Livingstone suspended for another year while his detractors try to re-write history

Ken Livingstone [Image: PA].

On the same day ITV News said Theresa May “needs to build new partners around the world post-Brexit, and not all of those will be ones Britain finds agreeable”, the same company – and other news outlets – pilloried Ken Livingstone for saying that the Nazi Party in 1930s Germany formed just such a disagreeable partnership with that country’s Zionists. Can anyone see the hypocrisy?

Readers of This Site will know the facts of the case inside-out by now. If you don’t, try reading this article, and following the links in this one.

You won’t find the facts in much of what has been said about the case by pressure groups that allegedly represent Jewish people.

A disciplinary panel of Labour’s National Constitutional Committee found that Mr Livingstone brought the Labour Party into disrepute with remarks he made in an interview with Vanessa Feltz, linking the German Nazis with Zionism. The panel technically imposed a two-year suspension from holding office in Labour, of which one year has already been served. The suspension will end on 27 April next year.

If you’ve read This Site’s previous articles on the subject, you’ll know that Mr Livingstone’s comments were historically accurate and that he made them for a good reason, in response to unreasonable questioning from Ms Feltz, who did not seem to have researched her subject very well.

But the mass media seem determined to force the lies down our throats. Jonathan Arkush, President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, told The Guardian Mr Livingstone’s comments were “outrageous” and referred to “his shameless, disgraceful and tendentious attempts to link Zionism to Nazism”.

Of course, Mr Livingstone was not trying to link Zionism to Nazism. The agreement to which he referred is a well-documented historical fact.

Britain’s Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis, accused Mr Livingstone of “wilful and unapologetic baiting of the Jewish community by shamefully using the Holocaust as a tool with which to inflict the maximum amount of offence” – which is flat-out untrue.

He – and other commenters – tried to use the case to suggest that the Labour Party remains soft on anti-Semitism. But Mr Livingstone was not accused of anti-Semitism at the hearing. He was accused of having brought Labour into disrepute – a charge that he continues to deny. He claims others, like Labour MP John Mann, brought the party into disrepute by lying about what he had said – and he has a good point. It was Mr Mann, after all, who falsely claimed Mr Livingstone had said Hitler was a Zionist.

Simon Johnson, the chief executive of the Jewish Leadership Council, accused Mr Livingstone of “inaccurate and antagonistic comments”. Perhaps he’d like to explain which comments were inaccurate, or how they were antagonistic?

Karen Pollock of the Holocaust Educational Trust accused Mr Livingstone of “persistent rewriting of history”. In what way?

The litany goes on and on.

The best This Writer can say about it is that it is true that some Jewish people were offended by Mr Livingstone’s words. However, it seems clear that any offence is due to error, misunderstanding or misinterpretation on their part – not his.

Other Jewish people were not offended by what Mr Livingstone had to say. In fact, they agreed with it. Five of them gave evidence to the disciplinary panel and, after the verdict, Jenny Manson, Diana Neslen, Jonathan Rosenhead, Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi and Walter Wolfgang issued a statement of their own:

“We are appalled by the decision to continue the suspension of Ken Livingstone.

“The case brought against Ken was not that he was antisemitic. Instead it was claimed that he upset a significant part of the UK’s Jewish population. This upset had been caused by his (accurate) statement that some Zionists and Hitler had wanted to get Jews out of Germany, and that prior to the War they reached a temporary agreement to help bring this about. The Zionist motivation was to increase the numbers of Jews going to Palestine.

“If a political party adopts the principle that it suspends every member that upsets some part of the population where would it all end? Labour should respect freedom of expression.

“The decision to continue the suspension [of] Ken is mistaken. It is an attempt to protect Israel from criticism, while simultaneously weakening the position of Jeremy Corbyn, a principled supporter of Palestinian rights.

“It is the verdict, not Ken Livingstone, that has bought the Labour Party into disrepute.”

Mr Livingstone has said he will launch a campaign to overturn his suspension.

This is not over yet.

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.


The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

43 thoughts on “Livingstone suspended for another year while his detractors try to re-write history

  1. Dogtired

    I suspect they’ve suspended him for another year while they try to rewrite the Labour party constitution and/or find something else to pin on him. Even the Labour elites would find it difficult to rewrite history, but not without the want of trying.

