Harry’s Place

We have a zero-tolerance policy on antisemitic postings or any other form of hate speech

LOL. Complete disconnect from reality.

Juan Cole called. Said this is all a misinterpretation.

What an absolute fucking shower. I never read that cesspit anyway. Full of all sorts of people who think they’re terribly clever-clever, when all they’re doing is recycling standard liberal boilerplate, occasionally with an added spicy dash of conspiricism or anti-semitism.

Glad you got her sacked. Congrats. But what you say is true - we all know that some on the left are becoming increasingly inured to noticing racism of this sort. A problem.

So is this creep banned completely? Or just “above the line”?

Without wishing to rush to the defence of the Guardian, Matt Seaton’s explanation is that the department that decides who posts on CiF is completely separate from the comment moderation department.

If that explanation (plausible or not) is accepted, then it is a little harder to argue that people on the Guardian are inured to racism. Her racist comments were deleted, and her 2 articles written for CiF don’t seem to contain any (overt) wingnuttery. One was about an Iranian filmmaker, the other about drugs in Afghanistan - certainly nothing that would ring any alarm bells.

Or am I missing something?

Here’s something about Tehrankid77 I just found while googling:

“Soraya Tehrani is a pseudonym. The author is an Iranian woman currently working as an accountant for a children’s charity in London. She comments on Cif using the name tehrankid77.”

I wonder which charity she works for, and whether they’d continue to want someone who is so full of hatred and racism?

>It just won’t have registered with them that a good chunk of her postings are filled with bile about of Jewish world domination.

Really?

I think this is a little nieve.

There are many at the Guardian who agree with her, or they would not have hired her.

Do you think tht you know what she’s written, but they don’t.

Come on.. wake up.. stop making excuses!

I competely accept Matt’s explanation. Tehrankid77 evidently just didn’t strike anybody as a racist.

That may be because they never read her most racist posts because they’d been deleted. Or it may have just been that her racism didn’t registed with whoever found her an exciting “voice”.

That’s not how she appeared to me. Tehrankid77 struck me as a hysterical near illiterate racist lunatic.

But perhaps I’m just more tuned in to this sort of stuff.

David -

I competely accept Matt’s explanation. Tehrankid77 evidently just didn’t strike anybody as a racist.

That may be because they never read her most racist posts because they’d been deleted. Or it may have just been that her racism didn’t registed with whoever found her an exciting “voice”.

That doesn’t quite follow. Surely, if you completely accept his explanation, then only the former option is valid?

As he argues

If we had been aware of Tehrankid77’s record of posting, we would never have accepted her as a contributor

Or it may have just been that her racism didn’t registed with whoever found her an exciting “voice”.

Indeed. I’d wager the staff at the Guardian considers Iranians to be a victim of the US and associates. Therefore this woman couldn’t possibly be a racist - she’s Iranian (victim).

I wonder which charity she works for, and whether they’d continue to want someone who is so full of hatred and racism

Maybe the reason she posts under a pseudonym, is because she doesnt want to “aggravate” her employer

I wonder if that rings familiar with someone?

Without wishing to rush to the defence of the Guardian, Matt Seaton’s explanation is that the department that decides who posts on CiF is completely separate from the comment moderation department.

Having worked for a multimedia arm of a major British telecommunications company, I’d just like to say, hahahahahahahahaha!

That said, credit where credit’s due. My hope is that this indicates a similar sea-change to that which I hope Bunglawala’s latest comments indicate. There would appear to still be a realization of where the pale extend to, even if the dividing fence is low and sometimes obscured by vegetation. As David says:

Or it may have just been that her racism didn’t registed with whoever found her an exciting “voice”.

Did this same individual find her “fascinating”?

Kudos to Matt. He realised that a mistake had been made , he realises that the vetting procedure needs improving and his approach is to be welcomed.

I know the following to be true. In 2006 the BBC Messageboards were moderated by an outside company. I have it in a letter frm the BBC.

Is CiF moderated by an outside company? Is this why the two departments were physically separated? Doesn’t this mean that there could be some rogue Moderators who either don’t understand antisemitism - or ignore it?

I also know for a fact that the Moderation of the BBC messageboards was supposed to be to the BBC Editorial standard. I don’t believe that this was enforced because the moderation was by this outside company. A test ought to be, if Editorial standards are the measure, “Would the BBC/Guardian publish this in their paper or website as a news commentary?”

The antisemitism at CiF has grown to the point where its so commonplace that the milder stuff (according to judgement) is left there because of the volume. “Surely, so many people can’t be wrong?” must be some criteria used to let things pass. They become anaesthetised towards it.

Oh, and congratulations to David Toube for finally getting someone sacked from the Guardian, but after miserably failing in his attempts to oust Seamus Milne, Neil Clark, Neil Clarks wife et al, he has had stoop to getting a lowly blogger the sack.

Well done David, what a big man.

“Well done David, what a big man”

Abou Diaby, whoever you are, I very much doubt you’ve ever been on the receiving end of racism, though I strongly suspect you given more than your fair share of it.

Both my suggestions are possible.

Tehrankid77, as you can see, writes in what to a sensible person, would appear to be a semi coherent hateful scrawl. Her comments are delivered in a style which, in the days of pen and ink, was known as “green ink”.

Now, when I see somebody write like that, my expectation is that they’re a nutter. This is precisely the sort of style that I associate with those who ramble on about plots and conspiracies.

I suspect that it was this style which caught the eye of her commissioners at the Guardian.

My guess is that they read her pieces, and thought “here’s the authentic voice of the true Persian: passionate, inspired, committed”, rather than “uh oh - a nutter!”.

That person might well never have seen the “SUPER-masters in Tel Aviv” warblings. But even if they’d never seen a deleted post, all the warning signs should have been there.

The Guardian has done this before, incidentally: with the Muslim Brotherhood activist, Faisal Bodi. He had previously written commissioned articles for the print edition of the Guardian, about women’s refuges, where he described Sharia as a “sharp sword” and continued:

Take women’s refuges. Not without cause do we view them with suspicion and mistrust. Refuges tear apart our families. Once a girl has walked in through their door, they do their best to stop her ever returning home. That is at odds with the Islamic impulse to maintain the integrity of the family. Instead of being a kneejerk response, we want refuges to be last resorts, where victims can turn after all efforts to resolve the dispute have been exhausted.

Because they are founded on the assumption that religion is responsible for women’s misery, some refuges are inherently Islamophobic. One refuge in the Midlands is currently the subject of an industrial tribunal because it sacked a Muslim worker who had distributed religious literature. Muslim refuge workers report the preponderance of homosexuality among residents and staff.

The thing is, there is a certain tendency among white liberals (and, of course, Islamists, and Islamophobes as well) to read a piece like that which, from a Christian, Jew or athiest, they’d find repellent , but take it as par for the course for a person they’d regard as a real, authentic Muslim. It is noble savagery.

Nevertheless, they also missed the warning signs with Faisal Bodi, and had him back as a CiF blogger.

What finally caused his sacking was that he made the mistake of calling Sunny a “coconut”. That’s right, a racist comment at a “brown person”, they finally recognised as the mark of a bigot and a loon.

Abou Diaby,

Please re-read the post, David T didn’t get anyone “sacked”, instead the Guardian stopped commissioning articles from a vicious racist

now of course, if you feel that the Guardian should be publishing anti-Jewish racism then probably nothing that anyone writes here will change your mind on the matter, but that’s a different subject

It’s been unfairly said that Zuzana Clark is the daughter of what Neil would have called a quisling. Had she been an Iraqi.

This is not fair. She is the daughter of a high ranking party official.

Milne, however, is a semi-competent former editor of a Stalinist rag which supported the imvasion which installed ZC’s father, as well as Czechoslovakia in 1968 and, whilst Milne was there, Afghanistan..

And, leave Tilda Swinton alone. Just leave her alone.

Actually, it has happened three times. “We rock the boat” etc.

I might add this to the post.

David T

I hope you’ll meditate on what you have written and consider the bigotry displayed in your own comments section. There are many people who have disregarded Harrys Place because of it.

David — will you be moderating the bigots in your comments thread more carefully now? I know for a fact that there are many people who stay away from Harry’s Place because of the bigots and racist loons who frequent your fireside chats. What say you?

Matt Seaton said

If we had been aware of Tehrankid77’s record of posting, we would never have accepted her as a contributor

David, you then said

I competely accept Matt’s explanation

Before later writing

Now, when I see somebody write like that, my expectation is that they’re a nutter. This is precisely the sort of style that I associate with those who ramble on about plots and conspiracies. I suspect that it was this style which caught the eye of her commissioners at the Guardian.

This really doesn’t make sense.

You accept Seaton’s explanation (which is that the commissioners were unaware of her postings) and yet, simultaneously, you are arguing that it is those same postings that caught the eye of the commissioners.

Eh?

Actually, scotch that.

I’ve just re-read what you wrote, and seen that you argue it is her style, and not her postings, that caught they eye of the commissioners.

Apologies.

Mark, I’d say David is attempting to maintain a sense of professional decorum with Matt Seaton and CiF. I can appreciate this. Beyond the standard I/P and America-related threads, it can actually offer some good comment-based coverage.

I don’t loose sight of the fact that I/P and America-related threads are mired in the overspill from seething cesspits of political filth. As a even a partially-moderated forum, CiF bears a fair amount of responsibility for this. As I hope they will now take more seriously.

Note, David said, “But perhaps I’m just more tuned in to this sort of stuff”.

No but seriously. I think that if you look for this sort of stuff, it becomes easier to spot.

If you didn’t know about (say) the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or general conspiracy theorising, you’d treat the views of Holocaust Deniers, racial “biologists”, Jewish Power theorists, and all sorts of nuttiness, as just some neutral presentation of a possible theory.

What should give the game away is that (a) these people are usually nutters and malcontents (b) and they show it in the way they write.

Yes, they do miss the warning signs. Some of the warning signs are apparent to those who take a close interest in the ins and outs of extreme politics. But not everybody train-spots about this sort of thing. So I think failing to miss this sort of stuff is, quite possibly, just an innocent error.

What isn’t an innocent error, however, is the failure to pick up on the tone of the discussion. A sensible person can pick up on the rantings of a nutter. They just have a particular style. That’s why fascist parties never really manage to rebrand. The bile just can’t be buttoned up.

You only miss that sort of thing if, for example, you think it natural from the sort of people you’re dealing with. That’s what I think we’re seeing here. Tehrankid77, Faisal Bodi, and Dipazier Aslam all acted like nutters. But whoever commissioned them thought: “ah - passionate, angry, committed - that’s a genuine Muslim.

Or, alternatively, if you share the perspective of these late posters.

Getting it done while the media’s temporarily distracted from bashing Brown by covering the US bailout bill shows the sort of political nous that’s been severely lacking recently. Wonder if it was Peter’s idea?

I recall being systematically censored on CiF during a thread about oligarchs in Russia as one poster was pushing the National Bolshevik line that Jews had been behind both, whilst these claims remained. Ferkin’ morons.

But whoever commissioned them thought: “ah - passionate, angry, committed - that’s a genuine Muslim.

Sadly, for those who aren’t, that’s how they’re seen. They need a friendly dictator to rule them.

Okay, have we determined why Benji was sacked?

CiF is possibly the best exercise of freedom of speech next to Guido. In both cases, really nasty people (including me) are allowed to tell it like they see it. If a rabid anti-Semite wishes to express a pornographic opinion, we as adults should take what we can from it to get a better view of the real world and be better able to cope with it. Turning your back on all the hate in the world is ultimately futile. Only by facing, and then understanding evil can humanity hope to contain it. If I, who am slightly to the right of Genghis Khan, can understand this, all you be-cardiganed sandal-footed Lefties with inately superior intellects should see it too. One does not defeat evil by pretending it doesn’t exist. Pause a minute, and reflect on the phrase. “The light shone in the Darkness, and the Darkness knew it not”

This is a tendency common to certain white liberals, Islamists, and out and out Islamophobes. They read a piece that, coming from a Christian, Jew, athiest - even Hindu or Sikh - they’d find repellent. However, if it comes from a Muslim, they treat it as the mark of authenticity.

No kidding?

Beyond the standard I/P and America-related threads, it can actually offer some good comment-based coverage.
Their ill judgment does extend into other class war related areas, such as the ghastly post by Tanya Gold on smashing Oxbridge the other day, linked to in a post on HP, and commented on by norm.

It is pretty cool that David T busted CiF’s ass. They’ve had it coming for a while. I’d like to see a more broadly circulated mia culpa though. An email to a relatively obscure blogger doesn’t cut it.

Good lord. What a dreadful article from that Gold woman. Pathetic. One wonders if she is trying to excuse her “low 2:2″. I had loads of fun, and I didn’t even go to a proper college (it was founded in the nineteenth century - very infradig). She went to Merton - no excuse.

“Tehrankid77, Faisal Bodi, and Dipazier Aslam all acted like nutters.”

Really? I thought they were terribly sassy. You should add it to the article - it’s a pattern of behaviour!

To be fair to the Guardian, and in particular to certain staff there, CiF has significantly improved its moderation in recent months.

Nevertheless, as CiF is Guardian not Socialist Worker, the onus should be on them to proactively edit their product - rather than upon concerned individuals and monitoring groups needing to waste time and expense upon finding and flagging up dodgy content.

Tehrankid77 evidently just didn’t strike anybody as a racist.
… it may have just been that her racism didn’t registed with whoever found her an exciting “voice”.

That’s a tautology: she didn’t strike them as racist = her racism didn’t register. That’s not an explanation, only a statement of an identity.
The reason WHY she didn’t strike them as racist is that this rag is full of people who spout racism but will not admit that they can be racist - after all, they are good and honourable people, they say so themselves so it must be true; and furthermore, a non-white ‘can’t be racist’ by definition.
That doesn’t mean that they are not racist.

OT: Depth perception unecessary for women, apparently.

That’s a tautology: she didn’t strike them as racist = her racism didn’t register.

No, that’s a fallacy. A tautology may be “a prejudiced racist”.

