Red Ken suspended

[hidetheelephants]

Interesting article about it by Tim Marshall; his theory is that Zionists kidnapped Ken's brain.

Edited by hidetheelephants on Monday 9th May 13:49

[Escapegoat]

simonrockman said:

Another thing that Livingstone seems to have made up is that the attack is the work of Blairites seeking to undermine Corbyn.

The furthest left, most Corbynista part of the organisation is Momentum. Founded by Jon Landsman: http://www.thejc.com/lifestyle/interviews/152867/e...

James Schneider, also Jewish, is a key figure in Momentum.

Yes, Labour has seen anti-semites come in as part of the Corbyn influx, but what Livingstone can't see is that HE is the problem.

Once again, it's nothing to do with anti-semitism, and all to do with criticism of the actions of the government of Israel. Is that really so hard to see? Or is it just hard to accept?

[anonymous-user]

Escapegoat said:

Once again, it's nothing to do with anti-semitism, and all to do with criticism of the actions of the government of Israel. Is that really so hard to see? Or is it just hard to accept?

Well I raised a point about something current that is happening in Palestine/Israel, is the policy of Israeli authorities and could be worthy of criticism and discussion.
Nobody wants to talk about it.
Go figure!

[hidetheelephants]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I doubt that, just that it's at best of peripheral relevance on a thread about Ken Livingstone being a thundering dolt and the apparent tolerance of anti-semitism in the Labour party.

[anonymous-user]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The discussion is deeper than that though. It is debatable whether all the accusations of anti-semitism are valid at all or whether a dislike of Israeli policy is being mistaken for anti-semitism. Jonby explained his feelings why he thinks some people might not look upon the Israelis favourably. I posted a link to explain a very real reason why people might not look upon them favourably.
Anti-semitism is becoming like the boy who cried wolf. Throw the accusation around too often and too freely and inappropriately and people will get fed up. One MP has just made a settlement payment of £10k for accusing a Scottish politician of being an 'outed holocaust denier' and then accepting there was no truth in the accusation. Politicians are like school kids though, making political capital out of this sideshow, to cause damage to rivals and to further their own cause. All this centred round a subject which is actually very serious and whilst doing absolutely nothing worthwhile towards resolving the crisis or even to help promote better understanding of it. Set of s.

[hidetheelephants]

There's anti-semitism to be found; the councillor that appeared on the Daily Politics last week with the creep Keith Vaz seemed either oblivious to or unashamed of the anti-semitic sentiments he had expressed.

[Escapegoat]

hidetheelephants said:

either oblivious to or unashamed of the anti-semitic sentiments he had expressed.

What were the anti-semitic things he said?

[cardigankid]

Yes, what did he say?

[hidetheelephants]

In the course of some facile twitterstorm he likened the actions of the Israeli government against palestinians in 2014 to that of the 3rd reich against the jews in the 2nd world war. It's a pretty distasteful comparison.

[Halb]

That fella was a complete knob, his desperation in saying it was because he was muslim...the fking absurdity, using the same sort of tttery that deny legitimate debate. And as for trying to distance himself from the comment of two years ago, as if they were in a different age of man.
Don't see how anyone could vote for such a colossal tool.

[Escapegoat]

hidetheelephants said:

In the course of some facile twitterstorm he likened the actions of the Israeli government against palestinians in 2014 to that of the 3rd reich against the jews in the 2nd world war. It's a pretty distasteful comparison.

Distasteful, yes, but not anti-semitic (unless you changed words or left something significant out).

No matter what anyone says, criticising the Israeli government for its actions is not anti-semitic. This should be apparent as the Israeli government represents Jewish people, Christians, atheists and more.

[AstonZagato]

Escapegoat said:

hidetheelephants said:

In the course of some facile twitterstorm he likened the actions of the Israeli government against palestinians in 2014 to that of the 3rd reich against the jews in the 2nd world war. It's a pretty distasteful comparison.

Distasteful, yes, but not anti-semitic (unless you changed words or left something significant out).

No matter what anyone says, criticising the Israeli government for its actions is not anti-semitic. This should be apparent as the Israeli government represents Jewish people, Christians, atheists and more.

Yeah but no but yeah. The language of that criticism is important as it gives an insight into the intent. If someone were to criticise, say the Black civil rights movement by likening their actions to those of the Klu Klux Klan, it would be rightly seen as an offensive comparison. One then would have to question why the person chose such deliberately inflammatory language to make their point.

[hidetheelephants]

AstonZagato said:

Escapegoat said:

hidetheelephants said:

In the course of some facile twitterstorm he likened the actions of the Israeli government against palestinians in 2014 to that of the 3rd reich against the jews in the 2nd world war. It's a pretty distasteful comparison.

Distasteful, yes, but not anti-semitic (unless you changed words or left something significant out).

No matter what anyone says, criticising the Israeli government for its actions is not anti-semitic. This should be apparent as the Israeli government represents Jewish people, Christians, atheists and more.

Yeah but no but yeah. The language of that criticism is important as it gives an insight into the intent. If someone were to criticise, say the Black civil rights movement by likening their actions to those of the Klu Klux Klan, it would be rightly seen as an offensive comparison. One then would have to question why the person chose such deliberately inflammatory language to make their point.