    1. Shaya Grosskopf

      Yeah, these “elites” corrupt everything don’t they. Are they … Zionist elites, perchance?

  2. Rob

    Well what did you expect , fairness and justice from the present Labour party machinery .This is nothing more than another attempt to close down ANY legitimate and legal debate over what the State of Israel is doing to the Palestinians.There are those factions within Labour who’s purpose is to make sure this fear and intimidation of ordinary members happens by attacking high profile figures , ultimately to get rid of Corbyn as we know very well his stance on the situation in Palestine.
    This background activity is corrupting a once open fair and just party with fear to even open ones mouth to mention the word Israel and Jew . it invites a storm of criticism and accusations of anti-Semitism , Jackie Walker being example in this case , Mark Wadsworth another , who dared to criticise Ruth Smeeth relationship with the right wing MSM and nothing to do with her religion ,some how she managed to misconstrue this as anti-Semitic.
    It is truly very disturbing the way things are now going in the Labour party with the right wing factions etc who’s only purpose is to get rid of a democratically elected leader and will use any weapon to achieve it .
    Cue storm of anti-Semitic accusations .

    1. Shaya Grosskopf

      Who are the “greedie ones”? Are they Zionists? Are they Jewish, but only, y’know, the wrong sort of Zionist greedy Jew?

  3. David Woods

    The Labour ‘elite’ need to ban themselves, for it is they, their never ending litany of lies and falsehoods that has brought disrespect and total distrust of the Labour Party.

    They are behaving like card carrying conservatives!
    Shame on them!

  4. Paul

    Ken Livingstone, a very wealthy man, should sue John Mann and anybody else who has slandered his name by accusing him of saying things that he hasn’t said. He is a public figure and should defend his name in the courts if evidence allows. My bet however is that he won’t which is a pity.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      There’s a lot to be said for that – although his wealth shouldn’t come into it.
      I would hope he’d try to take it through Labour Party processes first, though.

    2. Shaya Grosskopf

      And why do you think he hasn’t? Is it the same reason he spouted off during his hearing? Because he knew he would loose?

      1. Mike Sivier Post author

        He may yet do this.
        Mr Mann certainly made false accusations about Mr Livingstone – we have filmed evidence of that. So there is no reason to believe Mr Livingstone would lose a court case.
        My own opinion is that he is following Labour Party channels first.

      2. Shaya Grosskopf

        Typical David Irving style asymmetry of burden of proof. When Mann calls out Livingstone for saying that Hitler was a Zionist, you pedants jump up and down. He didn’t say that. He said that Hitler supported Zionism. But when The Nuremberg Laws say “Jewish flag” and Livingstone said “Zionist flag” – why – that’s absolutely a fair interpretation (never mind the context *racial* purity laws).

      3. Mike Sivier Post author

        Livingstone’s interpretation is accurate. The Zionist flag was the basis for the Israeli flag. Didn’t you know that?
        The Nazis were inaccurate in calling it the Jewish flag – which Mr Livingstone didn’t do.
        So you’re absolutely wrong.
        By rights, I should block you from commenting because your claims are wild and offensive – but it is also useful to demonstrate to the wider world the way people like you work, and how to defeat your false arguments.

      4. Shaya Grosskopf

        Sweetie,

        “Livingstone’s interpretation is accurate. The Zionist flag was the basis for the Israeli flag. Didn’t you know that?”

        Yes. But what’s a *JEWISH* flag? Y’know, the one in the racial purity laws that Livingstone was talking about

        Really you should block me for being accurate.

      5. Mike Sivier Post author

        Livingstone only talked about the Zionist flag. The Nazis called it the Jewish flag in the Nuremberg laws.
        You’re getting mixed up, “Sweetie”.
        And inaccurate, of course.

  5. Rusty

    Why isn’t John Mann being suspended for bringing the party into disrepute!? And as for the chief rabbi, misleading is the same as lying! He should step down in disgrace. But I suspect he has no honour or decency so will carry on lying!

  6. Ian

    Did you catch Newsnight with Ken and Wes Streeting? Streeting sat and lied and bluffed his way through it with obvious help of Kirsty dumb-as-a-hammer Wark.

    I think Progress must hold regular seminars on How To Be Obectionable Slime In Public. Wes Streeting must have been to a few.

