This is absolutely priceless – for all the wrong reasons. Read:
The only truly outrageous comments in Livingstone’s interview were made by presenter Vanessa Feltz. At the outset of the exchange, Feltz led listeners to believe that Naz Shah MP had defended Hitler’s actions as ‘legal’. This is simply false. In 2014, before she was an MP, Shah shared the following image on Facebook:
The quote is from that notorious antisemite, Martin Luther King, Jr. In context, it reads as follows:
We can never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was ‘legal’ and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was ‘illegal’. It was ‘illegal’ to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler’s Germany.
I suppose, in the midst of this hysteria, it does need saying: King was defending civil disobedience, not Hitler.
What does it say about our politicians and our mainstream media (and, yes, you can include This Writer in there because I didn’t know it either) when not only can none of us place a quotation by probably the most famous civil rights campaigner of all time;
When some of us take it as an active expression of a view diametrically opposed to that which he expressed;
And when some of us then use that misinterpretation as an excuse to persecute the person who published that quotation?
Some media outlets have some mind-bogglingly grovelling apologies to make – along with many of our favourite politicians.
You know that image that got Naz Shah suspended from the Labour Party?
The really offensive, anti-Semitic image that proposes relocating the nation of Israel from the Middle East to the American Midwest?
It seems nobody bothered to check on the person who originally published it.
So let me put you out of your misery.
The map was posted in Norman Finkelstein Solution for Israel-Palestine Conflict, on Monday, August 4, 2014, on his blog.
Professor Finkelstein is described by that hideously inaccurate Wikipedia as “an American political scientist, activist, professor, and author. His primary fields of research are the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and the politics of the Holocaust, an interest motivated by the experiences of his parents who were Jewish Holocaust survivors.”
That’s right – it was posted by a Jewish gentleman.
Not only that; he’s the son of two Jewish people who survived the Shoah.
It puts a different complexion on this whole issue, doesn’t it?
He’s currently working on a book – his 11th – with Palestinian political analyst Mouin Rabbani, entitled How to Solve the Israel-Palestine Conflict.
This Writer found out the above on a website called Jews For Justice For Palestinians, which has been running a fascinating series of articles on the “anti-Semitism” controversy here in the UK, under the headline Carnival of Ignorance.
Some of you may be particularly interested by this passage, about Ken Livingstone: “Ken Livingstone was quite right about Hitler’s plan for the Jews in 1932, which became law when Hitler became German Chancellor the following year.”
This Writer had to smile at the following footnote: “To Naz Shah and other posters: always give your sources. It’s respectful and allows the trail of transmission of authority to be known.”
If only she had! This whole silly affair could have been cleared up within minutes.
Goldsmith said Sadiq Khan and Ken Livingstone were ‘certainly part of the same movement within the Labour party’. Is there a big Islamophobic movement in the Tories then, Zac? [Image: Ben Stansall/AFP/Getty Images].
What should be a story about a Tory campaign of disinformation about Labour’s candidate to be Mayor of London is turned into trash about the anti-Semitism controversy byThe Guardian.
This is gutter journalism from a paper that should know better.
Zac Goldsmith, in trying to link Sadiq Khan with Ken Livingstone, who has been suspended by Labour while the party works out whether quoting historical fact is anti-Semitic or not, is trying to get the public to ignore his own campaign’s Islamophobic activities.
The details – or as many as are currently known to This Writer – are laid out here.
The Guardian could have mentioned them, to give context to its report that Goldsmith is trying to accuse Khan of anti-Semitism.
What kind of candidate allows Islamophobic campaigning and then accuses his rival of anti-Semitism? It’s ridiculous behaviour and the Conservative Party should be suspending Goldsmith rather than supporting him.
It just shows how Labour is much more responsive to complaints than the Tories.
The Guardian‘s claim that Ken Livingstone had said Hitler was a Zionist is inaccurate, of course. Livingstone had said Hitler supported Zionists in one instance.
That seems to have been lost in the clamour for lurid reportage.
Zac Goldsmith, the Conservative London mayoral candidate, has denied that attempts to link his Labour opponent, Sadiq Khan, to the antisemitism row surrounding former mayor Ken Livingstone amount to “dog-whistle politics”.
Goldsmith, who is trailing Khan in the polls before Thursday’s election, said Khan and Livingstone were “certainly part of the same movement within the Labour party” and had defended each other in the past.
