Comments on: Labour’s antisemitic strategy? http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/23/labours-antisemitic-strategy/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sun, 21 Mar 2010 03:56:35 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: David B http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/23/labours-antisemitic-strategy/comment-page-1/#comment-62324 David B Wed, 23 Feb 2005 18:44:24 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2907#comment-62324 I said above that 'I don’t know of any UK data on the ethnic identity of non-convicted criminals'. I have now rooted around and found a little bit of data: according to the 2000 British Crime Survey, as described in a Home Office report on 'Crime, Policing and Justice: the Experience of Ethnic Minorities', victims of crime among survey respondents reported that, in those cases where the ethnic identity of the criminal was visible, 15% were from ethnic minorities. Of course this applies mainly to offences against the person, and not, e.g., to most commercial crimes. I said above that ‘I don’t know of any UK data on the ethnic identity of non-convicted criminals’. I have now rooted around and found a little bit of data: according to the 2000 British Crime Survey, as described in a Home Office report on ‘Crime, Policing and Justice: the Experience of Ethnic Minorities’, victims of crime among survey respondents reported that, in those cases where the ethnic identity of the criminal was visible, 15% were from ethnic minorities. Of course this applies mainly to offences against the person, and not, e.g., to most commercial crimes.

]]> By: derek http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/23/labours-antisemitic-strategy/comment-page-1/#comment-62323 derek Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:38:12 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2907#comment-62323 <i>Oh well, in some ways this is progress — the Right is, perhaps, assimilating the lefty advances against bigotry over the past fifty years by enfolding it into its own peculiar narrative.</i> Posted by rog Sadly, no. I don't think this is the Tories becoming less racist; I think thsi is the Tories, after a period of disarray, coming back strong under Howard with a fistful of dirty plays courtesy of the post-Gingrich Republican Party. They're as racist as ever, but they cover it by loudly shouting "racist!" at their non-racist opponents. Oh well, in some ways this is progress — the Right is, perhaps, assimilating the lefty advances against bigotry over the past fifty years by enfolding it into its own peculiar narrative. Posted by rog Sadly, no. I don’t think this is the Tories becoming less racist; I think thsi is the Tories, after a period of disarray, coming back strong under Howard with a fistful of dirty plays courtesy of the post-Gingrich Republican Party. They’re as racist as ever, but they cover it by loudly shouting “racist!” at their non-racist opponents.

]]> By: roger http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/23/labours-antisemitic-strategy/comment-page-1/#comment-62322 roger Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:19:18 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2907#comment-62322 What's wrong with pandering to ethnic groups? Moslem, Jew, Irish, French, German, whatever. Pandering did a lot of good in the nineteenth century in the U.S. -- the great urban machines that were captured by the Irish in New York and Boston, for instance, certainly had a lot to do with lifting the Irish out of an almost caste-like position as manual laborers. The same thing was true for Jews in NYC, when, after the pograms in Russia, Jewish immigrants became numerous in the boroughs. And a good thing -- out of that immigration came not only the core of the American intellectual community, but a political machine that "pandered" to the Jews. That pandering led to the breakdown of quotas, among other things, and to the early civil rights movement. Now, Labour, which is burdened by a foreign policy disaster -- the war in Iraq -- that is seen as distinctly anti-Moslem, could well pander to Moslems without being anti-semitic, just as Boston politicians could pander to the Irish and still loyally support WWI. It is funny that the right, which spent the eighties and nineties bemoaning political correctness, now advocates such a tender sensibility that the very suggestion of a Palestinian nation on the West Bank is to be considered on par with swearing by Eichmann. Oh well, in some ways this is progress -- the Right is, perhaps, assimilating the lefty advances against bigotry over the past fifty years by enfolding it into its own peculiar narrative. What’s wrong with pandering to ethnic groups? Moslem, Jew, Irish, French, German, whatever. Pandering did a lot of good in the nineteenth century in the U.S.—the great urban machines that were captured by the Irish in New York and Boston, for instance, certainly had a lot to do with lifting the Irish out of an almost caste-like position as manual laborers. The same thing was true for Jews in NYC, when, after the pograms in Russia, Jewish immigrants became numerous in the boroughs. And a good thing—out of that immigration came not only the core of the American intellectual community, but a political machine that “pandered” to the Jews. That pandering led to the breakdown of quotas, among other things, and to the early civil rights movement. Now, Labour, which is burdened by a foreign policy disaster—the war in Iraq—that is seen as distinctly anti-Moslem, could well pander to Moslems without being anti-semitic, just as Boston politicians could pander to the Irish and still loyally support WWI. It is funny that the right, which spent the eighties and nineties bemoaning political correctness, now advocates such a tender sensibility that the very suggestion of a Palestinian nation on the West Bank is to be considered on par with swearing by Eichmann. Oh well, in some ways this is progress—the Right is, perhaps, assimilating the lefty advances against bigotry over the past fifty years by enfolding it into its own peculiar narrative.

