February 12
2005
We must ensure Livingstone is drummed out of office
» Posted on February 12, 2005 01:56 PM » Category: Anti-semitism

Harry has an interesting post on the all-too-typical reaction of an SWP blogger to the disturbing evidence of a rise in anti-Semitic attacks.

The atmosphere isn't helped when the Mayor of London reveals his true colours.

I freely admit that I was wrong to support his reelection. In the first election, I voted tactically (for Steve Norris) to stop Livingstone. By the time of his second contest, I had placed my personal loathing of the man beneath my support for the congestion charge and through gritted teeth decided that he had behaved relatively reasonably as Mayor; and so, in what was effectively a referendum on the policy, I would have to vote for him.

I was wrong. Sometimes there are things which are more important than policy divides - and having so vile a man, with his support for anti-Semitic, anti-female monsters such as al Qaradawi, as the elected representative of the greatest city in the world (after New York City, perhaps!) is too high a price.

If only we had a recall mechanism as in California. But since we don't, it is incumbent on anyone who despises anti-Semitism, or who believes that the Mayor of London should not act as a sponsor to those who support wife-beating, to do everything we can to ensure that this odious man is never elected to anything again.


MessageSpace
Comments

Well, it took you long enough Stephen, but better late than never.

Stated by: Just Another Richard on February 12, 2005 2:14 PM

David Blunkett is the greatest politician that ever lived!

Stated by: Jack Green on February 12, 2005 2:25 PM

Any Londoner who feels ashamed at having a vain, bigoted, anti-semitic lout as Mayor, might like to email or telephone his or her constituency member to register this fact before the Assmebly meeting on Monday at which the Assembly will call on the Mayor to apologise for his behaviour. Details are on:

http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/lams_facts_cont.jsp

Denise

Stated by: Denise Green on February 12, 2005 3:14 PM

Livingstone has been criticised for not towing the party line in the past, but now that he is following Blair's example and pandering to anti-semitism he still gets criticised!

In the light of the tactics that Blair is using for the election, (Fagin posters & innsinuations about Howard's jewishness in a muslim paper) shouldn't people direct their ire at him primarily rather than someone like Livingstone, who we already know is a supporter of every vile ideology going.

Stated by: Ross on February 12, 2005 4:41 PM

Is the major allowed to continue in office if convicted of a criminal offense? Maybe thats the best recall solution. Some PC out there might just come to the conlcusion that his behavior is increasingly verging on incitement to racial hatred. But I doubt it

Stated by: Giles on February 12, 2005 4:50 PM

Well what a surprise, the left is Jew bashing yet again. It's all part of the tradition, comrades. I've written to the new chief of the Met demanding an investigation but I don't expect him to do a damn thing about it. By the way, thanks Stephen. What on earth did you think you were voting for? Was it a nice, cuddly, cutesy Livingstone? Support for the congestion tax is bizarre anyway, yet he's been such a vile cancer in London politics for so many years that no policies he may hold can make him an acceptable choice. This episode has glossed over the fact that Livingstone was approached leaving a party to celebrate the 20th anniversary of Chris Smith stating in public he's gay (as if anyone should give a damn.) This is a party paid for by the London taxpayer. No questions asked, no justification. They just took your money to pay for it. They obviously think the London taxpayer is one great sucker. No wonder there's an exodus.

Stated by: Pete_London on February 12, 2005 5:16 PM

Harry's Place's "interesting post" imputes to me views which I do not hold and maligns me as a 'former' anti-Fascist. Whether my reaction is 'typical' is up for discussion, but I sort of doubt it. As it happens, I was following the lead of a Jewish anti-Zionist blogger who is, like me, a staunch opponent of anti-Semitism, racism and fascism. It is possible that I have got it wrong, but the insinuation that I blame Jews for their own suffering is disgraceful and wrong. Just so that you know.

