Labour MP demands Livingstone resigns

Discussion in 'Western Europe' started by Sab, Apr 28, 2016.

  1. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    18,965
    Likes Received:
    3,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    It is very much too much for most of our MP's I am afraid. I take it you did see the Al Jazeera videos of the intrusion into our Politics of Israel from her embassy.
    Yes, I am exactly the same. Sometimes when I criticise something a country has done they will try and have a go at me for what Britain has done whereas I agree with the criticism. Do you think we will be more sensitive when we are an Independent State?....but with Israel it most certainly is a tool to give her a free hand not to get the same criticism as everyone else trying to pretend it is against all Jews. Arguments wouldn't even be about all Israelis, just those who agree with what you are arguing against..

    Livingstone was not on his own though.

    Check out the link for the statements
    http://freespeechonisrael.org.uk/je...m-decision-suspend-ken-livingstone/#more-2982

    They are working hard at Free Speech on Israel.
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2017
  2. Oddquine

    Oddquine Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,729
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I suspect that the support from Jewish Labour Party members was a big part of the reason he has not been booted....because if he didn't offend Jewish Labour Party members, what justification would they have in suspending him because he offended non-jewish ones.

    alexa...do you really think when we become an independent state that the criticism of any Scottish government won't come mostly from ourselves, once we have had a couple of General elections? The SG, whoever it is, might get the benefit of the doubt while in the early days of a resuscitated country...but not for much longer than that. :)
     
  3. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    18,965
    Likes Received:
    3,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Well there is of course the Jewish Labour Movement whose director is a woman who used to work in the Israeli Embassy. They seem to have come into being at about the time Corbyn was elected though I don't think many are Jews (weird) and they seem to have been the people who were most calling him antisemitic, so yes you are right and again, well done Free Voice on Israel



    Yes, you're right of course. I hope it will be really active politics. :)
     
  4. Latherty

    Latherty Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    5,989
    Likes Received:
    489
    Trophy Points:
    83
    But this is totally, totally absent from the media and especially the BBC.
    WHAT is going on there?
     
  5. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    18,965
    Likes Received:
    3,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    The Jewish Labour Movement is mentioned by the BBC. You just need to do a bit more fishing to find out who they really are. I find jfjfp keep up to speed on such things.

    The BBC is not open to anything concerning Israel. They were banned from reporting for a year or two from Israel as they used to also report from Gaza and speak to the Palestinians and give their point of view and then there was this big investigation which was kept secret. The BBC then completely changed. There was a thread a year or two ago when they were recruiting in this area and the applicants kept saying they were 'Pro Israel - like they needed to have that bias to get the job.

     
  6. Oddquine

    Oddquine Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,729
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Hearing just now the usual Labour suspects going ballistic because Livingstone hasn't been expelled...and mithering on about him bringing the Labour Party into disrepute.

    I struggle to work out how the Labour Party can be in any more disrepute than they have been since the Tony Blair days, tbh.......and definitely can't see why sycophantic, uncritical support for the illegal, disproportionate actions of Israel is not, in and of itself, much more of a reason to hold the Labour Party in even lower esteem than the spinning of the words of someone with long held principles which he hasn't jettisoned simply to hold onto a cushy job in Westminster
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2017
  7. Latherty

    Latherty Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    5,989
    Likes Received:
    489
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Clearly that's not sustainable. Any bias at the BBC is dangerous.
     
  8. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    18,965
    Likes Received:
    3,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Well to be fair in something like politics it is virtually impossible to be completely unbiased - unless of course you know nothing about it. That is because we all have our own values and they will effect how we see things.

    The BBC used to bring very good coverage of the Israel/Palestinian conflict. However after Alan Johnson was kidnapped and even more the murder of Vittorio Arrigoni it was understandable that they did not feel able to risk put anyone else in so we lost all reporting from Gaza apart from I think it is basically locals and usually now only when they are at war. And apparently after anything, was on on Israel, the BBC top Brass would be sitting waiting...and then the phone would start ringing with complaints by the thousands. They were accused of being biased towards the Palestinians and were coming in for massive criticism. At that time the BBC admitted to having a bias. They said they had a 'liberal' bias and that was because the UK was a 'liberal' country. Like I said it eventually resulted in this investigation the results of which were kept secret. Do you not remember when they changed? It was around the time of Cast Lead. Suddenly, although the pictures were shown and told their own story, instead of interviewing people they would have one Israeli and one supporter of the Palestinians and they would ask them a question each - everything being weighed up in the way Israel always says it has to be. It was the worst reporting I have ever seen. They looked like real amateurs. They would not even put in an appeal for money for Gaza when it ended. I think these reporters felt exceedingly uncomfortable as they were not working as to their consciences....but as I said a couple of years ago someone started a thread here. There was a story of the people who had been shortlisted to work with the BBC in the ME and all of them made a song and dance about how pro Israel they are. Very much it is also to do with the lack of investigative journalism there is now. very sad and not good for a democracy.