I don’t know if anyone else cringed at this antisemitic rantette by Barbara Ellen in last Sunday’s Observer. It makes me anxious not to buy anything from the Guardian stable again, Matt Seaton or not.

Criticised for not also playing Palestine, and for costing more to protect than President Bush, McCartney could only blather pompously about ‘helping the peace process in my own small way [blahhh] talking to Palestinians and Israelis, [drone] finding out for myself what the situation is’. Oh the agonising stupidity and arrogance of the man! What next - an appearance in bin Laden’s next cave video. ‘Come on, Osama, pull up a tasselled cushion and let al-Qaeda give peace a chance!’

At first, I thought, this isn’t McCartney’s fault. Such is the Fab Four’s influence that, just like the Queen smells fresh paint everywhere she goes, all Macca hears is Beatles worship: ‘We love you Paul, your music heals us’ and all that suck-up. Hence the possibility that McCartney genuinely believes that the Israel-Palestine conflict can be helped with a quick burst of ‘Yesterday’ and a cheeky thumbs-up.

Then a dark thought occurred. Was Tel Aviv just more evidence that McCartney is the most pussy-whipped music icon ever? A former Beatle who lets his birds boss him around and tell him what to do.

Think about it. It was lovely Linda who turned Paul on to vegetarianism. Then there was all that rolling about with seals with Heather. Now he has a Jewish girlfriend, the glamorous Nancy Shevell, he’s suddenly playing concerts in Israel and ‘finding out for myself what the situation is’.

Suspicious? I think so. Let us pray that I’m wrong.

It’s the world Jewish conspiracy writ small.

Blimey, you have spent a lot of time discussing CiF, for someone who apparently doesn’t read it!

Rather, it is a publication that believes that the essential Muslim is an angry, hateful ranter.

This is not true of HP, of course, who regularly discusses moderate Islam, rather than just the nasty stuff, and has many moderate Muslim writers contributing. Ho ho.

Here’s another one of tehrankid’s pearls, this one a comment on her own recent thread, where she respond to another poster’s comment:

• tehrankid77
Sep 12 08, 12:50pm
.~Ironclaws…
Have you mustered up the courage to comment on your nations holocaust denial conferences yet?
check the following link for yourself and perhaps you can answer some of Ahmadinejaad’s reasonable questions… He does NOT deny the holocaust….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykd-syzZ4ZY

Yeah, she seems to think that Ahmadinejad has “reasonable questions” about the Holocaust…

I heard the word coconut being used in letters to Q-News on at least two occasions (I can’t remember having heard it used in an article). I wrote letters pointing out the racist nature of the term, but never had them printed. As a white convert to Islam, I found it particularly offensive that “white on the inside” implied insincerity, i.e. a Muslim was brown, the enemy was white. I suspect that the term is common among Asians, but I recall seeing a black character on Brookside called Mick saying something like “nobody’s going to call me a coconut”, pointing out that it meant brown on the outside, white on the inside.

(The opposite is a cappuccino, meaning white at the top and brown below, meaning someone with a superficial liberal stance who turns conservative once you get to know them, or marry them.)

I have checked the comment threads in CiF today; there are no slews of antisemitism and racism that is suggested takes place.

I think its natural that HP and its commenters would not like the liberal left views expressed there - whether they be expressed over the US financial crisis or any other matter. But that is a separate matter.

There is nostalgic element here; some still see the Guardian as “their paper” even though they have grown away from leftism. But the Guardian has a job to do, a brand to protect, a function to perform.

Conservatives, neocons, Decents, naturally gravitate to the Times or the Telegraph, the Spectator, or other online publications more to their liking; there is no utility in fussing over the Guardian when you are going to consistently disagree with the political views expressed there - unless, of course, you are paid by them to do that.

I think its natural that HP and its commenters would not like the liberal left views expressed there

You think the default position of the liberal left is anti semitism?

you guys sure love censorship.

David T, Congrats for the Islamofascist ’scalp’…but fuck-it…you are quite the anorak!

Mark,

No. I think the reality is that most commenters here do not like a whole gamut of liberal left views, so they are not going to like the Guardian anyway. Its a mismatch. As regards antisemitism and racism, well, I have checked the comments at CiF today, and I have not found any yet.

As regards Davis T’s comments on stereotyping Muslims and only talking about the extreme elements, surely folk can detect the irony there?

Think about it. It was lovely Linda who turned Paul on to vegetarianism.

Just leave her alone….OK! Linda Mc Cartney on tambourines was the real talent behind ‘Wings’.

quisquis

Oh deeply shocking! To surmise that McCartney may be influenced by his girlfriend? My God! Whatever next? It’s an antisemitic conspiracy!

Racist and anti-semitic viewpoints should be expressed and argued against. Of course in a free society it is for the publications to decide ultimately what to print. But where you have a national newspaper I think they should reflect the opinions of their readership. The problem with something like a blog is of course that a small minority can post so much as to appear as a large minority or even a majority .

I think one should realise of course that what I would call illegitimate racism will overlap with legitimate genetics i.e. racists will make use of facts form genetic science. Similarly anti semites will make use of legitimate public policy arguments e.g. that it is not in our interests to sacrifice blood or treasure in defence of Israelis.

It’s better, so far as is practical, to have free debate and have these matters aired.

I think another benefit of free debate is that the victims of racism and anti-semitism are forced to address issues within their own communities e.g. Jewish exclusivity or absent fathers in the African-Caribbean community which will just get ignored if we try to stifle debate.

I must say I have changed my view on this. Some years ago, I was all for stifling debate, but several examples of Police forces using “hate laws” to try and stifle legitimate debate over bogus asylum seekers and the like have caused me to revise my opinion.

I now see the absolute necessity of defending free speech, even when it involves unpleasant views being expressed.

I agree with McCartney’s decision to visit Israel.
However, suggesting he might be influenced by his Jewish girlfriend in the decision is not antisemitic. I mean, blimey, so what if he was?

David T highlights the racist remarks of a blogger to the Guardian, to which they agree and sack the said blogger, and you claim he did this because he doesn’t like the liberal left?

Why do you believe anti semitism is the default position of the liberal left?

As regards antisemitism and racism, well, I have checked the comments at CiF today, and I have not found any yet.

Is this supposed to be a joke?

Speaking of moonbats…

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=2911

Does McCartney still believe we should “Give Ireland Back to the Irish”?

That one doesn’t normally figure in his set these days!

But then do Jefferson Starship/Airplane still do “Motherf*ckers Up Against the Wall”?

Mark

My comments were more general, not specifically aimed at David T, although I don’t think the Guardian could be described as his natural paper of choice. I do not believe antisemitism is the default position of the liberal left as I have said. The vast majority of comments at CiF are not antisemitic or racist.

Why would you make that point in response to David T successfully highlighting racism? Did you not read the post?

When did David T claim that the vast majority of comments are racist?

You think David T harping back to a time when racist commentators didn’t slip through the net is outdated and a sign of shifting to the right?

Benjamin, I now understand why they call you a troll.

Speaking of moonbats…

http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=2911

No need to worry, alex.

These are fringe idiots who are already a laughing stock in the lawmaking body. Not unlike George Galloway.

Mark

Of course its good when a racist is barred. However, David then made generalisations that are somewhat ironic to say the least. Moreover, some commenters clearly think CiF is more full of antisemitism that it actually is; the vast majority of comments are not antisemitic or racist. I also dispute quisquis comments regarding Barbara Ellen in the Observer.

Moreover, some commenters clearly think CiF is more full of antisemitism that it actually is

Maybe “above the line” preference has something to do with it. CiF not only tolerated racist shit, they gave it a platform. Cardinal sin.

Yusuf Smith The opposite is a cappuccino, meaning white at the top and brown below, meaning someone with a superficial liberal stance who turns conservative once you get to know them, or marry them.

Hi Yusuf. What would I care about her politics if she has money.

David T. Thank you for your efforts. I am banned from CI(F). (I see it as a mark of excellence). No explanation was given. I assume that it may have something to do with the way I write CI(F).. But I also castigate the looney left there as well.

Unacceptable the way Matt explained things. CI(F) has access to all TeheranKid’s postings going back 2 years now and if they didn’t know, it is because they didn’t want to know. Her article about the drugs from Afghanistan was anti western and that was all they wanted to know. It was also very badly researched and contained incorrect FACTS. Many posters pointed this out. Not unusual on CI(F).

CI(F) is a cesspool.

It will remain so until The Guardian gets rid of Georgina Henry who is a malevolent influence there and Milne who is an apologist for ‘freedom fighting’.

Matt Seaton ’seems’ very personable but, improvement is coming by small drips. Not too significant. A few obvious anti semitic posters have disappeared but who knows if they just tired of their own vitriol or if CI(F) has realised what they are and ‘cancelled’ them.

Like Hasbara Buster.

The only positive thing that I can say about CI(F) is that it rediscovered my Zionism for me. Reading the posts gave me a ‘mind jerk’ and forced me to respond to the completely unfair, biased and bigoted attacks on Israel and Jews.

Reading other posts there. I am not alone and CI(F), Seth Freedman and the great Richard Silverstien in particular, can be proud of that at least.

Clap.

Benjamin Moreover, some commenters clearly think CiF is more full of antisemitism that it actually is; the vast majority of comments are not antisemitic or racist./b

It’s who they are.

Also banned by CiF.
Seems that the overwhelming anti israel anti american and sometimes anti semitic comments would be far less overhwhelming if CiF didn’t ban many of those posting contrary comments.
Wasn’t quite sure why i’d been banned, my contributions seeming generous, reasonable, in comparison to those that i was responding to.
Interesting to note how many others here have been banned; leaving no doubt in my mind that CiF want their overall ‘tone’ to be exactly what it is.
For the Guardian and CiF, this is both ideology and business; they are protecting their franchise, ugly as it is, by banning/censoring much of the opposition on CiF, and by choosing extreme moslems as columnists, though feigning ignorance of these writers’ extremism.
Scumbags.

David T - well done

And Matt Seaton acted promptly and correctly

I see that “Soraya Tehrani” posts comments to her own CiF article “Battling the tyranny of drugs in Iran” under the name tehrankid77.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/12/iran.drugstrade

In one comment she defends President Ahmadinejad against the charge of Holocaust denial: “He does NOT deny the holocaust”,
and gives the link to this interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykd-syzZ4ZY

In fact the interview is a masterpiece of evasion, and Ahmadinejad does not explicitly deny denying the holocaust: “we should allow everyone to research and study it…historical events are always open to revision…”

Even if there was a failure of communication between CiF editors and the Guardian’s “community management team”, one is still left wondering what it was that first attracted CiF editors to Soraya Tehrani as a commentator for CiF.

I am being premoderated on CI(F) for the third time. I would like to know if CI(F) posters who try to counter the Israel-haters are more likely to be premoderated or banned than the Haters themselves.

I think we should be told.

I would make the usual comment to Benji, but I prefer not to use that kind of language. However, I make it in spirit.

The point is not that Barbara Ellen was attributing McCartney’s visit to Israel to the influence of his girlfriend, but her juvenile sarcasm and kneejerk assumption that McCartney must be naive and politically unsophisticated to perform in that apparently pariah state, and that it’s only the insidious influence of a Jew that makes it behave in such a way.

I agree it’s not the most virulent antisemitism ever expressed, even in a Guardian paper, but that’s the whole point — she assumes that everyone will agree that no right-thinking person would ever consider Israel legitimate and that only the malign influence of a Jew might cause a terribly naive person to do so. Of course she assumes that all Observer readers will be of her point of view.

Got that, Benji?

Clap Hammer -

I agree one has to distinguish between Islam and Muslims but how one then deals with that distinction is tricky.

I suppose you are trying to put forward a “hate the sin but love the sinner” line, which is fine in principle.

However, in practice?

When you think of Nazism and Nazis or Communism and Communists are we quite so careful? Do we think about the feelings of Nazis or Communists when we lay into their ideologies and are we always as careful to keep the distinctions rigid or do we have a go at the ideologues as well as the ideology.

This is an important and difficult point, because there is no doubt that it is Islam’s status as a religion which protects it from effective counter measures.

If it were a purely political movement that was advocating a new constitution with Christians and Jews treated as second class citizens, an end to democracy, second class status for women, death to polytheists, reducing the legal marriage age to 9, death to satirists, banning music and art, severe criminal punishments etc there would be oturage directed at it. As it is, respect is what it gets from our leaders. It is called “the religion of peace”; it is considered an honourable member of the Abrahamic faith; and Mohammed is referred to in submissive fashion as a “Prophet”.

I think on balance that while it is important to maintain the distinction in moral terms (let’s leave aside the legal situation), it is a mistake not to expose sincere and active Muslims to criticism for believing and promoting what they do believe and promote.

So that’s the new distinction I would make: between sincere and active Muslims who fully believe in and act on the ideological texts and those who are simply Muslims in a cultural and social sense and are not seeking to dismantle our democracy and our liberal society.

Maybe a short hand for public consumption is to say that “political Muslims” are fair game for criticism.

quisquis: Yes I and others I know were livid at the Ellen piece, and what you point out about the barb in the story should be obvious to every one but Benji.

The ‘Curse of Harry’

(cf Private Eye’s ‘Curse of Gnome’)

Benjamin,

Barbara Ellen likens McCartney’s visit to Israel and the West Bank with a hypothetical trip to Bin Laden’s cave, and it’s hard to read her article as anything other than a condemnation of his anti-boycott stance. Her point seems to be that his trip was so wrong-headed and misguided that it’s something a rational person would not have undertaken without the malign influence of… a Jew.

It may well be that he was influenced by his apparently Jewish girlfriend, but the unmistakable tone of Barbara Ellen’s article is that if you don’t support the boycott of Israel, you are probably under Jewish influence. Smells like antisemitism to me.

There’s a lot of this kind of thing at CiF, whereby the vigilance extended to white racism is dropped when it comes to Islamism. For example, the lunatic poster Khartoumi, who got banned for death threats to other posters, but was allowed came back on board to write an above the line piece about the Sudanese Teddygate, and who still posts under different names.