]]> By: David B http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/23/labours-antisemitic-strategy/comment-page-1/#comment-62321 David B Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:15:25 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2907#comment-62321 I have been looking at the prison statistics and will post some details on gnxp.com when I get round to it. But two points are important enough to note here: a) South Asian women are NOT over-represented in the prison population as compared with the general population, they are UNDER-represented. The over-representation is found only among the Black and 'Chinese and other' categories. You might therefore accuse Rod Liddle of defaming South Asian women, but of course he was only taking his stats from the impeccably liberal Fawcett Society. b) Many female prisoners are not usually resident in the UK - quite a lot of them, especially from Africa and the Caribbean, are drug mules who are arrested on entering the UK. The Home Office have produced some stats in their 2001 report which exclude foreign nationals. This reduces the over-representation of 'Blacks' considerably - they are only over-represented 6-fold instead of ten-fold. Someone in the comments above mentioned the need for an age breakdown. I will cover this point in my later comments. Nasi Lemak makes a fair point above. Not all prisoners are criminals and not all criminals are prisoners. I don't know of any UK data on the ethnic identity of non-convicted criminals, though there are some American data based on reports by victims of assaults and robberies. I have been looking at the prison statistics and will post some details on gnxp.com when I get round to it. But two points are important enough to note here: a) South Asian women are NOT over-represented in the prison population as compared with the general population, they are UNDER-represented. The over-representation is found only among the Black and ‘Chinese and other’ categories. You might therefore accuse Rod Liddle of defaming South Asian women, but of course he was only taking his stats from the impeccably liberal Fawcett Society. b) Many female prisoners are not usually resident in the UK - quite a lot of them, especially from Africa and the Caribbean, are drug mules who are arrested on entering the UK. The Home Office have produced some stats in their 2001 report which exclude foreign nationals. This reduces the over-representation of ‘Blacks’ considerably – they are only over-represented 6-fold instead of ten-fold. Someone in the comments above mentioned the need for an age breakdown. I will cover this point in my later comments. Nasi Lemak makes a fair point above. Not all prisoners are criminals and not all criminals are prisoners. I don’t know of any UK data on the ethnic identity of non-convicted criminals, though there are some American data based on reports by victims of assaults and robberies.

]]> By: yabonn http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/23/labours-antisemitic-strategy/comment-page-1/#comment-62320 yabonn Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:09:22 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2907#comment-62320 <i>Yabonn, I’m right to say that Le Pen was convicted by a German court in ‘99 for an offence committed in Germany in ‘97.</i> Certainly. I meant to answer to "<i>The thing is, Le Pen was convicted by a German court, not a French one</i>", because, precisely, the thing is not, as he was convicted by a french one too. But i see we finally agree on that, as you mention the '87 vintage above. "Trivialisation" is, at least to my taste, a fairly good one for "banalisation". The core of the condemnations seems to revolve more (but then again, i'm fairly ignorant of legal things) around the art.645, gayssot law, or incitement to hatred rules, than on the "banalisation" of the holocaust. Yabonn, I’m right to say that Le Pen was convicted by a German court in ‘99 for an offence committed in Germany in ‘97. Certainly. I meant to answer to “The thing is, Le Pen was convicted by a German court, not a French one“, because, precisely, the thing is not, as he was convicted by a french one too. But i see we finally agree on that, as you mention the ‘87 vintage above. “Trivialisation” is, at least to my taste, a fairly good one for “banalisation”. The core of the condemnations seems to revolve more (but then again, i’m fairly ignorant of legal things) around the art.645, gayssot law, or incitement to hatred rules, than on the “banalisation” of the holocaust.

