[Closed] Ken Livingstone steps in to calm antisemitism row in the Labour Party.

The Hitler in the bunker finds out what Ken Livingstone said video is out.

I won't link because it's very, very sweary and I'd get the ban hammer but worth looking out.

surely the:

[i] Those making the charges now, did not see fit to bring them up at the time, under previous Labour leaders, but are using them now, just before mayoral and local elections, when they believe they can inflict most damage on the Labour Party led by Jeremy Corbyn.[/i]

..misses the point that the ****ter / facebook post from the MP was made before she was an MP, so it's unlikely anyone would have had cause to raise it then?

The Hitler in the bunker finds out what Ken Livingstone said video is out.

tiz funny 🙂

you're basically arguing that you can't say stuff that's true because stupid people don't know it's true and won't bother to find out. Hmmm....

anti-semitic and racist are the easiest lazy slurs to quash a lot of debate- people even use the latter successfully when referring to nations too! How many of those objecting to one form of mis-use happily misuse the other - the Bojo-Obama nonsense being a good recent example

What a bloody shambles our two leading political parties are at the moment

I guess we get the politicians we deserve - good job no one wants them to be running more of the economy

tiz funny

Charmin.

tried googling hitler bunker ken livingstone video but no joy

It seems to me his only crime is not knowing when to keep his mouth shut.

Ken's arsehole gland has a tendency to flare up at inopportune moments

tried googling hitler bunker ken livingstone video but no joy

Not sure if this is it....nice thumbnail, tho.

Anyone relying on a little known fact when introducing Hitler to an argument on anti-semitism and expecting everyone to scurry off to wkipedia to validate the statement is naive and, maybe, only stupid peiople would expect it to happen?

True, but depressing.

I think if he'd been writing rather than talking off the cuff Ken would have slipped the word "inadvertantly" in. ie "inadvertantly supporting Zionism". Rather than " supporting Zionism".

Much as I hate these witch hunts the Downfall meme on this is superb.

kimbers - Member
The whole anti-Semitism nonsense is just another attempt by the blairites to bash Corbs, as the Torys wreck the NHS, you'd think they should be focusing on that

More likely the Tories whipping up their media buddies to find some smoke screen to distract Labour, leaving the majority government to run riot and do what the **** they like, with whatever they fancy. It is back stabbing self promoting politics after all...

They're becoming quite effective at it too.

More likely the Tories whipping up their media buddies

You might want to watch John Mann's confrontation with Ken and round 2 on the Daily Politics. John did a long interview on the growing antisemitism in labour not long ago too.

I guess he's one of these tories the labour party is infested with.

Mann sounded like a total cock to me. Genuinely angry over a obviously deliberate misunderstanding of 'supporting' in the context.

Believing his own straw man.

More likely the Tories whipping up their media buddies to find some smoke screen to distract Labour, leaving the majority government to run riot and do what the **** they like, with whatever they fancy. It is back stabbing self promoting politics after all...

You credit the Tories with extraordinary powers

They're becoming quite effective at it too.

Really, looks like they have created thier own cluster f@ck on Euorpe too

Mann sounded like a total cock to me.

This isn't a tory smear campaign. This is labour self destructing all by itself.

Yup it's the blairites being absolute dicks imho

Can't see why Ken has been suspended. Ok, he has been provocative, perhaps deliberately so, and he has demonstrated a unique interpretation of historical facts, but apart from saying something stupid (nothing unique about that in politics) what exactly has he done wrong? Has he been specifically anti-semetic? If so, I have missed that.

Seems like politics swayed by a baying mob.....

As often in cases like this, one has to look at who's doing the baying and who has most to gain from any stains left after the mud has been slung.

He appeared to be supporting/excusing an MP who had posted something that was anti-Semitic, rather than condemning the post, which even the MP has done now with hindsight.

I don't think what she posted could be considered to be anything but anti-Semitic. If a wannabe politician had suggested that following the Bradford riots all the British Asians should be "transported" to another country as a "solution", they would have been branded racist, even without the additional Holocaust references in this case.

And this is only the latest incident of alleged anti-Semitism in the Labour party. Just when the Tories are ****ing over the country, the Opposition is ****ing over itself. None of them worthy of a sane person's vote imo.

Interesting article about Hitler, zionism and how Ken was factually wrong.