Stated by: lenin on February 12, 2005 8:35 PM

The best quote of the whole affair is Kens': "You can't expect to work for the Daily Mail group and have the rest of society treat you with respect and as if you're a useful part of society. You are not."

I'm impressed at the vigour with which right-wing reactionaries have approprated liberal concepts of racial equality and human rights, and now use them to try and justify their own excesses to ordinary people. So when Livingstone rightly upbraids someone Jewish for working for a fascist organisation, it's the mayor rather than the hack who gets smeared as antisemitic...

Stated by: john b on February 13, 2005 10:59 AM

"So when Livingstone rightly upbraids someone Jewish for working for a fascist organisation"

Are you saying that Associated Newspapers is a fascist organisation? If so then:

(a) You are insane or idiotic .(I suspect a bit of both)
(b) You should be condemning Livingstone for haveing worked for that same 'fascist' organisation a few years ago.

Stated by: Ross on February 13, 2005 11:50 AM

Have you ever read the Daily Mail? I recommend acquiring a copy (unpleasant, I know), and reading it alongside a definition of 'fascism'. This one may suffice. You should have little trouble encountering editorial comment that matches up with the four key bullet points in said definition.

Stated by: john b on February 13, 2005 12:10 PM

John B

Yeah the Daily Mail are like really fascist aren't they? Just like my parents, who were like total fascists and like wouldn't even let me go out when I wanted to.

Put a sock in it. One of the most irritating habits of leftists is to appropriate caring, suggesting that only people who follow their ideology can possibly care about others. The other is the habit they have of describing people who don't subscribe to their views as reactionary. When you go on about the Mail being a fascist organisation it is you that sounds like a reactionary. I notice that you are associated with something called Stalinism.com. Assuming that this is not intended to be ironic (you are either a master of irony or incapable of it- I can't tell which) I think that you should take a long hard look at yourself in the mirror before shouting reactionary at anyone else.

Stated by: Denise Green on February 13, 2005 5:24 PM

I am glad to see you have truly come round Pollard. It takes a big man to admit he has been wrong about something. Lets just hope a lot of other people who voted like you feel the same way.

Stated by: Andrew Ian Dodge on February 13, 2005 6:08 PM

Watching from the sidelines so to speak I have a question or two.
John B.
The Daily Mail fascists you refer to; are they like those Democrats in the US who shot up Republican offices, broke arms and resorted to other violence to try and force their opinion on others?

Lenin,
" I was following the lead of a Jewish anti-Zionist blogger .."
Was he anti-zionist cause he didn't want to "have" to live there?
Cause he doesn't know the history of it all or because he was captivated by the lies and spin of the Arabs and the MSM?
See the link for what I mean:
http://backspin.typepad.com/backspin/2005/02/bbcs_deep_thoug.html#comments
You will have to see the comments from the BBC site if that has not been removed.

By the way I cannot truly believe that Melanie Phillips is a fscist!

Stated by: Cynic on February 13, 2005 6:32 PM

"Jewish anti-Zionist blogger who is, like me, a staunch opponent of anti-Semitism, racism and fascism."

To oppose the Jewish right to self-determination is pure anti-Semitism. The fact that you hide behind the skirts of a Jewish anti-Semite makes you no less of a Jew-hater.

Alone among nations, Israel's right to exist is constantly questioned, most especially by European anti-Semitic gentiles and their Jewish collaborators. Poland actively persecuted its Jewish citizens during the 1930s. During the Holocaust, millions of Poles actively collaborated with the Nazis to murder over 3 million Polish Jewish citizens. After the war, Poland ethnically cleansed over 2 million ethnic Germans, initiated progroms against its few remaining Jews, and made final the massive theft of property by gentile Poles of the Jews they had murdered in the Holocaust. Today, even in the almost total absence of Jews, anti-Semitism is rampant in Poland, and yet that country has been warmly welcomed into the EU. So, how come no one ever questions the right of Poland to exist, or indeed, any one of the large number of countries that directly collaborated with the Nazis in the carefully planned mass-murder of 1.5 million Jewish children - France, Holland, Belgium, Croatia, Lithuania, Hungary, Latvia, Estonia, Austria, Romania, Slovakia, The Czech Republic, Belarus, Ukraine?

