The Real Concern of Oxford Students is that Loach has Fought All His Life Against the Privilege and Wealth that these Parasites Represent
One
of the most basic and fundamental principles of any free and democratic society
is a commitment to freedom of speech. Nowhere should that principle be held in
higher regard than in universities and institutions of higher education.
You
might have thought that Oxford University, the cradle of our future ruling
class, would at the very least have tried to instill into their rich and pampered
undergraduates a basic understanding of the ideas of academic freedom and the
free exchange of ideas.
I
was recently sent an article
in Oxford Student by a friend who has
spent a lifetime fighting fascism. Like me he was disgusted at the way these
young toffs have cynically exploited the charge of ‘anti-Semitism’ as a device
for attacking Ken Loach, a man who throughout his life has been known for his support
for marginalised groups in society like the homeless and poor.
Loach
is also well known for his opposition to colonialism and imperialism – be it in
Ireland, Palestine or Nicaragua. And it is this that has aroused the ire of
Oxford’s finest scoundrels.
What
would the reactionary fops of Oxford’s colleges know of Cathy
Come Home the November 1966 BBC play which Loach directed about
homelessness? A play which made homelessness into a national issue and which led
on one month later to the founding of Shelter the housing
charity. A British
Film Industry poll in 2000 rated Cathy Come Home as
the second best British television programme ever made.
Why should it matter to
these brats? What would Oxford’s students
and members of its notorious Bullingdon
Club know about homelessness? Mummy and daddy are hardly likely to let
their precocious offspring suffer the indignities of sleeping on the streets.
The
family wealth of many Oxford students originated from the British Empire and
its attendant evils such as slavery. The colleges that they are educated in
were nourished by the blood of the Middle Passage. That they should take
umbrage at someone like Loach is perfectly understandable. That they should
trade on the memory of Jews who died in the holocaust in order to given
expression to their class snobbery and contempt for ordinary people is an
indication of their depravity.
 |
| St. Peter's College, Oxford |
What
the McCarthyite chorus of Zionists and other right-wing detritus objected to was
an evening event in which the Master of St. Peter’s College, Professor Judith
Buchanan, interviewed Loach, an alumnus of the college, on his film career.
It
must be a source of annoyance to the entitled of Oxford University that Loach
stands for everything that they hold in contempt. The working class and poor,
to say nothing of the oppressed in Britain’s former colonies such as Palestine
and South Africa, mean nothing to them. However these same students are
apparently extremely agitated by the evils ‘anti-Semitism’ even if it does mean
supporting Israel, the only apartheid
state in the world.
Even
more upsetting must be the fact that Loach’s glittering achievements are
something that these strident representatives of Britain’s future ruling class
can only aspire to.
Loach
is the most distinguished British film maker alive [see here
for a ranking of his 37 films] His film Kes
(1969) was voted the seventh greatest British film of the 20th century
in a poll by the British Film Institute. Two of his films, The Wind That Shakes the Barley
(2006) and I, Daniel Blake (2016), received the Palme d'Or
at the Cannes Film Festival, making him one of only
nine filmmakers to win the award twice. I Daniel Blake highlighted the
suffering and indignities faced by claimants who attempt to claim benefits.
Repeatedly Loach’s work has sparked national debates on issues of poverty and
deprivation.
But
according
to Samuel Benjamin, the President of the Jewish (for which read Zionist)
Society of Oxford (because no Jewish socialist worth their salt would join
these bigots), the event came at the “expense
of the welfare of Jewish students in Oxford.”
I
know that Benjamin is British but nonetheless he seems to have a remarkably
poor grasp of the English language. How can a discussion between Loach and a
senior Oxford academic have any impact on the welfare of Oxford’s Zionist snowflakes?
Do they quake in their boots at the thought that Loach’s ideas may make them
question everything they’ve been brought up with? Such as the preposterous
notion that Apartheid Israel is the ‘only democracy in the Middle East.’
Are
we to seriously believe that a filmed interview with an 84 year old film
director has had a debilitating effect on the welfare of Jewish students? How? Are Jewish students at Oxford University
such timid and sensitive creatures that they wilt at the very thought of
someone whose opinions they disagree with being interviewed on campus?
The
President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews Marie van der Zyl described
what was happening as being “entirely
unacceptable”. That an Oxford
college “would not conduct its due
diligence and allow Ken Loach to address students” rendered her apoplectic.