[url= http://capx.co/ken-livingstone-gets-the-history-wrong-on-anti-semitism-and-hitler/ ]http://capx.co/ken-livingstone-gets-the-history-wrong-on-anti-semitism-and-hitler/[/url]

More likely the Tories whipping up their media buddies to find some smoke screen to distract Labour,

As often in cases like this, one has to look at who's doing the baying and who has most to gain from any stains left after the mud has been slung.

Or you could look at which party has members tweeting the following, and ask uncomfortable questions *much* closer to home:

[img] [/img]

He appeared to be supporting/excusing an MP who had posted something that was anti-Semitic

True and made a tit of himself in the process - but since when has that been a reason for suspension.

Perhaps he has shown how powerful lazy slurs can be...may be even deliberately demonstrating the fact.

nteresting article about Hitler, zionism and how Ken was factually wrong.

Wasn't *far* wrong was it? They wanted to deport Jews, it's not much of a stretch to think many might go to Israel. Certainly Politicians have got their facts more wrong than that and not been kicked out of the party.

cranberry - Member

Or you could look at which party has members tweeting the following

FWIW, Aysegul Gurbuz denies making those tweets. Easy excuse but if you use social media, you know this happens, and when it does, it tends to be fairly ridiculous OTT stuff like this that gets posted.

But in any case, she's suspended while under investigation, which obviously is proof that Labour are soft on antisemitism. Or something.

Miss Gurbuz denied she had written the tweets and claimed her sister may have posted them, the Mail on Sunday reported.

Hmmmmmmm.

[quote=outofbreath ]
Wasn't *far* wrong was it? They wanted to deport Jews

And look how that turned out.

Labour are better off without Ken IMO, an accident waiting to happen.

Does she deny writing the tweets like Naz Shah [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/28/naz-shah-labour-anti-semitism-and-a-piece-of-spin-that-will-make/ ]"Made remarks that she doesn't agree with" ??[/url]

So it's the politics of convenience? Look he's a PITA and a bit of a dinosaur (isn't that a requirement) so lets use the anti-Semite card to nail him once and for all - seems to be Khans strategy judging from C4 news clip

Labour are better off without Ken IMO

Agree, but pretending he's a racist isn't a fair way to achieve that.

Labour are better off without Ken IMO, an accident waiting to happen.

Or you could look at which party has members tweeting the following, and ask uncomfortable questions *much* closer to home:

As often in these cases...

No, no, no... Ken is a national treasure like Phil the Greek and Boris.

Well, if he's a racist, he's in good company.

cranberry - Member

Does she deny writing the tweets like Naz Shah "Made remarks that she doesn't agree with" ??

What a strange comment. No, she denies it like a person denying a thing they've been accused of. Accusations don't make facts, that's not how it works in this country.

The investigation might find more of course, which is why you have an investigation. Though apparently having an investigation proves you have a problem, which is a bit of a tricky catch 22 really.

Anyone done this yet?

[img] [/img]

Who knows how such a medal came about?

[quote=jivehoneyjive ]Anyone done this yet?

Funnily enough, just you.

Though doubtless many would shy away from such artifacts which help to document history, it's highly relevant to Ken Livingstone's comments...

Who knows how such a medal came about?

Oooooooooh, I'll guess! You know how such a medal came about.

What do I win?

"A Nazi goes (drives) to palestine and tells about it in attack."

No idea how it came about or why Raz and Ken are getting so much flak for speaking out against Israeli attrocities against their neighbours and the inhabitants of the lands they occupy despite UN resolutions.

Because its racist to insult Israel as when you do you are attacking all Jews everywhere....Send him back for conditioning someone .

Its an attempt to label all criticism as racist - Mugabe does the same when anyone [white] criticises him and calls anyone Black who does it an Uncle Tom. Its far better to make the attackers defend their own character than defend the countries hence the lazy attacks.

What do I win?

Its an attempt to label all criticism as racist - Mugabe does the same when anyone [white] criticises him and calls anyone Black who does it an Uncle Tom. Its far better to make the attackers defend their own character than defend the countries hence the lazy attacks.

Oh look, the hypocrite has returned - one of the best examples you will ever see.

of lazy personal attack designed to deflect from the points raised

You seem to be insistent on proving me wrong by doing the very thing i said will happen.
No engagement just insults.

Mann sounded like a total cock to me. Genuinely angry over a obviously deliberate misunderstanding of 'supporting' in the context.
Believing his own straw man.

As our MP - I completely agree, and a huge shame as John Mann is a decent politician.

I'm going to write to him to tell him his views here have damaged his general integrity and don't reflect or encourage debate about the bad shit Israel gets up to.

