Topics about the Labour Party
:sunglasses: 71.4 % :thumbsup: 14.3 % :grinning: 14.3 %
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
 
By crabcakes_windermere
Membership Days Posts
#543549
Dan wrote:
Wed May 23, 2018 12:50 pm
Blair conducted a war based on flawed evidence in which many people were killed.

Livingstone gave his opinion on a historical event.

"Being offended" does not trump "being killed".
'Historic event'?!? Underselling, much? Livingstone (among a LOT of other anti-semitic things) gave an erroneous opinion about an abhorrent situation in living memory where huge numbers of people were killed purely because of another group's bigotry.

Does being offended trump being killed? No. But then they're not mutually exclusive situations anyway. There's no set order here.

And as for Livingstone doing good stuff? Well I'm sure he did. But then I'm sure people who went to see Harold Shipman for stuff like ingrowing toenails thought he was a good GP. Absurd? Sure. No more absurd than pretending the Blair years weren't some of the best for Britain for people who want to see a fairer, more balanced society.

Bottom line: the sole bad thing about Livingstone resigning is that it means he can't be kicked out, and Corbyn should have got his finger out and done something about it ages ago. But then as we all know, he still isn't really taking this seriously.
By Dan
Membership Days Membership Days
#543555
Cyclist wrote:
Wed May 23, 2018 1:45 pm
Dan wrote:
Wed May 23, 2018 12:50 pm
Blair conducted a war based on flawed evidence in which many people were killed.

Livingstone gave his opinion on a historical event.

"Being offended" does not trump "being killed".
Which doesn't explain why certain elements within the Labour Party think it acceptable to hurl abuse at a former PM and the MPs who served under him (including some still sitting in parliament), and to ignore every good thing that was done during that PM's terms in office (for which some of the credit must be given to that ex PM), because IRAQ. Yet these same people are now expecting us to sweep the offensive views and statements of a former boss of London under the carpet because of the good things done for London during his terms in office (for which some of the credit must go to those who served under him) because Good Stuff Done.

Why is it it not acceptable to acknowledge the good done during the Blair years while castigating Blair for the Iraq war* and, similarly, to castigate Livingston for his unacceptable views while acknowledging the good things he did?

Or should I just fuck off and join the Tories


*I was on that Stop the War March in London, as were many of my colleagues
One is absolutely welcome to praise Blair and his achievements and anyone who tries to stop anybody from expressing good opinions on him and his leadership is very wrong.

I do not see how Livingstone's views are unacceptable. He has a viewpoint on how a histortic event occured. Disagree with that, sure, but trying to silence the man and hound him out was ridiculous.
 
By Tubby Isaacs
Membership Days Posts
#543556
Dan wrote:
Wed May 23, 2018 12:50 pm
Blair conducted a war based on flawed evidence in which many people were killed.

Livingstone gave his opinion on a historical event.

"Being offended" does not trump "being killed".
Fair enough on Iraq.

But it's a bit more than giving an opinion on a historical event. It was wrong- Hitler wasn't all cuddly about Jews "before he went mad". And it's the most offensive characterization possible to say that he was a "Zionist". It's like saying Enoch Powell was a black nationalist.
 
By Kreuzberger
Membership Days Posts
#543561
Dan wrote:
Wed May 23, 2018 4:13 pm
...
I do not see how Livingstone's views are unacceptable. He has a viewpoint on how a histortic event occured. Disagree with that, sure, but trying to silence the man and hound him out was ridiculous.
I may be reading this wrongly but I am pretty certain the offence is in his interpretation of Adolf's pre-war intentions as being those of a Zionist.

Andy's 110%-ers can argue until the cows come home about whether that is, in itself, anti-Semitic. What must be in little doubt however, is that he sought to downplay a most unimaginable, epically evil cunt.
Cyclist, oboogie liked this
 
By The Weeping Angel
Membership Days Posts
#543562
But it's a bit more than giving an opinion on a historical event. It was wrong- Hitler wasn't all cuddly about Jews "before he went mad". And it's the most offensive characterization possible to say that he was a "Zionist". It's like saying Enoch Powell was a black nationalist.
Yes it was, here a historian tells what really happened

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 09981.html
When the former London mayor Ken Livingstone said in an interview that Hitler was “supporting Zionism” before he “went mad and ended up killing six million Jews”, he was quickly suspended from the Labour Party, which was already in the throes of a painful row over anti-semitism. But while Livingstone’s tone-deaf comments came at a very politically sensitive moment, the historical error at their heart is all too familiar.

Claims that Hitler was a Zionist, or supported Zionism, before his anti-Jewish policies turned into murder and extermination flare up at regular intervals. They usually cite the controversial Haavara Agreement (Transfer Agreement) of August 1933 as the most potent evidence of a wilful cooperation between Hitler and the Zionist movement. When viewed in a certain way, this deal does superficially seem to show that Hitler’s government endorsed Zionism – but just because it was a mechanism to help German Jews relocate to Palestine it does not imply it was “Zionist”.
 
By Malcolm Armsteen
Membership Days Posts
#543578
Livingstone, never a man to accept that someone else's knowledge, views or insight might be superior to his own (and I've met him a few times, the ego certainly had landed) commits a standard schoolboy/fascist apologist error in that he believes that at one stage Hitler wasn't anti-semitic - in fact he swallows whole the slant that Hitler pushed in Mein Kampf. That Hitler, reluctantly and under provocation (the 'stab in the back' of 1918), was forced to deal with a Jewish 'problem' whereas he had previously been neutral or even sympathetic to Jews.