The sheer arrogance of Zyl’s statement is breathtaking. Since when do academic
and cultural events need the approval of the narrow minds of the Board of Deputies,
which throughout its history has opposed
Jewish mobilisations against racism and fascism?
During
the war the record of the Board was shameful. It actually opposed and sabotaged
efforts at rescuing Jewish refugees from Nazi occupied Europe. It backed to the
hilt the ardently pro-Zionist Labour Home Secretary Herbert Morrison in his adamant
refusal to admit Jewish refugees from Nazi occupied Europe. [see Excuses! Excuses!: The Failure to Amend
Britain’s Immigration Policy, 1942–1943, Lesley Clare Urbach, European Judaism,
Vol. 50, No. 2 2017].
In
the wake of the Allied
Declaration of 17 December 1942 that the Nazis had embarked on exterminating
Europe’s Jews, Dr Rabbi Schonfeld, Chairman of the Chief Rabbi’s Rescue
Committee, formed a parliamentary group to lobby in support of the admission of
Jewish refugees. The President of the Board, Selig Brodetsky, did his best to
undermine Schonfeld’s efforts. Schonfeld described the
‘persistent attempt on the part of Brodetsky and some of his colleagues to sabotage the entire move… he and his collaborators asked members of the House to desist from supporting the new effort. .. To do nothing themselves and to prevent others from doing so is strange statesmanship.’
The
results were predictable: ‘More than one
M.P. has expressed a feeling of becoming wearied of trying to help the victims
in the face of such sectarian Jewish opposition.’ [Jewish Chronicle 29.1.43]
This was despite public opinion running 80% in favour of admitting Jewish refugees.
 |
| Jim Allen |
Perdition –
the real reason for the campaign against Ken Loach
What
really irks the Zionists is the fact that in 1987 Ken Loach directed a play, Perdition, by
socialist playwright Jim Allen that was based on a libel trial in Israel. Rudolf Kasztner, the leader of Zionism in
Hungary, sued a Malchiel Greenwald, who accused him of collaboration with the
Nazis. The trial, between 1954 and 1958 didn’t go according to plan. Kasztner was
found, in the words
of Judge Benjamin Halevi, to have ‘sold his soul to Satan.’ When accused of
testifying at Nuremburg in favour of Himmler’s emissary in Hungary, SS Col.
Becher Kasztner lied and was caught out.
It
is this, the revelation of Zionism’s sordid record of collaboration and worse
during the holocaust, when it acted as a Jewish Quisling movement, that led to
the Zionist vendetta against Loach. It was, according to the Telegraph Ken
Loach’s Perdition problem: the ‘anti-Semitic’ play that keeps coming back to
haunt him that motivated Oxford’s young McCarthyites.
Perdition was based on Perfidy, a book by a Zionist American
playwright Ben Hecht. When Kasztner came to Israel allegations began to be circulated
that he had collaborated with Adolf Eichmann in the deportation to Auschwitz of
437,000 Hungarian Jews.
What made the Hungarian holocaust
so tragic was that it occurred in the last year of the war when Germany was
reeling from the Russian advance in the East and was about to face the landing
at Normandy. The Hungarian Jewish community was the last major Jewish community
left in Europe and without the agreement between Kasztner and the Nazis. But
for the collaboration of the Hungarian Judenrat and Kasztner’s ‘Rescue
Committee’ far fewer Hungarian Jews would have died.
Kasztner reached an agreement with
Eichmann. In return for the safe exit from Hungary of a train containing 1,684
people, the Jewish leadership of Hungary, most of whom were Zionists, Kasztner
would cooperate and even help pacify the Jews who were to be deported, assuring
them that they were starting a new life.
The allegations against Kasztner
were made by Hungarian survivors of Auschwitz, people who had been tricked into
getting on the trains but who had survived. There is no doubt that Kasztner was
a collaborator. A recent book by the arch Zionist Paul Bogdanor, Kasztner’s
Crime even alleges that Kasztner was a Gestapo agent.
The trial, which the Zionists
don’t even mention today and which they have done their best to forget, led to
the fall of the government of Moshe Sharrett in 1955. Benjamin
Halevi upheld 3 of the 4 accusations of collaboration made against
Kasztner. In 1958 Israel’s Supreme Court
cleared him by 4-1. However they did this on legal and political grounds whilst
upholding the findings of the lower court. By this time Kasztner had been
assassinated.
