-
the veracity of the Holocaust was directly questioned.
That's my point. As far as I can see it wasn't. The comment at the meeting was from a Jewish speaker, an anti Zionist activist, not an anti-Semitic activist and certainly not someone who denies the Holocaust happened, he was discussing what the limits of debate should be:
“This is about free speech, the freedom to criticise and to discuss every issue, whether it’s the Holocaust: yes or no, Palestine, the liberation, the whole spectrum. There should be no limits on the discussion.”
Hefty-
There should be no limits on the discussion.
I think he's definitely wrong on this. You could easily end up sounding like a bigot, and inflaming tensions, if you don't limit what you say according to the context you're in.
-
Without enough knowledge about the form and content of actual meeting its hard to comment. My comments are based on Ken Lochs interview as quoted.
My thoughts would be;
1) given the PR issues with Labour and anti-Semitism why the fuck would you discuss it during the Conference - fringe event or not.2) if the interviewer framed a discussion of the extent of free speech on sensitive issues as a "discussion [on] the Holocaust, did it happen or didn’t it…" surely the first response is to correct them.
3) the limits of a discussion are hugely dictated by who you're discussing things with. I know that with my friends one of us can put forward arguments/counterpoints, from say the extreme right, during a discussion without qualification because we know each other. Stick that same person in a room full of strangers and you would think about the general sensitivities.
On a more general point it is hard not to question the underlying reason for Israel being such an important and reoccurring issue for people who have no connection to the region. In the same way that when people in the Conservative Party bring up legitimate discussion points on immigration its hard not to question their motivation.
William.
hugo7
@hugo7 has already made this point well. He said this in reponse to being asked about a fringe meeting where the veracity of the Holocaust was directly questioned. Instead of condemning the meeting he criticises Israel. It's insensitive and stupid at best, antisemitic at worst. And I don't think Loach is stupid.