Khan was one of the first MPs to call for Livingstone’s suspension from the party after the ex-mayor gave several radio interviews in which he said Adolf Hitler had been a Zionist before he “went mad and ended up killing 6 million Jews”.
“Ken Livingstone’s comments are appalling and inexcusable,” Khan tweeted. “There must be no place for this in our party.”
Boris Johnson, the current may, told LBC he believed there was “an ideological continuum between the views of Ken Livingstone about Israel and the position of Jeremy Corbyn and indeed the views of their candidate for London mayor, Sadiq Khan.” He called Khan’s condemnation of Livingstone “politically expedient”.
Goldsmith said he agreed with Johnson’s analysis. “They’re certainly part of the same movement within the Labour party,” he said. “Ken Livingstone has been a strong supporter of Sadiq Khan and vice-versa. Ken Livingstone hasn’t suddenly decided to make outrageous comments; he has been making them for a very long time, and on previous occasions Sadiq Khan has rushed publicly to his defence.”
This is crucial reading. While This Blog has been sorting the information from the noise in the Ken Livingstone/Naz Shah controversy, our old friend Kerry-Anne Mendoza over on The Canary has exposed the overarching strategy of those who denounced them.
It is critically important that as many people read this as possible – particularly those who have been persuaded by the “Labour is full of anti-Semites” narrative being pushed in the mainstream press and by stooges in the social media.
It is time to speak out against the concerted and, loosely, coordinated effort to silence Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and critics of Israel, by smearing them as anti-semites. As a journalist who has been engaged in the Israel-Palestinian conflict since I was 20 years old, this tactic is nothing new to me. But I have never witnessed (in the UK at least) the kind of sustained and widespread attacks that have happened in recent weeks. For this reason, it’s time to put forward a powerful statement on why our team at The Canary refuse to be censored by this hypocritical and cynical smear campaign.
How it works
It appears that enemies of Jeremy Corbyn’s progressive plans for the Labour party have discovered some common ground. Blairites within the party and the media, along with their conservative peers and the pro-Israel lobby, all lose out if Corbyn succeeds. So, in short, they are seeking to take him out of play by hitting him where it is mutually beneficial – his long-standing criticism of Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine.
The efforts to deliberately confuse anti-Zionism (criticism of the political movement to establish an apartheid Jewish state), and anti-semitism (the prejudice and persecution of Jewish people) are longstanding. Israeli advocacy groups within the EU have been attempting to formalise the bogus definition of anti-semitism since at least 2005. As Ben White reports for Alternet, as recently as March 30 this year:
Eric Pickles, UK Special Envoy for Post-Holocaust issues and chair of Conservative Friends of Israel, revived the discredited definition by publishing it on the government’s website.
By setting up this framework, such groups simply have to wait for someone to make a criticism of Israel – then launch their attack. Here’s how it works:
Some journalist or pro-Israel group seize on an anti-Israel statement (generally scouring social media accounts over years). They then release it as a shocking revelation. Pundits and political opponents then whip up some mock outrage until they can force a resignation or suspension – and so they go on repeating with each subsequent target.
In the case of Labour activist Vicky Kirby, the allegations of anti-semitism absolutely bear true. Her statements were despicable and indefensible. However, since then, the project has expanded to include any and all expressions of outrage at Israeli atrocities.
The treatment of Naz Shah is a case in point. The contemptible conservative blogger Guido Fawkes released a Facebook post that Shah published during Israel’s 2014 assault on Gaza. The post stated that the solution for the conflict would be to relocate Israel to the US as a 51st state. Is that emotive? Yes. Does it make a powerful political point? Yes. Israel receives more than $3bn every year in defense funding from the US, which it uses to enforce a brutal and illegal occupation of Palestine. Israel is an apartheid state, and it was certainly not considered racist to call for British occupiers to get out of the colonies of Rhodesia, South Africa and elsewhere – even those colonialists who had lived in the country for generations.
It is also worth noting that none of these come-lately crusaders against anti-semitism utter a word against Israel when its statesmen and women call openly for the ethnic cleansing and genocide of the Palestinians.
So let me be clear: anyone seeking to cloak their bigotry under the petticoats of persecution meted out to the Palestinians will find no sanctuary here.
For enemies of Corbyn and the progressive left to leverage this into a sickening smear campaign against all those who stand against prejudice – to abuse the memory of holocaust victims for their own political ends – is almost beneath our contempt. We denounce these appalling tactics in the strongest terms. They are repulsive and repugnant, and they have no place in our public conversation.