By and large I’d guess it’s naivity, as it was with Aslam, and the commenters are often way ahead of the writers. Also, as with the BBC’s Have Your Say, the ratings are instructive.

There are tankie leftovers, but to be charitable to Cif, I’d guess that they’re stuck in early ’80s-style student union yes-butism, which makes for a painful rhetorical experience but which, one could argue, remains well meaning.

I was sorting through some old newspapers clippings the other day, among them several articles garnered from the Guardian still of interest. However, I mused to myself would I buy a Guardian today, or even more radically, would I pick up a Guardian left discarded on a train. No to both.

“you guys sure love censorship.”

Ya, that’s something Chavez would never do, is it?

Chris Huhne gives support to Holocaust Denier

Astounding isn’t it?

British courts should refuse to act on an EU arrest warrant requesting the extradition of an alleged Holocaust denier, a senior Lib Dem has said.

But home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said holocaust denial is not a crime in the UK and he should not be extradited

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7652274.stm

Dear quisquis and Tim Allon,

If you think a pro-boycott stance is antisemitic per se, then I suppose you would think Ellen is antisemitic anyway.

However to point out that McCartney may be influenced by a his Jewish girlfriend in these affairs is not antisemitic per se, just as it is not anti-Irish to note the equivalent if McCartney had just started spouting about Northern Ireland after he had just got an Irish girlfriend, or not anti-Tibetan if he starts going on about Tibet after he gets a Tibetan girlfriend.

Again, any of these influences can be speculated upon, but its absurd to automatically describe it as antisemitism just because Ellen apparently disagrees with his girlfriend’s views. She may think her influence is “malign” in that sense, but that does not necessarily fall in the definition of antisemitism.

Yes I and others I know were livid at the Ellen piece, and what you point out about the barb in the story should be obvious to every one but Benji.

Well, if McCartney were to get a Tibetan girlfriend and then spout about Tibet, then a Chinese fan may get irate and spout about the influence of his Tibetan girlfriend. That sort of speculation may be off the mark or wrong for all sorts of reasons - but it is not necessarily racist per se. One would have to prove that the Chinese fan concerned was actually racist towards the Tibetans, and not all are.

It’s the same if McCartney were to spout about any other area of the world - its not necessarily racist to suggest that he influenced by the interests or concerns of his girlfriend, who bases those concerns on the things we all do.

Why were you sacked, Benji?

I was banned at CiF, although not because I was blathering about Jews and Muslims, which is clearly all the rage these days. I simply mentioned Rusbridger’s ridiculous salary increase and bonus. They’re just numbers!

Why were you sacked, Benji?

I wasn’t.

Benjamin,

Don’t put words in my mouth to bolster your shit argument. I don’t happen to think that someone who supports a boycott of Israel is necessarily antisemitic, and even if I did, it would be irrelevant to the validity of my argument, which you have ignored.

The gist of her argument is that to be against a boycott of Israel, he must have been coerced by a Jew. What about you, Benjamin? You’re against the boycott and you’re not Jewish. You must have a Jewish girlfriend, or some Jewish friend who’s ultimately responsible for this otherwise eccentric position, right?

And while we’re at it, Barbara Ellen’s attack on McCartney is ridiculously sexist too. Without evidence, she dismisses the idea that his partners’ influence could be part of some kind of rational discourse: no, McCartney has been “pussy-whipped”.

Right on, sister!

“Well, if McCartney were to get a Tibetan girlfriend and then spout about Tibet, then a Chinese fan may get irate and spout about the influence of his Tibetan girlfriend”

So you are implying that all Jews are Israelis, are you? Then surely we must boycott the entire Jewish nation, regardless of their political views, because they are all Israelis!

The gist of her argument is that to be against a boycott of Israel, he must have been coerced by a Jew.

The argument is that he may be influenced by his girlfriend who is Jewish. Look, if McCartney had started spouting about Northern Ireland and had just got a Irish Republican girlfriend, is it necessarily racist to suggest he might be influenced by his Irish girlfriend? Of course not.

I think Ellen’s article is a load of old cobblers, but it is not necessarily antisemitic.

“Sacked”, “long fractious dispute about an internship”. Results in the same thing: not working at the Graun.

So, tell us more.

“Chris Huhne gives support to Holocaust Denier

Astounding isn’t it?”

What’s astounding? That a very bright Liberal MP should think that clapping people in jail for their opinions on history is stupid and wrong? Or that it is wrong to extradite people from the UK when they have not done anything that the UK consider criminal?

I find it astounding that an MP, whom I heard on the news this morning, can make a clear and principled statement of that case.

And “support” in this case does not mean Hurrah for the Holocaust Denier from Huhne. It means that Huhne thinks that this is improper treatment of someone who would not be considered a criminal here, in the USA or Australia for his opinions, however repellent they are.

So you are implying that all Jews are Israelis, are you?

Not at all. Some Jews are more interested in Israel than others. Ellen clearly speculates that McCartney’s new lass is. Again, that is not racist per se, just as it not racist to speculate that a hypothetical Irish girlfriend of McCartney may influence statements by the Beatle’s bassist.

Sorry but Huhne is a shit

Mr Huhne said: “There is a clear precedent for doing this and I think we should in this case.”

While stressing that he was completely opposed to anti-semitism, Mr Huhne said: “We don’t in this country tend to prosecute people for issues that we regard as issues of freedom of speech.”

Do you think it worth starting a new thread about it. Generically, the right to protect Holocaust Deniers under freedom of speech?

Chris Huhne is absolutely right on principle; obviously there may be legal wranglings over this. But he is right on principle. He is right to object to holocaust deniers being thrown in jail. That clearly is not a defence of holocaust denial itself - but rather a view on a proper response to it.

Maven

Huhne supports the right for holocaust deniers to say what they say without being thrown in jail.

Do you?

“So you are implying that all Jews are Israelis, are you?

Not at all”

But you are - you’re just too stupid to see it.

Benji, take a quick course in logic and dialectics, and who knows, one day you may understand how to argue rationally?

ps
“Irish” = from Ireland.
“Tibetan” = from Tibet.

If you really think “Jewish” = from Israel, does that mean you’re a Zionist?

Oh come on, the point of Ellen’s piece was clearly that McCartney was being rather pompous in believing that his playing in Israel would contribute to solving the region’s problems.
She then made a clearly tongue in cheek remark that as he has a history of relationships with domineering women then maybe he was henpecked into playing there by his wife.
This kind of hyper-sensitivity and determination to take offence at innocuous articles doesn’t help to make people take claims about real anti-semitism seriously.

“Sorry but Huhne is a shit”

Having known him for nearly 30 years - no he is certainly not a shit.

What he is saying is that the UK had discretion in whether to arrest Toben, under Article 4 of the European arrest warrant. Huhne is saying that because Toben didn’t commit the offence within the EU, the legal grounds for arresting him are dodgy.

I disagree with Chris’ judgment but you have to see it in the context of the LibDems’ commitment to ‘free speech’ which is far greater than that of the other two main parties. Also Chris is the LibDems’ shadow Home Secretary.

I’m with Deborah Lipstadt on this one (”some people are so open-minded that their brains fall out”) but anyone who says Chris is not opposed to antisemitism is talking nonsense.

White Trash Spotter

I was discussing Ellen’s rationale, not mine. I now Jewish folk who have very little interest in Israel. However some do, and that was Ellen’s rationale.

Sorry, Andrew, but I think I have the right to be offended by anything I want, and as a Jew I am perfectly qualified to notice when people are casting aspersions on my religion.

Afterthought: the fact that you don’t find it offensive in itself is telling. It’s the acceptance of casual antisemitism in public discourse that makes your post similar to Ellen’s article — you’re so used to it, think it so normal, that you think it doesn’t matter. But it’s when everybody thinks it’s ok to cast aspersions on Jews that it starts to be ok to do worse things to them.

So piss off.

Maven,
it is stupid to throw these arsehole trolls into prison. For one, it goes against the law of the land. Unless they directly incite people to violence, they are not committing any crime in the UK. And we do have a tendency in the UK not to arrest and extradite people to other countries for behaviour that is not deemed criminal in the UK.

For another, it means they’re getting the attention and oxygen of publicity they want. The best thing would be to ignore them completely: apart from their disgusting views and morals, they are unbelievable boring, common types who believe themselves to be something really special. Rather like Hilter. Except that these people will never get the power they seek.
It’s a pity that certain academic unions and institutions, instead of boycotting holocaust deniers - let’s face it, holocaust denial is about as unacademic as you can get - waste their time victimising one particular nation made up of a people against whom the holocaust was specifically launched.

If you really think “Jewish” = from Israel, does that mean you’re a Zionist?

I am a Zionist, but I do not think all Jews are from Israel. However, many Jews support Israel. That was Ellen’s rationale, which is not necessarily racist any more than there is necessarily racism involved in the Tibetan and Irish scenarios I presented.

It could be antisemitic, but further separate evidence is needed to support that contention.

quisquis

So if McCartney got a Irish Catholic girlfriend and he started spouting about various Irish issues and Northern Ireland, and then someone has said “I think his Irish (or Catholic) girlfriend is influencing him” then it’s okay to view that remark as necessarily racist, anti-Irish, or anti-catholic?

That a very bright Liberal MP should think that clapping people in jail for their opinions on history is stupid and wrong?

I’m agnostic about this, but KB you know that’s not true and precisely what Toben would have us believe: that his line is just another historical narrative. In fact, just the blindness which allows the Graun to commission Islamic fascist and nutcase racist after another.

By all means, argue for a strict libertarian position in which anyone can promote material which does not threaten life and limb, but don’t claim that calling the single-most intensively studied act of racist murder in the single-most intensively studied conflict “a lie” is an “opinion on history”.

Benji, in between denying antisemitic calumnies when they’re staring someone else in the face, please explain what the Gorgonhead was on about here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/jan/26/davosconnections

Benji, in between denying antisemitic calumnies when they’re staring someone else in the face, please explain what the Gorgonhead was on about here:

Benji, if you are so deaf to antisemitic rhetoric and so ignorant of the history and significance of that rhetoric, it’s really not worth my time to enlighten you.

“Look, if McCartney had started spouting about Northern Ireland and had just got a Irish Republican girlfriend…”

“Irish Republican”? Are you saying that McCartney’s girlfriend is a Zionist?

Anyway, you’re missing the point. Barbara Ellen goes way beyond speculating on whether he might have been “influenced” by his Jewish girlfriend, who may not happen to support the boycott of Israel. She calls it “suspicious”. She says he’s “pussy-whipped”. Basically, her reaction to the fact of McCartney not boycotting Israel is the default assumption that he’s been coerced by a Jew, although she “prays” that she’s wrong.

By making the assumption that only a Jew, or someone coerced by a Jew, could be so callous as to not boycott Israel, she takes Richard Ingrams’ “yellow star” suggestion of Jewish identification one stage further, by essentially saying that not only are Jews’ opinions on Israel automatically to be discredited as biased, but also that anyone closely associated with Jews ought to be regarded with suspicion.

quisquis, you are perfectly entitled to take offence at anything you like, or don’t like.
However, if you going to express your distaste in a public forum then don’t be surprised if people question whether it is reasonable or justified, especially if you are going to go around making accusations of anti-semitism. You can’t have it both ways - if anti-semitism is a serious thing (which I agree it is) you shouldn’t throw around the term lightly.

The reason Chris Huhne is wrong is that by arresting Toben, the UK authorities are not making a judgment about what constitutes ‘free speech’. They are simply asking the judiciary for a ruling as to whether Toben should be extradited to Germany for trial - where Holocaust Denial is a crime. Under the Treaty of Rome, the decision about whether Holocaust Denial should be a crime is a national one, and the UK must respect the decision of other EU governments which have decided that it should be a crime. Not to extradite Toben would be tantamount to making a judgment on the laws of another EU State. If Toben was wanted for theft in Germany, Chris would have no problem with his extradition. The nature of Toben’s alleged crime is irrelevant. That’s why Chris is wrong.

McCartney played Quebec in July and made a few bland statements there. McCartney has a history of making bland statements about love’n'peace. It was not revealed whether he needed a Québécoise girlfriend to make him do so.

McCartney has been able to make his mind up about all sorts of things during his life and has never shown the slightest objection to playing in Israel. Why then should he suddenly change his mind and object to performing there?

So he overcame his non-existent objections and played a date he’d been intending to play all along. It must be the fault of the Jews.

Dear me. Ellen’s piece was very silly indeed. I just feel folk can be speculated about, including Jews, and it need not constitute racism and antisemitism. As I say, if a person speculates that someone is influenced by his Jewish girlfriend (including views that are attributed) then that does not necessarily constitute antisemitism, anymore that it would be racist to speculate that someone is influenced by his African, or Chinese etc girlfriend.

It can indicate antisemitism or racism; the point is that it does not necessarily.

McCartney has been able to make his mind up about all sorts of things during his life and has never shown the slightest objection to playing in Israel.

Indeed. I personally think the the argument about his new lass influencing him is pretty thin. My point is that it is not necessarily antisemitic to say so.

I didn’t throw the term around lightly, Andrew. You chose to interpret an expression of antisemitism lightly. I don’t think I’m the one at fault here.

I believe the term for what you are engaging in is “the banality of evil.” You’re so used to it that you don’t even notice it. That’s not really my fault — but it worries the hell out of me.

DavidT,

Shame innit, that you so shamefully refuse to apply same rules on your own blog. Seriously, I find it ironic if not hilarious that you got the nerves to complain about racism [albeit one that specifically affects you] but turn a blind-eye to the daily insults [harbouring on racism and bigotry] against others on your own blog.

Mind you, I am not accusing you of actively encouraging these vile twerps who infest every post with ignorant rants, but you do not do anything remotely close to discourage them from turning every debate into a hate-fest of one kind or another. Worse still, you do not make them feel that their contributions are unwanted and that they are unwelcomed on your blog.

You do recall that I was the first to “out” you on HP and Lenin’s blog and how I apologised unreservedly for such a juvenile act. Well it wasn’t done to spite you but rather that I got sick to the teeth of your pretentiousness and choosiness over what evil you find unacceptable and what you feel you can accommodate or just ignore.

