Showing posts with label Paul Kagame. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Paul Kagame. Show all posts

1 February 2018

The Fight Against the Expulsion of African Refugees Is a Pivotal Moment in Israel's History

“Israel is one of the most racist countries in the world.” Tahunia Rubel

Why does Jeremy Newmark's Jewish Labour Movement refuse to criticise the Israeli Labour Party for its support for the deportation of Israel's asylum seekers?

How does NEC ‘Left’ Rhea Wolfson Defend Her Silence over the the JLM's refusal to criticise the Israeli Labor Party?


You might want to ask @jeremy_newmark @jewishlabour @rheawolfson


According to the Times of Israel there are approximately 38,000 African migrants and asylum seekers in Israel, of whom 72 percent are Eritrean and 20% are Sudanese.  In Israel this week there have been unprecedented demonstrations of support for Israel's Black African asylum seekers whom Netanyahu is seeking to deport to Rwanda and Uganda.  

The reasons for the deportation are simple - they are Black and even worse not Jewish.  It should be noted that there are thousands of Russian immigrants who are not Jewish but there is a crucial difference - they are white.  
However we should not be fooled into thinking that those who have spoken out, not least Israel's holocaust survivors, represent a majority.  
A Channel 10 poll released on Sunday indicated that a majority of Israelis support expelling African migrants from the country (56%-32%).

Another poll on the settler newssite Arutz Sheva found that 58% of Israelis supported the deportation of the asylum seekers and 23% were opposed.
Asked if they support the government’s decision to deport the migrants, 56% of respondents said yes, 32% said no and another 12% said they did not know.
Despite a majority supporting deportation, only 44% said they would be in favor of forcibly removing the migrants, as compared to 46% who said they opposed doing so. Another 10% of respondents said they did not know.
Dr Shlomo Mor-Yosef, director-general of the Population and Immigration Authority, told Hadashot TV news that it was 'only' single men who were now being considered for deportation.  Obviously this is a big climb down but there is no reason why the deportation of men is any more acceptable than that of women.
What is disgraceful is that the so-called Opposition in Israel, the Israeli Labour Party, supports Netanyahu's deportation plans and that their 'sister party' in Britain, the Jewish Labour Movement refuses to utter one single word of criticism.  
That is another reason why this hypocritical racist group should be disaffiliated from the Labour Party.
Tony Greenstein
Netanyahu and Rwanda's President Paul Kgame meet at Davos
If the government successfully deports thousands of asylum seekers, it will encourage the pursuit of even more malicious plans
Whether or not the deportation of African asylum seekers happens, Israel is facing nothing less than a test case that will shape its future.

It’s impossible not to shocked by the malice and racism behind this ethnic cleansing plan – the removal of non-Jewish black people on account of their skin color. The fate of 35,000 people should touch the hearts of every decent Israeli, but the issue is much broader and more important. On the agenda are hidden, far-reaching plans that only the extreme right talks about for now, but which one day could develop into an action plan. The expulsion of the African refugees is a pilot program of great import to the government and its opponents.


If this mini-expulsion succeeds, expect more to come: prepare for a population transfer. If the first operation is successful, it will buoy hopes for additional expulsions. Israel will learn it can do it; that no one will stop it. And when Israel is capable of acting, it does so without holding back. Twice it brutally laid waste to the Gaza Strip, because it could, and it will do so again until somebody stops it.
On the other hand, if the deportation of the asylum seekers fails, this will show that the part of Israel with a conscience has more power and influence than is apparent; that where there’s a will there’s a way. Its test will be to continue to fight, with the same means and determination, against other crimes. It too will draw hope from success.
Israel's racist South Tel Aviv Jewish residents demonstrate outside the home of Miriam Naor, Israel's Chief Justice - Israel's Supreme Court is seen as too liberal even though it has given the go ahead for forcible deportations
That’s why the African precedent is so important, why the expulsion plans and the battle to stop them cannot be underestimated. The fight has already proved itself: The commander of the expulsion, Dr. Shlomo Mor-Yosef – the director general of the Interior Ministry’s Population, Immigration and Border Authority– announced he will only deport unmarried men of working age. It’s the first surrender in the face of broad public pressure – broader than anticipated – but it is meaningless. It is no more legitimate to abuse men than it is to abuse women or even old people. Expulsion is expulsion, whether of men or women. Mor-Yosef tried clumsily to sanction a sin, but his very need to hide behind “we’re only deporting men, so we’re all right” is an achievement. It can be assumed that, embarrassed, he will soon resign from his shameful post.