The Canary exists to confront anti-semitism. Not only anti-semitism, but all prejudice, whether based on race, sexuality, gender or anything else. Which is more than can be said for those promoting the campaign against Corbyn and the progressive wing of the Labour party right now. If you agree, make this stand with us. Call out prejudice wherever you find it, and let’s have the same policy for bullshit too.
Today’s Ken Livingstone photograph. [Image: REX/Shutterstock].
The controversy over Ken Livingstone’s remarks about Naz Shah, anti-Semitism and Hitler is becoming increasingly unreasonable, it seems.
This Blog’s comment inbox is full of opinion about it, and I should apologise for my slowness in moderating the correspondence. Some is from people who support my earlier article, some is from those who oppose, some is from people who are generally anti-Semitic and many are highly emotive, if not downright offensive in certain respects. Where people are quoting sources to support them, I have to look up the material and check it before deciding whether to allow the comments. It’s a verbal minefield.
And that is what this issue has become – mostly because people are keen to add their own interpretations to what was originally said. So the debate has mutated to such a point that people who should know better have been reduced to discussing whether Hitler was a Zionist, for example. Of course he wasn’t.
Let’s remind ourselves of Ken Livingstone’s original, controversial interview with Vanessa Feltz:
When he mentions Hitler and Zionism, he is responding to a question about the statement “Everything Hitler did was legal”, which had been retweeted by the MP Naz Shah, along with an image suggesting that Israel should be relocated to the American Midwest. Ms Shah has been suspended from the Labour Party pending an investigation into whether her actions were anti-Semitic.
It seems likely, to This Writer, that Livingstone only mentioned Hitler because of that comment, “Everything Hitler did was legal”. We’ll come back to the meaning of the comment itself later. It seems to have sparked a memory of the Haavara agreement mentioned in a previous Vox Political article.
I would suggest that he mentioned it as a tangent to any argument about Ms Shah. She had retweeted an (offensive) image about relocating Israel and she had retweeted a comment about Hitler, and Livingstone recalled that Hitler’s Nazi government had entered into an agreement with Zionists to relocate German Jews to what was then Palestine.
We can safely take it that he said “Israel”, rather than Palestine, in an attempt at clarity and to prevent confusion with the current Palestine, but of course this has been attacked by his critics as well.
Here’s the background to that comment:
Zionists came to the Nazis with a plan to move as many Jewish people as possible from Germany to Palestine. The Nazis agreed, most probably because an international agreement like this was likely to grant them legitimacy on the world stage, and also because there were economic benefits to be had. They then devoted resources to the project, which lasted six years until the outbreak of World War II.
So they were supporting Zionism, in that way.
Hitler himself was anti-Semitic to the core, and had been at least since World War I. He wanted the Jews out of Germany, one way or the other, and my opinion – based on what I’ve seen in the last couple of days – is that he had no problem running his genocidal policies against the Jews (and many other people) alongside this one. We should not expect rational or reasonable behaviour from such a creature.
The only questionable aspect of Livingstone’s comment is where he said this happened “before [Hitler] went mad and ended up killing six million Jews”. Was he mad, or simply evil? He was certainly unreasonable, as mentioned above, but the level of derangement is debatable (and a side issue).
We should also clarify our terms here. Zionism was originally a movement for the re-establishment of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. I don’t think we can equate the people who signed the Haavara agreement with the debatably supremacist movement that many Jewish people oppose today.
Hitler, as an anti-Semite, clearly did not want the Jews to establish a state of their own. My opinion is that he agreed with them leaving Germany because it allowed him to concentrate on creating the power base he wanted, from which to launch his war of genocide against everybody who didn’t conform to his narrow definition of humanity (one in which he himself didn’t fit, which tends to support the argument that he was mad) – including, if he had the chance, the Jews who had moved to what was then Palestine.
Now let’s look at John Mann’s confrontation with Livingstone on a BBC(?) stairwell. Mr Mann appeared while Livingstone was carrying out a phone interview, with a camera crew in tow – is that normal behaviour for a Labour MP? – and berated him for being “A disgusting racist” for “re-writing history”, “a Nazi apologist”, “factually wrong” and a “calculated lie” put about by “conspiracy theorists”.
We can see that these accusations simply aren’t true. Nothing Livingstone said in his Feltz interview was racist; he didn’t re-write history but merely quoted it; so he wasn’t being a Nazi apologist. It was factually accurate, so could not be a calculated lie, no matter who Mann said put it about.