This is infantilely dense. There is massive evidence that Hitler had been virulently anti-semitic since at least 1907/08, possibly before. In fact he says so in Mein Kampf. When exactly the idea of the Final Solution was developed is not so clear, but probably by the late 20s. At that date, however, the plan was to send German and western European Jews abroad (the resettlement plan that Livingstone is presumably referring to) and for eastern Jews to be enslaved and sterilised so that they would be the last generation, giving their lives to aid the German expansion into Eastern Europe and Russia. The mass murder seems to have been born out of the realisation that these slaves would have to be fed, so they would be eliminated instead. A solution enthusiastically adopted.

So Hitler was never a Zionist. He just wanted the Jews out of Germany, and any old method would do, including killing them.
 
By bluebellnutter
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#543583
Dan wrote:
Wed May 23, 2018 4:13 pm
I do not see how Livingstone's views are unacceptable. He has a viewpoint on how a histortic event occured. Disagree with that, sure, but trying to silence the man and hound him out was ridiculous.
Interesting. So you don't believe there is anything which could be said which should result in punishment as long as it's "a viewpoint"?
By Andy McDandy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#543584
Just to add that the original Nazi plan was to work Jews to death. The mass killing and gas chambers came from the Wannasee conference which was basically how to cover up a massive war crime. Enslavement was the original crime, genocide was the cover up. Kill the witnesses and erase any taint of them.

Man, that is fucked up.
 
By Malcolm Armsteen
Membership Days Posts
#543591
As I recall (and it's a few years since I taught this) Wannsee was about the realisation that existing slavery plans could not handle, control and feed the numbers of Jews being detained in Poland and the Soviet Union, and then establishing a state mechanism for genocide. Even to the extent of the state railway charging, and making a profit, for shipping the victims to the death camps, and the exploitation of the living in industry - see Schindler's Ark.
 
By Malcolm Armsteen
Membership Days Posts
#543593
bluebellnutter wrote:
Wed May 23, 2018 8:47 pm
Dan wrote:
Wed May 23, 2018 4:13 pm
I do not see how Livingstone's views are unacceptable. He has a viewpoint on how a histortic event occured. Disagree with that, sure, but trying to silence the man and hound him out was ridiculous.
Interesting. So you don't believe there is anything which could be said which should result in punishment as long as it's "a viewpoint"?
Moral relativism has made a comeback.
 
By crabcakes_windermere
Membership Days Posts
#543629
James Watson - a nobel prize-winning genius - is of the 'viewpoint' that black people are of limited intelligence. He has, despite his achievements, been rightly exiled from scientific society and public speaking for the most part because he shows no remorse or understanding of the offence of his opinion. An opinion not borne out by the facts.

Livingstone's case is no different on any principle - he holds an opinion that is both factually incorrect, bigoted and offensive, and is unwilling or unable to accept he is wrong. He can have the viewpoint by all means. But no one has to listen to it, give it any attention, nor give him any credibility or allow him to damage the reputation of other people or organisations by association. That would apply whether he happens to be chums with the current party leader or not.

People often wrongly equate 'being silenced' as just not giving someone the opportunity to speak via a certain platform, and being sensibly separated from an organisation before you can do harm by association as 'hounded out'. If you wish to seek out and listen to Mr Livingstone's views, he is still perfectly capable of giving them (and I'm sure he will) as he is not 'silenced' at all - he just now cannot give those opinions under the banner of his being a member of the Labour party. Something that, assuming you would like to see the Labour Party elected to office and/or antisemitism tackled seriously and effectively so the Tories can stop taking the moral high ground on which party has the most unresolved bigotry in its ranks, I would think you should be delighted about rather than concerned at.
lord_kobel, Cyclist, oboogie and 1 others liked this
By Dan
Membership Days Membership Days
#544050
bluebellnutter wrote:
Wed May 23, 2018 8:47 pm
Dan wrote:
Wed May 23, 2018 4:13 pm
I do not see how Livingstone's views are unacceptable. He has a viewpoint on how a histortic event occured. Disagree with that, sure, but trying to silence the man and hound him out was ridiculous.
Interesting. So you don't believe there is anything which could be said which should result in punishment as long as it's "a viewpoint"?
Unless it is a threat or an incitement, I am inclined to that view.

It's the "I hate what you say but I defend your right to say it" view.
 
By bluebellnutter
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#544055
So to use the example posted by crabcakes above, you believe that the scientific community were wrong to exclude Watson in the same way you believe Labour were wrong to look to exclude Livingstone?

Even when something is demonstrably untrue, you believe it should be given a hearing because "it's a viewpoint". That's.....bold. It all sounds a bit "fed up of experts" to me.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
Brexit Fuckwit Thread

Grace Blakeley https://twitter.com/graceblakeley[…]

Meanwhile in Greece

Seriously though, what a bunch of imbeciles, g[…]

Theresa May

According to the Telegraph, May "is consideri[…]

Daily Express headline today

https://i.postimg.cc/m2FBpS7M/Dx-Ytyk-VX4-AESb-Mp[…]