It would seem nothing has changed in that department, sadly. For an intelligent guy like you, better is and should be expected.

David is a Muslim woman, Rastalion?

Good work. I choked when I saw that this ridiculous person had been given blogging access at CiF. But I also find their explanations unconvincing. The truth is she is part of the fruity clique which has all but taken over “below the line” and made almost everyone else run away.

The Guardian employs perfectly sane, rational and pleasant Muslim writers, e.g. Sarfraz Manzoor or Riazat Butt by the way. The fruitcake problem seems to to be CiF-specific. I guess after you give a Neil Clark access there is really no turning back.

“Seriously, I find it ironic if not hilarious that you got the nerves to complain about racism [albeit one that specifically affects you] but turn a blind-eye to the daily insults [harbouring on racism and bigotry] against others on your own blog”

Anti-semitism is racist essentially because it attributes beliefs, activities, power or intentions to Jews as a collective group.

Most of the criticism levelled here at (what I infer you to mean) Islam is actually against extremist Islam, not mainstream Islam, and the views criticised are generally quoted from extremist Muslims themselves. There is nothing racist about criticising “religious” beliefs per se, especially where the beliefs criticised are accurately described.

While I agree that there are people who post things about Muslims and Islam that are so prejudiced and full of bile that they are tantamount to racism (racism and religious prejudice are separate forms of prejudice), HP regularly tells such posters to fuck off and that their views are not wanted.

If you can’t tell the difference between
a) people who criticise Jews just for being Jews (whether or not religious or political) and ascribe negative things to Jews collectively, without any knowledge or hard evidence
and
b) people who criticise religious extremist Islamist beliefs which have been accurately represented

And if you can’t distinguish here between b) above and
c) bigots who distort mainstream Islam and say “racist”-type things against Muslims

Then you’re simply too stupid to be worth paying any further attention to.

Further to Rastalion’s yes-butism, the identity of this loathsome character has not been revealed. Soraya Tehrani is a pseudonym. Although I bet Rasty was sick as a parrot that David suffered no professional or personal misfortune - you only apologize because nothing happened, and you ended up looking like an arse!

As for the tired old about the comments-boxes in HP. Yes, there are toxic and unpleasant characters who post there, and meet with unerring condemnation. Often, even from David. To make the difference starker, nor are they commissioned to write articles (e.g. why ISAF is making Iranian women into drug-addicts).

And, as for saying that opposing anti-Jewish racism is to be treated with suspicion… good to see where you’re coming from.

By the way, here is clip of Macca’s new album.

http://del.interoute.com/?id=6affc586-9d46-4deb-9750-c182f423cdf6&delivery=stream

That track sounds like a right bloody racket, dear me.

“Sorry, Andrew, but I think I have the right to be offended by anything I want, and as a Jew I am perfectly qualified to notice when people are casting aspersions on my religion.”

So you endorse Bodi’s comments above about the inherently Islamophobic nature of women’s refuges? After all, for us non-Muslims, it’s ours not to reason why.

Err, this isn’t a joke - is Rastalion a parody/joke?

Just between Georgina and me, Alec.

Well, Benjamin, I believe that it is racist to automatically attribute views to people on account of their ethnicity. When you liken those views to supporting genocidal murderers (like Bin Laden), and argue that those views were probably coerced due to association with someone of a that ethnicity, it sounds even worse.

Barbara Ellen’s message is that McCartney’s views on Israel are discredited because he’s been coerced by a Jew and a woman.

McCartney played Quebec in July and made a few bland statements there. McCartney has a history of making bland statements about love’n’peace. It was not revealed whether he needed a Québécoise girlfriend to make him do so.

It was wonderful and everyone loved the guy.

They came to see ( and listen to) a piece of history.

By the way, CIF can’t tell right from wrong.

That’s why they keep hiring sociopaths.

Agreed with Torquemada here.

Benji, Georgina asked you on a public forum to explain your side of the story. You won’t be breached any confidentiality.

So, go on.

Quisquis: I hope your use of the word “religion” was a slip of the keyboard. Anyone can cast aspersions on any religion. Anti-semitism means hatred of Jews as a people, not as adherents of a religion. Did Linda McCartney ever go to synagogue? Celebrate Jewish festivals? Does anyone know? Is that why they call her Jewish or is it a rather difficult to define ethnic/ racial thing?

Yeah the mccartney thing last sunday made my skin crawl too… Just singling out individuals for being Jewish with no good reason is pretty sus. Anyway I only bought the paper cos it had a ‘local hero’ dvd giveaway.

Another victory for free speech advocate David T, a veritable Voltaire for our times. He wont write to the Daily telegraph because the BNPs (and indeed Daily telegraph) anti-Muslim rhetoric is much to his liking. The sheer one sided hypocrisy is laughable. The idea that HP is a balanced site and not an apologist for Israel/Jewish nationalism is laughable.

If HP sacked its Islamophobic bloggers would they have anyone left?

I also think that articles like Ellen’s do tremendous damage. It is now impossible to visit Israel without being seen to be taking a strong partisan, anti-Palestinian stance. It’s not enough that McCartney has to go on a fact-finding mission to the West Bank, or that he explicitly supports a joint Israeli-Palestinian pro-peace organisation (One Voice). No, he is still pilloried for, on the one hand, being arrogant enough to assume that he might make a small contribution to peace, and on the other, being somehow in the pro-death camp.

I think what McCartney did was brave and honourable. He clearly doesn’t need the cash, and it would have been far easier to quietly turn down the trip to Israel, rather than take the insults and abuse (and death threats) that playing a concert in Israel entails.

I wonder how many artists do not support a cultural boycott of Israel, but choose to avoid the stigma of playing there because it’s more trouble than it’s worth. People who state that they’re against the boycott but claim that such a boycott is not antisemitic should ponder on this: people who don’t necessarily even agree with the boycott inadvertently and reluctantly find themselves boycotting Jews. People, like Barbara Ellen, who I’m sure is no Jew-hater, start invoking closeness to Jews as a political test.

Moreover, some commenters clearly think CiF is more full of antisemitism that it actually is; the vast majority of comments are not antisemitic or racist.

The usual Benjamin drivel and appeasement. OK, so only 2% are outright antisemitic - so that’s all right, then, according to this prat.

“This is a tendency common to certain white liberals, Islamists, and out and out Islamophobes. They read a piece that, coming from a Christian, Jew, athiest - even Hindu or Sikh - they’d find repellent. However, if it comes from a Muslim, they treat it as the mark of authenticity.

It is noble savagery.”

Your referring to Muslims as savages even when quoting rousseau is highly revealing. One could easily say the same about Jews - the papers, especially the right wing, would never in their right mind publish articles extolling an ethnicallly pure/supremacist state - yet they do so when it comes to the Jewish state. This is the bizarre philo-semitism we have had since the holocaust which lets Jews get away with things others would be pulled up on for fear of being labelled “anti-semitic”

None of Tehrankids articles contained the rhetoric you mentioned so you can hardly blame CIF. Its even more laughable when HP contains links to people who speak of a Muslim conspiracy to control Europe “Eurabia” such as Melanie Phillips.

quisquis, 9:35 -
You are quite right, but I am afraid the answer to your question is No, Benjamin will not get it. He is the personification of see no evil, wherever antisemitism is mentioned.

Actually, she was “singled out” because she is McCartney’s girlfriend. Its not necessarily any more serious than speculating about about his girlfriend if she was an Irish Catholic and he was going about Ireland etc.

There has been various speculation about Wendi Deng. I don’t think any of that is racist necessarily.

NearlyOxfordian
“The usual Benjamin drivel and appeasement. OK, so only 2% are outright antisemitic - so that’s all right, then, according to this prat”

How many of the posts on HP are anti-Muslim - 5 ? 10%?
You must be so proud.

But home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said holocaust denial is not a crime in the UK and he should not be extradited

What an asshole. Is it a crime in his own country? Do we have an extradition treaty with them? Then he should be extradited.

Tim Allon

Do you think Ellen is an antisemite?

I am proud to oppose antisemitism, yes. Now go fuck yourself.

Being pro-boycott is antisemitic, yes, for all the reasons we have listed here ad infinitum.

You can’t have it both ways - if anti-semitism is a serious thing (which I agree it is) you shouldn’t throw around the term lightly

Yup, the usual silly gambit yet again: highlighting concreting instances of antisemitism is wrong, because this should be reserved for ‘real’ antisemitism - and the specific instance being discussed is never ‘real’, according to such appeasers.

The idea that HP is a balanced site and not an apologist for Israel/Jewish nationalism is laughable.

Antisemitic cuntface.

“.. “However, if it comes from a Muslim, they treat it as the mark of authenticity.

It is noble savagery.”

Your referring to Muslims as savages even when quoting rousseau is highly revealing”

Was he directly referring to Muslims as such or was he describing a particular “Orientalist” attitude to them that racistly tolerates them doing things generally considered either unacceptable or illegal among civilised folk?

Are you truly that fucking stupid not to notice the difference?

HPBNP - How many of the posts on HP are anti-Muslim - 5 ? 10%?
You must be so proud.

Shouldn’t you be fasting at the moment and not regurgitating shit????

“Your referring to Muslims as savages even when quoting rousseau is highly revealing. ”

The fact that you evidently have no ability to read or comprehend is both revealing and worrying.

Perhaps ask a friend to explain to you how David T didnt refer to muslims as savages at all.

Then in several years, when you have developed some degree of comprehension; come back here and perhaps make less of an absolute ass of yourself.

Also…perhaps choose a more intelligent name than HPBNP - it just makes you look like a 10 year old.

Not that there is anything wrong with that (being 10, not being thick).

Matt

This website has always been a joke. When any criticism of Israel and Israeli politics is shut down with expressions such as “antisemitic cuntface”, then all I can say is qed vis-a-vis accusations of peddling an agenda.

Re CiF: I suggest the quality of articles has suffered lately, but the opinions expressed below the line are as varied as you’ll find anywhere, with a lot of ignoramuses. It is not an anti-semitic website, just as little as it’s anti-Muslim or anti-anything else.

Have there been anti-semitic remarks on CiF? Yes, just as there have been other racist, xenophobic remarks.

It’s funny that a website that prizes itself on taking the mick (rightly) out of troofers for being conspiracy theorists (which they are), it then peddles its own conspiracy of CiF commenters engaging in some giant anti-semitic conspiracy. I hope you can see the irony. I can and it’s hilarious.

Some blogger is referencing this article at

Comment is (sort of) free

olching

“This website has always been a joke”

Yes, indeed. You are very intelligent and obviously have more important things to do than indulge these jokers.

Get the kettle on HPBNP….

Next.

Clap Hammer

“Some blogger is referencing this article at

Comment is (sort of) free”

Whoopee. Prepare for more high end and cutting wit of the like we have not seen since….Olching and HPBNP.

Enjoy the company, Im off to Footie.

Matt

“Do you think Ellen is an antisemite?”

No, I doubt she is, but I think that the article in question is antisemitic.

Tell me, Benjamin, do you not think it racist to automatically ascribe particular views or characteristics to people on account of their ethnicity?

olching - It’s funny that a website that prizes itself on taking the mick (rightly) out of troofers for being conspiracy theorists (which they are), it then peddles its own conspiracy of CiF commenters engaging in some giant anti-semitic conspiracy. I hope you can see the irony. I can and it’s hilarious.

Not necessarily CiF commenters but certainly CI(F) staff. They, pointing out especially Georgina Henry and Seamus Milne. are absolutely obsessed with Israel. They seem to eat, drink and sleep while cursing Israel and bring this obsession to work with them. They are joyous to employ self hating Jews as article writers and the number of anti Israel articles to pro Israel articles is about five to one. Perhaps 8 to one might be fairer.

They publish articles from terrorists, (freedom fighters in their jargon), and have lapped up two ‘articles’ from TeheranKid when they must have known what she was whatever Matt writes in his reply.

This website has always been a joke. When any criticism of Israel and Israeli politics is shut down with expressions such as “antisemitic cuntface”,

You really can’t read, can you, moron? Get your mother to explain it to you.

Trying to get a straight answer from Benjamin on that issue is like trying to nail jelly to the wall, Tim.

“Nearly Oxfordian”,

Fuck off, please.

Tim Allon - Fuck off, please.

How ……nice!

“Clap Hammer”,

There’s history there, and I did ask him to fuck off politely.

ClapHammer

Did you see this?

http://www.zionismontheweb.org/CommentIsFree_ParliamentASCttee_July08.pdf

Do you think Matt Seaton is feeling the heat? Do you think Georgina Henry and Seamus Milne support his decision to sack TehranKid as a CI(F) Writer?

I dont think Barbara Ellen was making an anti-Semitic point. Israel is not exactly a typical destination; its somewhere that British footballers chicken out of going, McCartney was putting himself at risk of terrorism by going and it’s been 40 years since he was supposed to play and now, when the situation is more dangerous than it has been for a while, he’s suddenly decided to play there.

Had his girlfriend actually been israeli it might have been funny, but the idea that Jews are expected to support israel isnt racist or anti-Semitic. most British Jews do support Israel, and for us goy those who dont are somewhat sinister, like Scots who support England in the football.

Tell me, Benjamin, do you not think it racist to automatically ascribe particular views or characteristics to people on account of their ethnicity?

No, not necessarily. It can be though, on occasion. I’ve traveled the world; folk have ascribed views to me because of the fact I am white and British. Not all those assumptions, stereotypes and expectations are born from racism.

As regarding being Jewish; its certainly a possibility that certain assumptions, stereotypes and expectations are born from antisemitism - but not necessarily in all circumstances or at all times.

The Beatles were banned from playing in ‘65, and the Israeli government recently apologised to the surviving Beatles for that mistake and extended an invite to them to visit. Ringo was also over earlier in the year.

There is a world of difference between uttering the banal truism that most British Jews are broadly supportive of Israel, and saying, without evidence, that someone who doesn’t boycott Israel must have been coerced by his apparently Zionist, Jewish girlfriend. This is a very simple point.