  7. Barry Davies

    It seems to be Orwellian in its concept, Livingstone states facts from history, and is suspended for it. It is time that people realised history is littered with outrages, but to forget they happened or deny they happened would be foolish, just as it is foolish to ignore the positive things that occurred at the same time.

    1. Shaya Grosskopf

      He claimed that the Nazis promoted “the Zionist flag”. Article 4 of the Nuremberg Laws on Racial Purity (Gesetz zum Schutze des deutschen Blutes und der deutschen Ehre. 15. September 1935.) declared in article 4(2) that the Jewish (“das Zeigen der jüdischen”) flag was permitted. Livingstone has consistently argued that Zionist and Jew are not cognate. But only when it suits him.
      He claimed that the SS funded and promoted Jewish camps for German emmigrants to Israel. This is not true. The camps were led by Recha Frier, and funded by Zionist institutions such as Youth Aliya. Livinsgstone’s claims are an echo of antisemite and holocaust denier Ingrid Weckert.

      I have demonstrated that Livingstone lied. The question is why. The only possible answer is because he is a bigot. And the only possible reason why you could fail to see this is because you are bigots.

      1. Mike Sivier Post author

        You have not demonstrated that Mr Livingstone lied – certainly not with your claims about the flag. And why make those, in any case? I’ve already gone into reasons why his claims about the flag don’t stand up.
        This is the second time you have accused This Site and its readers of bigotry, without evidence.
        It seems to me that the only bigot around here at the moment is you.

      2. Shaya Grosskopf

        100 + labour MPs, Jeremy Corbyn, Chief Rabbi and I think Livingstone’s comments offensive. Why don’t you?

  8. Zippi

    Vanessa Feltz has cause untold damage. Her incendiary comments and management of her show, her wilful misrepresentation of the facts, her lies on air (aye, she lied)… Who is her paymaster?

    1. Shaya Grosskopf

      It’s obviously the ZOG conspiracy, who paid her to fairly represent what Livingstone said, right? Also the Zionists are responsible for climate change, the mould on my marmalade this morning, and the dripping tap in the loo.

      1. Mike Sivier Post author

        The what?
        I think we’re getting into tinfoil hat territory.
        As far as this discussion is concerned, we are interested in the way Ms Feltz represented Naz Shah’s tweets to Mr Livingstone – and she did a very poor job indeed.
        As are you.

      2. Shaya Grosskopf

        Again straw man. *I* said tin foil hat. Not you.

        What did Feltz say which was inaccurate?

      3. Mike Sivier Post author

        You might have said it, but you didn’t write it.
        What did Ms Feltz say that was accurate?

      4. Zippi

        Shaya, in the wake of the “scandal” I went out of my way to find out what had happened. I did my research. I saw what Naz Shah had posted, found out where it came from and what it was in reference to. I also listened to every single episode of Vanessa’s programme that week, from start to finish. I wrote down what she said and she lied! I composed an e.mail to her, which I did not post, because there was no point. She revelled in what she had done, controlled the debate on her show and whipped up a frenzy, despite being the person who caused it.
        What has been done to Ken £ivingstone is an injustice and if you care at all for truth and justice, you will stand up for him. What Vanessa did is disgusting and she ought to be ashamed. For your information, this whole affair is how I came upon this site. I know the incident VERY well. I am not saying that it is a ZOG conspiracy (whoever ZOG is), I am merely asking the question, who put her up to it? If she did it herself, more shame upon her.
        Ken £ivingstone should never have had to defend Naz Shah; Guido Fawkes, the website that “broke” the “story'” was far from impartial and any comments that contradicted the malicious and vindictive rhetoric were not published, much like Vanessa’s programme, only giving airtime to people who wished to condemn Ken. You are aware that it was SHE who introduced [A.H.] to the conversation, yet, the media would have you believe that it was Ken? Vanessa even repeated this lie and played an edited clip which made it sound so, repeatedly; reprehensible behaviour and a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. Furthermore, almost every media outlet that claimed to have published the “full transcript,” or “full clip” only iterated what Ken said and not in what it was in response to, therefore there was NO CONTEXT. It also became very clear that none of the political commentators had availed themselves of the facts, they merely responded to the edited clip; had any one of them bothered to find out the truth, none of this would be happening now, nor would it have happened then.
        It is extremely worrying that people have been manipulated in this fashion. How else have we been conned and to what end?

