Ken Livingstone accused of anti-semitism

BillieTheBot

*NOT ANOTHER ANTI-SEMITISM THREAD SHOCK* :eek:

Yes, I'm afraid you. Sorry for it but I think the story is interesting in two levels.

Ken Livingstone had an argument three nights ago with a reporter from the Evening Standard (prop. the Rothermere family). According to Ken the journalist had been following and bothering him for a while, and now was stalking a gay event Ken had attended.

When Ken came out he asked the reporter if happened to be a German war criminal. The reporter said he was in fact Jewish, and was offended at such remark. Ken replied "Ah right, well you might be, but actually you are just like a concentration camp guard, you are just doing it because you are paid to, aren't you?"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4256549.stm

Now what Ken was referring to here (which was reported on the radio but has been left out of the BBC article) is this man working for the Standard, which is part of the profoundly homophobic and historically anti-semite Rothermere media empire, and stalking a party held to celebrate gay rights. Ken was said to describe the Standard as a homophobic fascist piece of garbage- which it is, together with the other Associated Newspaper publications.

Point no. 1: His comments about the bloke being a concentration camp guard might have been distasteful or even offensive, but are they really anti-semite, as the Board of British Jews claim? I really can't see it. I'm sorry to say so, but to me this is being oversensitive- especially when it is very clear that the remark wasn't made with racist intentions.

Point no 2: Why oh why would any Jewish person want to work for the Rothermere family anyway? This is the people who openly supported Franco, Hitler and Mosley for years. Surely the journalist has little grounds to accuse others of anti-semitism when he's happy to work for such people?

Former Member

1) Refering to someone as a concentration camp guard is offensive, but hardly anti-semitic. Though given the man is professional politician one has to question his judgement in refering to a journalist that way.

2) Given that the current Lord Rothmere has no links to Hitler et al (who were dead before he was born) I don't see why he should be held responsible for the sins of his fathers (and the links are over-exxagerated - in the years before and during WW2 the Daily Mail was not a pro-Nazi paper - as even a cursory reading of it should make clear- any more than the Guardian was pro-Stalin). So why shouldn't a Jewish journalist wish to work for them.

Former Member

Point 1. If Ken knew that the reporter was a jew then I would be concerned. If he didn'tthen it was just crass. Either way it was a piss poor comment to make. hardly any comparison was there?

Point 2. If the Tories win the next election, I would effectively be working on their agenda. Does that mean that I should resign?

Former Member

As far as I know no apology has ever come from the Daily Mail or its proprietors for its repulsive supporting of the Blackshirts in Britain, the fascists in Spain and Adolph Hitler and the Nazis in Germany.

If that is indeed the case, I would not want to be associated with that corporation in any way whatsoever if were Jewish. Well I wouldn't want to be associated with them regardless, but especially if I were Jewish.

It is true that they don't peddle an anti-semite agenda nowadays- the subjects of their righteousness and fury are now gypsies, asylum seekers and homosexuals.

Former Member

Man Of Kent wrote:

Point 1. If Ken knew that the reporter was a jew then I would be concerned. If he didn'tthen it was just crass. Either way it was a piss poor comment to make. hardly any comparison was there??

Apparently he didn't until the reporter told him. His subsequent comment was out of order but in no way anti-semite IMO, and the Board of British Jews and other such organisations who claim "anti-semite!" at such incidents do themselves and their cause no favours.

Point 2. If the Tories win the next election, I would effectively be working on their agenda. Does that mean that I should resign?

I don't think that is a very appropriate comparison MoK...

Former Member

Aladdin wrote:

Apparently he didn't until the reporter told him. His subsequent comment was out of order but in no way anti-semite IMO, and the Board of British Jews and other such organisations who claim "anti-semite!" at such incidents do themselves and their cause no favours.

I don't think it was anti-semitic, just moronic. But since when has Ken ever reallt thought before opening his mouth?

I don't think that is a very appropriate comparison MoK...

Why not. Working for them doesn't mean that I support their political views. I cannot see the difference here.

As for the HateMail, I never expect them to apologise nor would I want them to. Why should they?