I suppose I should apologise to David T now, before I move onto my next gaffe. It was stupid of me to claim highlighting racism was a shift to the right. I should have congratulated him. I have stuck to the McCartney issue because it was obvious that my basis for attacking David T was wrong. Have you noticed?

Sorry, David.

For a bit of a larf, one of the funniest pieces on CiF at the mo is that puff piece on Mandy by Derek Draper. Derek the carpet salesman.

The first comment is: “Are you taking the piss?”… and it doesn’t get any better for poor old Derek after that.

It was stupid of me to claim highlighting racism was a shift to the right.

I never said anything of the sort, and please use your real name Fake Benjamin.

“There is a world of difference between uttering the banal truism that most British Jews are broadly supportive of Israel, and saying, without evidence, that someone who doesn’t boycott Israel must have been coerced by his apparently Zionist, Jewish girlfriend. This is a very simple point.”

Im full of banal truisms unfortunately. But I think she was only trying (and to be fair, failing) to be funny. maybe it says something about the climate she’s in that it doesnt occur to it might go down badly.

Well, Benjamin, when people make assumptions about my opinions, on account of my being Jewish, and are hostile to those putative opinions, I consider this antisemitism. Ellen’s racial assumptions and attendant hostility are, in my view, necessary and sufficient conditions to ascribe her article the label of ‘antisemitic’. I don’t call her antisemitic I doubt she hates Jews as Jews.

Likewise, her article is sexist because she characterises the imagined female influence in his life as ‘pussy-whipping’, rather than, as seems more likely, evidence of a symbiotic, well-balanced relationship, or the result of a persuasive argument from one of his squeezes. However, I wouldn’t call her sexist, as I don’t think she hates women, or really believes that they can only influence a man through coercion.

The arrest of Toben is an outrage against free speech. In fact the holocaust denial laws are an outrage against free speech.

All sorts of factual events get denied by idiots. Most Turks deny the Armenian genocide. Right wing Americans deny the slaughter and defrauding of Native Americans. British Imperialists deny the Empire ever did anyone any harm. Most Muslims deny the crimes of Islam against enslaved blacks, polytheists and others.

Are we to have laws to stop all these idiots giving vent to their stupid notions?

Huhne is completely right on this - if anything he hasn’t been robust enough, since he doesn’t defend in principle this bloke’s right to deny the holocaust.

I think this is HPBNP. For those still unconvinced of just how backward and hate-ridden Hamas is.

It’s all thanks to good inbreeding.

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/1866.htm

Chris Huhne should realise why Holocaust denial is illegal in Germany, but not in UK.

On McCartney, the furore around his trip once again betrays the UK media’s unhealthy obsession with Israel. Its the same as Walt & Mearsheimer in ‘07 - a minor event, turned into a salivating circus.

Tim Allon

Fair enough, although I wouldn’t take Ellen’s article too seriously. It seemed rather frivolous to me, and that’s reflected in the language used.

Ed, she was certainly trying to be funny, but it was more than a poorly-judged quip. She is scathing towards McCartney’s damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t visit to the West Bank, and implicitly identifies herself as pro-boycott, and likens Israel to a terrorist state. She might have got a free pass with her low-level antisemitic and sexist assumptions if she hadn’t used them as a central argument in an article that encourages the boycotting of Jews.

Chris Huhne should realise why Holocaust denial is illegal in Germany, but not in UK.

I think he does. I too can understand why Germany adopts the policy, although I am still doubtful whether its the right one philosophically. Austria has the same policy, and as regards that country, as we can see today, its not stemmed the far right. It wasn’t long ago that one of their major politicians praised the employment policies of the Nazis.

Benjamin, I don’t really care if it’s imbued with failed attempts at humour. I understood that when I read it. Ellen’s message is hateful, whatever the language she uses to put it across. If she wants to sneer at an aging pop star for ‘doing his bit’, or mouthing platitudes, fair enough. If she’s going to say that Jewish/female coercion is the most plausible explanation for why he would - horror of horrors - play a gig in Israel, well, she deserved to be pulled up on it.

Actually Tim, having re-read it, youre probably right, but to most of the readers it sort of goes without saying that playing Israel is like driving an SUV or wearing a polar bear fur hat.

Now that i think about it Barbara Bach is also Jewish (well, an Irish-Jewish mix like Ben Stiller and Harrison Ford).
only two surviving Beatles and they’re both controlled by the Jews…

Another thing, Benjamin… You say that articles like Barbara Ellen’s shouldn’t be taken too seriously, and you’re probably right. But when people dance verbal rings to show me that it’s not antisemitic, it suddenly takes on a much greater significance. When those same people would be the first to call ‘racist!’ at the merest hint of other kinds of xenophobia, I become very agitated. When low-level antisemitism is being published, in a supposed bastion of liberal values, of a kind that would unlikely be printed were the racism directed towards blacks or Asians, I become quite worried.

Living in Israel, what I found most striking was that the media here has treated this as though it’s the most important cultural event of the decade, with front page articles, and non-stop McCartney radio shows, and that kind of thing, all because a washed-up musician, who hasn’t made a decent record in 30 years, is playing a concert.

I think the sad truth is that it’s a country under siege, and although most perpetrators don’t have the courage or integrity to openly acknowledge it, a cultural boycott is certainly in operation. People here are joyful because McCartney has basically come along and said, ‘I don’t hate you’.

People like Ellen contribute to an atmosphere where playing a concert in Israel, and Israel alone, is portrayed as a hateful, political act, when the real story is that 50,000 people paid a lot of money to see the guy who sang with ‘The Frog Chorus‘.

Tim

Well, if McCartney’s lass had been British, and someone had made assumptions about her views on the basis of that fact, I would have shrugged my shoulders. It’s difficult to get worked up over such celebrity gossip.

‘The second was Muslim Brotherhood activist, Faisal Bodi. He had previously written commissioned articles for the print edition of the Guardian, including one notable article about women’s refuges, where he described Sharia as a “sharp sword” and continued…’

I do take the point that this is a case of reverse bigotry, which double standards often turn out to be, i.e., accepting execrable behavior from Muslims that would be considered, well, execrable from anyone else. It’s a sort of infantilising.

But I don’t think that The Guardian is too innocent in this. They attract these kinds of commentators because those commentators they find acceptable are only a few degrees better. The editors may regret the anti-semitism that creeps into their CiF, but the nature of the editorial slant, the kind of readers they attract, and the ways in which they influence their readers, will generate some anti-semitism as a result.

I figure that The Guardian is hewing to a line that says ‘We’re not anti-semitic, indeed we’re against anti-semitism. We’re anti-Zionist.” But, while this is possible in theory, in fact it’s hard to keep the two apart. That’s especially true if the anti-Israel line the paper maintains is a strident one. You lay down with the dogs, you’ll get up with fleas.

I like the frog chorus. its much underrated

Ah, another productive day for me in the HP comments.

I am not wasting my life!

Ah, another productive day for me in the HP comments.

I am not wasting my life!

If talking non-stop rot is a productive day for you, so be it.

Way back up these Comments, Tim Allon started on separating nationalism from racism and from religion, and indeed that is where we have to be careful about Israel (which is not a Jewish theocratic state) and Iran (which I understand is a theocratic state) - but its a pity that he became very rude later. The state of Israel, as pretty well everyone knows, is in a difficult position, having had its original boundaries carved out of land that has historically both supported multiple tribes and been conquered from time to time. But Israel is also very dependent on the USA, as many highly skilled technologists moved back there from the USA and now feed the USA market. What sticks in the gullet are the state of Israel’s continuing land grab (because its population is growing) and its government’s belligerent attitude to perceived threats from neighbouring countries. Nowhere do I see these attitudes as racism, and neither do those who criticise them do themselves any good by indulging in anti-semitism.

I figure that The Guardian is hewing to a line that says ‘We’re not anti-semitic, indeed we’re against anti-semitism. We’re anti-Zionist.”

Anti-Zionism = anti the Jews’ right to their own independent country = antisemitism.

re: “it is stupid to throw these arsehole trolls into prison. For one, it goes against the law of the land. Unless they directly incite people to violence, they are not committing any crime.”

I agree. I also agree they are stupid arseholes.

The state of Israel, as pretty well everyone knows, is in a difficult position, having had its original boundaries carved out of land that has historically both supported multiple tribes and been conquered from time to time

It is still the historical homeland of the Jews, who are the only ones who’ve EVER had a defined polity there.

But Israel is also very dependent on the USA, as many highly skilled technologists moved back there from the USA and now feed the USA market

What sticks in the gullet are the state of Israel’s continuing land grab (because its population is growing)

Pure myth. There is no ‘land grab’.

and its government’s belligerent attitude to perceived threats from neighbouring countries.

This is a strong contender for the stupidest comment of the year. There is nothing ‘perceived’ about the fact that it was attacked many times and is still being shelled from Gaza, that Syria is still a declared enemy and so is Iran.

Not meant to be in italics:

Hmm … Israel doesn’t ‘feed’ anything. It has a cutting-edge hi-tech sector developed locally.

I did wince slightly at Ellen’s article. She’s normally the poor man’s Julie Burchill and good for 3 minutes mild amusement and no more, and this did seem to indicate that boycotting Israel is meant to be as morally imperative as boycotting South Africa was pre Rainbow Nation, needing explanation if you didn’t do it. Her words about McCartney’s pomposity are right enough but ascribing it to influence from a Jewish girlfriend. . . I mean, find out where the Jewish girlfriend stands on this issue, would you, before assuming that about her?

“her article is sexist because she characterises the imagined female influence in his life as ‘pussy-whipping’, rather than, as seems more likely, evidence of a symbiotic, well-balanced relationship, or the result of a persuasive argument from one of his squeezes.”

Well, I met an old friend recently who started going on to me about how good John Pilger was. As she’s never taken any interest in left politics in the whole of her life I wondered - then she started to talk about her new university lecturer boyfriend. Dunno how symbiotic and well-balanced that was, the discussion that got her to read John Pilger.

And if someone made assumptions about her views because she happens to have brown eyes, or happens to be a bingo caller, I too would probably shrug my shoulders. But people don’t tend to make hostile assumptions about the views of bingo callers, or brown-eyed people, or about you because you’re British, whilst advocating a boycott of Britain.

Of course, Benjamin, you’re always the first to bandy about accusations of Islamophobia when someone criticises a Muslim, but when it comes to antisemitism, you just dance that dance. I’m also a Briton, and I can’t think of an occasion when I’ve suffered from or feared anti-British prejudice. For some reason, on the issue of antisemitic racism, and antisemitic racism alone, you choose to be completely obtuse, and I’m not going to explain to you the different histories of anti-British prejudice, and anti-minority racism in general, or antisemitic racism in particular. It’s clear that the idea of antisemitism is something that, for whatever reason, you sneer at reflexively.

It’s people like you who, in presenting their smug, moral indifference to antisemitism as some kind of haughty even-handedness, ensure that I can’t just shrug my shoulders anymore. I shrug my shoulders at BNP types. It will be a very sad day when I shrug my shoulders at liberal and left-wing apathy to antisemitism.

Of course, Benjamin, you’re always the first to bandy about accusations of Islamophobia when someone criticises a Muslim

Actually I am not.

or about you because you’re British, whilst advocating a boycott of Britain.

If folk want to make assumptions about me because I’m British and advocate a boycott of Britain, I wouldn’t be too fussed.

It’s clear that the idea of antisemitism is something that, for whatever reason, you sneer at reflexively.

Nope - I have not sneered at it, I have just suggested that Ellen’s statements are not necessarily antisemitic.

I’ve had someone spit at me in Barcelona for being English. And it’s not fair as I’m not even English and have spent about 12 weeks of my life, counting trips to London, holidays in Dorset and so on, in England.

I shrug my shoulders at BNP types

Ah well, this where you and me differ. I don’t shrug my shoulders at the BNP because they gain about three times as many votes as any party on the left that you could label as antisemitic, and they are without doubt antisemitic.

“By all means, argue for a strict libertarian position in which anyone can promote material which does not threaten life and limb, but don’t claim that calling the single-most intensively studied act of racist murder in the single-most intensively studied conflict “a lie” is an “opinion on history”.”

Ok, Alec, point taken, I shall do the first, and refrain from doing the second in future.

Being British, you see, is something that should be worn lightly. I have never felt insulted about what anyone had said to me regarding my nationality, ethnicity or whatever, or if they slag off the UK, or the UK government. Can’t take it personally. What the hell. Best just to have a laugh and a joke about it.

Some Americans get terrible sensitive about these things. Some of them get personally affronted if you slag off the US govt. Cultural difference I guess.

Nearly Oxfordian, piss off and reflect how few people like you. None, is the answer.

Maven

Do you?

No! Absolutely not. Holocaust Deniers should be stripped naked and taken in a cattle truck to a concentration camp. Starved for a month and then gassed. It would only be poetic justice - would it not.

Of course, I would give them the opportunity to attend Yad Vashem with merely a shaven head and striped concentration camp suit in case they have an epiphany. I am not totally heartless.

Oh, touché, Benjamin - you don’t shrug your shoulders at the BNP. What do you do? Do you go to their websites and try to patiently persuade them of the error of their ways. Of course you don’t. When I say I shrug my shoulders, I mean there’s nothing I can do about dyed-in-the-wool racists.

When I say it’ll be a sad day when I shrug my shoulders at liberal apathy towards antisemitism, it mean that I would have to consider the centre-ground irretrievably lost to antisemitism.

There will always be extremist antisemites on the far-right, and that should always be of concern. My main concern is watching the centre-ground becoming increasingly infected with reflexive antisemitism, because when that’s gone, I’m fucked. My main, minor contribution in this regard, is arguing with people like yourself, who would presumably see themselves in the anti-racist tradition, but for some unknown reason, insist on a higher evidential burden in the identification of antisemitism.

I see people like you as the gateway to the mainstreaming of antisemitism. I don’t expect I could persuade you that night follows day if you heard it first on Harry’s Place, but it helps me clarify my own thoughts; and maybe other, more reasonable people, who hold similar views to yours, might see the contortions you put yourself through to deny a little low-level antisemitism, and perhaps they’ll think again.

