Christian O’Connell has issued an apology for his distasteful Holocaust joke about “The Diarrhoea of Anne Frank”.
Campaign Against Antisemitism received complaints from listeners who heard Mr O’Connell’s show on Absolute Radio on 8th February. During the show, Mr O’Connell introduced a segment called “Update a classic” in which Mr O’Connell and his guests changed a word in the title of a classic book to comedically bring it up to date. Mr O’Connell’s suggestion was to rename the Diary of Anne Frank: “The Diarrhoea of Anne Frank”, to tittering from his guests, Richie Firth, Emma Jones and Glenn Moore. Mr O’Connell explained: “Diarrhea! She daren’t let go in case the Germans heard her.”
Whilst in hiding, Anne Frank and her family did indeed have to avoid flushing the toilet to avoid the noise giving away their hiding place. They were eventually discovered and all but Anne Frank’s father died of disease in concentration camps or were murdered.
Anne Frank died during a typhus outbreak in Bergen-Belsen concentration camp not long before it was liberated by British soldiers. She had been described as bald and shivering, and caring for her sister Margot who was in an even worse condition. Her sister fell from a bunk and died. Anne Frank died days later.
It is unsurprising that many people were upset by Mr O’Connell’s distasteful Holocaust joke.
Campaign Against Antisemitism approached Mr O’Connell through his agent and Mr O’Connell issued the following apology to us: “I do a live show for four hours a day and sometimes, one says something and one instantly regrets it. This was that. As soon as I’d said it I knew it wasn’t acceptable. I genuinely apologise to everyone who was upset by my comments. I was wrong. My show is national across the UK and I go out of my way to make it an inclusive show for all, which is why this is so regrettable. I hope this apology can be taken in the manner it is truly meant.”
Whilst we are pleased that Mr O’Connell has apologised unreservedly, we are disappointed that when we asked when the apology would be broadcast, we received no reply.
An innocuous article about George Soros’ supposed intervention in British politics has attracted claims of antisemitism because the headline chosen by the Daily Telegraph’s editors referred to him “backing a secret plot to thwart Brexit”.
It is indisputable that George Soros has, in recent years, been subjected to antisemitic campaigns around the world, painting him as a shadowy Jewish bogeyman. Mr Soros has been frequently targeted by, amongst others, the Hungarian government and several Eastern European advertising campaigns, which have been described as worryingly antisemitic, forming a narrative that the Daily Telegraph’s editors should have borne in mind when writing the headline for today’s article about his supposed intervention in British politics, however we do not consider the article to be antisemitic and it appears the headline, which was not written by the authors of the article, was only negligent.
The article, written by Nick Timothy, Kate McCann, Claire Newell and Luke Heighton, which reported on financial backing given by Mr Soros to the Best for Britain campaign, a campaign aiming to combat Brexit, has been noticed by several prominent activists and politicians on Twitter, who called the headline out for its close linguistic links to antisemitic conspiracy theories that have focused on Mr Soros for years.
Others, including Jonathan Portes, a senior lecturer at King’s College London, initially condemned Mr Timothy and the Daily Telegraph for analysis appearing alongside the article, before conceding that it was not Mr Timothy but the Daily Telegraph which was responsible for the analysis and it is they who should bear the burden of responsibility for this phrasing.
Mr Timothy himself staunchly denied the allegations against him personally.
Whist the Daily Telegraph is a newspaper that is correctly seen as philosemitic, we act without fear or favour when it falls foul of the standards that all newspapers should adhere to. For example, we are currently pursuing a complaint with the Independent Press Standards Organisation against the Daily Telegraph over an article published in September last year, in which the newspaper’s Digital Travel Editor, Oliver Smith, listed the last three countries in the world which he claimed “don’t have a central bank owned or controlled by the Rothschild family”. According to Mr Smith, and antisemites all over the world, the three countries are Cuba, North Korea and Iran. Mr Smith and the Daily Telegraph claimed that he did it by accident.
Campaign Against Antisemitism is apolitical and has no position on Brexit. We are rarely in the business of certifying that something is not antisemitic (the last time that we did so was in July 2015, when the Queen, as a young child, was suggested to have performed a Nazi salute), however from time to time we believe that it is important to speak out to avert an injustice.
Gideon Falter, Chairman of Campaign Against Antisemitism, said: “If Mr Soros intervenes in British politics it is legitimate for him to attract political scrutiny, which of course must not stray into antisemitism. We consider that today’s article was innocuous though its headline was poorly chosen by the Daily Telegraph’s editors. We do not believe that there are any grounds for accusing the authors of the article of antisemitism and we will not be submitting a complaint about the editors’ choice of headline. In particular, Nick Timothy is known to us as a firm friend of British Jewry, having strenuously supported our call for zero tolerance law enforcement against antisemitism during his time at the Home Office.”