]]> By: Nasi Lemak http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/23/labours-antisemitic-strategy/comment-page-1/#comment-62319 Nasi Lemak Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:52:54 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2907#comment-62319 Particularly depressing that Liddle appears to be *actually unable to see* that "propensity to commit crime" is not *exactly* the same thing as "propensity to be convicted of crime". Particularly depressing that Liddle appears to be actually unable to see that “propensity to commit crime” is not exactly the same thing as “propensity to be convicted of crime”.

]]> By: mark s http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/23/labours-antisemitic-strategy/comment-page-1/#comment-62318 mark s Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:46:20 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2907#comment-62318 i wasn't correcting yr french, dan (hence my phrasing it as a question) (my french is i'm sure distinctly worse than yrs), but i am questioning the equivalence in english of "banality" (in arendt's phrase "banality of evil") with "trivialisation" as you seem to be using it (ie any discussion of the holocaust by someone you don't take seriously = a triivialisation) (i realise that yr citation of craig brown is possibly not 100% serious, but that only amplifies the sliding around of usage, surely?) anyway i'm not intending to seme like i'm getting at you here, dan: i am seriously interested in the ramifications of "trivialisation", "banalisation" and whatever near-equiv as modes of discussion to be denounced, bcz i think denunciation of either is a worrying development, but for difft reasons i wasn’t correcting yr french, dan (hence my phrasing it as a question) (my french is i’m sure distinctly worse than yrs), but i am questioning the equivalence in english of “banality” (in arendt’s phrase “banality of evil”) with “trivialisation” as you seem to be using it (ie any discussion of the holocaust by someone you don’t take seriously = a triivialisation) (i realise that yr citation of craig brown is possibly not 100% serious, but that only amplifies the sliding around of usage, surely?) anyway i’m not intending to seme like i’m getting at you here, dan: i am seriously interested in the ramifications of “trivialisation”, “banalisation” and whatever near-equiv as modes of discussion to be denounced, bcz i think denunciation of either is a worrying development, but for difft reasons

]]> By: Luc http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/23/labours-antisemitic-strategy/comment-page-1/#comment-62317 Luc Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:42:00 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2907#comment-62317 I best leave the "pin the label on the donkey" game to the British, but this issue is getting really wierd. This <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/stakelbeck200502090757.asp">NRO article</a> tries to convince their audience on who's the bigot by ending it as follows: <blockquote> If it is indeed Muslim votes that Labour is seeking, some recent news should cause them to take heart: A study by Britain's Office for National Statistics showed that "Mohammed" has become one of the most popular names for baby boys in England and Wales, entering the top 20 most commonly chosen in 2004. Britainistan, it would seem, beckons. </blockquote> I best leave the “pin the label on the donkey” game to the British, but this issue is getting really wierd. This NRO article tries to convince their audience on who’s the bigot by ending it as follows:
If it is indeed Muslim votes that Labour is seeking, some recent news should cause them to take heart: A study by Britain’s Office for National Statistics showed that “Mohammed” has become one of the most popular names for baby boys in England and Wales, entering the top 20 most commonly chosen in 2004. Britainistan, it would seem, beckons.