But that is not enough. If the anti-deportation fight persists – including the acts of resistance that are so vital to it – the Netanyahu government will be forced to back down. Without pilots, there can be no expulsion flights and refugees cannot be hunted down in the face of pockets of civil disobedience.


If this expulsion plan is foiled, the left will learn that the only way to prevail is through sacrifice and disobedience; rallies are ineffective. The anti-deportation camp will come to realize it can prevent crimes, but only if it is prepared to dig in and sacrifice; that not everything is ordained by the heavens or the right. And the government will learn it is not omnipotent, and that it has an active opponent with a conscience. It is worth recalling that a different ethnic cleansing operation – in the Jordan Valley and the south Hebron Hills – has not faced significant civil resistance.

The next expulsion attempt could be that of Arab lawmakers from the Knesset. Everyone will deny it, but the undercurrents are there. It could happen overnight, with various and sundry pretexts employed to make them illegal. After all, who wouldn’t want that? The masses would be in favor, for sure, and the government too. Who would object? All that’s needed is the right opportunity. The danger is closer than it appears. Who would believe that just 40 years ago, Israel proudly took in dozens of so-called boat people, refugees from Vietnam.

Afterward, at some point, the real plan will be raised: To expel the Palestinians from the territories, or at least from part of them. Under the cover of a war or an uprising, with a great many security excuses. It could happen. It sounds like fiction now, but the successful expulsion of the African refugees will lend support to the idea that expulsion is a feasible option. Sounds crazy? Sure. A few years ago it was crazy to think that this country of refugees would forcibly load handcuffed refugees onto planes and send them to their fate in miserable places, as it plans to do in the near future.