Former Member

Honesty and consistency? (yes I know it's too much to expect from a newspaper, but still...). They are the first ones to accuse politicians and others of being hypocrites or demand they apologise for real or imaginary affronts... I can't think of many things more deserving of a full apology than being an ardent supporter of murdering racists and fascists for years on end, and having one's late proprietor as Hitler's greatest fan.

Former Member

They did apologise - in 1939 when after the invasion of Czechslovakia they saw that appeasement had failed and that Hitler didn't want peace. Plenty of others on both the left and right had similar views to that of the Mail

They also stopped support for the BUF in 1934 after the violence of the Olympia meeting.

Now I think the Mail's a shit paper read by morons but I'm not going to base my views on what the paper is like today on what it was like in the 1930's.

Former Member

The thing is, they are every bit as racist and despicable today as they were 70 years ago- the only thing that has changed is the target of their fury.

A Jewish person might try to take comfort from the fact that today the Daily Mail is if not Jewish-friendly, at least Jewish-neutral. But if you look carefully at the abuse and slander directed at certain minorities, namely homosexuals, Roma, asylum seekers and to a lesser extent Muslims, and compare it with the kind of things that were said about Jewish people during the 1930s, the similarities are shocking and all too obvious.

Ken was simply highlighting what a nasty rag the journo works for. His comments might have been inappropriate but he's right in essence.

Former Member

The Journalist works for the Evening Standard - not the Mail. In the 1930s the Evening Standard cartoonist was David Low - who was one of the few figures of the time who stood against appeasement. P'haps a Jew might wish to work for a paper with such a distinguished record and not worry about who currently owns it.

But I don't think the quotes wwere Livingstone's way of suggesting that the Daily Mail was anti-asylum seeker or whatever. It was Livingstone sounding off before his brain was fully engaged.

Former Member

I bet Qaradawi fits into this somewhere ......

Former Member

Err... do you have anything to say about the story itself?

Former Member

Aladdin wrote:

Err... do you have anything to say about the story itself?

Don't be silly! Ken is a loony lefty anyway so Lukesh automatically jumps on his hate horse.

Former Member

I'd be interested to see whether he thinks Ken's comments were anti-semitic, as the BDBJ claims...

Former Member

I don't think one receives more attention than the other to be honest.

Former Member

lukesh wrote:

I think that some issues receive too much coverage and are over exagerated while others are hardly mentioned even though they are important.

I think "anti-semitism" receives coverage that is completely disproportionate, and that Islamophobia receives little....

Ken Livingstone is a toerag - but not an anti-semitic one.

The analogy with the camp guard, was people doing unspeakable things for money, like, erm, working for the substandard.

Former Member

Excellent to see there is a consensus forming that believes Livingston is a scumbag.

Former Member

lukesh wrote:

i am the exact opposite. surprise surprise!

hes two faced scum bag

Prove it. ........



Google news: Islamophobia uk - results 48
Google news: Islamophobia - results 189


Google news: anti-semitism uk - results 160
Google news: anti-semitism - results 3920

I reckon there are more than 532 attacks on muslims every year. What say you?

Former Member

Not anti-semitism as such. But extremely bad taste.
And personally, yes, I'd be fucking offended too.

Former Member

lukesh wrote:

which one? Both?

hes a two faced scum bag as he susposed to be pro gay and then he lets in a tyrant who wants homosexuals killed

and islamaphobia is always mentioned, especially in the guardian. anti-semitism is hardly mentioned. its only been mentioned right now about the appauling abuses jews have had to cope with.

Google news: Islamophobia uk - results 48
Google news: Islamophobia - results 189


Google news: anti-semitism uk - results 160
Google news: anti-semitism - results 3920

You're talking shite

Former Member

lukesh wrote:

wow your clever... hey dumbo check out the populations and level of attacks first hey!

So, explain why there are so many more reports on anti-semitism than islamophobia, which you claim receives "completely disproportionate" coverage...

Actually, don't bother

Former Member

Aladdin, where in the article does it state that anyone has called that Livingstone guy Anti-Semitic?

Former Member

Jacqueline the Ripper wrote:

Aladdin, where in the article does it state that anyone has called that Livingstone guy Anti-Semitic?

This is getting interesting. Its not anti-semitic to liken a jewish reporter to a concentration camp guard (and you're right no-one has used the term yet) but say "End the occupation" and the accusations come streaming in ............