    To give you an example of how subtle this can be I was reading an article about the BBC bias against Scottish Independence. The writer pointed out that if the BBC was speaking about something the Tories were doing, they would say 'The Government' but if they were speaking about something the SNP were doing, they would say, the SNP not the Scottish Government. It is subtle but when you think about it, it does make people react differently. The first gives the idea that it is your government, the second invites you to rebel!

    and you are right, the BBC in particular but other media as well being biased has a bad effect on many levels - people often feel they don't know who to believe which is not good for a democracy. Then they can go off to RT and think they are telling the truth ;)
     
  9. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    18,965
    Likes Received:
    3,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    I haven't watched today but I saw him being interviewed with one of them on Newsnight last night. I think it was Kirsty who was telling him it would be a stigma which would stay with him for the rest of his life and stop him getting a good job! He pointed out that he had said he was retiring some years ago. Apart from that he obviously was happy and kept going on about being stopped all the time by Jews in the street telling him they know full and well he is no anti-Semite.

    The guy with him, can't remember his name was fuming!!! How dare they let Ken off. Looks like the Labour Right need to add to their list of deficiencies, not being able to accept their own rulings! Of course this anti-Semitism in the Labour Party was created by the anti Corbyns for fear of criticism of Israel coming out of the Labour Party. When they are seen not to win cases it may become more obvious who are the people destroying Labour's position in the polls. Like jfjfp said their position seems to be 'Better to destroy Labour than offend Israel.'

    I am happy. I think this is a big breakthrough.
     
  10. Latherty

    Latherty Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    5,989
    Likes Received:
    489
    Trophy Points:
    83
    DO you think it might be the case that the choice of suspension short-circuits the grounds for judicial review? An expulsion would take him outside the party, but the suspension keeps him bound by the party rules. I'm just guessing...
     
  11. Latherty

    Latherty Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    5,989
    Likes Received:
    489
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Yes I was reading up on Israeli influence on BBC reporting and the Israeli embassy apparently frequently gets small wording changes made similar to that which you raised.
    I think the advanced form is in the election of Trump in the USA. Poor journalistic standards at home make it easier for foreign powers to manipulate the democracy
     
  12. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    18,965
    Likes Received:
    3,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    I'd say the West were pretty much Plutocracies just now, not democracies. Some people believe we are well on the way to living under despotic regimes - which could of course become fascism. This seems to be the biggest danger at the moment and the press is the first thing to suffer. Like I said we have nothing like the investigative journalism that we had years ago and when people do do that, they are likely now to find themselves arrested or stuck in someone's embassy. Murdoch having such a monopoly is of course part of our problem but I'd go more for Blair selling our democracy to neo liberalism and Corporate Power. Once people do not trust the press we are beginning to get into trouble. Once people go even further and do not believe there are such things as 'facts' and 'experts' according to historian Timothy Snyder we are entering one of the three key elements of fascism and he points out that Trump is well into that, not least in rarely saying anything which is the truth. Once people do not know what to believe they are far more vulnerable to manipulation.

    He says fascism tends to come in very quickly 1-3 years. If you are interested there are some really good videos by him on You tube. It was not until I was listening to him speaking about the non belief in 'truth' 'facts' 'experts' which is intrinsic to fascism that I realised why such regimes have a tendency to mass murder their academics.

    Regarding whether Livingston can appeal. I don't know. He was going to appeal if they expelled him but he seemed to be quite satisfied last night but you will notice FSOI is not - they want his suspension lifted immediately.
     
  13. Latherty

    Latherty Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    5,989
    Likes Received:
    489
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I think the issue has to be forced. The Zionists and neo-Liberals have done some quite atrocious things in the public space and that needs to be brought to account properly or it will stick and fester.
    Ken is an old man, I'm not sure if he has much more fight in him. But this needs impartial and judicial review in the public eye.
     
  14. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    18,965
    Likes Received:
    3,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    My guess is that you need to change things bit by bit. For example FSOI has got a legal opinion on IHRA which May said was going to be the legal position of anti-Semitism in the UK and the Labour Party was saying was Labour's. This is basically another European working one which our academics tried out, found to be impossible for free speech and has since been sent to the bin by the whole EU. The legal opinion is that lots of the things suggested are anti-Semitism are not or would only be anti-Semite if done by such a position. Here's the link to that paper.

    http://freespeechonisrael.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/TomlinsonGuidanceIHRA.pdf

    I think you are asking for something which you are not going to get so quick. You say Ken is old. Look at what happened to the others. Ken's age and work has given him far greater ability to defend himself - as well of course as his stubbornness. Why I am happy with this is that it is a big victory by FSOI and I would say that was a start. The Oxford Union has been cleared as well. - I think it was that one where the woman who went in to investigate apologised to the Jewish Labour Movement for being unable to find institutional racism.