That seems to be it; certainly the purpose of the inquiry Labour have set up with the Liberty Belle appears to be as much to find people who harbour or are sympathetic with anti-semitic opinions as well as those dumb enough to express them openly on social media or say them in public. A possibly dangerous line to take as it seems close to being the thought police, but that's their decision.

[Escapegoat]

AstonZagato said:

Yeah but no but yeah. The language of that criticism is important as it gives an insight into the intent. If someone were to criticise, say the Black civil rights movement by likening their actions to those of the Klu Klux Klan, it would be rightly seen as an offensive comparison. One then would have to question why the person chose such deliberately inflammatory language to make their point.

Offensive to point out an irony, yes. So what? Offence is nothing compared to occupation, irresponsible drone strikes, apartheid and other real, everyday injustices. Moreover, causing offence as protest can be a legitimate part of debate and humour. (Burning the US flag, for instance.) The map that Naz Shah shared was posted as a joke about US-Israel policy by Finkelstein. Something of an expert on a large part of this whole issue, see here: https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/jamie-stern-weine...

But to shout "anti-semite" (or 'racist' in your KKK example) in order to avoid addressing the actaul questions is deflection, pure and simple.

At first, I thought this whole thing was bizarre, but now I agree with Finkelstein, it's disgusting. Opportunists wrap themselves in the remains of the Holocaust as if it's a cloak of indisputable righteousness. (I'm reminded of how the ADL went after David Icke in the Jon Ronson documentary.)

Basically, when a state claims the ultimate moral high ground at the same time as it does so much wrong, it's not unfair to hold a mirror up to it.

[anonymous-user]

Escapegoat said:

AstonZagato said:

Yeah but no but yeah. The language of that criticism is important as it gives an insight into the intent. If someone were to criticise, say the Black civil rights movement by likening their actions to those of the Klu Klux Klan, it would be rightly seen as an offensive comparison. One then would have to question why the person chose such deliberately inflammatory language to make their point.

Offensive to point out an irony, yes. So what? Offence is nothing compared to occupation, irresponsible drone strikes, apartheid and other real, everyday injustices. Moreover, causing offence as protest can be a legitimate part of debate and humour. (Burning the US flag, for instance.) The map that Naz Shah shared was posted as a joke about US-Israel policy by Finkelstein. Something of an expert on a large part of this whole issue, see here: https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/jamie-stern-weine...

But to shout "anti-semite" (or 'racist' in your KKK example) in order to avoid addressing the actaul questions is deflection, pure and simple.

At first, I thought this whole thing was bizarre, but now I agree with Finkelstein, it's disgusting. Opportunists wrap themselves in the remains of the Holocaust as if it's a cloak of indisputable righteousness. (I'm reminded of how the ADL went after David Icke in the Jon Ronson documentary.)

Basically, when a state claims the ultimate moral high ground at the same time as it does so much wrong, it's not unfair to hold a mirror up to it.

Wow, great article there. Nothing shines brighter than someone who rises from within to criticise what is wrong with their society, nationality, race, culture and to expose the truth and shame the bullstters.

Shah could've really seized the opportunity. Her appointment in itself was a sign of progression, inclusion and interaction enabled by the people of her part of Bradford. Bradford is the sthole where Muslims helped save the last Synagogue from closure by the way.
Her own background is a little mixed, Yorkshire, Islamic, mother convicted of killing her violent partner supposedly to protect her children, sent to Pakistan, escaped an arranged marriage.......... If you're a patriarchal conservative Muslim this is not the person you'd vote into power in your ward.
She admitted she was wrong to share the meme and make the comments(it is inappropriate and stupid isn't it?) but she should have used the opportunity as a double pronged attack. Firstly to expose her own thoughts and prejudices or those within her own 'community' (the Labour community, Muslim community, British community!) that may have swayed her thinking and secondly to make a point of pursuing the valid parts of the point she may have been trying to make in the first place. She's got to feel strongly about the subject she's commenting on to have taken the step to make such posts on social media so she can't suddenly decide she doesn't have those feelings any more. I would like to know more about her and what she meant and what she thinks, expose the prejudices but also face up to the realities of the cause she seemed to be pursuing.

[AstonZagato]

Escapegoat said:

But to shout "anti-semite" (or 'racist' in your KKK example) in order to avoid addressing the actaul questions is deflection, pure and simple.

I wouldn't disagree. But why choose that language in the full knowledge that it will allow people to dismiss one's potentially cogent arguments by citing your inflammatory language? It suggests that one is more interested in causing offence to the group than making relevant criticism.

[simonrockman]

When's Ken up before the committee which will decide of he should be re-expelled?


Simon

[Mario149]

Escapegoat said:

No matter what anyone says, criticising the Israeli government for its actions is not anti-semitic.

I think it is if you're (not necessarily you specifically) holding the Israeli government to a higher standard than other govs/leaders around the world which seems to be de rigeur for many, if not most of the anti-Israeli lobby. I'm generally pro-Israel (but I have no connection to the country that I am aware of) and I've got no problem with people criticizing their gov policy. But what I hate is the double standards I see and the only explanation I can see for it is latent/subconscious antisemitism exacerbated by that fact that Israel is no longer the plucky underdog.

[BlackLabel]

Ken went on the BBC this morning to defend Keith Vaz however he ended up talking about Hitler again.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/ken-living...

[dudleybloke]