Jump to content

Ken Livingstone - antisemitic?

Earl Aelfheah

By Earl Aelfheah
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

robbin

robbin

Posted
Posted

Indeed, but decent voters won't like anti-semitism. It's not just offensive to Jewish people (I'm not Jewish, but it offends me). So, it's not just a matter of comparing the number of Jewish voters with the number of Muslim voters. That also presupposes that all Muslims are anti-Semitic, which I do not believe to be the case.


Yes, as this forum has demonstrated, there are some people who would readily be apologists for Ken's particular brand of unpleasantness, but they are in a small minority, I would venture to suggest.

JoeLeg

JoeLeg

Posted
Posted

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> uncleglen Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > Blair has admitted that his policies were

> designed

> > to 'rub the establishment nose into

> > multiculturalism'.....

>

> No he hasn't, stop making things up.


Hang on, I'm interested to know if this point is true.


Source please Uncleglen? Something verifiable on Snopes preferably. I wouldn't put anything past Blair, but seeing as it's you I'd appreciate some proof otherwise I'll assume you've just pulled your usual stunt of dropping into a thread and making random bigoted assertions before running away from having to defend your position.

Loz

Loz

Posted
Posted

robbin Wrote:

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


> Yes, as this forum has demonstrated, there are

> some people who would readily be apologists for

> Ken's particular brand of unpleasantness, but they

> are in a small minority, I would venture to

> suggest.


That's entirely unfair - and rather offensive. I took a view that he was entitled to free speech - not that I in any way agreed with anything he said. Because that's how free speech works.

rendelharris

rendelharris

Posted
Posted

JoeLeg Wrote:

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

> rendelharris Wrote:

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

> -----

> > uncleglen Wrote:

> >

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

>

> > -----

> >

> > > Blair has admitted that his policies were

> > designed

> > > to 'rub the establishment nose into

> > > multiculturalism'.....

> >

> > No he hasn't, stop making things up.

>

> Hang on, I'm interested to know if this point is

> true.

>

> Source please Uncleglen? Something verifiable on

> Snopes preferably. I wouldn't put anything past

> Blair, but seeing as it's you I'd appreciate some

> proof otherwise I'll assume you've just pulled

> your usual stunt of dropping into a thread and

> making random bigoted assertions before running

> away from having to defend your position.


One of Blair's advisers in the early '00s, Andrew Neather, wrote an article much later in that beacon of truth the Evening Standard saying that the aim of Labour's immigration policy was to "rub the right's nose in diversity." This was leapt upon by the rightwing press and the Tories, although Neather himself quickly retracted and admitted the main aim of the policy was to fill jobs in the then booming economy and that any "multiculturalise the UK" policy was just an "impression" he had. Tony Blair has never, of course, said anything like what UG claims he has "admitted" and clearly it would have been suicidal for him to do so - actually if you Google "blair rub the establishment noses in multiculturalism" UG's comment makes it sixth out of the whole internet...it's the sort of cobblers people come out with when they get the majority of their information from Migrationwatch, I suspect.

JoeLeg

JoeLeg

Posted
Posted

I appreciate the help Otta and Rendell, but I have no intention of googling Uncleglens quotes. I'm much more interested to see how he actually backs up an argument.


He's apparently a teacher. All I can say is that if that's how he teaches young people to debate then, well, oh dear...



Anyway, back on topic, I doubt Ken can harm Labour in real terms any more than its already harming itself. He's gone beyond parody and anything he says can safely be disowned by Labour.

uncleglen

uncleglen

Posted
Posted

Having been personally involved in Left wing groups from far left to left of centre (the 'fence' as it is termed by the far left) I know there are hidden agendas -must read this book

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/12175813/Tony-Blair-accused-of-conspiracy-over-mass-immigration.html

I view Blair's attitude as akin to Tony Crosland's quote about destroying grammar schools- another great betrayal of the working classes of this country- after all it is a lot easier to brainwash the uneducated isn't it!

rendelharris

rendelharris

Posted
Posted

uncleglen Wrote:

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


> I view Blair's attitude as akin to Tony Crosland's

> quote about destroying grammar schools- another

> great betrayal of the working classes of this

> country- after all it is a lot easier to brainwash

> the uneducated isn't it!