Mann also quoted Nazi acts including the creation of Dachau concentration camp and the race purity laws. He was right that these were created in 1933, although Dachau did not at first admit Jewish prisoners and the race laws were initially moderate. Both these attitudes changed as the Nazi grip on Germany tightened but the fact that the situation was different in the early 1930s supports what Livingstone said, rather than undermining it.
Livingstone’s later comment that he was echoing what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had said is correct up to a point, as the BBC reported. But Netanyahu was trying to claim that Palestinians persuaded Hitler into the Shoah and This Writer doesn’t believe that for a second. In Netanyahu, we’re seeing a manipulator who was trying to wrap a falsehood inside a fact in the hope that people would believe it. The same could be suggested of John Mann.
The BBC put a curious spin on it. Presumably trying to find a rationalisation for Livingstone’s comments to Vanessa Feltz, a report states: “Mr Livingstone defended the Bradford West MP, saying anti-Zionism was not the same as anti-Semitism.
“He told BBC London: ‘When Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.'”
Livingstone had said on the stairwell that Hitler was anti-Zionist, and it may be hard for some to reconcile that with his government signing an agreement with Zionists. Consider this: Every government signs treaties with other governments or organisations it opposes. That’s politics. Chamberlain signed an agreement with Hitler, and we all know how that ended.
Getting back to Naz Shah, some have pointed out that she has admitted her tweets were anti-Semitic and apologised for them – the aim being to undermine Livingstone by pointing out he was defending someone who had admitted her own guilt. My problem with that is, I’m not surprised she caved in to pressure. I’ve had two days of people screaming at me on Twitter and This Blog’s comment column, in increasingly shrill ways, because I said something they didn’t like; undoubtedly she had people doing it to her face. In that situation, the urge to give them what they want, if only to have an easier life, can be highly persuasive. Whether that’s why she agreed her behaviour was anti-Semitic or not, I can’t say.
But that doesn’t mean Livingstone had to agree with her. The Labour Party has opened an inquiry into the matter, at which one hopes more level heads will prevail and the evidence will be studied very carefully.
Ms Shah made her retweets at a particularly emotive time in 2014, when Israelis and Palestinians were fighting each other viciously (see Scriptonite‘s reports including, but not limited to, this one). Emotions were extremely strong, and it is in this context that Ms Shah’s behaviour should be examined. There’s a reason we have the saying, “Act in haste, repent at leisure”, and it seems likely that a person who normally would not act in such an inflammatory way ended up doing so in a spontaneous reaction to reports from the Middle East, that would not reflect her normal reasoning.
This has become a very complicated subject very quickly, but one can see that much of the problem is that what actually happened is not a clear-cut as some commentators want us to believe. Hitler could happily pursue two apparently contradictory policies at the same time, but people like John Mann seem keen to deny that.
The moral of this story is: Don’t believe the people who deal in broad absolutes. The facts are in the details.
Oh yes… Getting back to the retweet stating “Everything Hitler did was legal”. Here’s a little test for you: If someone posted up an image with somebody who had died after losing money due to the Conservative Party’s “reform” of sickness and disability benefit, or an image of someone who had committed suicide claiming the Bedroom Tax was the cause, overlaid with the words, “Everything Cameron did was legal”…
I’m quoting this in full because alleged anti-Semitism is now a major political issue and the Jewish Socialists’ Group has nailed it.
Antisemitism exists and must be exposed and fought against in the same way as other forms of racism by all who are concerned with combating racism and fascism.
Antisemitism and anti-Zionism are not the same. Zionism is a political ideology which has always been contested within Jewish life since it emerged in 1897, and it is entirely legitimate for non-Jews as well as Jews to express opinions about it, whether positive or negative. Not all Jews are Zionists. Not all Zionists are Jews.
Criticism of Israeli government policy and Israeli state actions against the Palestinians is not antisemitism. Those who conflate criticism of Israeli policy with antisemitism, whether they are supporters or opponents of Israeli policy, are actually helping the antisemites. We reject any attempt, from whichever quarter, to place legitimate criticism of Israeli policy out of bounds.
Accusations of antisemitism are currently being weaponised to attack the Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour party with claims that Labour has a “problem” of antisemitism. This is despite Corbyn’s longstanding record of actively opposing fascism and all forms of racism, and being a firm a supporter of the rights of refugees and of human rights globally.