Maybe not quite in those words.

You should read what Naz Shah wrote in her apology, she sees it - you just don't have the ability for whatever reason - but then accuse people of doing what you do all the time. It been great fun winding you up about it - always best to do that to the pompous.

Heh. I just accidentally googled my way over to jewishnews.co.uk while looking for the full text of her apology, where people are completely convinced she called for the extermination of the jewish people, and that she's a terrorist (not a sympathiser; "organising terror" is the phrase used) 😆 Making STW look completely rational.

Oh yeah, the actual point of that- Shah's apology does not as some people have suggested admit to or apologise for antisemitism. She admits to and apologises for causing offence with her statement and choice of language. The distinction is pretty clear. And at the risk of considering a news site apparently populated by mentalists as a source of opinion, a lot of their subscribers accepted the apology.

Poor old Ken, the press following him around like concentration camp guards again.

I know NW but thought it was unlikely to be well received if i raised that factual point and would have led to more personal insults.

Corbyn also said she gave a fulsome apology

I wonder if he knows what it really means ?

Exactly.. A man in his position is expected to be a little more tactful and a little less obtuse if he's going to drop Hitler references. The man's an idiot and should be sacked.

It shows a very worrying lack of judgment on his part.

people are completely convinced she called for the extermination of the jewish people

2) are you familiar with the episodes in Jewish history that begin with someone else suggesting that Jews ought to be forcibly moved from here --------> there? They don't usually have a happy ending.

Mefty 😀

Isn't that exactly what ken pointed out mefty?

Her point about rehousing every Israeli in the USA saving them money was probably a valid one though

USA have given Israel $100bn in military aid

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.611001?v=219B6D92D4188A7A59822AA890E8D894

QT: some sense from Burnham after Salmonds convoluted logic

Her point about rehousing every Israeli in the USA saving them money was probably a valid one though

are you familiar with the episodes in Jewish history that begin with someone else suggesting that Jews ought to be forcibly moved from here --------> there? They don't usually have a happy ending.

Isn't that exactly what ken pointed out mefty?

I haven't a clue what you are asking. But frankly I am not sure someone who thinks there is validity in relocating the state of Israel is worthy of a response.

The debate really should be about Israel... why are their constant breeches of international law and UN resolutions not only tolerated but for the most part fully supported by western governments?

Of course forced deportation is wrong, just ask the 7 million Palestinian refugees in camps around Israel

But congratulations for using the standard lazy defense of anti-zionism = anti-semitism so all debate must be immediately shut down

Have a slow clap from me

Well not only that kimbers but the labour spokesman on Newsnight was insisting the racism and anti-semitism were the same things.

konabunny - Member

1) are you familiar with the legal definition of genocide?

2) are you familiar with the episodes in Jewish history that begin with someone else suggesting that Jews ought to be forcibly moved from here --------> there? They don't usually have a happy ending.

1) yes
2) yes

She still didn't say anything that anyone but the most mental or poisonous could interpret as calling for the extermination of the jewish people, so I'm not really sure what your point is.

@JHJ:

The debate really should be about [s]Israel[/s] Palestine... why are their constant breeches of international law and UN resolutions not only tolerated but for the most part fully supported by [s]western[/s] Middle Eastern governments?

@Kimbers:

Of course forced deportation is wrong, just ask the 7 million Palestinian refugees in camps around Israel

https://vine.co/v/iP5qK3WztZd

So a bit more background to this:

[img] [/img]

[b]Between 9 September and 9 October 1934 the Nazi Party Berlin newspaper Der Angriff, founded and controlled by Joseph Goebbels published a series of twelve pro-Zionist articles by Mildenstein under the title A Nazi Goes to Palestine. In honour of his visit, the newspaper issued a commemorative medallion, with the swastika on one side and the Star of David on the other.[/b]

In the summer of 1935, then holding the rank of SS-Untersturmführer, Mildenstein attended the 19th Congress of the Zionist Organization in Lucerne, Switzerland, as an observer attached to the German Jewish delegation. Mildenstein's apparently pro-Zionist line was overtaken by events, and after a dispute with Reinhard Heydrich in 1936 he was removed from his post and transferred to the Foreign Ministry's press department. [b]He had fallen out of favour because migration to Palestine was not proceeding at a fast enough rate.[/b]

Mildenstein had taken an early interest in Zionism, even going so far as to attend Zionist conferences to help deepen his understanding of the movement. He actively promoted Zionism as a way out of the official impasse on the Jewish question: as a way of making Germany Judenrein (free of Jews). [b]Some Zionists, whose movement had grown tremendously in popularity among German Jews since Hitler came to power, co-operated. On 7 April 1933, the Juedische Rundschau, the bi-weekly paper of the movement, declared that of all Jewish groups only the Zionist Federation of Germany was capable of approaching the Nazis in good faith as "honest partners"[/b]. The Federation then commissioned Kurt Tuchler to make contact with possible Zionist sympathisers within the Nazi Party, with the aim of easing emigration to Palestine, and Tuchler approached Mildenstein, who was asked to write something positive about Jewish Palestine in the press.