  9. Nick Wilkinson

    The matter requires distillation.
    ‘Livingstone did not offend. Misleading accounts offend.’

  10. John

    If Livingston is so right with everything he’s said, how come JC has called his comments “grossly insensitive”? What am I missing here?

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      Mr Corbyn was referring to comments made by Mr Livingstone from just before his hearing began last week until after the verdict was delivered.
      I’m currently researching the accuracy of those comments. Expect an article very soon.

      1. Shaya Grosskopf

        I’ve done it for you. He’s moved on from ambiguous language to falsifiable lies. Now will you admit he’s a bigot?

      2. Mike Sivier Post author

        No, you haven’t.
        You have responded with unverified and frankly unsupportable claims.
        This Site needs supportable facts.

      3. Shaya Grosskopf

        So Ken Livingstone is a bigot *now* but wasn’t a bigot then, right? OR maybe he was always a bigot.

      4. Mike Sivier Post author

        Or maybe, as he said he would, he owes an apology for a mistake he made now, but not for his accuracies then, and you can leave your bigotry out of it.

  11. Shaya Grosskopf

    Ken Livingstone told two definite lies.

    He claimed that the Nazis promoted “the Zionist flag”. Article 4 of the Nuremberg Laws on Racial Purity (Gesetz zum Schutze des deutschen Blutes und der deutschen Ehre. 15. September 1935.) declared in article 4(2) that the Jewish (“das Zeigen der jüdischen”) flag was permitted. Livingstone has consistently argued that Zionist and Jew are not cognate. But only when it suits him.

    He claimed that the SS funded and promoted Jewish camps for German emmigrants to Israel. This is not true. The camps were led by Recha Frier, and funded by Zionist institutions such as Youth Aliya. Livinsgstone’s claims are an echo of antisemite and holocaust denier Ingrid Weckert.

    He also told made a number of unfalsifiable claims, such as the Zionists being provided with Mauser pistols by a secret deal with the Germans (but there’s no evidence of that, because it was secret, dontcherknow.) [For those referencing the post war shipments of Mauser 98ks to the Haganah (a) the Mauser 98k is a rifle not a pistol so Ken wasn’t talking about that (b) that was after the Nazis had lost the war – the contracting government was Czechoslovakia and the Soviets)]. He claims that the Zionists were behind the German order to prevent Rabbis addressing their congregation in Yiddish (again, evidence: none). The onus of proof is not on us – it is on those who wish to overturn common sense perceptions of history.

    He also used ambiguous langugage. Hitler was “a supporter of Zionism”. There is a valence to this of a shared moral complicity; only the deliberately obtuse would interpret this in Livingstone’s favoured formula of “Hitler’s actions had the effect of supporting Zionism” in his written submission. This is what the Chief Rabbi meant by “baiting”.

    I have demonstrated that Livingstone lied. The question is why. The only possible answer is because he is a bigot. And the only possible reason why you could fail to see this is because you are bigots.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      As you are keen to call me and my readers bigots, I see no reason not to cast a critical eye over your comments.
      First the easy one: Mr Livingstone said the Nazis supported Zionism, inasmuch as their aims coincided in wanting Jews out of Germany. That’s all. There was no claim of any “shared moral complicity” at all, and no ambiguity. You are adding inferences that were not there in order to cook up an argument.
      He never said any deal to sell Mausers to Zionists in Palestine was secret. Your reference to a post-war deal is irrelevant because that’s not what is under discussion here.
      Your point about there being no evidence Zionists asked Nazis to force rabbis to address their congregation in Hebrew is irrelevant because I have asked for evidence – not the lack of it. You seem to have mentioned it merely in order to mention your “common sense perceptions of history”. If you don’t have evidence one way or another, don’t comment.
      I’d like to see your source material for the claims about the SS and camps for German Jewish emigrants. A bald assertion without evidence is useless.
      And your comment about the interchangeability of the words “Zionist” and “Jewish” when referring to the flag is not useful. There are many references to the current flag of Israel having grown from an original Zionist flag, and you cannot blame Mr Livingstone for what the Nazis called it.
      May we have some real evidence now, please? Or don’t you have any?

  12. John

    “Because I’m able to think for myself.” – Mike Sivier

    Seems to be a rare skill these days!

Comments are closed.