A very small number of such cases seem to be real instances of antisemitism. Others represent genuine criticism of Israeli policy and support for Palestinian rights, but expressed in clumsy and ambiguous language, which may unknowingly cross a line into antisemitism. Further cases are simply forthright expressions of support for Palestinian rights, which condemn Israeli government policy and aspects of Zionist ideology, and have nothing whatsoever to do with antisemitism.
The accusations do not refer to antisemitic actions but usually to comments, often made on social media, long before Jeremy Corbyn won the Labour leadership. Those making the charges now, did not see fit to bring them up at the time, under previous Labour leaders, but are using them now, just before mayoral and local elections, when they believe they can inflict most damage on the Labour Party led by Jeremy Corbyn.
The attack is coming from four main sources, who share agendas: to undermine Jeremy Corbyn as leader of Labour; to defend Israeli government policy from attack, however unjust, racist and harmful towards the Palestinian people; and to discredit those who make legitimate criticisms of Israeli policy or Zionism as a political ideology. As anti-racist and anti-fascist Jews who are also campaigning for peace with justice between Israelis and Palestinians, we entirely reject these cynical agendas that are being expressed by:
• The Conservative Party
• Conservative-supporting media in Britain and pro-Zionist Israeli media sources
• Right-wing and pro-Zionist elements claiming to speak on behalf of the Jewish community
• Opponents of Jeremy Corbyn within the Labour party.
The Jewish Socialists’ Group recognises that ordinary Jewish people are rightly concerned and fearful about instances of antisemitism. We share their concerns and a have a proud and consistent record of challenging and campaigning against antisemitism. But we will not support those making false accusations for cynical political motives, including the Conservative Party, who are running a racist campaign against Sadiq Khan, and whose leader David Cameron has referred to desperate refugees, as “a swarm” and “a bunch of migrants”. The Conservative Party demonstrated their contempt for Lord Dubs, a Jewish refugee from Nazism, when they voted down en masse an amendment a few days ago to allow 3,000 child refugees into Britain while Labour, led by Jeremy Corbyn, gave total support to Lord Dubs and his amendment.
The Jewish Socialists’ Group sees the current fearmongering about antisemitism in the Labour Party for what it is – a conscious and concerted effort by right-wing political forces to undermine the growing support among Jews and non-Jews alike for the Labour Party leadership of Jeremy Corbyn, and a measure of the desperation of his opponents.
We stand against antisemitism, against racism and fascism and in support of refugees. We stand for free speech and open debate on Israel, Palestine and Zionism.
It turns out all those who clamoured for Ken Livingstone to be suspended from the Labour Party – on the basis that Nazi Germany and Zionist Jews never had an agreement – were completely wrong.
Perhaps John Mann needs to reconsider his actions of earlier today (April 28) – along with all those who accused Livingstone of “rewriting history” when he really was simply quoting it.
Vox Political is grateful to the reader who sent us to the Wikipedia page stating the following:
The Haavara Agreement was an agreement between Nazi Germany and Zionist German Jews signed on 25 August 1933.
The agreement was finalized after three months of talks by the Zionist Federation of Germany, the Anglo-Palestine Bank (under the directive of the Jewish Agency) and the economic authorities of Nazi Germany.
The agreement was designed to help facilitate the emigration of German Jews to Palestine.
While it helped Jews emigrate, it forced them to temporarily give up possessions to Germany before departing. Those possessions could later be re-obtained by transferring them to Palestine as German export goods.
The agreement was controversial at the time, and was criticised by many Jewish leaders both within the Zionist movement and outside it.
Hitler’s own support of the Haavara Agreement was unclear and varied throughout the 1930s.
Initially, Hitler criticized the agreement, but reversed his opinion and supported it in the period 1937-1939.
Ken Livingstone [Image: Justin Tallis/AFP/GettyImages].
What a shame Ken Livingstone didn’t know when to hold his tongue.
Much of what he said today about the Naz Shah controversy was perfectly reasonable and deserving of debate – but this will now be buried.
Why? Because he had to add comments that his opponents could use to discredit him.
His claim that the Israeli government could avoid criticism of its actions because of “double standards”, that allow it to claim anti-Semitism when people are not attacking the Jewish people, seems reasonable.
If somebody wants to criticise Benjamin Netanyahu for an entirely disproportionate military strike on Palestinians, that is not an attack on the Jewish people or their religion, it’s a criticism of a political decision.