It was later revealed that
Kasztner had not only testified in favour of Kurt Becher, whose job it was to extort
money out of rich Jews but he also
testified at Nuremburg in support of Herman Krumey who had been Eichmann’s
second in command, in charge of the mechanics of deportation.
Massive pressure was exerted
against the Royal Court Upstairs, which was going to show the play, to cancel
it. Max Stafford-Clarke, the Artistic Director, succumbed to the pressure. Ken Loach and Stafford-Clarke were
never on speaking terms again.
The
Zionists waged a massive campaign to have the play banned and they succeeded in
keeping it off the stage by threatening venues that they would lose their
patronage and funding if they put it on.
Unfortunately for the Zionist lobby, instead of a few thousand people
seeing the play millions of people became aware of the issues.
As
Zionist historian David Cesarani later
said it was an own goal.
Was it worth all the fuss?... Had the play gone on it would have been seen by around 2,000 people…. We need to master the art of exposing and debunking, instead of instantly branding antagonists as anti-Semites… JC 3.7.17.
It’s
a lesson that the Israeli funded Union of Jewish Students haven’t yet learnt.
Trying to no platform your opponents on behalf of the Israeli state is not the
best way to win an argument. It makes people suspicious that you are trying to
silence alternative voices.
Even
the Jewish Chronicle, which has been at the forefront of the fake
‘anti-Semitism’ campaign against the Labour Party, has recognised that the
campaign to ban Ken Loach has been counter-productive. In a leading article No
Silencing last week they stated:
We might find Mr Loach’s views repellent but so long as he or anyone
else is within the law when invited to speak, we have no right to demand that
they be silenced.... it is worrying that some communal leaders cannot see how
counter-productive it is for them to call for those with whom they disagree to
be silenced.
The
Board of Deputies, with all the prejudices of the Jewish petit bourgeois, are
nothing if not stupid. They don’t have any perception as to how their actions
might appear to others. For years they
have been arguing that the IHRA misdefinition of ‘anti-Semitism’ is not about
banning speakers or threatening freedom of speech and then all of a sudden the
Zionists try to ban Britain’s most distinguished film maker, Ken Loach, on the
grounds that he is a holocaust denier.
Even
that byword for dishonesty, the self-serving boor John Mann, the newly
appointed Anti-Semitism Czar (could there be a more appropriate title?!!) felt
it necessary to pen an article The
IHRA definition should not be used to ban free speech - and that includes Ken
Loach. What Oxford’s Zionists are doing is proving that everything we said
about the IHRA is true and that its main purpose is to stifle free speech. The
Oxford Zionists and the Board have proved that the IHRA has got nothing to do
with fighting anti-Semitism and everything to do with suppressing the
supporters of the Palestinians.
The Dishonesty of
Oxford’s Zionist Students
The
Oxford Student in its coverage simply
assumes
that Ken Loach is anti-Semitic because the Zionist students says he is. I don’t
know if any of these students have ever studied law, but one of the first things
I was taught was that the British justice system rested on a presumption of
innocence. Innocent until proven guilty. Ken Loach is entitled to be considered
innocent of the charge of anti-Semitism until his detractors prove otherwise.
But
such ideas are alien to Zionists. After
all they support a society, Israel, where if you are a Palestinian you are
assumed to be guilty. Dissidents are subject to administrative detention without
trial on the say so of a bureaucrat or military official.
The
Zionist Jewish Society at St Peters complained that being they were being asked
to substantiate their allegations that Ken Loach was anti-Semitic. They
complained that this “put the burden of
proving Loach’s antisemitism onto Jewish Peterites.” Well yes it did! Or
are they saying we should adopt the Israeli system that they love so much
whereby you are guilty by virtue of being Arab?
These
juvenile McCarthyites complained that St Peters had not taken ‘any concrete steps to minimise the hurt
that his invitation would inevitably cause.” They explained
that a
‘free
and open academic community’ is mutually exclusive with the platforming of
individuals whose bigoted views cause active harm to others on account of their
protected characteristics.”
In
other words the defenders of Apartheid Israel should get to decide who they
could censor.
I
sent a letter
to Oxford
Student responding to their article.