Benjamin Moreover, some commenters clearly think CiF is more full of antisemitism that it actually is; the vast majority of comments are not antisemitic or racist.

So what?

If you look at the I/P threads or anything to do with Muslims, I estimate that to be about 10% - 20% of CI(F) articles, the anti semitic and racial content can be horrifying. Much of the racism is directed against Muslims

Pray tell. What is the race that Muslims belong to?

but I do differentiate between attacks on Islam and attacks on Muslims. The first being perfectly acceptable. The second not being acceptable.

No-one at HP supports attacks on Muslims. A lot of people at HP will support rebutting Islamists - and often not delicately.

Antisemitism can’t be ameliorated just because there are comments at CiF that are disparaging against Muslims. However, I see that the Muslims in particular are the Palestinians. Whereas some comments about Israelis end up being about Jews.

“… but its a pity that [Tim Allon] became very rude later…”

I suppose I was a little brusque to “Nearly Oxfordian”, but you really have to get to know him to understand why.

Oh, I see he’s just introduced himself to you!

I see people like you as the gateway to the mainstreaming of antisemitism

Blimey. Steady on. Mind you, I was once called “worse than Nazi” on here - that’s definitely going nuclear! :-)

Racist and anti-semitic viewpoints should be expressed and argued against

OK, so should someone discuss and expouse the merits of paedophilia simply because we can argue against it?

GOTCHA!!!

Aye, Rosie, I don’t know enough about this case to pass comment on it. However, with my general opinion of the LibDems, I’m siding with “opportunistic ill-informed chancer” until told otherwise.

Benji, Georgie-girl doesn’t mind. Tell us more!

PS Tim Allon, are you involved with One Voice?

I wonder how many artists do not support a cultural boycott of Israel, but choose to avoid the stigma of playing there because it’s more trouble than it’s worth.

I remember a lot of talk in 1980 that Paul McCartney was planning to come here to play during his international tour (I was fifteen and started saving up), but after his arrest in Japan for possession, no one mentioned it again. Apparently there was no time left. Or maybe it was just talk and there was nothing in it. People didn’t have much money here back then, to pay for an expensive foreign concert (I was considering breaking into my Bat Mitzva savings account).

And this was when the Arab boycott of Israel was at its strongest.

We were boycotted by Pepsi, Macdonald’s, Burger King, (a fact which probably made us all grow up a damn sight healthier than our kids, although we did have Coca Cola); all the big petroleum companies, naturally (who still have no presence in Israel); all the international banks; all the Japanese car companies, besides Subaru (which kindly provided us with the first family car that the average Israeli family could afford). Etc.

It wasn’t ideology. It was business.

Boycotts are nothing new to us.

Funny thing is the more the anti-Israel groups in Europe shout “Boycott Israel!”, the more the foreign investments come pouring in. The shekel is one of the strongest currencies in the world right now. This was unthinkable when I was growing up.

It isn’t ideology. It’s business.

Alec:
Somehow I didn’t doubt that the irony of David’s act will be lost on numbskulls like you. You are quite an expert at putting words into people’s mouths, I see. Feel free to heap insults on me.

White Trash Spotter:
That is a lot of assumptions there, man! Funny, that you asked question and answered them in the same breathe. Fascinating isn’t it?

Joan Baez was coming to play at a festival in Nuweiba in the Sinai in the nineteen seventies. Sinai was part of Israel at the time. Then she discovered it was ‘occupied territory’ and refused to go there.

I remember this being regarded (at least in our household) as a huge joke. There were no Palestinians in or around Nuweiba and the Bedouin definitely wouldn’t have thanked her. They weren’t interested in being ‘liberated’ from Israel, and wouldn’t have appreciated the loss of income from her cancellation.

To this day, the Sinai Bedouin hate the Egyptians and the Egyptians hate them, and give them a hard time.

No, Alec, I’m not. I’m a self-styled keyboard warrior. I should look into One Voice, but my political involvement since I arrived in Israel has been zero.

Benjamin, I’m not trying to “over-egg” your own personal contribution, but it’s worth remembering that “all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing (and maybe sneer a bit)”.

“It isn’t ideology. It’s business.” And essential knowledge sharing. You will find top science academics in the UK attending conferences in Israel. Not for them the self indulgence of some in the humanities.

No, Rastalion, there is no irony in what David is saying. You may think there is a paradox. You, however, are being hugely ironic.

Tim, I’d recommend it. Maybe you’d get a reply to attempted e-mail contact, with your being a Red Sea Pedestrian.

“I don’t shrug my shoulders at the BNP because they gain about three times as many votes as any party on the left that you could label as antisemitic, and they are without doubt antisemitic.”

Well, maybe, but when I was at university (and several times, over an embarrassingly long period), it was the far left who dominated student politics and the general policies of the students union. At one point I was at SOAS, and the anti-Jewish feeling there was really oppressive. At one point the students union there banned the Jewish Society because its members refused to state they were anti-Zionist. (Funny, not one member of any other society, not even the Squash Club, had been told to declare the right politics). The national union of students eventually reversed the SOAS students union decision, but that didn’t stop the unions leaders continually adopting policies that intimidated Jews at the college.

I can’t say I’ve heard of any mainstream universities where the far right had much of a say on student political life - except of course, the Islamists, who had considerable influence at SOAS from the mid to late 1990s.

Johnathan Hoffman: It looked to me as if some of the material in the JC was taken from your important study of antisemitism in the media. Am I right. If so, well done.

I read the so-called Anti-Semitic comments by tehrankid77 three times, and … well, couldn’t find anything Anti-Semitic there. Anti-Israel, sure, but since when is that Anti-Semitic?

David T, please point out the specific Anti-Semitism, I want to learn.

PW, to quote quisquits “if you are so deaf to antisemitic rhetoric and so ignorant of the history and significance of that rhetoric, it’s really not worth my time to enlighten you.”

Suffice it to say that if you can’t find anything anti-semitic in something even the Guardian acknowledges as such, then you wouldn’t see anything wrong with other tales of Jewish ‘SUPER-masters’ like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Would, perhaps, a cartoon by Seppla, I wonder, strike you as anti-semitic?

sorry, quisquis

What I have found surprising (to be nice) amongst some British academic types is the indignant bristling when the issue of anti-Semitism is raised in discussions of the Middle East. The most partisan instantly rush to take the taboo right off the table, brusquely, so incensed they are at its mere presentation.

This is very strange. Any reasonably dispassionate observer acquainted with Islamism, Hamas, Hezbollah and so on must see that Jew hatred, impure and simple, is an entirely appropriate and important topic for debate and analysis in the context of studying Middle Eastern conflicts.

Those who go on from a spot of bristling to siding openly with Hamas and Hezbollah, whilst disparaging charges of anti-Semitism at every opportunity, are the most nauseous.

One must wonder why they think they have anything worth withholding from Israeli peers.

So Hasan, you see it, the Guardian sees it, and therefore you won’t show it to me?

I am asking to be enlightened. Tell me clearly where these three “anti-Semitic” posts are Anti-Semitic. They might offend you, they totally slam Israel, but where oh where is the Jew hatred there?

I can’t believe such as simple exercise is beyond your ability. Maybe it is, but try it, without showing me books or cartoons. Just the posts in question will be sufficient.

Of course we could be told the explicit terms of reference by which the moderators (whether in house or arms length privately commissioned) contract to undertake this task for the Guardian.

In fact we have every right to be told these, if we are to believe the Guardian’s claim not to allow hate speech and every right to be told the specific criteria by which they measure ‘anti-semitic, Islamophobic and anti-racist discourse’ .

Such things are not purely private matters of contract, we are talking about fundamental principles in a democratic state.

Precise definitions regarding ‘hate speech’ would be a helpful start, and the existence of a handbook and any briefing or training materials, together with the kinds of examples that would be considered to cross the threshold from free to hate speech.

Considering the truly hateful nature of some of the speech attributable to Tehrankid77, which many readers of CIF have seen even if those who would have employed her at the Guardian have not ;

it would seem to me to be a fundamental aspect of the duty of care which a National Newspaper owes its readership and the wider society within which it has a priviliged nd trusted position to provide such transparency.

It would remove the sense of a persistent ideological bias that is apparent in the Guardians acceptance, tolerance or encouragement (through its commissioned articles) to be reassured that a rigorous and transparent yardstick that reflects faithfully its liberal and democratic traditions.

To step out of the anti-semitism/ islamophobic/racist line of ‘he said she said for a moment and consider an analogous argument might help.

Sexism for example might be a likely comparator.

However one has only to read Julie Biden’s hate filled almost psychotically disturbed piece ‘Why I hate Men’ at CIF, to see that there seems to be a systemic problem.

This gives us a very clear view of the kinds of bias that is believed to represent legitimate political comment at CIF, the simplistic hierarchy of contempt that is revealed posing as progressive analysis that this demonstrates, is deeply worrying.

The pure demonising nastiness that is directed against an imagined political target (ie all men) in this Biden piece is practically unhinged, that this kind of childish inversion of perceived ‘enemy’ categories is considered to be the opposite of hate speech, or racist (or in this case sexist) discourse not its extension and legitimation is a shocking decent of political discourse into the sewer.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/nov/02/whyihatemen

Ami

Thanks

Let’s start with the Protocols and the cartoon I linked to. Are they anti-semitic? If so, why? If you can answer that, you just might be able to work out why talking about Jewish ‘SUPER-masters’ running Washington and London from Israel.

If you still can’t, I’d ask for a refund on the taxes that went towards your education. If you find it so difficult to empathise with people who feel they have been racially insulted, you’ll find a more congenial atmosphere at davidduke.com or stormfront.org.

“an imagined political target (ie all men)” All men? In this particular instance, mettaculture, I would question your reading of Bindel’s piece. She does qualify the provocative headline by saying:
I hate men, and will tomorrow and the day after. But only the men who perpetrate these crimes against my sisters, and those who do nothing to stop it. Are you in either one of those categories? If so, then I despise you. (Even though she is vague as to how one would escape the rather wildly inclusive category of doing nothing to stop it.)

However one has only to read Julie Biden’s hate filled almost psychotically disturbed piece ‘Why I hate Men’ at CIF, to see that there seems to be a systemic problem.

Indeed, and the systemic problem is that liberalism/progressivism is a mental illness.

ami

‘The men who regularly get very offended on this blog, protesting that they have never hurt a fly, probably do not do an awful lot to stop other men harming women.

Where are men’s voices of protest in this war against women?

When can we expect your support in reducing numbers of females killed and raped by men?

I will not be holding my breath,

but in the meantime, I will say loud and proud, yes, today I hate men, and will tomorrow and the day after.

But only the men who perpetrate these crimes against my sisters, and those who do nothing to stop it. Are you in either one of those categories? If so, then I despise you.

I think this is supposed to be witty.

The straw men who get offended who protest that they have never hurt a fly in Biden’s world probably don’t exist but gentle men for her would mean weak so she knows that they wont’ or can’t do anything against the bad men and if they did she wouldn’t want their help.

So it seems there are only two categories of men those who are violent to women directly and those who permit it because they don’t stop it.

So yes she despises all men.

You might ask what of the children some of them must be males?

Well Bindel has form there and we know that from the age of 12 they are men and so are not welcome.

The point is not whether Julie Bindel hates all men (and she really does its not a secret) but by taking the indefensible act of male violence against women she holds all men as a category responsible.

As a commenter pointed out and the analogy is precise

”The real problem with your argument is that it’s based on the same category error that says ‘I hate all muslims who don’t actively oppose terrorism’. Not all muslims are terrorists, so why should the vast majority of them constantly apologise for the tiny violent minority in their midst?’

Bindel does hate all men she is a Lesbian Seperatist and back in the 80s her form of sexuality apartheid was a respectable wing of progressive femminist politics, until many of the sisterhood discovered that they didn’t need men to be truly horrible to them when some of the hardline seperatists could do just as good a job.

I thought that they had all been absorbed by Gaia of the Hackney Marshes but some became upset at loosing the limelight and have returned lured by the wretched new traffic in Women (their policies are hard line sex work abolitionist so they tend not to be liked by working women).

The point is that a poster at CIF couldn’t even begin to say the word ‘hate’ or despise’ in relation to women or Muslims without getting instantly deleted.

I stopped commenting at CIF because any and every post of mine criticising Islamism and its apologists (I did not use hate speech nor was that ever my intent) got deleted.

If CIF does not want to come clean with the terms of reference for its moderators and the criteria they are to use, and the context application for these criteria then I, as will many others just conclude, that the only policy they have is an inconsistent, received set of opinions as to what is cool and hot and happening in the latest victimology stakes.

Well they can try, but if they are going to keep making appointments like this and tolerating the most offensive forms of anti-semitism, then they will have to be ‘audited and tested’.

Its a bit tedious but I once re-verse engineered a US voice recognition suystem to work out its phonemic recognition just because I was annoyed by its failure to recognise my accent.

All we have to do is come up with a few blog names, attach superficial views and a restricted lexicon to them, some can be articulate victims but hateful and racially abusive , others can be Telegraph clones, critics of Islamism, polite but strong critics of the article etc.etc. etc.

It would only take a week or so (maybe run it for a month for more credibility) then there would be statistics ooohhh.

I am painting my work studio at the moment so I am a bit busy but I might be tempted.

Ah Albert, student politics huh? I’m just pointing out that the BNP is far more successful in the real world, where the general population votes, then the groupuscules you mention in student land.

David T - extra well said …

mettaculture: Thanks for the illuminating Bindel history. That sounds a worthwhile if labour intensive project you outline. It could continue where Jonathan Hoffman’s albeit more specific frame of reference monitoring left off.

Thanks to Tim Allon for saying what I was trying to say much more clearly and eloquently than I did.

Thanks, “quisquis”.

Note that for Benjamin, the banning of Jewish societies for failing to pass political tests applied only to them, does not constitute “real world” racism.

Perhaps there’s an argument to be had about ranking priorities in the fight against racism, but someone who displays a visceral determination to deny or downplay antisemitism has no part in that debate.

No, Rastalion, there is no irony in what David is saying.

