Sky News interview with Trevor Phillips: antisemitism and the Golders Green attack

Mr. Polsky, you recently said that there needs to be a conversation about whether there's a perception of unsafety or actual unsafety in Jewish communities. After this week, do you think this is still a matter for debate?

That is a nicely political answer, but it's not the answer to the question I asked you. You said that that there needs to be a conversation about whether there is a perception of unsafety or actual unsafety in Jewish communities. Let me ask you again. Do you still think that is a matter for debate? As I say Is it worth Is it a matter for a conversation? Or do you accept that actually there's not a perception, there is actual unsafety.

No, what you said is there needs to be a conversation. I looked at your words. Right. Which suggests that you think that there's a choice. And that perhaps some people might be thinking that there's a problem, but there isn't really a problem. So, you're telling me this morning that's not a That's not in question. You accept that there is actual unsafety and that's what's going to be tackled.

Oh, that's interesting. So, these marches where many Jewish people, frankly, most Jewish people that you or I would meet, say that they feel it makes them unsafe. Let me put a if like a thought experiment to you. Imagine you are talking to Rand or Norman Shaw, the two men who were stabbed in Golders Green. How do you persuade them that what happened to them was somehow kind of in their imaginations? I mean you've got to be clear about this. You can't have it both ways. Either there is something real here or you're saying that some Jewish people are not making it up, but they're imagining something that it is real that isn't real.

No, I'm kind of repeating what you've just said, what you said earlier in the week, and what you've just said to me, actually.

No, no, no, let's not get on to that. I asked you about the feelings of the Jewish community in this country.

nothing to do with what you just started to go on to. And you seem still unsure whether you believe Jews in Britain are unsafe or whether you think actually it's not as bad as Trump people are making it out.

Okay. So so you would reject the the McPherson inquiry, Stephen Lawrence inquiry definition of a hate crime as a a crime, a an incident where either the victim or anybody else who happens to be there perceives it to be crime motivated by hatred because there are thousands and thousands of Jews in this city, London, who think that those marches that you're saying you don't feel intimidated by, they think these are hate marches. So you're saying that the McPherson inquiry the McPherson definition, which is what the government stands behind and which police operate today, that's wrong.

My point is that currently the policy is that if somebody believes that an incident is a hate crime, whether they are a victim or not, it is recorded as such by the police. It is regarded as such by the court. What you are saying is because you don't think it's a hate crime, it shouldn't be.

who think it is, what's wrong with

Okay, so you then want to erase their belief that they are subject to hate. That's their Their perception is also their reality.

You um retweeted this message about the behavior of a group of Met Front police officers when they had probably just saved several lives, including by the way the life of um SS Suleman who's since been arrested and charged with attempted murder because the uh armed police were on the way and had he not been subdued, who knows what would have happened. What on earth was going through your head when you retweeted that? I know you've apologized, but how did you get to that place?

But you chose X to do this. And I'm just curious what what prompted you to look at this this uh message and to repost it. Repost it. You can say you didn't endorse it and so on, but you made a choice to do this. Now I'm just curious what thought process led you to do that.

You made a mistake, presumably, because you were traumatized then.

Were you trying to reframe this as a case of police brutality so we didn't have the debate that is going to have to take place uh about this being a straightforward case of anti-Semitism with no political defense to it.

It's very still very hard then to understand why you felt you had to intervene with some random tweet.

let me just add one thing. It it's hard to understand it in any other way given that your own party has some trouble with anti-Semitism. Two of your candidates have been arrested this week. Is it the case that you basically wanted this not to be about anti-Semitism, but let's make it about the police?

think he even accept it as an unusual use.

Um you've raised the the issue of Muslims. Let me put this to you. Three quarters of the terrorist threats we know come from Islamists according to the security service. Uh Fiyaz Mughal, the founder of Tell Mama, which is the uh government-backed group monitoring hate against Muslims uh says in the papers this morning that in the national paper this morning that um politicians haven't spoken, including the prime minister, about what he calls the elephant in the room that has Muslim anti-Semitism written across it. He goes on to say that while the vast majority of Muslims are an asset to our country, unless we have a root and branch rejection of Muslim anti-Semitism, calls for considerations with British Jews are futile. Do you agree?

He is not blaming an entire community. He is referring to Muslim anti-Semitism, Islamism, uh as uh other people call it. Uh and he says unless we recognize that, calls for commemorations with British Jews are futile. He's not accusing a whole community. Do you agree with him?

Former head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission wrote yesterday the following, "When members of the Muslim community commit violence against Jewish people for simply being Jewish, there are no mosque vigils or prayers, no loud hailers condemning perpetrators. To their shame and mine, Muslims in Britain appear entirely alienated from the plight of Jews when attacked. This silence speaks volumes." Do you understand her anger? She is a Muslim.

So, the points of view of two prominent Muslims uh from your point of view, are just inflammatory because well, they're not your kind of Muslim?

No, but you seem to be saying that somehow their views are not legitimate.

and you're not engaging with them at all.

Even it doesn't in even if it involves trying to tell the truth, what they say is the truth?

We we're we're going to have another conversation about perception and and reality. They they they go out of their way specifically to say that they don't accuse all Muslims and how could they? They are Muslims themselves. But I I just wonder whether this is a political situation for you in which you can't recognize what they say because you're trying to appeal to that community.

All right. You are fighting elections this week. Smart money says that you're going to do very well as a party. Are you going to instruct your counselors to reject coalition or cooperation with other parties, specifically Reform?

Let's talk a little bit if we may before we end about what kind of party you are. Um people used to think of the Green Party as conservationist and mocked Greens for being, you know, knit your own yogurt and so on. Nobody's going to say that these days.

Okay, fair enough. I'll come round for that. Um What's the first thing you're going to ask your councilors to do on Monday? Are you going to turn to the traditional green issues? Are you going to, for example, ask them to ensure they're not spending any money on anything that would benefit Israel?

That's so interesting cuz in that answer no reference to, you know, hedgerows, small animals, uh uh you know, even sewage in the water. Well, they're all part of the problem. Have the Greens become more Corbinista now than conservationist?