Ken Livingstone - antisemitic?

[Loz]

Lordship 516 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> > Otta Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > > It's intentionally inflammatory, and his insistence on keeping it up just shows that he is

> > > intentionally antagonising people.

> >

> > I don't think there is any doubt he is being

> > intentionally antagonising, my question is whether

> > that is a punishable offence.

>

> Not only ought it be a punishable offence but the media ought to deny him airtime for a long, long

> time. Just choke him off.

Would you extend that to anyone deemed 'intentionally antagonising'? Or just people you disagree with?

[????]

David Baddiel's post on Facebook nails this for me...I can't C&P from work

[????]

Anyway KL is getting support and not just on here - George Galloway & Nick Griffin are onboard too

[Earl Aelfheah]

I'm not sure KL is getting a lot of support on here.

[????]

i was semi-trolling :)

[Loz]

I don't support KL. I don't actually agree with him at all. Hell, I don't actually like him very much.

But I do think there is a free speech issue here.

[????]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't support KL. I don't actually agree with

> him at all. Hell, I don't actually like him very

> much.

>

> But I do think there is a free speech issue here.

You're confusing his right to free speech with whether he should remain in The Labour Party, a party which used to make fighting prejudice a key cornerstone of its existence

[Otta]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> David Baddiel's post on Facebook nails this for

> me...I can't C&P from work

Tried doing it for you, but the forum won't let me post the whole thing (there must be a trigger word in there somewhere).

But this is the ending.

"

Anyway. Facebook provides too much space, really, for all this. I?ll leave with the words, shall I, of Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf, before he went mad, of course, according to Ken. So exactly in that period when he was, as we know, supporting Zionism. This is what Adolf said in there. I may have as much of a tin ear for meaning as Ken has for anti-Semitism, but I can?t, for the life of me, make this out to be as pro the idea of the creation of a Jewish state as Livingstone insists it is:

?While the Zionists try to make the rest of the World believe that the national consciousness of the Jew finds its satisfaction in the creation of a Palestinian state, the Jews again slyly dupe the dumb Goyim. It doesn't even enter their heads to build up a Jewish state in Palestine for the purpose of living there; all they want is a central organisation for their international world swindler, endowed with its own sovereign rights and removed from the intervention of other states: a haven for convicted scoundrels and a university for budding crooks."

Word

[red devil]

What Quids said. No one is saying he can't say what he said if it's within the law, it's just that what he said is at odds with what the Labour party supposedly stands against...

[ianr]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> David Baddiel's post on Facebook nails this for me...I can't C&P from work

Its URL is https://www.facebook.com/david.baddiel.1/posts/10155426143839505

[Lordship 516]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lordship 516 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Loz Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > > Otta Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> >

> > > > It's intentionally inflammatory, and his

> insistence on keeping it up just shows that he is

> > > > intentionally antagonising people.

> > >

> > > I don't think there is any doubt he is being

> > > intentionally antagonising, my question is

> whether

> > > that is a punishable offence.

> >

> > Not only ought it be a punishable offence but

> the media ought to deny him airtime for a long,

> long

> > time. Just choke him off.

>

> Would you extend that to anyone deemed

> 'intentionally antagonising'? Or just people you

> disagree with?

Just to people like Livingstone is proving to be at the moment - people who cause such gratuitous anguish to others.

[Loz]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> > I don't support KL. I don't actually agree with

> > him at all. Hell, I don't actually like him very

> > much.

> >

> > But I do think there is a free speech issue here.

>

>

> You're confusing his right to free speech with

> whether he should remain in The Labour Party, a

> party which used to make fighting prejudice a key

> cornerstone of its existence

Well, Labour has never been big on free speech, so you may have a point,

[Otta]

With free speech comes some responsibility. He is a public figure and should have known that this bul!shit was going to cause upset.

Actually he clearly did know that and he chose to do it anyway.

And then repeat it again and again.

[malumbu]

He's a silly sausage. That's not an attempt to make light on a serious issue.

But what has really peed me off is the opportunism from the PM. Well how about an apology for the Tories who thought Hitler a good thing in the 1930s?

I'm not sure of the authenticity of this article https://gwydionwilliams.com/44-fascism-and-world-war-2/how-the-tory-party-aided-hitlers-rise/

[????]