Indeed Alec. It was rather hypocrisy of the highest order on DavidT’s part… But I guess I was trying to be a bit subtle.

Tim

No, no, of course that’s rum; however, the fact that the BNP gets nearly three times as many votes than any far left party in the UK, (based on the General Election of 2005), is worrying to me. The BNP is an antisemitic party (as well as being unsavoury in other ways too).

Tim

My point is, in this student politics malarkey, there are all sorts of behaviours which are quite silly and folk move on from later; that’s just student politics. That’s not to say what happens isn’t wrong, but one must remember that element of nonsense too. I contrast that to the real world (or more real world) of votes and power in national elections.

Benjamin, I don’t need you to lecture me on the BNP. I know exactly what it is, and the dangers it poses to all minorities. That, however, has nothing to do with your minimising on-campus antisemitism as somehow not being “real world”.

Despite its recent, worrying electoral successes, to the vast, decent majority of British people, the BNP is still a discredited, extremist party. This stands in stark contrast to the mainstreaming of antisemitism, which is variously dismissed, denied, shrugged off or “understood” by people who would like to think of themselves as anti-racist.

If you read contemporary, far-right literature, the emphasis is now on Israel and Zionism. They’re dancing to the tune of the left, not the other way round.

You’re confusing the frivolous nature of the conduit - the “student politics malarkey” - with its tangible result: the exclusion of Jews. If the BNP built up a presence on campuses, and prevented Asian students from attending lectures, would you describe it as that “student politics malarkey”? You wouldn’t, but of course, it won’t happen, because antisemitism is the only form of racism that is politically acceptable in left-wing and liberal environments.

Indeed Alec. It was rather hypocrisy of the highest order on DavidT’s part…

Truly lamentable. David regularly argues against Muslim women being abandoned to Sharia courts, of the Osama bin Laden line of CiF commissioners that the true Muslims are unhinged hate-filled loonies, even mentioned a white racist in the article, and in you slither to say, is it not funny that a Jew is concerned by anti-Jewish racism.

I remember when you and your ideological fuck-buddies thought you were onto something by revealing his name. Everything David argues on HP reflects his true views. As a high-flying corporate lawyer (that really confused some; he’s more qualified and better paid than me!), he supports precisely the same international business and political system he supports through HP.

There is no hypocrisy, get it?

Benjamin, I don’t need you to lecture me on the BNP.

Well, it’s you who said:

I shrug my shoulders at BNP types.

Now you say:

I know exactly what it is, and the dangers it poses to all minorities.

Make your mind up.

Of course if Jews are excluded its a rum thing indeed - don’t know the details of that.

However, its difficult to take the histrionics of student politics too seriously. There is a lot of silly politicking.

By contrast, the votes of thousands of votes in ballot boxes for the BNP, easily outstripping your bugbears the far left, are the numbers that count.

If you think the BNP is discredited and it still gets the votes it gets - then the far left is even more discredited, as it garners about a third of the BNP’s vote.

Benjamin, I made perfectly clear to you what I meant further up the thread:

“Oh, touché, Benjamin - you don’t shrug your shoulders at the BNP. What do you do? Do you go to their websites and try to patiently persuade them of the error of their ways. Of course you don’t. When I say I shrug my shoulders, I mean there’s nothing I can do about dyed-in-the-wool racists.

When I say it’ll be a sad day when I shrug my shoulders at liberal apathy towards antisemitism, it mean that I would have to consider the centre-ground irretrievably lost to antisemitism.”

So, instead of throwing my words back at me dishonestly, perhaps you’d care to respond to the substance of what I just wrote, or better still, explain your personal contribution to the fight against the BNP. As far as I can make out your opposition to the BNP goes no further than as a debating tool you wheel out when you want to downplay the significance of mainstream antisemitism.

Tim,

Anyway SOAS does has Jewish Society and its not excluded. There are Jewish Societies in universities all over the UK who are not excluded operate like every other society.

Well, Tim, I don’t live in the UK right now, but when I did I lived in Bradford and I did my bit to fight the BNP.

Benji

Confused by your constant appearances here saying nothing in particular I finally took the plunge and visited your ‘blog’.

Evidently a work in progress eh. Amidst the cobwebs and the what was largely spam (viagra etc) comments in your comments threads, I came upon this little nuggest from someone about your stay at the Guardian:

“Maybe you spent to much time filling other people’s blogs with pointless comments when you should have been working?”

You really are an absolute waste of space and whilst your comments here are indulged by more charitable souls than I, I really think you are a sad little boy trying desperately to get attention and I personally would appreciate it if you went away and sought it somewhere else.

I appreciate that this is unlikely to happen. The ‘folk’ here are very charitable toward you. But you do bring this place down a bit.

Idiots that do have something to say, (Hasbara, Syd) enhance the place because (rightly) they are shown to be the nasty little creeps that they are.

But you…say nothing at all…yet post more than anyone. And it is really, really boring.

So kindly get a girlfriend, a friend, or something…..

MattG

Oh..and Im not prepared to indulge you. So if you are busy typing a response don’t bother. I shan’t read it or respond.

I have no interest in you other than to see you go away and leave this place to people that do care, have interests, opinions, passions etc

“It was lovely Linda who turned Paul on to vegetarianism. Then there was all that rolling about with seals with Heather. Now he has a Jewish girlfriend, the glamorous Nancy Shevell, he’s suddenly playing concerts in Israel …”

Whatever else she is, that bitch Barbara Ellen is pretty clueless. She obvioulsy doesnt’ know that Linda was Jewish.

Benjamin, whether Jewish students are being excluded at SOAS, or any other student union at this particular point in time, is besides the point. What is at issue is your blasé and inconsistent attitude to anti-Jewish racism where it does occur.

Given an example of when exclusions have happened, you call it “student politics malarkey”. When I question your double standards, you try to score a cheap debating point by dishonestly quoting me. Now you’re dodging the question again by pointing out that SOAS’s antisemitic policy was revoked, a fact explicitly stated from the start.

Do you feel awfully clever devoting your inconsiderable verbal skills to downplaying and denying antisemitism in the UK? Living in Hong Kong doesn’t seem to stop you doing that, so I repeat, what are you doing about the BNP? It’s just another hollow debating point, isn’t it?

“However, its difficult to take the histrionics of student politics too seriously. There is a lot of silly politicking”

Just who the fuck make up tomorrow’s MPs and political leaders, other than the fuckwits running university student unions?

When I first heard about this (and thank you David T) I expected to see pink pigs flying past my window.

And as for Matt Seaton, I think that he is trying to make a virtue out of necessity, given the considerable embarrassment caused by the publicity. Had he half a clue and cared at least as much as he claims, he could have kept an eye on the anti-Semitism posted on Comment is Free over the years and put a stop to TeheranKid’s antics long before now, let alone allowed her to be accepted as a writer there. Having said that, he’s Georgina Henry’s minion so what else can one expect?

mettaculture says: “..If CIF does not want to come clean with the terms of reference for its moderators and the criteria they are to use, and the context application for these criteria then I, as will many others just conclude, that the only policy they have is an inconsistent, received set of opinions as to what is cool and hot and happening in the latest victimology stakes….”

You have hit the nail on the head. For myself, I would like to know how, and from where they recruit their moderators, given the hypersensitivity you mention to criticism of Islam, even that which does not involve hate speech, and how many of them are neutral politically and of no religious faith or would call themselves more pro-Israel than pro-Palestinian (and among intelligent people being pro-Israel need not necessarily mean that one is anti-Palestinian).

Why, for example, is La Henry so prepossessed (or should I say “obsessed”?) with the I/P issue? Has she a personal axe to grind or is she the equivalent of an intellectual cop-out - deliberately cranking up the polarisation and hatred to get hits on CiF blogs? If the latter is the case, then there’s a word for what she is which should not be repeated in polite circles. If the former, then she is being equally reprehensible and unprofessional by using CiF as a vehicle for it.

Tim,
Benjamin’s entire sorry and pointless existence is devoted to arguing that any given instance of antisemitism ‘is not significant’.

Funny thing is the more the anti-Israel groups in Europe shout “Boycott Israel!”, the more the foreign investments come pouring in.

I know several people who make a point of buying Israeli products to spite the boycotters.

It’s clear that the idea of antisemitism is something that, for whatever reason, you sneer at reflexively.

Nope - I have not sneered at it, I have just suggested that Ellen’s statements are not necessarily antisemitic.

Yes - the default Benjamin position: Rule 1: Always suggest that a given incident is not ‘necessarily antisemitic’. Rule 2: If you really really can’t do that, claim that it’s ‘not significant, merely an example of student exuberance’.

“Nearly Oxfordian”,

I spend too much of my time trying to enlighten people who make it their lives’ mission to downplay or deny antisemitism, and one of the common responses is that mere criticism of Israel is not antisemitic. Though they may disagree on where the line should be drawn, serious people understand that there is a distinction, but we are not helped by the tiny but vocal minority who throw the antisemitism label around indiscriminately.

On this thread, you accused Roger of antisemitism on the basis of words that you falsely attributed to him. When your error was pointed out to you, you shamefully skulked off, rather than apologising, which is what the bare minimum of decency demanded.

In different ways, both you and Benji are obstacles to combatting antisemitism, despite your apparent opposition to it. Unlike you, Benjamin is generally quite civil.

So, once again, kindly, fuck off.

re: liberalism/progressivism is mental illness.

Keep saying that over and over and over, and i’m sure it will become true.

what an asshole!

well put tim

Huzzar, Tim!

I remember when you and your ideological fuck-buddies thought you were onto something by revealing his name. Everything David argues on HP reflects his true views.

You are making up stories now, Alec aren’t you? I sense desperation in your attempt to sully names but importantly, I am now more certain than ever before that you were in fact nowhere around this blog at that specific period! Lying, pompous ‘scunt’.

This might be news to you but David is no stranger to me as we both hail from thesame North East London shithole.LOL

Rastalion, did you or did you not “out” David? And I’ll remind you that other questions have been asked of you in this thread.

You will note that I am not responding to the substance of your latest post. I do this when posters introduce new information when their previous points are refuted or attempt to blind-side with subject changes, i.e. refuse to let them set the parameters.

Alec,
Try your silly games with someone else. You were caught lying so just live with it.

You were caught lying so just live with it.

Even confirmation of what I’m supposed to have lied about will be a start.

Even confirmation of what I’m supposed to have lied about will be a start.

That you were around here when I ‘outed’ DavidT. Don’t play dumb, you scunt.

That you were around here when I ‘outed’ DavidT. Don’t play dumb, you scunt.

Ah. I didn’t think of that. Mostly because the idea that you keep tabs on my Internet usage and log-on times was too weird for comprehension.

Remind me what I was doing that day.

Benjamin, whether Jewish students are being excluded at SOAS, or any other student union at this particular point in time is besides the point.

Oh, I think facts are rather important Tim. Jews are not excluded, they participate in student life up and down the country with very few problems.

Feel free to elevate nonsensical student politics to an absurd level of importance if you wish.

As I say, the BNP has garnered a significant increase in votes in general elections, and now get three times the vote of the lefty groupuscules you crow about. That’s another fact that’s worthy of mention.

I have seen at first hand what the BNP gets up to in places like Bradford, and I am rather more concerned about that. If you think my focus on Britain’s biggest fascist, antisemitic party is somehow ‘ignoring’ antisemitism, you are living in a rather bizarre alternative reality.

Benjamin’s entire sorry and pointless existence is devoted to arguing that any given instance of antisemitism ‘is not significant’.

Not at all. Britains biggest fascist party, the BNP, garnered three times the number of votes of the lefty groupuscules you crow about. That clearly indicates where the problem actually lies.

Benjamin, it really wouldn’t matter if the SOAS example were merely a hypothesis. I attacked your response, which was seemingly predicated on the assumption that it were true.

Faced with an example of on-campus Jewish exclusion, you choose to brush it off as that “student politics malarkey”. Then, as you always do with antisemitism, you compare it dismissively to the BNP. However, your declared opposition for the BNP only manifests itself as a rhetorical tool to downplay antisemitism, or to attack anyone who challenges antisemitism.

It’s great that Jews are generally full participants in student life across the UK, but this straw man was never at issue. You are on record here, yet again, reflexively dismissing examples of antisemitism, and when lost for a response, respond repeatedly with arguments already exposed as straw men and ‘whataboutery’. This has been demonstrated that anyone with basic English comprehension can see.

Rightly or wrongly, I am more worried about the rise in left/liberal antisemitism in the UK than traditional nazi Jew-hatred. One of the reasons is that nazis don’t jump through hoops, protesting loudly that they oppose antisemitism, whereas you have an inexplicable need to do so. In ‘fact’, your opposition to antisemitism is hypothetical, as demonstrated by you compulsion to downplay or deny it at every opportunity.

Never mind David T - he wasn’t the only one to draw this to the Guardian’s attention a couple of weeks ago.
;-)

I used to write off tehrankid as just another deranged teeange poster.
But finding out that this was an adult woman actually posting articles on the site really took the biscuit.

Is it really true that the Guardian approached her, i.e. asked her to contribute??

Sadly, the latest David Cesarani thread on CiF has attracted a couple of individuals who make Tehrani look like a veritable Judeophile.

I checked the Observer letter page yesterday to see if there were any letters about Ellen’s vile piece, but nothing, only one responding to other, more sensible comments she had made about fathers’ contact rights.

ami

I found something even better.

i browsed the comments at the foot of the article looking for some outrage/disagreement. I found one outraged person, presumably jewish; he/she was outraged that the writer had assumed that all jews were zionists (and Mcartneys girlfirend in particular) because many jews dislike Israel as much as anyone else.

lovely.

matt

quiquis/ami/Tim Allon

Sorry, but you’re way OTT re. the Ellen article. It was utter and complete rubbish, yes. But all this talk of anti-Semitism and “racial assumptions” is simply ridiulous.

Ellen has assumed that McCartney’s girlfriend is a Zionist; that’s all I meant by the phrase. Your assertion, backed up with no argument, is ’simply ridiculous’. Maybe you’d find a ‘vote button’ option more suitable than a comments box.