Interestingly, [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_von_Mildenstein ]Leopold Von Mildenstein[/url] was responsible for recruiting Adolf Eichmann, who in turn was one of the major organizers of the Holocaust:

Eichmann was invited by Leopold von Mildenstein to join his Jewish Department, Section II/112 of the SD, at its Berlin headquarters.

Yet when Nazi hunters captured Adolf Eichmann, Mildenstein avoided prosecution:

[b]after the capture of Adolf Eichmann in 1960 he claimed immunity as an intelligence agent of the U. S. Central Intelligence Agency[/b], a claim which was neither confirmed nor denied.

Considering Allen Dulles' (a key operative of US Intelligence, who later became head of CIA) pivotal role in funding the Nazis before WW2 and ensuring continued support for financing via the Bank of International Settlements (see more [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/happy-birthday-maam/page/5 ]here[/url] and [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/happy-birthday-maam/page/6 ]here[/url] ) this is potentially an area of grave concern.

The debate really should be about [s]Israel[/s] Palestine... why are their constant breeches of international law and UN resolutions not only tolerated but for the most part fully supported by [s]western[/s] Middle Eastern governments?

Is Palestine growing or shrinking?

How many illegal settlements do Palestinians have in Israel?

Does Palestine have a nuclear weapons program?

How much military aid does Palestine receive funded by tax payers of other countries?

[img] [/img]

but the labour spokesman on Newsnight was insisting racism and anti-semitism are the same thing

Pardon my ignorance but are they not?

If you find yourself defending yourself by referring to another injustice, you are generally on dodgy ground with a hole in it caused by your spade.

Pardon my ignorance but are they not?

Yup, one is a subset of the other. Amazes me we need a separate word. And given hatred of a nation is branded racism these days I'm amazed its OK to hate Isreal. ISTM hating Polish people is racism, hating Isreal isn't, unless you specifically hate Jews. Someone should write all these rules down.

ISTM hating Polish people is racism, hating Isreal isn't, unless you specifically hate Jews

Apples and oranges, you should have said

"ISTM hating Polish people is racism, hating Isreali people isn't"

or

"ISTM hating Poland is racism, hating Isreal isn't"

Pardon my interjection, but, [i]technically[/i], anti-semitism isn't racism.

Racism:

"The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."

And a race is:

"1. A group of people identified as distinct from other groups because of supposed physical or genetic traits shared by the group. Most biologists and anthropologists do not recognize race as a biologically valid classification, in part because there is more genetic variation within groups than between them."

Being Jewish or Muslim (as Semites must be) denotes a membership of a group who share a common language origin, and then latterly, a religion, but not a race.

(awaits accusations of anti-semitism)

hatred of a nation

What does that actually mean? Is a nation something other than its people?

Surely "hatred of Israel" really is a shorthand for "hatred of, or disgust with, the actions of the Israeli govt and those Israelis who support those actions". Of course such shorthand plays into the hands of the apologists for those actions who find it convenient to conflate it with "hatred of the Jewish people".

I know hunners have made this point earlier in the thread, but valid debate on the problems in the ME are being shut down by sloppy definitions, conflations in terms. Meanwhile, bad things go on- on all sides.

Its tragic.

In fact, its just occurred to me that, by trying to conflate anti-semitism with racism, we're implying that Jews (and Arabs, I guess), have a distinct genetically-determined 'look'.

I'll get flamed for this too I guess, but that's just what the Nazis tried to argue with the creation of the Untermensch myth.

So, please stop calling 'anti-semites' racists. Its not the same thing, and definitions are important.

I'm all for criticising Israel, I think it's one of the most repressive and generally repellant governments in the world. I'm careful not to use language that might make me sound anti-Jewish when I do so though.