Now you would have thought that if the editors of the student paper had
any confidence in the views they were printing then they would welcome debate. Sadly
no. Just as Oxford’s Zionist students hate the idea that they have to prove
that Ken Loach is anti-Semitic so the Oxford
Student prefers not to have to justify their slanted coverage. Born of a
sense of entitlement, they consider the fact that they call someone
anti-Semitic should be sufficient proof in itself.
Clearly
the editors of Oxford Student are in
training for jobs on the Tory tabloids or Telegraph (or these days the Guardian)
because I never heard a word back. Clearly those who run the rag believe that
journalism and propaganda are just two sides of the same coin. The article
quoted an unnamed Zionist that
“Ken
Loach is a political artist with anti-Semitic viewpoints, and his association
with holocaust denial is particularly harmful and inexcusable”.
Now
what does he mean by association mean? A weasel word that reflects that old
McCarthyite principle, Guilt by Association. This is what the paper of Oxford’s
racist students stands for.
As
Ed Murrow, the famous CBS broadcaster said at the height of
McCarthyism in 1954:
We must
not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is
not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We
will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an
age of unreason…
But
what is the truth about the allegations that Loach is anti-Semitic? Loach has
made his views extremely clear. For anyone to suggest that he has even a
scintilla of sympathy for holocaust deniers, most of whom wouldn’t even exist
but for the way that Zionism has weaponised the holocaust, demonstrates the
fundamental dishonesty that lies at the heart of Zionism and their dessicated supporters.
On 5th October 2017, in a letter
to the Guardian Loach made his position extremely clear. Responding
to a typically
dishonest article from MI5’s man at the Guardian, Jonathan Freedland, Loach
wrote:
That is pretty clear. Yet this quotation didn’t appear once in the Oxford Student or the other student
paper Cherwell. My suggestion is to
write and let the Editor of Oxford Student know what you feel about his racist
rag at editor@oxfordstudent.com.
This spurious controversy was sparked by an interview with Loach in
respect of a fringe meeting at the 2017 Labour Party conference which the
interviewer falsely alleged that there had been a discussion about the
holocaust and whether it had happened.
This is a complete lie. I was
there. I spoke. No such remarks were made. One of the speakers, an Israeli Jew Miko
Peled said everything should be discussed including the holocaust ‘yes or no’. That was it. A standard free speech defence.
In the interview Loach said that
“History
is for all of us to discuss. All history is our common heritage to discuss
and analyse. The founding of the State of Israel, for example, based on ethnic
cleansing, is there for us to discuss… So don’t try to subvert that by false
stories of antisemitism.”
The late Raul Hilberg, the greatest of the holocaust historians, said
that we should listen even to holocaust deniers because they may point out flaws
in our own thinking. The Zionists didn’t
like Hilberg too! Perhaps he was also a
holocaust denier?
Given Loach’s clear statements how then can St Peters JCR, the Oxford
Student, the Board et al. still maintain that he has an ‘association with Holocaust denial’ whatever that means? And more to
the point why do they do they lie as a matter of course?
The reason is simple. In their efforts to defend Zionism and the Israeli state,
the supporters of Zionism have no option but to lie. It is their only means of
defending a state that gives
vaccines to Jewish citizens whilst denying it to Palestinians. In other words, far from opposing racism
Oxford Student and the various Oxford JCR’s are active collaborators in
supporting Israeli apartheid.
The IHRA
The President of the Zionist society issued a statement writing
that ‘Loach has made remarks that are antisemitic under the
definition, which was recently adopted by the University of Oxford.” This is the crux of the matter. Ken Loach
has offended against the IHRA.
The fact that the allegations
against Ken Loach were false has not stopped other Oxford’s Junior Common Rooms
(a legacy from public school) passing motions condemning St Peters for not
banning Loach. When I was a student we were vigilant to ensure that the
administration didn’t ban meetings with which they disagreed. These privileged
prats are to the right of their college administrations.
Today’s Oxford students are reminiscent
of their European counterparts pre-1939.
The phenomenon of right-wing nationalist students was common to both
Germany and Poland. In Poland there were
ghetto benches for Jewish students.
Whilst not suggesting that these are about to make an appearance at
Oxford the clear racism and contempt for freedom of speech of Oxford Students
is ominous.
There were a number of articles
in Oxford’s other student newspaper Cherwell. Apparently
Wadham College had
a meeting on 9th February to decide whether or not to condemn St. Peters
College and its master Professor Judith Buchanan for not no platforming Ken
Loach. When I was a student we no platformed fascists not anti-fascists!