    May did not turn a hair at the Aljazeera Videos even though it was one of her own party they were talking about bringing down. Someone in her party also received a letter/email complaining about the support of the Tories for is it UN 2334? They said that if the Tories did not look out they would be losing all their Jewish votes, which apparently could make a big difference in some seats. Next day she was on telling Kerry off for criticising Israel and coming out saying this IHRA will be the legal definition of anti-Semitism in the UK.

    What are you actually wanting to do? By the way, I have people coming round soon so will not be able to keep looking here and posting.
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2017
  15. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    18,965
    Likes Received:
    3,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Holy Moses you are not kidding. It is war. Check this out.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ne-faces-fresh-enquiry-hitler-zionism-remarks

    Hmmm well if you look at the link above it appears there is going to be an appeal or rather than Livingstone is going to be retried until they get the verdict/sentence they want.
     
  16. Latherty

    Latherty Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    5,989
    Likes Received:
    489
    Trophy Points:
    83
    So it would seem. But this needs to be taken away from the politicians and into a rational court of law. Every politician in the Labour party would be seeking to position themselves to provide a guilty verdict against Ken.
     
  17. Oddquine

    Oddquine Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,729
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    63
    How can you be forced to apologise for telling the truth? If i were him, I'd apologise by saying " I am sorry I have offended those Jews who won't accept historical fact....and I'm sorry the Labour Party has finally, thanks to Tony Blair, removed all credibility and principles in arriving at the stage where they will be, barring a decision to stop being the second cheek of the Tory backside, unelectable until after my 100th birthday........and I resign!"
     
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2017
  18. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    18,965
    Likes Received:
    3,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Well they argue that he was not saying the truth - and from what I remember it is true he certainly got dates wrong. Basically he was standing up for Naz Shah who put in the cartoon which Finkelstein had put up on his web and she had put on twitter two years before which had been trawled by the guy who was trawling all the Labour left looking for anything which could be used to claim they were antisemetic.

    https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/ja...h-scholar-behind-labour-s-antisemitism-scanda

    I think the initial fury with him was in claiming that putting in a cartoon two years ago, one that came from the site of an American Jewish Academic was not antisemetic.

    The next thing I think is that everyone chose to read into what Ken said exactly what they wanted and this does seem to have had an effect on people - that is including on some Jews who normally would not be expected to react like this. For instance the Jewish Chronicle claimed

    https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/ken-livingstone-s-claims-are-an-insult-to-the-truth-1.435425

    I know the word collaboration has been disputed and also that he never suggested this was between Jews in general - they were after all boycotting Germany. I think when some Jews read that sort of thing and believe it is what he has said they do get upset.


    What I am saying is I think his initial major crime was standing up for Naz who I think had already crumbled and 'admitted' her antisemitism.

    I don't know whether Livingstone did actually talk about camps in Germany for Zionists to train. However if he did he will have got the information probably from a book by Lennie Brenner a communist Jew. I know Alan Greenstein also believes this is so because I got that information from him, Very quick to insert Greenstein is strongly against antisemitism and holocaust denial as people are already beginning to add suggestions of Livingstone degrading the holocaust.

    Now I think that the second thing is a historical argument. I do not know if there were training camps in Germany for Zionists but I do know that Greenstein who I think got his information from Brenner says this is so. The anti Livingstone people argue that antisemites say this - inferring that means Livingstone must be one, but of course even if they do, that does not change the reality that this is more a historical argument and one which I think there may be something in because Lilienthal in What Price Israel talks about the Irgun collecting money in the US supposedly to be used to help European Jews when in reality it was being used to set up training camps for Zionists in Europe - I don't know if my memory is exact but pretty near what Brenner said.

    Basically then I think his first problem as far as people were concerned was standing up for someone they had put the label of antisemitism on and secondly for bringing up a contested historical issue between some Jews and Zionists.

    Except in this instance that is exactly what they want and may well result in the original objective that Labour have a policy on antisemitism which creates such a position that criticism of Israel will result in expulsion from the party as that will be considered antisemitism. Remember May, Labour and Israel want the IHRA definition of antisemitism to be 'legal' in the UK. That would effectively stop intellectual argument on Israel and I think also make BDS 'antisemetic'.
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2017
  19. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    18,965
    Likes Received:
    3,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    You think Livingstone should sue them for slander/libel/defamation of character?
     
  20. Latherty

    Latherty Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    5,989
    Likes Received:
    489
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Maybe, but its difficult to pinpoint the publisher who is / was not acting in good faith.
    Better to pursue against the Labour party if possible for a breach of their rules. IMHO
     
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2017
  21. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    18,965
    Likes Received:
    3,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    I don't know if it is against their rules. However maybe where this is going is going to be some sort of a court case re the current way those in Labour and the Tories are deciding what is antisemitism. That is IHRA. It is beginning to look like that definition first of all stereotypes all Jews - something which is generally considered antisemitic and also goes against our human rights.


