v-The-King.pdf

I doubt whether Collings exhibition would have attracted even a tenth of 310,000 had it not been for the media storm created by Telegraph columnist and self-confessed contrarian, Zoe Strimpel.

She claims to have made a video of “a disgusting exchange with the artist” which “didn’t record”. Convenient, else she would have had evidence.

She includes in her social media post a Collings drawing of a women inscribed underneath - Käthe Kollwitz - No More War.

Hopefully, people will know who Kollwitz was and be familiar with her work. (Opposite is The Survivors.)

Now why would Collings reference Kollwitz?

The expression is derived from her famous 1923 poster Never Again War. The poster was used in a demonstration in Augustusplatz in Leipzig; the aim of the demonstration to remind people of the horror of the 1914-18 war and to speak out against any new wars.

Isn’t that evidence of what Collings’ exhibition is about, that he is speaking out against war and not Judaism?

LemonJam

I also recall reading Gransnet posts at the time agreeing with Frage that the law was wrong if it led to Lucy Connell being arrested and prosecuted.

So who would posters like the wording of the law to be changed that protects people like Lucy Connelly inciting racial hatred openly but would lead to prosecution of Collins for his art as exhibited in Margate last week?

My post was in response to Lemonjam's above which twisted what I said.

Clevervtwisting of what
Clever twisting of what I am saying.
😂😂😂

Ah, now why would you assume that? Clevervtwisting of what
😂😂😂

No, the converse.
Why should so-called "artwork" full of hatred for a group of people, inciting anti-semitism, be exempt from the laws against racial hatred? Because they are pictures, not the written word?

A picture is worth a thousand words.

Lemonandjam I would like the law to protect all citizens of U.K. from those who hate them and hide behind art work

As it appears that at the moment it doesn’t protect Jews, as Judaism has become the same as Zionism for some.

I do wonder what the names of the police officers were who made this decision.

Where does the threshold and difference lie- and what wording would improve the law?

I also recall reading Gransnet posts at the time agreeing with Frage that the law was wrong if it led to Lucy Connell being arrested and prosecuted.

So who would posters like the wording of the law to be changed that protects people like Lucy Connelly inciting racial hatred openly but would lead to prosecution of Collins for his art as exhibited in Margate last week?

Did not meet the threshold for inciting racial hatred

🙄

People jailed for inciting hatred in their social media posts met the legal threshold- ie demonstrated hostility.

E.g. Lucy Connelly admitted in court she incited racial hatred by posting on X calling for mass deportation (of Muslim asylum seekers) and inciting people to set fire to hotels housing immigrants- she added "if that makes me racist, so be it".

Nigel Farage said at the time she should not have been found guilty as "millions of mothers feel the same". But the law does not allow for other people holding a racial view that many others hold as a reason to be exonerated int he eyes of the law from inciting racial hatred.

Yes the police can only prosecute when a law is broken. How would posters like to see the wording of the law changed therefore if they feel it is not fit for purpose as it stands?

.

People had the choice to attend or not attend the exhibition.

That is irrelevant.
The stuff (artwork?) was exhibited.
People have been jailed for posts on social media. Others did not have to read those posts. I did not.

According to AI - Zionism is the movement for the self determination of the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland of the land of Israel (Zion). It is deeply tied to Jewish cultural and religious identity. It is a Jewish nationalist movement.
Um

PLUS the police did not find any evidence of that the art they viewed was motivated by hostility towards Jews.

Good grief.
It is filled with hatred.

Was this just one police officer who made the decision? If so, who is that person?

It would be fair to say that those who have drawn up the guidelines for what a hate crime is are at fault here. The police only act within those parameters.
This sort of "art" should be stopped because anyone can put an innocent interpretation on a a vile piece of work.
It is time that the laws on hate crime include anything which can be interpreted as discriminatory whatever the artist says. It's a good way of getting away with antisemitism as it stand now.

Ronib: 15.08- there is often much pontification on Gransnet threads about political matters e.g. anti immigration/anti asylum seekers opinions that are divisive and stir up strong reactions and offend some posters.

Just as we have freedom of expression to share our political opinions, much as they may shock, infuriate and offend other posters who do not share such views, in the eyes of the law Collins also has the right to to free speech and expression in his art on political matters. Zionism is a political matter- not a religious matter.

People had the choice to attend or not attend the exhibition.

Collins is a self confessed Hamas supporter…

It wasn't that Collins claimed his art work was against Zionism that underpinned the police decision predominantly- it was that the police officers themselves concluded, after viewing the art themselves- that the art expressed his views about Zionism- PLUS the police did not find any evidence of that the art they viewed was motivated by hostility towards Jews.