When I was once invited to speak
to the University of Sussex AGM in support of no platform for fascists – who
opposed it? The Union of Jewish Students
on the ground that since we called them racists we might ban them! So we have a
situation where the Union of Jewish Students opposes no platform for genuine
holocaust deniers but for supporters of the Palestinians they operate a policy
of No Platform!
Loach’s major crime according to Cherwell is
that he claimed
that a rise in antisemitism in Europe following Israel’s operation in Gaza was
“perfectly
understandable because Israel feeds feelings of anti-Semitism“. Well it is
understandable. Israel carries out its
massacres in the name of all Jews worldwide and some people believe them and then
attack Jews. That is what the Zionist Community Security Trust said in its 2014
Incidents Report which found
that:
The
single biggest contributing factor to the record number of antisemitic
incidents recorded in 2014 was antisemitic reactions in the UK to the conflict
in Israel and Gaza
Speaking the truth is also apparently anti-Semitic!
The attack on Loach has produced an immediate response from groups such as
Artists for Palestine. In a short statement Artists
stand with Ken Loach and against McCarthyism figures such as Brian
Eno, Roger Waters and Caryl Churchill wrote that:
“We
are deeply troubled to learn of a McCarthyite campaign demanding Oxford
University cancel a public event with director Ken Loach discussing his
distinguished career in film. The campaign to silence a world-renowned artist,
which has been active behind the scenes and which became public at the last
minute, is using the controversial IHRA definition of antisemitism to try to
prevent a cultural event from taking place. If any further evidence were needed
to demonstrate how a vaguely worded definition is being deployed to silence
critics of Israeli policy towards Palestinians — then this is it. We have been
warned by respected
Palestinian academics, Israeli
scholars, leading experts
on antisemitism, dozens
of progressive Jewish groups, and others that this definition is being used
as a political weapon. We cannot fight racism, including antisemitism, by
demonising and silencing supporters of Palestinian rights.”
The IHRA definition is not a definition of
anti-Semitism. As Sir Stephen Sedley, a Jewish former Court of Appeal judge
said, it is open ended. The IHRA is 500+ words. What kind of definition is
that? Oxford’s racist students should
club together and buy a copy of the Oxford English Dictionary where
anti-Semitism is defined
in just 6 words: ‘hostility to or prejudice against Jews.’
Sedley wrote, in Defining
Anti-Semitism, that:
Shorn of philosophical and political refinements,
anti-Semitism is hostility towards Jews as Jews. Where it manifests itself in
discriminatory acts or inflammatory speech it is generally illegal, lying
beyond the bounds of freedom of speech and of action. By contrast, criticism
(and equally defence) of Israel or of Zionism is not only generally lawful: it
is affirmatively protected by law. Endeavours to conflate the two by
characterising everything other than anodyne criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic
are not new. What is new is the adoption by the UK government (and the Labour
Party) of a definition of anti-Semitism which endorses the conflation
The IHRA
consists of a meaningless 38 word definition that leaves more questions than
answers.
“Antisemitism is a certain
perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical
and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or
non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community
institutions and religious facilities.”
The IHRA has more holes than a second hand
dartboard. If anti-Semitism is a ‘certain
perception’ of Jews then what is that perception? If it ‘may
be expressed as hatred towards Jews’ what else may it be expressed as? Why the inclusion of non-Jews in a definition
of anti-Semitism at all and why is there mention of Jewish community institutions?
Contrary to popular misconception, the 11 attached
illustrations of ‘anti-Semitism’ are not part of the definition. 7 of them concern
Israel. The most notorious is the 7th illustration:
Denying the
Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the
existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
So
if you accuse Israel of racism for only arresting and torturing Palestinian
children then you are anti-Semitic! If you accuse Israel of racism for
reserving 93% of its land for Jews, then it is you who is a racist! What this
means is that Israel’s crimes are to be visited on the heads of all Jews, ie
that all Jews are responsible for Israel’s crimes.
Ironically
the final illustration says that ‘Holding
Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.’ is
anti-Semitic. So according to the 11th illustration the 7th
illustration is anti-Semitic! The IHRA is not only an attempt to paint
Palestine solidarity as anti-Semitic but it is ridden with internal
contradictions.