]]> By: dan hardie http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/23/labours-antisemitic-strategy/comment-page-1/#comment-62316 dan hardie Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:39:13 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2907#comment-62316 One last, delightful bouquet from Jean Marie Le Pen, after which I really must go. He was convicted by a French court in '87 for having called the gas chambers a 'detail', and the court did reproach him for having 'banalisé' the Holocaust. But the most detailed account I've been able to find seems to make it clear that the judges convicted him because they felt his remarks constituted a denial of the reality of the gas chambers, and used the phrase 'banalisation' in the judgement- in the same way that a British judge's sentencing speech might call a rapist 'wicked', but the man is convicted for 'rape', not for 'wickedness'. Anyway, the link is at-http://www.crif.org/index.php?menu=5&dossier=2&id_doss=29 LES CHAMBRES A GAZ : UN DETAIL« CONSENTEMENT A L’HORRIBLE, BANALISATION D’ACTES JUGES CONSTITUTIFS DE CRIMES CONTRE L’HUMANITE » Arrêt (de référé confirmatif) de la cour d’appel de Versailles du 28 janvier 1988 ; arrêt de la cour de cassation du 11 octobre 1989 (pourvoi de Le Pen rejeté) : sanction des propos tenus par Le Pen à l’émission « Le grand jury RTL- Le Monde » du 13 septembre 1987 par lesquels Le Pen avait mis en doute l’existence des chambres à gaz, les considérant comme un « point de détail ».Deux jugements, sur le fond, du tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre des 11 janvier et 23 mai 1990 et un arrêt de la Cour de Versailles du 18 mars 1991 : pour assertion « coupablement choquante et elle-même intolérable ». La justice a considéré qu’il y avait « atteinte très grave au souvenir, au respect et à la compassion dues aux survivants du génocide et de leurs familles ». One last, delightful bouquet from Jean Marie Le Pen, after which I really must go. He was convicted by a French court in ‘87 for having called the gas chambers a ‘detail’, and the court did reproach him for having ‘banalisé’ the Holocaust. But the most detailed account I’ve been able to find seems to make it clear that the judges convicted him because they felt his remarks constituted a denial of the reality of the gas chambers, and used the phrase ‘banalisation’ in the judgement- in the same way that a British judge’s sentencing speech might call a rapist ‘wicked’, but the man is convicted for ‘rape’, not for ‘wickedness’. Anyway, the link is at-http://www.crif.org/index.php?menu=5&dossier=2&id_doss=29 LES CHAMBRES A GAZ : UN DETAIL« CONSENTEMENT A L’HORRIBLE, BANALISATION D’ACTES JUGES CONSTITUTIFS DE CRIMES CONTRE L’HUMANITE » Arrêt (de référé confirmatif) de la cour d’appel de Versailles du 28 janvier 1988 ; arrêt de la cour de cassation du 11 octobre 1989 (pourvoi de Le Pen rejeté) : sanction des propos tenus par Le Pen à l’émission « Le grand jury RTL- Le Monde » du 13 septembre 1987 par lesquels Le Pen avait mis en doute l’existence des chambres à gaz, les considérant comme un « point de détail ».Deux jugements, sur le fond, du tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre des 11 janvier et 23 mai 1990 et un arrêt de la Cour de Versailles du 18 mars 1991 : pour assertion « coupablement choquante et elle-même intolérable ». La justice a considéré qu’il y avait « atteinte très grave au souvenir, au respect et à la compassion dues aux survivants du génocide et de leurs familles ».

]]> By: dsquared http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/23/labours-antisemitic-strategy/comment-page-1/#comment-62315 dsquared Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:34:50 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2907#comment-62315 In any case, as I say, I think Cohen's off base on the Evan Harris point. Evan Harris isn't particularly famous, but O'Brien was specifically referring to the incitement to religious hatred bill, and Harris was the LibDem leading the charge against it. In any case, as I say, I think Cohen’s off base on the Evan Harris point. Evan Harris isn’t particularly famous, but O’Brien was specifically referring to the incitement to religious hatred bill, and Harris was the LibDem leading the charge against it.