I just need something about Polish builders who live in council flats for a full house in uncleglen bingo!

JoeLeg

JoeLeg

Posted
Posted

uncleglen Wrote:

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

> Having been personally involved in Left wing

> groups from far left to left of centre (the

> 'fence' as it is termed by the far left) I know

> there are hidden agendas -must read this book

> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blai

> r/12175813/Tony-Blair-accused-of-conspiracy-over-m

> ass-immigration.html

> I view Blair's attitude as akin to Tony Crosland's

> quote about destroying grammar schools- another

> great betrayal of the working classes of this

> country- after all it is a lot easier to brainwash

> the uneducated isn't it!



Right, ok, sorry...um, is that what you're using to back up your earlier claim?

robbin

robbin

Posted
Posted

Loz Wrote:

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

> robbin Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > Yes, as this forum has demonstrated, there are

> > some people who would readily be apologists for

> > Ken's particular brand of unpleasantness, but

> they

> > are in a small minority, I would venture to

> > suggest.

>

> That's entirely unfair - and rather offensive. I

> took a view that he was entitled to free speech -

> not that I in any way agreed with anything he

> said. Because that's how free speech works.


You did indeed mention 'free speech' but free speech does not excuse anti-Semitism or racism (at least not in my eyes - or in the eyes of the criminal law).


But you then went further and posed this question...


"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 may be wrong, but that seemed to me to go well beyond just saying Ken has a right to free speech and suggested that what is offensive, in this context, is all just a matter of someone's point of view - by using what I thought was a an offensive/crass comparison. When I pointed out the difference between white van drivers and victims of the holocaust, you didn't respond for 14 days. To be honest, I sort of expected some sort of recognition that the two are in no way comparable. That would have been fair enough - we can all write stuff we may later think could have been put better or differently. Instead you appear to stand by what you said while expressing indignation about what I wrote. I think that's a shame, but I'm sorry if I offended you.

Loz

Loz

Posted
Posted

robbin Wrote:

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

> Loz Wrote:

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

> > robbin Wrote:

> >

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

> >

> > > Yes, as this forum has demonstrated, there are some people who would readily be apologists for

> > > Ken's particular brand of unpleasantness, but they are in a small minority, I would venture to

> > > suggest.

> >

> > That's entirely unfair - and rather offensive. I

> > took a view that he was entitled to free speech -

> > not that I in any way agreed with anything he

> > said. Because that's how free speech works.

>

> You did indeed mention 'free speech' but free speech does not excuse anti-Semitism or racism (at

> least not in my eyes - or in the eyes of the criminal law).

>

> But you then went further and posed this question...

>

> "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 may be wrong, but that seemed to me to go well beyond just saying Ken has a right to free speech

> and suggested that what is offensive, in this context, is all just a matter of someone's point

> of view - by using what I thought was a an offensive/crass comparison. When I pointed out

> the difference between white van drivers and victims of the holocaust, you didn't respond for

> 14 days. To be honest, I sort of expected some sort of recognition that the two are in no way

> comparable. That would have been fair enough - we can all write stuff we may later think could have

> been put better or differently. Instead you appear to stand by what you said while expressing

> indignation about what I wrote. I think that's a shame, but I'm sorry if I offended you.


Wow - so you were referring to me as 'readily being an apologist' in your post last night.


You really are a nasty, unpleasant piece of work, aren't you robbin?


And, I must say, not too bright, either (though that was suspected after your less-than-intelligent reply after I posted the photoshop mock-up of the Brexit bus a little while ago). That piece you've quoted was to try to make you see that YOU are very selective in those you would get upset about and/or grant free speech to. But you missed it. Sigh.