The IHRA definition has been
around, in one guise or another, since
2005. The definition has been slated by academics and jurists such as
Brian Klug, David Feldman, Antony Lerman, Hugh Tomlinson QC, Geoffrey Bindman
QC, and Geoffrey Robertson QC. Even the original drafter of the IHRA, Kenneth
S. Stern doesn’t have a good word to say for it. In the Guardian he wrote
that the IHRA:
' was never intended to be a campus hate speech code,
but that’s what Donald Trump’s executive order accomplished this week. This
order is an attack on academic freedom and free speech, and will harm not only
pro-Palestinian advocates, but also Jewish students and faculty, and the
academy itself.'
In his testimony to the US Congress Stern spoke of how
'The definition was not drafted, and was never
intended, as a tool to target or chill speech on a college campus. In fact, at
a conference in 2010 about the impact of the definition, I highlighted this
misuse, and the damage it could do.’
Professor
David Feldman, an arch Zionist, described
the IHRA as ‘bewilderingly imprecise’.
Geoffrey Robertson QC said
that it was ‘not fit for purpose’.
But when it comes to the cream of Oxford’s racist students, the IHRA fits the
bill.
Perhaps the last word should be with Avi
Shlaim, Emeritus Professor of International Affairs at St Anthony’s college,
Oxford (where I have previously spoken!) and an exiled Israeli. Shlaim stated
that Loach is “completely innocent”
and that “the attack on him is an attack
on freedom of expression which has no place in an academic institution”.
Oxford
students in their disregard for academic freedom are worthy successors to the
Nazi students who in May 1933 demonstrated their loyalty to the regime by
burning books. Oxford students have metaphorically
tried to burn Ken Loach. They should recall what Heinrich Hein said.
Those who burn books will end up burning people.
Oxford’s
Real Racism
What
is most striking about the concerns of Oxford students is their hypocrisy. If
they were really motivated by opposition to racism then the statue of Cecil
Rhodes, a white supremacist and imperialist, standing outside Oriel College, should
surely be of more concern? Rhodes’ statue is a living symbol of White
Supremacy. It is a permanent reminder to
Oxford’s Black students of their place in society. Rhodes was of the belief that:
"I
contend that we are the first race in the world, and that the more of the world
we inhabit the better it is for the human race. Just fancy those parts
that are at present inhabited by the most despicable specimen of human being,
Apart from slaughtering thousands of Africans in
Mashonaland as part of the colonisation of what became Rhodesia (Zimbabwe)
Rhodes was responsible for the enactment
of the Glen Grey Act 1884.
Through the adoption
of the Act, Rhodes managed to gradually persuade Parliament to abandon
Britain’s priceless nineteenth-century ideal that in principle all persons,
irrespective of colour, were equal before the law.
The act raised the property qualification for
voting thus excluding most Africans from the franchise. However if you read the
account of Rhodes life on the Oriel College website, then you read a quite different
account:
Rhodes was a
pragmatic politician. His treatment of educated or powerful Africans, whose
support he needed, could be cordial, and he financed a newspaper for a largely
black readership.’
There
is no mention of apartheid in this apologia for White Supremacy. If Oxford students
were seriously concerned about racism then they would campaign night and day to
remove Rhodes’ statue.
The
reason they do nothing is that their concerns have nothing to do with
opposition to racism, anti-Semitism included. By supporting the weaponisation
of anti-Semitism via the IHRA what they are really doing is declaring their
support for Zionism and a Jewish Supremacist state. In this they are little different from the
National Front and BNP who used to assert that anti-fascism was anti-White
racism.
What
the Oxford Student doesn’t mention is
that the IHRA is supported by anti-Semitic governments such as in Poland and Hungary.
Its biggest supporter was Donald Trump, who combined Zionism and anti-Semitism
in equal measure.
The
students of Oxford who rushed to ‘defend’ Oxford’s Zionist snowflakes were not
doing so because they opposed anti-Semitism but because they believe that
Zionist settlers in Palestine have an entitlement to displace the indigenous
Palestinians. When they support the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism they are
supporting a ‘Jewish’ State which openly declares
that Israel is a state of the Jewish people, not a state of its own citizens.
Oxford
students have however proved indifferent when it comes to anti-Semites and members
of the far-Right appearing at the Oxford Union. When Tommy Robinson came to speak
the 250 demonstrators outside included very few students and I suspect no Zionist
students. After all Tommy Robinson is an
avowed supporter
of Zionism and the State of Israel!