And what of you, Perfidious Albion? Do you think we'll ever forget the sight of Judas Britain washing her hands of the "Jewish problem" at Evian, Bermuda or in her 1939 White Paper? Do you think we do not remember your failure to bomb the railway tracks at Auschwitz, or your Nazi-like behavior in post-war Palestine (behavior which did more to bring into being the State of Israel than any other single thing)?

Nothing reeks quite so badly as the stench of gentile hypocrisy, most especially when it comes from the the world's new Nazis - the European left.

Today, unapologetically, the British Labour Party flirts openly with anti-Semitism, anti-Semitic posters are prepared by leading figures in that party, the Labour Mayor of London perfoms a passable impersonation of a Nazi mayor of Vienna, circa 1938, and Britain is the only country in Europe where anti-Semitism is not only rising, but rising substantially.

Put you own ramshackle, rotten houses in order, in Britain and Europe, before you turn you attentions to the remnants of the people your society virtually wiped out sixty years ago.

Stated by: Jupiter on February 13, 2005 11:07 PM

It's worth following John B's link to a definition of Facism. It reads as follows. ....In 1947, Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises published a short book entitled "Planned Chaos". He asserted that fascism and Nazism were socialist dictatorships and that both had been committed to the Soviet principle of dictatorship and violent oppression of dissenters. I'm sure John B would describe himself as a socialist. Is he proud of the company he keeps? Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Livingston. John, don't bother buying the Mail, just look in the mirror instead you moron.

Stated by: Rob on February 13, 2005 11:27 PM

You lot are living on Fantasy Island, not in London. You should get out more, especially in Zone 1. Ken's done a good job in areas of local government where he has power, and I expect him to go on winning mayoralty elections as long as his policies remain on present lines. Nobody but little cliques are interested in this Jews-and-Arabs stuff. Down my way a lot of people who voted Tory for the GLA voted for Ken over Norris because he gets results.

Stated by: Gorblimey on February 14, 2005 12:56 AM

Jupiter

If you will argue against one blogger - 'lenin' - then direct that towards him/her/it. Apart from myself I recognise at least two Brits (above) who are on your side so do put the scatter gun down.

Rob

The fact that Fascism/Nazism is simply socialism by another name is a truth which demands constant repetition. The one and only undeniable triumph of the socialists has been to convince the world that WW2 and the Holocaust were the actions of 'right wing' fascists and that the left is opposed to 'fascism'.

Stated by: Pete_London on February 14, 2005 2:19 AM

er, Jupiter, I may have missed it, but I don't remember repeated bombing strikes by the Israeli air force on the Cambodian killing fields, when children were worked and starved to death by Khmer fanatics and eight year old kids were burying their own parents.

I also haven't noticed any on the North Korean concentration camps.

Jews have a tragic past and current, legitimate concerns and complaints; but they don't hold the patent on shattered lives, and they are not without sin.

Stated by: Nancy on February 14, 2005 5:14 AM

Is it my imagination or did the media devote considerably more time to Prince Harry's armband than they have to Livingstone's remarks?

Stated by: Hermes Trismegistus on February 14, 2005 12:26 PM

Nancy,
"Jews have a tragic past and current, legitimate concerns and complaints; but they don't hold the patent on shattered lives, and they are not without sin."

Then why are they under the world's microscope to the exclusion of all those other despotic regimes.
And what sin of the Jews (collective : note Ed.) compared to Pol Pot's, the Chinese in Tibet, the Sudanese Arabs in Darfur, Rawanda, etc., makes them the choice for vilification?

Stated by: Cynic on February 14, 2005 2:13 PM

Personally, I do not like the Daily Mail.