So I'll post this again, just for your benefit (though I suspect I am completely wasting my time)... ?If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.? - Noam Chomsky

robbin

robbin

Posted
Posted

Do calm down Loz and yes, you are wasting your time posting a diversionary quote from some other posting (which I was not referring to) from an academic who is well known for supporting the 'free speech' of holocaust deniers.


I get it, you think a person's right of free speech extends to anti-Semitic content just as it does to remarks about white van drivers. You are entitled to your point of view. I'm entitled to disagree with it.

JohnL

JohnL

Posted
Posted

uncleglen Wrote:

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

> Having been personally involved in Left wing

> groups from far left to left of centre (the

> 'fence' as it is termed by the far left) I know

> there are hidden agendas -must read this book

> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blai

> r/12175813/Tony-Blair-accused-of-conspiracy-over-m

> ass-immigration.html

> I view Blair's attitude as akin to Tony Crosland's

> quote about destroying grammar schools- another

> great betrayal of the working classes of this

> country- after all it is a lot easier to brainwash

> the uneducated isn't it!


Check who Anji Hunter is now married to :)

Loz

Loz

Posted
Posted

robbin Wrote:

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

> Do calm down Loz and yes, you are wasting your time posting a diversionary quote from some other

> posting (which I was not referring to) from an academic who is well known for supporting the

> 'free speech' of holocaust deniers.

>

> I get it, you think a person's right of free speech extends to anti-Semitic content just as it

> does to remarks about white van drivers. You are entitled to your point of view. I'm entitled to

> disagree with it.


So, if you understand that (and frankly, I'm really not convinced), why can't you see that treating everyone - no matter what their race or gender or political belief - equally, fairly and evenly is a good thing? Can't you see that? Why is that such an alien concept to you?


Again, that paragraph was not to reflect my beliefs - I think most people on this forum who have been around longer than you know that. It was for you to ask questions of yourself to see how you adjust your opinion based on factors such as people's race/gender/etc.


But I suspect I am wasting my time here. I think you are now going out of your way to be intentionally offensive. Which, ironically, makes you rather similar to intent to Livingston.


And yes, robben, I do believe you have the right to do just that because, as Chomsky wisely noted, free speech should be extended to everyone, even the nasty, unpleasant twerps.

robbin

robbin

Posted
Posted

Enough screeching Loz. While you may be right that you have a far higher IQ than I do, I suspect you may not have been on the receiving end of the sort of racism that I have in the past. Had you been, maybe you would also be sensitive to hearing other peoples' unacceptable comments defended as just being their 'right to free speech'.


All I'm saying is that unqualified 'free speech' of the sort you appear to advocate (and as the US academic Chomsky advocated) seems to me to be outdated, discredited and potentially dangerous. Society's moral compass has shifted in recent years and laws have changed to match. Those changes are designed to prevent people from spouting certain bigotry in this country (and in others), under cover of claiming it is their right to 'free speech'. Whether you like it or not, there IS a line. If someone crosses it, no matter what theories some American academics might have, they may be breaking the law, just as they are offending people.


So, you go ahead and quote Chomsky - and his support for the rights of holocaust deniers and the unqualified right to 'free speech', if you like. I'll still not agree with the concept of completely unlimited 'free speech' no matter how many times I'm told I'm thick.


As we both know each other's views now, I don't think there's any need for another rude late night reply from you.

Borky

Borky

Posted
Posted

Chomsky is almost up there with the bible - you can find a quote to back up any position you want if you look hard enough - he is well prolific.


if Ken did not exist, then Ken would have to be created as some dead German lunatic once nearly said. We all know Livingstone isn't really an anti Semite - he is an aged rascal who cannot help himself in keeping out of the camera eye - but is serves a purpose for everyone. A convenient bag of wrinkled skin to load up with the recalcitrant garbage of politics past and discarded like flotsam into the choppy waves of cutthroat politics. This isn't new or unique.



Everything else is covered in previous posts in once way or another.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...