By Jehron Muhammad -Contributing Writer- | Last updated: Jan 24, 2018 - 5:13:19 PM
Israeli Ethiopians clash with border police officers during a demonstration in Jerusalem, April 30, 2015. Hundreds of protesters, mainly members of Israel's Ethiopian immigrant community, have rallied in Jerusalem, pelting the police with stones and bottles and denouncing what they said was discrimination against them because of their race. Photo: AP/Wide World photos
Why did Ethiopian-born Israeli model and actress Tahunia Rubel, who became famous on the Israeli version of “Big Brother,” say, “Israel is one of the most racist countries in the world.” 
In the widely circulated daily Yedioth Aharanot, Rubel added, “We have a screwed-up government … and the police are total idiots.” “People in Israel find it strange to see an Ethiopian woman who behaves like an Israeli,” she said. 
Rubel’s recent comments, in part, stem from a new Israeli program forcing thousands of African immigrants out of the country. The United Nations called on Israel to scrap this program, condemning it as incoherent and unsafe. This “scheme,” as the UK-based Guardian newspaper called it, “has led to thousands of people being offered $3,500 and a plane ticket if they leave the country by March” with a warning that they face arrest and indefinite detention after the deadline.
Israel is home to roughly 40,000 asylum seekers, including 27,500 Eritrean and 7,800 Sudanese asylum seekers, the UN refugee agency reported.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insisted the move against asylum seekers, who he referred to as “infiltrators,” would help the country “guard its borders,” reported Al-Jazeera.
“The infiltrators have a clear choice—cooperate with us and leave voluntarily, respectively, humanely and legally, or we will have to use other tools at our disposal, which are also according to the law,” Mr. Netanyahu said.
Mr. Netanyahu, according to Haaretz, is looking into an alternative plan focusing on forced deportation over indefinite incarceration of asylum seekers. Many refugees say they’d opt for incarceration over leaving. Israelis would then face a serious financial burden and space shortages in state prisons. 
Netanyahu declared “we are on a mission to give back south Tel Aviv to the Israel residents.” The area, he said, has seen an influx of African migrants and been taken over by “illegal infiltrators.” Because of migrants, Tel Aviv residents are pained and under “terrible distress,” he declared. It’s “the right of the state of Israel to maintain its borders and to remove illegal infiltrators from it,” said the Israeli prime minister.
“International law says that if you are a refugee from a country that’s at war or war torn, you can’t send that person back,” said Marc Lamont Hill, author, activist and professor of media studies and urban education at Philadelphia’s Temple University.
During an exclusive interview with The Final Call, Mr. Hill, who is also an anthropologist and working on a master’s degree in Middle East studies, was critical of Israel’s claim to be the region’s only democracy and at the same time limit refugees seeking asylum, especially those from African countries.
Mr. Hill, who has spent considerable time visiting refugee camps inside of Israel, said Israeli officials are careful not to refer to asylum seekers as refugees. They are referred to as “infiltrators” or “invaders,” he said.
“They refer to a law, and this designation of invaders, emerged in 1952,” he explained. “So, the law was used initially to ethnically cleanse Palestinians, but now it’s being used once again to buck international law to deny refugee status to Arabs and Christians. The only folk they will let in are African Jews.”
That may be changing, according to the online publication theGrio.com: “A Kenyan citizen and Jewish convert Yehudah Kimani was deported recently, hours after he had arrived in Israel on a visa to study at a yeshiva.
“Detained at the airport, he was not allowed to contact his Israeli sponsors. ‘Do you want half of Africa coming here?’ asked one visa official, denying allegations of racial discrimination but defending the deportation of the Black jew.”
The updated version of Israel’s controversial Nationality Law disrupts the claim of Israel’s two principal features, being Jewish and democratic. It provides cover to legally sanction efforts to bolster Israel’s Jewish identity at the expense of others, including equal and lawful treatment of minorities. This includes relegating the Arabic language, spoken by 1.8 million Arabs and a quarter of Israel’s population, to “a special status” as a minority language, and upgrading Hebrew as the country’s sole official language, reported the Israeli daily Hamodia. 
Having visited Holot detention facility in the Negav Desert, in Israel, Mr. Hill said, “Many of them (when entering Israel) go to downtown Tel Aviv trying to find work, trying to find jobs to survive. And soon after they get picked up and taken to these camps.” But it’s not like a “traditional camp, but more like a military base,” he explained.  
“And when you go there, and I’ve asked these brothers and they say uniformly this feels like prison. They have a time to show up, they got a time to leave. They can walk off base, but they can’t go far. The state pays them 12 shekels a day, about $3. So, what they typically do is pool their money and try and eat together because they’re not given enough money to purchase an adequate meal,” said Mr. Hill. 
He believes Israel is about the business of “cleansing the country of Black and Brown folk, of Muslims and of course most importantly of Palestinians.” This is what the “settlement expansion is about. That is what the deportations is about,” Mr. Hill said. He said what they also are banking on “is our divisions.”  Since there is no “united Africa, no United States of Africa, no unified African body, they feel like they can dismiss Eritrean and Sudanese folk,” and the rest of Africa won’t raise a finger to come to their defense, he added.
Inspired by Anne Frank, a Jewish girl hidden from Nazis during WWII, some Israeli rabbis are planning to hide African asylum seekers facing deportation. “A group of Israeli rabbis,” reported Haaretz, including the sister of comedian Sarah Silverman, launched an activist program, which has gone viral, calling on Israelis to hide African asylum seekers facing expulsion. 
Between 2009 and 2016, Israel granted official refugee status to 0.07 percent of all its Sudanese and Eritrean asylum seekers, a total of four people.