Some weird kind of equivalence there....80 years ago or yesterday......

[????]

I think calling an anti-semetic cunt a silly sausage is missing the seriousness of it but that's the problem really

[rendelharris]

The man's an utter bellend and his opinions are utterly foolish. Shame as I thought he did some excellent work as mayor of London, but he's clearly lost the plot. What's more worrying is that Corbyn is so utterly at sea and demonstrating that while he might have been a competent local councilor he has no idea of how to be leader of Her Majesty's Opposition - this was a chance to look decisive leadership material and he's just looked pathetic. Despair.

[????]

I feel sorry for my friends and forumites who care about Labour still it must genuinely be dispiriting to see this. I mean this by the way, I'm well past caring years ago personally, but I can still imagine what many people who care about Labour must be feeling. :(

[uncleglen]

So predictable rrr

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/about-us

[Earl Aelfheah]

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So predictable rrr

> https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/about-us

It may describe itself as independent and non-political, but that doesn't make it so. Their own statement about their aims makes it perfectly clear that they have a political agenda.

[Blah Blah]

Livingstone is compeletely wrong in his so called facts. Hitler did not involve himself with the Haavara aggreement until 1937, by which time Jews in Germany had already been stripped of all rights. It is completely crazy to see the Nazi's signing this agreement as anything other than a way to get Jews out of Germany - nothing to do with Zionism at all. Here are two good articles by people far more expert than Livingstone the armchair historian.

https://medium.com/@josephweissman/but-ken-livingstone-is-right-google-the-haavara-agreement-ddca87ab123b

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-history/adolf-hitler-zionism-zionist-nazis-haavara-agreement-ken-livingstone-labour-antisemitism-row-a7009981.html

And yes ????, I am utterly dismayed by the way my party is being ruined by idiots like Livingstne and Corbyn. What was I thinking when I voted for that completely inept idealogue.

[Earl Aelfheah]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I feel sorry for my friends and forumites who care

> about Labour still it must genuinely be

> dispiriting to see this. I mean this by the way,

> I'm well past caring years ago personally, but I

> can still imagine what many people who care about

> Labour must be feeling. :(

Cheers quids. I am one of those people and yes, I am dismayed at what's happened to the Labour Party.

[robbin]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well, I generally prefer to examine what was

> actually said, rather than who they are. Play the

> ball and not the man, so to speak.

>

> Many people say stuff to entirely for effect and

> to get people offended, quite a few of them in the

> Labour party (and other parties, of course). Not a

> pleasant personality trait, but hardly unusual.

> It's a basic 'skill' for just about every

> newspaper columnist and many political campaigners

> on both the left and the right.

>

> But as you asked before, robbin, had he said

> similar remarks about other groups, what would

> have been the reaction? You asked about black

> people? But what about Americans? Irish? Essex

> white van drivers? I suspect there would be

> wildly differing reactions, very much dependent on

> the group in question. What makes some worthy of

> Twitter outrage and some not?

I'll ignore the 'play the ball not the man' quip.

I've been pondering your question, Loz. Taking one of your comparator examples - What might be the difference between white van drivers and Jews that makes "some worthy of Twitter outrage and some not"?

I'll do my best to suggest an answer to your question.

In recent history, one group was subjected to state organised genocide - almost an entire population 'shipped' in animal trucks/containers to 'camps' specifically designed for their torture, medical experimentation, rape, starvation and murder by gas or other means. 1.5 million innocent children (with our without their anguished parents) were murdered and at least another 4.5 million defenceless civilian men and women met the same planned and organised fate. All in the space of a few years - stopped only by a world war and the destruction of the people and organisation responsible.

The other group - white van drivers - well, maybe the occasional Labour toff from Islington might post the odd patronising tweet about them, but I think when it comes to comparing the two groups' 'worthiness of Twitter outrage', as you put it, I think the answer would be obvious to any right minded person. Just my opinion though - it is obvious that others hold a different view, or vigorously defend the right of others' to do so.

[robbin]

So, is Ken an asset or a liability in this election?

[uncleglen]

We need to remember that Ken is a dyed-in-th-wool politician and as such will be courting maximum votes therefore he is sucking up to the muslim vote which by far outnumbers the Jewish vote. Blair has admitted that his policies were designed to 'rub the establishment nose into multiculturalism'.....