However, it does not excuse Red Kens behaviour. The difference of the treatment of Kilroy Silk (didn't he get sacked from the BBC for some kind of racist comment) and Ken is interesting. Left wingers generally get a better treatment. However, I think this is because real left wingers (i.e not the current labour party) are not really taken seriously. Their opinions are only there to be laughed at.

Stated by: Bill on February 14, 2005 3:02 PM

Cynic - if Ken had criticised a Cambodian journalist for working for a Khmer Rouge-friendly newspaper, or a Darfurian journalist for working for a Janjaweed-friendly newspaper, then there wouldn't have been any fuss at all.

Rob - that's an impressive piece of selective quoting. The Mises quote is a very small portion of a large article, mentioned ain the context of a discussion of whether socialism and fascism can be viewed as equivalent. While some hardcore libertarians like Mises refuse to see any difference, the mainstream consensus is that there is a significant one.

Anyway, since I'm socially libertarian, economically free-market-ish and antiwar, I'd absolutely reject any comparisons with Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin (who were socially authoritarian, economically corporatist or communist, and pro-war). I suspect my views on social issues and the merits of bombing people are roughly in line with Ken's, but I certainly wouldn't trust him with tax-raising powers.

Stated by: john b on February 14, 2005 5:27 PM

While some hardcore libertarians like Mises refuse to see any difference, the mainstream consensus is that there is a significant one.

The mainstream consensus is thus utterly wrong. Communism and Nazism are two sides of the same coin. Its because of this concensus that left-wing academics get away with saying that Stalin's (or Pol Pot or Mao) mass killings were not "as bad" because they "meant well."

I think that this Ken row would have been much lower profile (which would not have been good) except for the fact that the Olympics mob are in town. It would be truly wonderful if Ken's vile comments not only got him booted but made sure the Olympics did not come to London as well. Two leeches of taxpayers money gone in one single blow!

Stated by: Andrew Ian Dodge on February 15, 2005 1:48 PM

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this particular spat between Livingstone and Associated Newspapers,the level to which the debate has sunk, the infantile nature of the behaviour of both sides, has done a profound disservice to the people of London. The reality is that our political culture is being undermined by the confrontational nature of our public discourse. We live in a political culture which is in danger of undermining the credibility of our democratic system. Ordinary citizens look on at this public spectacle with resigned bemusement.

Stated by: James Morris on February 15, 2005 5:08 PM

Why is everyone focusing on Livingstone's comments when anti-Semitic attacks have invreased by 50% in the UK. I am more concerned that one cannot safely walk that streets of London if one is wearing anything that points one as being visibly Jewish.

Why is it that I can walk the streets of any city in the US wearing a Jewish star or a skullcap, but in London I cannot safetly wear a Jewish star or a skullcap.

Stated by: Susan on February 15, 2005 8:29 PM

The ‘Daily Mail is fascist’ squawk is simply a device by which Guardian readers project their inner tyranophilia onto others. And if we delve into the history of the Guardian we find such humanitarian gems as these:

1. It holds the dubious honour of being the last mainstream Western paper to support Pol Pot, its correspondent Malcolm Caldwell filing sycophantically pro Khmer Rouge copy until the day he was himself killed by a KR splinter group. By the time of Caldwell’s death in 1978, Pol Pot’s supporters had murdered an estimated 1.5 million of their fellow citizens;

2. It supported (in an editorial column no less) General Jaruzelski’s imposition of martial law and suppression of the Solidarity trade union in December 1981;

3. Its Latin American correspondent, Richard Gott, backed the Argentine military’s ferocious coup of March 1976, the advent of a tyranny that went on to murder between 10,000 and 30,000 dissidents. (By the way, Gott was later exposed as a Soviet agent. No, no, don’t ask; it get horribly complicated).

And we may remember that if that paper had had its way both Milosevic and Saddam would retain power and Kuwait would be the southern enclave of a Ba’athist republic.