There
was one thing however that Oxford’s Zionists did get right, albeit unwittingly,
when they said that:
And
it is true. Ken Loach’s political impact has been enormous. And that is what
the Zionists and Oxford’s reactionary students really despise.
Tony
Greenstein
Below
is the pathetic motion passed at the St Peters College JCR. As you can see it is entirely based on the
IHRA. It continually asserts that Ken Loach is anti-Semitic without once
attempting to prove it, other than by reference to the IHRA. A circular
argument if ever there was one.
The JCR notes that:
1. Ken Loach
has a history of blatant antisemitism. Per the IHRA definition of antisemitism,
Loach has repeatedly made comments which:
a. Allude to
‘…the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media,
economy, government or other societal institutions’
b. ‘Accus[e]
the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the
Holocaust.’
c. ‘…[claim]
that the State of Israel is a racist endeavour’
d.
‘[draw] comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis’
2. The
leadership of St Peter’s College, when meeting Jewish students concerned about
the impact of the platforming of someone with such abhorrent views:
a. Claimed to
be unaware of Loach’s past comments, despite their being widely reported in the
media and widely accessible online
b. Sought to
downplay the prospect of Loach’s invitation being actively harmful to the
college community, suggesting that the event featuring him would ‘set aside’
the controversy
c. Asked
Jewish Peterites not to view College as a place hostile to Jewish students since this would result in
more discomfort
d. Pushed
Jewish Peterites to explain why downplaying the Holocaust is ‘always’
unequivocally antisemitic
e. Put the
burden of proving Loach’s antisemitism onto Jewish Peterites when this is a
matter of record, not opinion
f. Suggested
that St Peter’s did not have a problem with antisemitism on account of the
previous Master being Jewish g. Refused to disinvite Loach lest a PR fallout
occur
h. Refused to
commit to taking any concrete steps to minimise the hurt that his invitation
would inevitably cause.
3. The
leadership of St Peter’s College issued a statement on social media on Monday
afternoon which:
a. Failed to
apologise for the entirely avoidable distress caused to Jewish students by its
mishandling of this issue
b. Sought to
excuse Loach’s antisemitism by pointing out that he had been invited to College
many times before
c. Failed to
outline any steps which could be taken to avoid similar situations occurring in
the future
4. Scores of
British Jewish organisations have condemned St Peter’s College for its
invitation of Ken Loach, its failure to engage with Jewish students and its
refusal to apologise, including but not limited to the Board of Deputies of
British Jews, the Union of Jewish Students and Oxford University JSoc
5. St Peter’s
College, unlike many other colleges, failed to mark Holocaust Remembrance Day
this year.
This JCR
believes that:
l. St Peter’s
College failed in its duty of care to Jewish students in inviting a known
apologist for antisemitism without prior student consultation.
2. The
College’s failure to apologise for its insensitive and ignorant handling of
Jewish students’ concerns caused even more harm to Jewish students who were
left feeling antagonised and unwelcome
3. The
Master’s and College’s statements to students and the public added fuel to the
fire
4. It is
impossible to separate Ken Loach’s filmmaking from his views, including his
offensive history of antisemitic remarks
5. St Peter’s
College has failed to live by its commitment to ‘stand against all forms of
discrimination’
6. A ‘free
and open academic community’ is mutually exclusive with the platforming of
individuals whose bigoted views cause active harm to others on account of their
protected characteristics.
This JCR:
1. Urges all
students to boycott this event so as not to lend credence and authority to the
views of a noted antisemite, and to prevent their further dissemination
2. Condemns
in the strongest terms the College leadership’s decision to go ahead with this
event, disregarding the concerns and welfare of Jewish students in favour of
preventing a ‘PR disaster’
3. Deplores
in the strongest terms the College’s and Master’s inconsiderate and insensitive
response to such concerns, noting that such a response caused even greater
suffering
4. Offers its
most sincere apologies on behalf of the College to all Jewish students, whether
Peterites or not, and to anyone whom the College leadership’s ineptitude has
caused distress and pain
5. Pledges
its active support to all Jewish students who have been let down by St Peter’s
and by the University, and 6. Stands in solidarity with Jewish students at St
Peter’s and in Oxford in the face of endemic antisemitism more broadly.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please submit your comments below