Really? And do you succeed in criticising Israel in terms that prevent your opponent from claiming you are anti-Semitic? If so, I take my hat off to you, as I've never seen even the mildest show of disapproval fail to elicit that charge.

[i]And do you succeed in criticising Israel in terms that prevent your opponent[/i]

1) Don't say Hitler was a friend to the Jews

2) errrm, that's it

😉

Seriously - I can be critical of something without necessarily having an 'opponent'. Me saying 'I don;t think Israel should have hundreds of children under 14 in prison for 'terrorism' is the way that a government should behave' is not anti-Semitic. Neither is saying that the expansion of settelements on the West Bank is inflammatory and designed to create further tension and conflict which can be used as an excuse for use of additional force. Someone might disagree on the reasons those things happen and the 'yes but what about' starts but I've never been told I'm anti-Jewish.

Apples and oranges, you should have said
"ISTM hating Polish people is racism, hating Isreali people isn't"
or
"ISTM hating Poland is racism, hating Isreal isn't"

Yes, my bad I was typing in a rush.

I still think my point holds true.

Racism:

"The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."

Whereas the law tells us:

[i]
"A racial group means a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins." The definition is wide and victims may come within the definition under more than one of the references. Gypsies and some travellers, refugees or asylum seekers or others from less visible minorities would be included within this definition. While Romany gypsies have long been recognised as a ethnic racial group (Commission for Racial Equality v Dutton [1989] QB 783), in more recent times and certainly since the first instance discrimination case of O'Leary v Punch Retail (HHJ Goldstein, Westminster County Court, 29 August 2000), Irish Travellers have also been considered an ethnic racial group. Whilst this has not been considered by an appellate criminal court, the O'Leary case is regarded as being persuasive if the point is ever taken.

There has been a legal ruling that Sikhs are included in the definition of a racial group (Mandla v Dowell-Lee [1983] 2 AC 548). In the Mandla case, reference is made to the judgment in King-Ansell v Police [1979] 2 NZLR 531 as being a persuasive authority for Jews being included in the definition of a racial group as well as a religious group. Although not criminal cases, further support for this proposition can be found in the cases of R v JFS [2009] UKSC 15 which related to the legality of the admission policy of a Jewish secondary school and Seide v Gillette Industries Ltd [1980] IRLR 427 in which an Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled that anti-semitic comments made by a fellow-worker were made because he was a member of the Jewish race, not because of his religion.

"A religious group means a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief. This includes Muslims, Hindus and Christians, and different sects within a religion." It also includes people who do not hold any religious beliefs at all.[/i]

.

What Dr J said

It is possible to insult entire nations and not be called a racist.

I find the Saudis to be a repressive despotic regime that does not allow freedom for its people, exports terrorism and we should replace the system immediately as its abhorrent. We should over throw them immiediately

Not one person will call me racist for saying this - well mefty might but you know 😉
Try positing that with the word Israel in it instead of Saudi and folk will say you hate Jews.

I have no idea why so many conflate disliking what Israel does and hating Jews

I assume it exists only because they know its impossible to defend [ some of] the actions of the country so best to avoid the criticism by just shouting racist at folk

There is no doubt anti semitic views exist
there is no doubt Zionist use it to stifle criticism

Try positing that with the word Israel in it instead of Saudi

Or Poland, or ****stan.

Turns out racism isnt racism if its directed at a country most people hate. Completely subjective.

The dude from the BoD of British Jews on R4 was defining the position of being antizionist as anti semitic and was pushing for his definition to be made policy by the labour party.

Although given that the state of Israel does exist arguing that it shouldn't is kind of nonsensical even if it's not racist.

Anyhoo isn't this just Dave and co. shit stirring before the local elections. I have to say Ken and co have made a cracking job of turning the tories baiting into an existential crisis.

It is possible to insult entire nations and not be called a racist.

So when you criticise or insult Israel, are you referring to Jewish Israelis or Palestinian Israelis?

You have remembered that Palestine isn't a country haven't you? Gaza and the West Bank are part of Israel too.

1) Don't say Hitler was a friend to the Jews

Yes, we have to respect the lessons of the Holocaust. Unless, of course, you're an actual Israeli

FFS is it really that difficult to distinguish between hating an entire people and their government? It's a very simple distinction, so the only conclusion I can come to is that those who choose to ignore it are playing a cynical game of political point scoring to further their own agenda. Of course it's not a coincidence that the main group of people we are now seeing on the news spouting this ridiculous bullsh*t are labour MPs who are opposed to Corbyn. This is the real scandal.