Israel Places Bounty on Heads of African Refugees

African refugees demonstrate outside Rwandan Embassy in Tel Aviv
This just goes from bad to worse…
After the Israeli Knesset deliberated on a bill which would essentially expel almost all of the 40,000 African refugees who have sought a haven there from civil wars and ethnic cleansing in their African homelands, Israeli human rights groups, Holocaust survivors and American Jewish leaders have decried this new form of Israeli racism.
Israeli migrant camp
The bill would offer refugees two stark choices: either accept an offer to be “voluntarily” expelled to an unnamed African country, along with a one-time $3,500 payment; or be permanently jailed in an Israeli detention center with no hope of release or asylum.  Bibi Netanyahu lies, of course, when he calls this procedure legal under international law and claims that it is entirely voluntary on the part of the Africans:
Netanyahu added…that the arrangements “guarantee personal safety for those who exit Israel. They receive approvals allowing them to live, work and integrate into the country. If they want, they can also return to their home countries. They are receiving significant financial aid from us.”
Detailed investigative reports by Israeli media prove that this is absolute rubbish.  On landing in Rwanda, the expellees are stateless.  They have no rights.  They may not work.  They can be picked up at any moment by local police and thrown in prison.  Many of them leave Rwanda at first opportunity and flee to Uganda, where they are also vulnerable.  From there many try to make their way to Libya and Europe.  Quite a few have been kidnapped in Libya, held for ransom or even beheaded by ISIS.  Thus Bibi’s claims are not only lies, they are heartless lies.
Israeli ministry advertises for bounty hunters to capture African refugees
There were numerous problems with this proposal aside from the protests I’ve mentioned: once the media revealed that Rwanda was the third-party country to which the refugees would be transported, its genocidaire leader, Paul Kagame, announced that of course his country would offer haven to anyone seeking safe harbor in his country; but that he had made no “secret deal” with Israel to accept refugees.  Uganda, another country mentioned as a destination for the expellees, also denied any agreement.
Later, even more damning evidence was reported: that in addition to the payment to the individual refugee, Rwanda would receive $5,000 per head.  If it accepted all 40,000 that would mean a payment of $200-million, an extraordinary sum.
Today, in the climactic house of horrors that is this story, the Israeli immigration overseeing refugees announced a bounty of $9,000 for Israelis deputized to hunt for those who refuse to leave and attempt to slip back into the woodwork undetected:
Bounty hunters and slave catchers lay in wait for unsuspecting runaway slaves in the North
…The Population and Immigration Authority said it would pay up to 30,000 Israeli shekels ($8,845) for civilians to carry out an “enterprise of national importance.” That included undertaking “enforcement tasks” against migrants that involved detecting, investigating, and arresting them. Candidates are expected to start in March 2018, a month before the country starts its designated “voluntary” process to return migrants to their country of origin or a third one.
The reason this is particularly horrible?  The Nazis too put a bounty on the heads of Jews and those who turned them in earned quite a tidy sum for their efforts.  If you’ve read Huckleberry Finn or know the history of American slavery, you’ll recall that slave owners employed such bounty hunters to capture and return their runaway slaves.  The entire enterprise stinks to high heaven.  I find myself continually thinking that no one in the Israeli government appears to have a brain in their head when they consider such proposals.  They don’t seem either to under the historical echoes of what they do; or else they don’t care (or both).

16 March 2009

Spiked by Spiked

The day that Brendan O'Neill decided that Free Speech was Not such a good thing













Apart from the odd article by George Monbiot in The Guardian, the existence of a web magazine called Spiked had entirely escaped my attention. That is until my attention was drawn to it by a poster on Haifa University’s Alef list, who cited an article by one Natalie Rothschild, criticising a speech I had made at a Brighton demonstration against Israel’s attack on Gaza. ‘Gaza is not Warsaw’.

Spiked is the web journal that was set up when the Revolutionary Communist Party’s [RCP] Living Marxism (LM) magazine was sued for libel and bankrupted by ITN for alleging that pictures of Bosnian Muslims in Serb concentration camps had been faked. LM’s view was that there was no genocide or massacres in Bosnia. [Joan Phillips, “Bosnia: The invention of a Holocaust”, Living Marxism, September 1992].
a
For those who remember, the RCP was the zany ultra-left group that always managed to end up on the right-side of politics supporting Neil Hamilton of the Tory Monday Club when he was under attack for corruption and attacking No Platform for Fascists.  At the same time it refused to join the Troops Out Movement setting up the Irish Freedom Movement because we wouldn't call for support for the IRA.  I suspect Brendan O'Neill and Frank Furedi no longer promote the slogan Victory to the IRA  (yes they have conveniently forgotten that one now they've become respectable!).
b
And although they don’t proclaim so openly any more they also denied that genocide took place in Rwanda. [Fiona Foster, December 1995. ‘Massacring the Truth in Rwanda.’ Living Marxism. Fiona Foster is the pen name of Fiona Fox, sister of Claire Fox, of the ‘Institute of Ideas’ and the Moral Maze. See also Undisclosed Affiliations - ‘From genocide deniers to biotech apologists’ - pt 4 (10/4/2004) and ‘Atrocity, memory, photography: imaging the concentration camps of Bosnia – the case of ITN versus Living Marxism, Part 2, David Campbell, Journal of Human Rights, Vol. 1, No. 2 (June 2002), 143–172.