Ellen’s done nothing of the sort. She’s indulged in a bit of light-hearted speculation, albeit to spectacularly unfunny effect.
You are seriously overreacting, I’m afraid. I mean: “Ellen’s message is hateful”? Come off it.

Why the ad hominem? Is that how you usually address people who don’t agree with you?

No, normally I patiently attempt to confront their arguments. If I was a little terse, I apologise, but it was no ad hominem attack. You didn’t put forward any actual argument, and I was drawing attention to that. On reflection it would probably have been better to ignore, but I’ve got a stinking cold and itchy keyboard fingers. Anyway, sorry for the tone.

As it happens, I probably shouldn’t have used the word ‘hateful’ in the context of describing her article as ‘antisemitic’. I think her article could be described as ‘hateful’ towards Israel, but I certainly didn’t mean to give the impression that she hates Jews or women. I think the article contained very low-level antisemitism, and it would be mostly unremarkable were it not for double standards displayed by the sort of people who defend this kind of thing.

Her inane reference to McCartney “blather[ing] pompously” indeed suggests there’s some kind of hatred or resentment somewhere in there.

We can at least agree on one thing, i.e. there is not a single aspect of the article worth defending.

Barbara Ellen is essentially a pop writer, and not a serious journalist. Her scathing remarks about McCartney should be understood as of a type with the kind of thing you’d find in the NME: where a third-rate indie band’s on-the-road sleeping arrangements will be afforded the kind of significance more suited to judging a presidential candidate’s foreign policy - all documented in the tone of a Sun gossip column.

Honestly, I think she was probably just making up her word-count, and made the mistake of some lazy references to women, Jews and Israel. The thing is - and it’s just a hunch - I don’t think you’d find that sort of thing in The Guardian in reference to Muslims; and rightly so.

Hasan,
maybe you really are projecting your poor education on other people. Read the damned three posts that are supposed to be anti-Semitic, right?

You put this post in:
Let’s start with the Protocols and the cartoon I linked to. Are they anti-semitic? If so, why? If you can answer that, you just might be able to work out why talking about Jewish ‘SUPER-masters’ running Washington and London from Israel.

If you still can’t, I’d ask for a refund on the taxes that went towards your education. If you find it so difficult to empathise with people who feel they have been racially insulted, you’ll find a more congenial atmosphere at davidduke.com or stormfront.org.

— so where is the word Jewish? Israel can be hated or loved for what it does and is, but man, it’s a State and has its administration and government and all that. It’s legit to hate it or love it, and if someone hates it, and has their reasons, you stick in the word JEW where they don’t even use it and then accuse them of being anti-Semitic.

“And, now there is a third one.

All three of them Muslim.”

Francis Sedgmore is not a muslim and he also was sacked from CIF.

Now would you use the same logic and tell us us what ethnicity/religion he belongs to?

Further Tehrankid is orginally from Iran but she has never claimed to be a muslim.

There is Bunglawala, Soumaya Ghanoushi and other muslim bloggers who are still on CIF despite your efforts DavidT!

PS You fail to to notice the bigotry of some on CIF from those appearing here with their condemnation.

So DavidT just to correct you the Guardian has sacked 4 bloggers (or more). Unlike you I would not make much of origins/religion of Francis Sedgemore as you do of other bloggers who like Sedgemore have lost their blogging positions on CIF.

Not only do so many people not realize they are referring to anti-Semitic tripe when they use the language of the Protocols of Zion, they do not understand the Jewish aversion to even the slightest hint of anti-Semitism in the press. Such is the lack of awareness about Jewish history. To people like tehrankid, who no doubt grew up listening to little catch phrases like “super masters,” there is no connection in her mind to what this means to the eyes of a Jew, nor the attending uproar.

The press is the vehicle for propaganda. Jews died in the millions because of propaganda. The PoZ were and are propaganda. Hence, the razor sharp eye on the lookout for propaganda. Lives depend upon it.

These dynamics seem odd to the non-Jew. Most of them just don’t know what they are doing when they cast these phrases that seem innocuous to them, or at least not carrying the weight of death and fear.

Trouble is, nowhere on CIF or elsewhere in the MSM do I see any explanation of what press propaganda and the need to fight it means to the average Jew. People are ignorant; they spout their words out of ignorance and their own fear. Look at tehrankid. No doubt she is of an age to remember the downfall of the Shah. Her country is in tatters. She operates out of the same fear as the Israeli, different side of the coin except that her people were never massacred just for breathing and being alive on the planet. But still she operates out of fear.

My big disappointment with CIF is that they do not bother to address this. Most of my non-Jewish friends who use PoZ language unawares, when I point it out to them, say aghast, “I’m sorry! I had no idea!” CIF, whether through lethargy, inattention, playing to the gallery, or just not having figured it out, keep the wheels of ignorance in play when they cater to the tabloid-like (albeit with an intellectual air) articles that are sure to engender more of the same internet wars over the IP, as we see in their blinkered catering to the Sarah Palin show in lieu of equally numbered articles about the issues effecting the USA. It’s “I hate Palin this, I hate Palin that,” instead of addressing the meat of why they don’t like her. On the flip side, we see very little cogent representation of the Persian history and mindset, so ignorance is left to abound. Culling offensive remarks only exacerbates the problem; it hides the garbage-like little kitty piles in the litter box instead of scooping the stuff out through dialogue and education. By deleting and banning, with little or no reciprocal attempt at elucidation of the issues, CIF inadvertently fosters hatred and misunderstanding.

This is what makes for lazy journalism. I wish they’d put up a few more articles by authors educating the readership instead of simply playing to the dynamic of ignorance that keeps these endless cyber wars going.

“I don’t think there’s much you can do about bigots who haunt your website.”

Pathetic hypocrisy. This blog attracts anti-Muslim bigots like flies to shit and you don’t do shit to stop it. Not much you can do? Try stop acting pallsy wallsy with genocide advocating fucks like the pschotic social inadequate who styles himself “Morgoth”. Is that too easy?

What surprises me here is to read posts from people who regularly spout racists or hate-mongering views on CIF, (some of them having been banned for doing so) vehemently denouncing the racist and hatemongering posts on CIF! It’s kind of funny, to tell the truth. Especially hilarious is to read clapthehammer, who has written some of the most offensive comments seen on CIF, and who has been banned for it, rejoicing in the banning of another poster for hate speech!

The self-righteous denouncers would be far more credible if they denounced all hate-mongering and racism wherever it comes from, rather than only that which is perpetrated by their political opponents.

They would also be far more successful in their campaigns if they didnt post wildly idiotic statements such as that the Guardian is an agent of Hamas or accuse the entire world of antisemitism.

Because of this blinkered behaviour, which fatally undermines their credibility with sensible readers, there is little chance that their message will be heard, even when they may occasionally be right.

Stupidity is perhaps the most widely shared human failing.

Salaam to all…

Rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated…

My silly comments above were written in response to constant and ongoing provocation by inhumane and warmonger gangs of posters on cif… of course they are indefensible, I never said they were, I regretted posting them immediately after I pressed the submit key… I am not perfect and only human like the res of yout… I admit I have made mistakes but by no means am I racist, anti Judaism, anti-Christianity, anti-Islam or any other faith on earth… I have been worried for my country, the innocent Iranians, my loved ones and my future which I have been looking forward to spend back home in Iran…

I wish to apologies to all TRUE believers of HUMANITY / Judaism /Christianity / Islam and other faiths, if I have upset you… I had no intention to insult anyone…

DEMOCRACY is indeed dead … what a shame…r. i. p.

soraya

Glad he got sacked.

We link to this and include a report from Jonathan Hoffman about the issue:

http://www.thejidf.org/2008/10/guardian-sacks-racist-blogger.html

-The Jewish Internet Defense Force

*she

(sorry)

The Jewish Internet Defence Force? What next, cyber-militias?

Jesus christ! I actually fell asleep reading this crap.

TheJIDF
Yes well done, she’s a woman… here… you don’t have any problems with that do you? do you?

Matt Seaton, said: “We have a zero-tolerance policy on antisemitic postings or any other form of hate speech.”

What a vile hypocrite. He knows full well the Guardian is a fount of vicious, virulent anti-Semitism, from its criticism of orthodox English Jews who do not assimilate, to its many columns maligning the Jewish state, to its sponsoring of terrorists as authors (Hizbullah, hamas), to its push to eliminate the Jewish state.

May Seaton choke to death on his own rag. Harry’s place may feel justifiably obliged to show Seaton and the Guardian professional courtesy. I do not. Yom kippur would seem an aprropriate time to pray for the demise of the Guardian and its rabidly anti-Semitic propaganda.

You do not defend Jewish heritage, or confront antisemism: all you do is defend Zionism, an antisemitic ideology. Many Jewish people stand up against what Zionism is about, but are silenced as much as islamics speaking against its crimes.
International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network: “Zionism has been nourished by the most violent and oppressive histories of the nineteenth Century, at the expense of the many strains of Jewish commitment to liberation. To reclaim them, and a place in the vibrant popular movements of our time, Zionism, in all its forms, must be stopped… It is responsible for the extensive displacement and alienation of Mizrahi Jews (Jews of African and Asian descent) from their diverse histories, languages, traditions and cultures… As Zionism took root, these Jewish histories were forced from their own course in service of the segregation of Jews imposed by the State of Israel.”

#This is a tendency common to certain white liberals, Islamists, and out and out Islamophobes. They read a piece that, coming from a Christian, Jew, athiest - even Hindu or Sikh - they’d find repellent. However, if it comes from a Muslim, they treat it as the mark of authenticity.

It is noble savagery.
#

The Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph ran the following stories:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-560231/Public-pool-bars-father-son-Muslim-swimming-session.html

Public pool bars father and son from its ‘Muslim-only’ swimming session

A father and his five-year-old son were turned away from their local swimming pool because they were the wrong religion.
David Toube, 39, and his son Harry were told that the Sunday morning session was reserved for Muslim men only.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1895962/%27Non-Muslim%27-father-banned-from-London-pool.html

‘Non-Muslim’ father banned from London pool

By Graham Tibbetts
Last Updated: 2:24AM BST 21 Apr 2008

A father has described his anger after he and his son were refused entry to their local swimming pool because they weren’t Muslims.

The pool also has sessions only for Haredi jewish women

“David Toube is experiencing great problems trying to go for a swim with his son at Clissold Leisure Centre at Stoke Newington, North London. He turned up one Sunday morning only to find that the pool operated a women only policy on Sunday mornings, mainly to meet the needs of Haredi Jewish women. ”
http://athinkingman.wordpress.com/2008/04/20/pandering-to-apartheid/

Now DavidT (David Touble) intially the story appeared in the Jewish Chronicle and concerned your wife- somehow the link to the Jewish Chronicle story stated “page not found”. You also write for the Jewish chronicle.

Could I ask if you cynically engineered the story about being refused entry to swimming pool becuase you were not a muslim after you wife had been refused intially, given you did not report or make a fuss about not being allowed entry to swimming pool becuase you were not a haredi jewish women?

Perhaps you can link to the story that appeared in Jewish chronicle about your wife and the swimming pool or explain why the link states page not found?

here is the link to JC and the first story:

http://www.thejc.com/home.aspx?ParentId=m11s18&SecId=18&AId=57632&ATypeId=1

soraya tehrani

that was a very brave comment you posted here… Were just talking about you on Seth’s latest article… Ziongate it seems is still in shock about it all… Hope to see you again Tehrankid

P.

Ms. Tehrani

So this is Harry’s Place? mmm!
i will miss your contributions to CIF, particularly your championing of the cause of women and children.

L

Could we please have a link to the source for the quotations you’ve given above?

What about Hossein Derakhshan (hoder)? he is clearly an Islamofascist

Afanc

So this is Harry’s Place? mmm!

Yes it is.

i will miss your contributions to CIF, particularly your championing of the cause of women and children.

Strange that you should say that here. Please post me links where Ms. Tehrani has been critical of the attitude of the great Iranian Mullahs to Women. I remind you, that according to Iranian law, girls can be married off at 9 years of age and a 16 year old girl was actually executed for moral terpitude by these paragons of true Islamic virtue.

soraya tehrani, have you a multiple personality? Have the hateful statements quoted above been made by one of your alters and you have not been aware of them? If so, then you should get professional help, if not, then how on earth can you insult us by writing here that you are not a Jew-hater given what is quoted as coming from you?

If you indeed regretted posting them as soon as you pressed the “submit” button then why did you not apologise immediately on CiF to those whom you had offended, or can we say of you that hate means never having to say that you are sorry?

What are we meant to make of the passive aggressive slogan at the end of tehrani’s post, that “DEMOCRACY” (and note the capitals) “is indeed dead…?”

Tehrani, if by “DEMOCRACY” you mean the right to insult freely Jews and anyone else who disagrees with you, then perhaps we should not be too quick to mourn its demise.

And as for hers being a “brave” post, how is it brave to lie through one’s teeth and, in the final sentence, undermine the pseudo-apology she offers?

Soraya Tehrani, who are you, pray, to decide to apologise only to TRUE BELIEVERS in anything given the bile you have written? Are you an example of a TRUE BELIEVER and what gives you the right to decide who is and who isn’t?

Soovey, you are right that Tehrani’s apology is a qualified one and being that is no apology at all. Like mitnaged, I believe that had you been really sorry, you should have posted an unqualified apology for the offence you caused immediately after you caused it.

Tehrani is not brave, she is manipulative and lacking in any sense of how she comes across to others whose emotions are more highly evolved than hers, and she is trying to manipulate her way back into the Guardian’s good graces, if that is not a contradiction in terms.

I hope that the Guardian doesn’t fall for it.

“…My silly comments above were written in response to constant and ongoing provocation by inhumane and warmonger gangs of posters on cif…”

That makes it all right does it? That puts you fairly and squarely in with the drunken louts who beat their wives on a Saturday night because they are so easily “provoked” that they can’t help it.

In their case, the (usually court-mandated) advice is usually to stay off the booze; in yours it’d more a case of if you can’t stand the heat and can’t control yourself stay out of the cif kitchen.