    Following on from Hugh Tomlinson legal opinion on IHRA

    http://freespeechonisrael.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/TomlinsonGuidanceIHRA.pdf

    Here is a further opinion by Sir Steven Sedley
    OK his criticism


    Some sanity is needed. Maybe that will involve a trip back to court. Personally I think this involves Israel's concern over BDS. Ella Rose, the Director of the Jewish Labour Movement as you will remember previously worked at the Israeli Embassy. Not only that but she was on a team working on finding ways to oppose 'boycotts and legitimisation of Israel'.

    https://electronicintifada.net/blog...movement-director-was-israeli-embassy-officer

    Israel was very unhappy when first one of our academic unions and then the whole of the EU gave up the EU working definition of antisemitism created in the US behind closed doors and never worked on. You will remember the first attempt was by a Lecturer to take his Union to court for antisemitism because his feelings got hurt when they discussed Israel and he argued, similarly to the way put above by IHRA that Israel was a part of him and hence to criticise Israel was antisemitism. You will remember the judge threw this out of court and suggested he kept away from meetings if they affected him so much.

    Israel is **** scared of BDS http://mondoweiss.net/2017/04/against-boycott-leaders/

    I think that is what this 'moral crusade' or more accurately McCarthyism is about. However due to the fact that it itself is arguably antisemitic by lumping all Jews together and also interferes with human rights and free expression right up to higher education, it may well end up coming to the courts. I think Latherty a battle is on. It appears to be one till now Ken was willing to take on but it may as you say end up in the courts though possibly on a more general level than Livingstone.
     
  22. Latherty

    Latherty Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    5,989
    Likes Received:
    489
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I am just bitterly disappointed that there is not a single person in the public sphere that will stand up and be counted with him.
     
  23. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    18,965
    Likes Received:
    3,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    It is fascinating. I am guessing people are afraid of their future. He was though criticised even by people who did not think he was antisemetic for being very clumsy and of course he is not prepared to meet them half way to allow it to be brushed under the carpet and that is just Ken being Ken but the venom, the hate, the exaggerations basically we are moving away from free speech. Dead easy as you can see.
     
  24. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    18,965
    Likes Received:
    3,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Again, looking at this within the wider context and with the intent to force by one way or another the IHRA working definition of antisemitism which is designed to stop free speech on Israel. This is already causing problems on free speech at our Universities. Academics make their position known to the Guardian

    https://www.theguardian.com/educati...ity-wrong-to-ban-israeli-apartheid-week-event

    Long list of academics at link.

    The Campaign on antisemitism is a group which formed itself after the 2014 attack on Gaza to prove that Britain was beyond the pale on antisemitism in order to be able to push for things, like the above. It came out with surveys claiming that about 40% of the English were antisemetic. May accepted this as true. It was accepted by everyone else as not being valid research. Antisemitism in the UK has since been found to be around 7% which is one of the lowest there is. They claim to be a charity but keep their funding private and it is believed to come from an Israeli source.

    It is important for people to be aware that despite May claiming this is the legal definition of antsemitism in the UK, it is not legally binding.

    http://freespeechonisrael.org.uk/qcopinion/

    Labour of course is intending on forcing all its people to adopt this definition which takes away free speech on Israel to fit their political objectives - that is to give unconditional support to Israel and condemn people who believe in justice or rights or safety for Palestinians - to be frank to allow Israel to do her final solution - stealing of 62% of what was to have been the Palestinian State and forcing the remaining Palestinians to live for ever in isolated bantustans with no hope and rights for eternity.

    Last week South Hackney Labour decided not to go by the IHRA definition because it silences free speech.

    https://twitter.com/search?q=IHRA+antisemitism+free+speech&partner=Firefox&source=desktop-search

    Hopefully more have and more will as it becomes clear contrary to what May said there is no legal obligation to follow it and its intent is to stop free speech on the Israel/Palestinian conflict - something a genuine democracy would not do.

    Obviously academic institutions already know what is going on given the previous attempt to make it illegal for them to freely discuss Israel - a court case which John Mann was unsurprisingly intimately involved in. Hopefully the fight against this attempt to stereotype all Jews as being of one orientation and to stop free speech on Israel will grow and succeed and free speech will prevail in a supposed democracy. It looks like it will at the same time destroy the Labour Party.
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2017
  25. alexa

    alexa Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    18,965
    Likes Received:
    3,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    On Livingstone, Dianne Abbott said last night on Question time that she believed the reason the Labour tribunal or whatever it was came to the decision it did was because if they expelled him he was going to take it to court and they thought they might not win.
     

Share This Page