Today they have a more sophisticated explanation. It isn’t that massacres didn’t occur [they avoid the use of the term ‘genocide’] but in fact it was the RPF, the organisation of the Tsutsis who were butchered.  It was Paul Kagame, now the President of Rwanda, that was responsible for what happened. The victims were responsible for their own deaths. Why? Because they allegedly shot down the plane carrying President Juvénal Habyarimana. It was that which triggered the genocide that followed. No matter that most people hold that it was the butchers and pogromists who carried out that act too.

Those of us who blame the French military and President Mitterand for standing by, if not aiding, the butchers get short shrift. ‘the truth is that France’s major mistake was to find itself on the wrong side of the moral parable that has been imposed by Western observers on Rwanda’s recent tragic history.’ Barrie Collins, ‘Rwanda: obscuring the truth about the genocide’ Don't you just love that? 'Moral parable'. It was all a question of biblical interpretation, what Gilad Atzmon calls the 'holocaust narrative'. Change the story change the facts. Like the Bible, you can read into the parable that which you want to understand.  Rwanda's genocide was a parable.  If you change it then you can also change the facts.

But I stray. When I got round to reading Rothschild’s article and also a couple of others - Frank Furedi’s ‘After Gaza: what’s behind 21st-century anti-Semitism?’ and Spiked’s editor, Brendan O’Neill’s, The politics of anti-Zionism it was clear that Spiked was clearly ploughing an old, Zionist furrow that can be summed up as anti-Zionism=anti-Semitism.

It is no accident that the CEO, media spokesperson etc. of the Zionist Community Security Trust, Mark Gardener, has just published an article on Spiked ‘Yesterday’s anti-Zionism is today’s anti-Semitism’.

But I knew I was on safe ground in asking for the right to reply. After all, Spiked may be a right-wing, libertarian journal masquerading as being on the left. It may spout nonsense dressed up as wars over culture, but it’s one defining feature is its absolute commitment to free speech. As it says itself: ‘spiked is endorsed by free-thinkers such as John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx, and hated by the narrow-minded such as Torquemada and Stalin. Or it would be, if they were lucky enough to be around to read it.’ It’s hardly likely that Marx and Mill would run away from a debate on the Palestine of the day, Ireland.

As editor O’Neill makes clear, ‘If anything, the enemy of free speech today is less totalitarianism than anti-totalitarianism, the idea that strong beliefs or words are necessarily problematic.’ ‘Free speech, with the edges taken off’ So I knew that my words, by way of reply, would have to be strong, but I also knew that I could count on Brendan O’Neill’s commitment to the traditions of Marx, Voltaire and Mill, rather than Stalin and Torquemada.

After all, free speech is meaningless if all you do is listen to your own views. As Mick Hume explained, in his Times blog [he’s their ‘Marxist’ columnist!] ‘Free speech means freedom for fools, too.’ Now admittedly he was referring to the National Front and BNP but surely he can’t be in favour of free speech for fascists but opposed to free speech when it comes to anti-Zionists?

By this time I’d done a little research into Spiked and uncovered some interesting articles about it and its corporate links. Money from IBM and links with PR firms etc. Invasion of the entryists, ‘Flying Over the Cuckoo’s Nest’ . But I was well aware that much of this is sourced by George Monbiot, who obviously doesn’t like the cut of Mick Hume’s suit. And Brendan O’Neill had made their position clear in an article, about being denied the right of reply, in The Independent. The Independent, Big Oil and me

I therefore sent an e-mail to Brendan O’Neill on 22nd January 2009 asking to reply both to Rothschild’s article but also O’Neill’s Politics of anti-Zionism. I wrote that ‘I disagree with your whole thesis of a conflation or morphing into or between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism and I believe your hostility to comparisons between different genocides are fatuous and also have a hidden agenda.’


O’Neill wrote back the same day saying that ‘Firstly I would be interested in seeing a response from you, yes. Unfortunately, as you will probably have guessed, spiked cannot afford to pay for contributions, but we are a good place from which to kickstart a debate.’ But ‘I don’t think it will be useful to have a piece speculating on our “hidden agenda”, simply because we do not have one.’

Now I must confess that I was taken aback by the arrogance that O’Neill displayed in his ‘Politics of anti-Zionism’ article. It is the same arrogance that LM had displayed. The Left opposes ‘free speech’ because it doesn’t possess our ability to debate these issues. We are the repository of truth. His article was subtitled ‘Today’s widespread attacks on Zionism as ‘expansionist and racist’ are historically illiterate.’ Quite a big claim to make but how true was it and what were O'Neill's credentials to make such a claim? He hadn't after all penned a great deal about Zionism and Israel.