]]> By: dan hardie http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/23/labours-antisemitic-strategy/comment-page-1/#comment-62314 dan hardie Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:30:45 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2907#comment-62314 Yabonn, I'm right to say that Le Pen was convicted by a German court in '99 for an offence committed in Germany in '97. The RTL remarks were made in 1987; in 1997, Le Pen said almost exactly the same thing in Munich, which is what he was tried for. Eg, in Liberation: 'En 1987, sur RTL, Le Pen déclarait : «(...) je crois que c'est un point de détail de l'histoire de la Seconde Guerre mondiale.» Dix ans plus tard, à Munich, le président du FN récidivait. «Sur un livre de 1 000 pages, les camps de concentration occupent 10 à 15 lignes. Cela s'appelle un détail», affirmait-il ... Il avait alors été condamné et déchu de son immunité de parlementaire européen .'(http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=245441&AG) L'Humanité (6th July 1999) gives more details of Le Pen's conviction in a German court: " Inique et secondaire ", c’est ainsi que Le Pen avait accueilli la peine prononcée, début juin, par la justice allemande. Logique : le leader d’extrême droite français n’a pas fait appel. L’amende infligée est donc exécutoire. Le 5 décembre 1997, dix ans après avoir utilisé l’expression en France et subi une première condamnation, c’est à Munich que Le Pen récidive en qualifiant les chambres à gaz construites par les nazis de " détail de l’histoire de la Seconde Guerre mondiale ". Il est vrai que, ce jour là, il est en compagnie d’un connaisseur : l’ancien Waffen SS Franz Schönhuber, ex-président d’un parti d’extrême droite allemand. Le Pen n’aurait sans doute manqué pour rien au monde la sortie d’un livre à la gloire de ce nazi non repenti. L’immunité du député européen avait été levée le 6 octobre 1998 par le Parlement européen à la demande de la justice allemande, rendant ainsi possible l’ouverture d’une information judiciaire dans ce pays. Pour le tribunal de Munich, Le Pen " est coupable d’incitation à la haine raciale "...'(http://www.humanite.fr/journal/1999-07-6/1999-07-6-292596) mark s: I said that 'banalisation' is the closest French translation I can think of for the English word 'trivialisation'- on which point, I will accept correction from a native speaker of French, but not from you. Yabonn, I’m right to say that Le Pen was convicted by a German court in ‘99 for an offence committed in Germany in ‘97. The RTL remarks were made in 1987; in 1997, Le Pen said almost exactly the same thing in Munich, which is what he was tried for. Eg, in Liberation: ‘En 1987, sur RTL, Le Pen déclarait : «(…) je crois que c’est un point de détail de l’histoire de la Seconde Guerre mondiale.» Dix ans plus tard, à Munich, le président du FN récidivait. «Sur un livre de 1 000 pages, les camps de concentration occupent 10 à 15 lignes. Cela s’appelle un détail», affirmait-il … Il avait alors été condamné et déchu de son immunité de parlementaire européen .’(http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=245441&AG) L’Humanité (6th July 1999) gives more details of Le Pen’s conviction in a German court: ” Inique et secondaire “, c’est ainsi que Le Pen avait accueilli la peine prononcée, début juin, par la justice allemande. Logique : le leader d’extrême droite français n’a pas fait appel. L’amende infligée est donc exécutoire. Le 5 décembre 1997, dix ans après avoir utilisé l’expression en France et subi une première condamnation, c’est à Munich que Le Pen récidive en qualifiant les chambres à gaz construites par les nazis de ” détail de l’histoire de la Seconde Guerre mondiale “. Il est vrai que, ce jour là, il est en compagnie d’un connaisseur : l’ancien Waffen SS Franz Schönhuber, ex-président d’un parti d’extrême droite allemand. Le Pen n’aurait sans doute manqué pour rien au monde la sortie d’un livre à la gloire de ce nazi non repenti. L’immunité du député européen avait été levée le 6 octobre 1998 par le Parlement européen à la demande de la justice allemande, rendant ainsi possible l’ouverture d’une information judiciaire dans ce pays. Pour le tribunal de Munich, Le Pen ” est coupable d’incitation à la haine raciale “…’(http://www.humanite.fr/journal/1999-07-6/1999-07-6-292596) mark s: I said that ‘banalisation’ is the closest French translation I can think of for the English word ‘trivialisation’- on which point, I will accept correction from a native speaker of French, but not from you.

]]> By: Yusuf Smith http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/23/labours-antisemitic-strategy/comment-page-1/#comment-62313 Yusuf Smith Wed, 23 Feb 2005 14:40:28 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2907#comment-62313 Do Labour think Muslims are stupid enough and bigoted enough to vote for them because of a bit of subtle Jew-bashing? A lot of Muslims are afraid of the anti-civil liberties laws Bliar's government is proposing, as well as a lot of other people. They also fear that he will drag us into more wars if Bush says so. There is no way I will vote Labour if the local candidate supports these policies. Do Labour think Muslims are stupid enough and bigoted enough to vote for them because of a bit of subtle Jew-bashing? A lot of Muslims are afraid of the anti-civil liberties laws Bliar’s government is proposing, as well as a lot of other people. They also fear that he will drag us into more wars if Bush says so. There is no way I will vote Labour if the local candidate supports these policies.