And while some may want to nitpick the numbers, Livingstone’s claim that between 60 and 100 Palestinians are killed for every Israeli is more or less accurate. See what I mean about military strikes being “disproportionate”?
Likewise with the alleged smear campaign against Jeremy Corbyn. This Writer has seen a certain amount of commentary suggesting that Corbyn is anti-Semitic – and dismissed it as an over-reaction to criticism of the government in Tel Aviv.
Livingstone’s assessment of the Israel government as “one of the most brutal regimes going” is his own opinion – an objective assessment would have to consider it in the context of Middle East politics generally – and should be treated as such.
However, the claim that Hitler supported Zionism because he wanted Jews moved to Israel was the first This Writer has heard of it. I admit I haven’t read Mein Kampf, but subsequent comments by others seem to support my belief that it isn’t accurate.
It seems highly unlikely that Hitler wanted to do anything other than kill Jews, due to a resentment dating back to the First World War – and it was foolish to mention the Nazi leader in connection with the current issue. Why does discussion of anti-Semitism always have to mention the Shoah?
Was the reaction against Livingstone too strong? It’s debatable. It isn’t anti-Semitic to be mistaken about Hitler’s early beliefs, nor is it anti-Semitic to criticise the government in Tel Aviv, and I don’t think he has any inherent prejudice against Jewish people.
But there is an argument that Livingstone was connecting Nazism with Zionism (which was originally simply the movement to re-establish a Jewish nation).
As Rabbi Danni Rich from Liberal Judaism, a progressive Judaism body, stated: “Claiming Hitler was a Zionist is not only a huge historical perversion, but it directly equates Nazism and Zionism. It suggests they share objectives and values; it is guilt by association. It is hard to think of a more offensive linkage.”
He added: “Livingstone is a symptom, not the cause.”
This seems to be the heart of the matter, with the cause being: Ignorance. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, as the saying goes – and it seems likely that too many people have heard snippets of information but never actually researched the facts.
Unfortunately, Rabbi Rich went on to suggest Labour has an “institutional problem” which, in my opinion, is mistaken.
Labour has suspended Livingstone, “pending an investigation” for bringing the party into disrepute. I don’t know about that; it’s possible the Labour politicians who reacted to him have done more harm in that respect.
That being said, some of the comments made in response have raised good points, such as Chris Bryant’s tweet, using his Shadow Leader of HoC account: “Frankly, it is no better when a senior politician looks at the President of the United States and only sees the colour of his skin and his ‘part-Kenyan ancestry’. Or when Tory candidate for Mayor of London runs a deliberately racially charged campaign against his Labour opponent. It is profoundly irresponsible. It offends the fundamental decency of the British people. So I say to racists in my party and every party – leave, go, you’re not welcome.”
Then again, I would agree with attacks on Boris Johnson and Zac Goldsmith that echo my own words on the matter, wouldn’t I?
David Cameron’s claims are a different matter. He’s just jumping on a bandwagon to divert attention from his own party’s problems.
I await your comments with interest. My brother blogger, Beastrabban, may be particularly knowledgeable.
Labour has suspended the former London mayor Ken Livingstone“for bringing the party into disrepute” after he was accused of antisemitism and making offensive comments about Hitler supporting Zionism.
The chief whip is also calling in John Mann, a Labour MP and the chair of the all-party group on antisemitism, to discuss his conduct after he confronted Livingstone at the BBC and called him a “disgusting Nazi apologist”.
A Labour spokesman said: “Ken Livingstone has been suspended by the Labour party, pending an investigation, for bringing the Party into disrepute.
“The chief whip has summoned John Mann MP to discuss his conduct.”
A special commemorative service at St George’s Hall in Liverpool saw crowds gather in their thousands to applaud the families of the victims of the Hillsborough disaster.
This was posted as a comment to a previous article, but it’s too good to leave there.
The jury gave their verdict
The establishment held its breath,
The jury said the police force
was responsible for every death,
Responsible for ending the lives
of every single one
Of Liverpool’s fathers, mothers,
boys and girls who in those tragic
few minutes were gone.
The innocent at a football game
Lost to their loved ones for ever more,
Were then blamed for their own deaths
By a rotten to the core,
Police force, and political class
With their filthy rag in tow,
They lied and lied and fabricated,
A snake could not go so low.
The lies were repeated as the truth
For twenty seven years until,
Justice finally came to call
And the real truth made the kill,
It killed the lies and conspiracies
Of all the years since that day
And now it’s time for the conspirators,
To face justice in the same way.
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.