If you are going to make such a claim then one would assume there was some reasoned argument behind this statement.  In fact there was none.  Anyone with the slightest acquaintance with Zionism would be aware that racism was at the heart of the Zionist project - an exclusivist ethnic project that manifested itself in the campaigns of Jewish Labour and Jewish Produce, i.e. a Boycott of Arab Labour and Arab Produce in the 1920's and 1930's, to say nothing of their penchant for the transfer of the Arabs of Palestine from the start of the Zionist project.  These are too well documented even for O'Neil to deny, so why is he saying that it is 'historically illiterate' to say that Zionism was racist?  The expansionism of Zionist is self evident. 

I had already noticed that O’Neill’s article quoted just two books – Nathan Weinstock’s ‘Zionism: a False Messiah’ and Abram Leon’s ‘The Jewish Question – A Marxist Interpretation’. Both of these are excellent books, though it seems that O’Neill understood neither. The latter was written under war-time conditions [Leon led the resistance of the Fourth International in Belgium and died in Auschwitz] and was naturally limited in source material by the conditions of the time. Weinstock’s book is somewhat dated but an excellent introduction to the subject (though Weinstock himself has now become a Zionist and has tried to prevent it being republished or sold!). However two books does not an expert make.

Since O’Neill was happy to lecture others on political illiteracy I thought I would point out his factual mistakes about a subject that he considered himself an expert on. For example his statement that ’Herzl and other new Zionist thinkers – most notably Moses Hess and Max Nordau – assumed leadership of the early Zionist movement at the end of nineteenth century and the start of the twentieth century’ suffered from a trifling problem – Hess died in 1875 and was the leader of nothing!

Likewise his statement that: ‘After the Second World War, … first Britain and later America supported the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine.’ In fact Britain was opposed to a Jewish state and this caused major ructions between the Attlee Government and the Truman Administration. After all it can’t have escaped O’Neill's attention that the Zionist terror militias – Haganah, Irgun and Lehi had, from 1945 to 1947 waged a war against the British occupiers. Or maybe it had escaped his attention.

Those who want to read about the British attitude to the creation of the Israeli state should read an expert, such as Wm. Roger Louis's The British Empire in the Middle East 1945-1951 - Arab Nationalism, The United States, and Postwar Imperialism, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1988, e.g.
Bevin’s aim was the creation of a binational sate. It may be taken as a common British aspiration of the era, though endorsed by others with greater degrees of scepticism. p.393 
or
Attlee and Bevin independently arrived at the same conclusion. They did not want to be held responsible in Arab eyes for a policy of partition. p.459.
O’Neill was none too happy about this because, as he explained: ‘Secondly, while I take you correction of my point about Hess (and we will be correcting that, thank you), I also don’t think it would be useful to have a piece that picks up on errors or on what you consider to be errors of judgements, errors of emphasis, etc.’

Well quite. Free speech has its limits, especially when it shows that Spiked's pretensions to having something to say are based on an abysmal ignorance of the subject in question. Nonetheless O'Neill was happy to carry my response and who was I to argue with that?

On 2nd February 2009 I e-mailed my article. It was somewhat long, 4,500 words, but it was replying to three articles totalling over 10,000 words. And O’Neill responded the same day, ‘Thanks Tony. I will read this very soon. Brendan.’ And that was it! Despite reminders on 12th February and again on 22nd February, when it was clear that O’Neill had clearly had second thoughts about the merits of free speech, I heard nothing. As I wrote on the latter occasion

‘I realise that it is not pleasant for any editor to be faced with the prospect of sticking to his previous promise and publishing an article which demolishes his and his co-editors musings on a subject such as Zionism but that is the consequence of jumping to an opinion before knowing anything about the subject.’

I copied it to Nathalie Rothschild and the collective but you know what? Not one of them has had the courage to respond and say why they are spiking the article.

And the moral of the story? When Spiked talks of ‘free speech’ reach for the spoons. Like The Times and the capitalist press, ‘free speech’ has a different meaning entirely from that which socialists understand. What’s free for them is often very expensive for us. Bigotry is indeed free but criticism of imperialism, capitalism and all its works is another matter entirely. Free speech means any amount of holocaust denial but it doesn’t include criticism of the fallacies and ignorance of Brendan O’Neill, Furedi and the light-weight Rothschild.