]]> By: mark s http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/23/labours-antisemitic-strategy/comment-page-1/#comment-62312 mark s Wed, 23 Feb 2005 14:20:02 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2907#comment-62312 i guess one of the reasons i am bangin on abt the distinction eg between "trivialisation" and "banalisation" is that the increased deployment of anti-semitism as an accusation flung abt by hack columnists and politicians seems to me a clear example of the latter, but not the former - whereas eg the synchro swimming case is (seemingly) an example of the former but not the latter (tho as i said before, the synchro swimming project was intended absolutely seriously, the french synchro team being at that time by some margin the worlds best, and very theatrically literate: synchro being one of the very very few sports which can deal in narrative expressivity as a judgeable component of its "art") (ie it can so deal, but on the whole the sports bodies which reluctantly tolerate it hugely discourage such dealing) i guess one of the reasons i am bangin on abt the distinction eg between “trivialisation” and “banalisation” is that the increased deployment of anti-semitism as an accusation flung abt by hack columnists and politicians seems to me a clear example of the latter, but not the former – whereas eg the synchro swimming case is (seemingly) an example of the former but not the latter (tho as i said before, the synchro swimming project was intended absolutely seriously, the french synchro team being at that time by some margin the worlds best, and very theatrically literate: synchro being one of the very very few sports which can deal in narrative expressivity as a judgeable component of its “art”) (ie it can so deal, but on the whole the sports bodies which reluctantly tolerate it hugely discourage such dealing)

]]> By: Des von Bladet http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/23/labours-antisemitic-strategy/comment-page-1/#comment-62311 Des von Bladet Wed, 23 Feb 2005 14:08:43 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2907#comment-62311 <a> Salzburg Nachrichten</a> says: <blockquote> 5. Dezember 1997: Le Pen sagt in München, die Gaskammern des Holocaust seien "ein Detail der Geschichte des Zweiten Weltkriegs". Dafür wird er vom Münchner Amtsgericht wegen Volksverhetzung verurteilt. <br /> [<i>But it is condemned by the judge of Munich district court because of incitement of the masses</i> - Me and a fish]<br /> Schon zuvor hatte er <b>in Frankreich eine Geldstrafe</b> [<i>in France a fine of</i>] von 183.200 Euro kassiert, weil er 1987 ebenfalls die Gaskammern als "Detail" abgetan hatte. </blockquote> There are so many courts! And so many of them have enjoyed Le Pen's company! Salzburg Nachrichten says:
5. Dezember 1997: Le Pen sagt in München, die Gaskammern des Holocaust seien “ein Detail der Geschichte des Zweiten Weltkriegs”. Dafür wird er vom Münchner Amtsgericht wegen Volksverhetzung verurteilt.
[But it is condemned by the judge of Munich district court because of incitement of the masses – Me and a fish]
Schon zuvor hatte er in Frankreich eine Geldstrafe [in France a fine of] von 183.200 Euro kassiert, weil er 1987 ebenfalls die Gaskammern als “Detail” abgetan hatte.
There are so many courts! And so many of them have enjoyed Le Pen’s company!

]]> By: Andrew Brown http://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/23/labours-antisemitic-strategy/comment-page-1/#comment-62310 Andrew Brown Wed, 23 Feb 2005 14:02:39 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2907#comment-62310 Evidence in favour of O'Brien's being anti-semitic comes from a very good piece by David Goldberg, in the godslot of Saturday's Independent. Goldberg. a former rabbi at the LIberal synagogue in St John's Wood, is one of the most level-headed people I ever knew in the god business, and one of the nicest. He certainly isn't someone to rush around crying "anti-Semitism!" every time someone upsets him. If he thinks O'Brien's remarks were dodgy, as he does, this opinion should be given proper weight. I have a column about this somewher eon the Gdn's web site this week, though more about how Ken Livingstone is not being anti-Semitic. Evidence in favour of O’Brien’s being anti-semitic comes from a very good piece by David Goldberg, in the godslot of Saturday’s Independent. Goldberg. a former rabbi at the LIberal synagogue in St John’s Wood, is one of the most level-headed people I ever knew in the god business, and one of the nicest. He certainly isn’t someone to rush around crying “anti-Semitism!” every time someone upsets him. If he thinks O’Brien’s remarks were dodgy, as he does, this opinion should be given proper weight. I have a column about this somewher eon the Gdn’s web site this week, though more about how Ken Livingstone is not being anti-Semitic.

]]>