I did like this:

Asked if he would apologise to Finegold, Mr Livingstone said: " Absolutely not. If he isn't happy he shouldn't be working for a paper like that. You can't expect to work for the Daily Mail group and have the rest of society treat you with respect as a useful member of society, because you are not."

sauce

I still reckon its all to do with Qaradawi ......

Former Member

Jacqueline the Ripper wrote:

Aladdin, where in the article does it state that anyone has called that Livingstone guy Anti-Semitic?

Not sure I understand what you mean Jacqs. Livingstone has been accused of anti-semitism for this comments, not the journo.

Former Member

BTW, here's a silly point to make, but sometimes when people are annoyed they do say stuff that would otherwise be considered racist or sexist or whatever. How many people when they get road rage start mouthing off at the women drivers. Or when people get in a bar fight with a black guy, is it not uncommon to hear "Come here you f****** n*****" etc etc. People do say atrociously prejudiced things, but they're just trying to make a personal attack even more personal. At the end of the day, a lot of people would realise this, but then again - a lot of people wouldn't. I guess it all depends on what kind of perspective you have.

Former Member

I don't think Livingstone wanted to offend racially. He was simply making an analogy: that the "I'm only doing my job" excuse should not wash. Livingstone finished his tirade with "what are you doing working for that neo-fascist scumbag organisation?" (or something like that). Which brings the concentration camp guard comment into context... It was in poor taste but in no way racist.

Former Member

Aladdin wrote:

Not sure I understand what you mean Jacqs. Livingstone has been accused of anti-semitism for this comments, not the journo.

And where does it state that Livingstone was accused of anti-semitism?

Former Member

Jacq - every billboard in London has the headline 'Livingstone's anti-semitic comments' and 'Ken's anti-jew insult' on it from last night. So that's certainly the way the story is being presented even if the actual reports don't focus it that way.

Former Member

Jim V wrote:

Jacq - every billboard in London has the headline 'Livingstone's anti-semitic comments' and 'Ken's anti-jew insult' on it from last night. So that's certainly the way the story is being presented even if the actual reports don't focus it that way.

Obviously I couldn't know that. But according to the article The Board of Deputies of British Jews haven't called him or the comments anti-semitic. But rather "insensitive".

Now, as I have said before I believe that people accuse Jews, Israel and Jewish organisations to use the "anti-semite" card more often than what really happens. Hence the impression outgrows reality.
Therefore I see it as a negative when Aladdin uses this method himself. Nonetheless the billboards you're mentioning.

Former Member

The article itself might have not referred to anti-semitism, and to be fair and precise the Board of British Jews haven't either. But there have been lots of accusations of anti-semitism on radio phone-ins and in the media, and the general insinuation of the accusations is that Ken Livingstone's comments were anti semitic.

The witch-hunt has begun, incidentally:

Livingstone faces official inquiry into his comments

Now, precise "anti-semitic" accusations or not, this is not only a monumental waste of fucking time, but also does the Jewish cause no favours whatsoever. Was it insensitive and out of order? Yes. Does it merit an official inquiry and the Board of British Jews as well as many others making throwing such a tantrum about it? I very much doubt it...

And incidentally, I agree with this Livingstone comment 100%:

"If he isn't happy he shouldn't be working for a paper like that. You can't expect to work for the Daily Mail group and have the rest of society treat with you respect as a useful member of society, because you are not."

Former Member

Aladdin wrote:

The article itself might have not referred to anti-semitism, and to be fair and precise the Board of British Jews haven't either. But there have been lots of accusations of anti-semitism on radio phone-ins and in the media, and the general insinuation of the accusations is that Ken Livingstone's comments were anti semitic.

Fine enough. You just didn't mention them and refered solely to the article.
Just want you to remember that next time you accuse Jewish organisations and the likes to use the "Anti-Semite" card at their any given opportunity, that this time it wasn't the case.

Regarding the comments, I'll say it again, they're not racist nor anti-semitic. But still worth to take up, being that it implies that the tone is acceptable in society. Which I for one, completely disagree with.
Had anyone said the same to me, I'd do my best to make an issue out of it too.