Bet I know which paper John B reads.

Stated by: Phil J on February 15, 2005 8:44 PM

Susan: "Why is it that I can walk the streets of any city in the US wearing a Jewish star or a skullcap, but in London I cannot safetly wear a Jewish star or a skullcap."

You want to wear a kippa on the street, girly? Shame on you!

I'm sure that visibly Jewish pedestrians will be *much* safer if a twice democratically elected mayor is hounded from office by a Jewish agitation about a drunken aside at a party.

Stated by: Jakob de Haan on February 16, 2005 9:38 AM

Why is it that I can walk the streets of any city in the US wearing a Jewish star or a skullcap, but in London I cannot safetly wear a Jewish star or a skullcap.

Yes you can; you just need to not read the crap published on right-wing American websites. There are 150,000 Jewish people in London; 83 were assaulted last year. That's a 0.05% chance of assault.

I'd be interested to see comparable figures for US cities...

Stated by: john b on February 16, 2005 10:43 AM

John B

I challenge you to wear a skullcap on the streets of London and for at least a week and report how you were treated here.

Stated by: Susan on February 16, 2005 4:54 PM

"I'm sure that visibly Jewish pedestrians will be *much* safer if a twice democratically elected mayor is hounded from office by a Jewish agitation about a drunken aside at a party."

That doesn't even make any sense. If Ken Livingstone loses why should anyone assume that he is being hounded from office by Jews unless you are an anti-Semite who believe that Jews have to much power.

You are telling me that Jews should shut up because if Livingstone loses the Jews will be blamed.

Stated by: Susan on February 16, 2005 5:05 PM

Susan: Londoners will assume he is being hounded from office by Jews because Jews (through the Board of Deputies) began the campaign, and have been seen nightly on our TV screens clamouring for his head.

Livingstone is closer to a folk hero than most British politicians. He is liked by numbers of ordinary people, and granted a kind of amused, exasperated tolerance by others. That is more than can be said for Greville Janner or Mike Whine. Other Jews with more savvy than you apparently possess have deprecated the fuss, but the Middle Eastern thugs who beat up Jewish-looking pedestrians won't hold off on that account.

Stated by: Jakob de Haan on February 17, 2005 10:59 AM

Jakob,

I originally said that the important issue was the rise in anti-Semitism in the UK, not Livingstone's sideshow. You are the one who brought up that Jews would be blamed. I was just responding to you.

The Board of Deputies should have the right to speak up against what they see as offensive comments without wondering whether they will be blamed. I guess I don't have saavy. I don't believe that Jews should be timid and be afraid to speak up because what will people think of us or people will blame us.

Comparisons to the Nazis and the Holocaust trivailize the suffering of the victims. It is a form of Holocaust denial.

Also, I notice that certain people can get away with offensive and even anti-Semitic comments because they are "characters". That is not an excuse.

Stated by: Susan on February 17, 2005 5:00 PM

Really can't bebothered to read all those comments; lest I agree with Stephen, and have said this many many times on various UK & US blogs....; Red Ken OUT OF OFFICE

Stated by: freestar on February 17, 2005 8:53 PM

I am a great believer in the maxim that we get the politicians we deserve. Our trashy society deserves trashy politicians like Livingtsone. I have been trying unsuccessfully for years to make people understand that he is not a cuddly cheeky chappy but a very nasty piece of work. Now perhaps they will start to listen. The way to deal with nasty, offensivem, moronic and trashy politicians like Livingstone is not to take them to Standards Committtees but to not vote for them.

Stated by: Ex-Brent Con on February 17, 2005 9:25 PM
Stated by: live webcams sex on May 29, 2005 3:03 AM
Stated by: olo on December 16, 2005 9:20 AM
Stated by: Ginger on December 29, 2005 10:41 AM
Stated by: Ginger on January 12, 2006 3:02 PM
Post a comment

    


    •