Ken Livingstone, who was investigated but only lightly punished by the Labour Party for his repeated claims that Hitler “was supporting Zionism”, has participated in a special programme on Iranian propaganda station Press TV. Press TV was stripped of its broadcasting licence by Ofcom but Mr Livingstone was invited onto a show disseminated via social media, apparently to coincide with Holocaust commemoration ceremonies.
The programme began with a sickening propaganda introduction by presenter Roshan Muhammed Salih, who asked callers to call in and debate whether the Holocaust has become a weapon used by Israel, “with the accusation of antisemitism regularly thrown at its enemies”, or whether “the memory of the Holocaust has been exploited for political or financial gain” and “corrupted Jewish culture”.
Callers repeatedly claimed that Holocaust commemoration is used as a clever political device to distract from the supposed oppression of the Palestinians and to benefit “Zionists” without being challenged.
One caller from the UK, Maisoon, said that the word “Holocaust” had been “manipulated by the Jews”. She berated Mr Livingstone for talking about antisemitism because she accused him of failing to “mention the fact that Palestinians and Arabs are Semites”. Mr Livingstone only challenged her when she said that she did not distinguish between Jews and Zionists, at which point Mr Livingstone told her about the large number of anti-Zionist Jews that he said he knows.
Asked by Mr Salih why there are so many films about the Holocaust and not about the Palestinians, Mr Livingstone claimed that “anyone doing a film about that is going to be announced [sic] antisemitic”.
In a repetition of his previous claims, Mr Livingstone also said that when he was suspended by the Labour Party for claiming that Hitler “was supporting Zionism”, he “couldn’t walk down the street without Jewish people coming up to [him] and saying ‘We know all this is true, what is all this about? Don’t these MPs read their history?’ It’s not about antisemitism, it’s about political struggle inside the Labour Party.”
The presenter, Mr Salih, continually repeated the message that the Palestinians are being made to pay for the Holocaust and that modern “Zionists” are benefitting from the fact that the Holocaust happened. He also attempted to compare the Vietnam War with the Holocaust but Mr Livingstone took issue with that on the basis that the Vietnam War “was not a genocide”. Mr Livingstone also felt the need to contest Mr Salih’s wondering aloud whether two million, four million or six million Jews were murdered in the Holocaust, stating that the only “credible” number he had heard was six million.
Mr Salih also appeared to take up a position as an apologist for Hamas when blogger Richard Millett called the show to point out that the Hamas Charter proclaims that “The hour of judgement shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them”. Mr Salih cut Mr Millett off, chuckling incredulously: “Hamas do not call for the death of every single Jew in their charter, that is complete nonsense. They have a problem with Israel and the Jews who have come to that part of the world to take their land.” Mr Livingstone did not interject.
Mr Livingstone was investigated by the Labour Party in April last year over his claims that Hitler “was supporting Zionism”, but his punishment was so extraordinarily light that we branded it the Labour Party’s “final act of brazen, painful betrayal”. 107 Labour MPs subsequently wrote that they “will not allow it to go unchecked” but then they mostly fell silent.
It is despicable that Mr Livingstone participated in such a programme during Holocaust commemorations for the state-run propaganda outlet of a regime that even holds a Holocaust denial cartoon competition and has repeatedly threatened to bring about a new Holocaust. He should not have sat passively whilst the host and callers repeatedly accused Holocaust commemorations of being a means of justifying the supposed oppression of Palestinians. Every day that Mr Livingstone remains a member of the Labour Party is a further disgrace.
Campaign Against Antisemitism has contributed to a BBC documentary exposing the rise of the far-right in Britain. The documentary examines new data and interviews experts and witnesses on how the far-right has become re-energised, latching onto topical political issues, such as rising Islamism, and assisted by the perception that the far-right was a spent force.
The File on 4 documentary, entitled “What’s new about the new far-right?”, was broadcast on BBC Radio 4 yesterday, and can be listened to on BBC iPlayer.
Josh Rivers has been sacked shortly after being appointed editor of the Gay Times, Britain’s oldest magazine for gay men, for a series of offensive tweets, including comments about Jews having large noses. Buzzfeed uncovered the tweets during research for an interview with Mr Rivers. He was suspended within hours of publication and fired a day later following a swift investigation.
In 2011, he tweeted: “I wonder if they cast that guy as ‘The Jew’ because of that f***ing ridiculously large honker of a nose. It must be prosthetic. Must be.” In another tweet, he repeated a soundbite from the animated show, Family Guy: “Jews are gross. It’s the only religion with ‘ew’ in it.” He also asked for film recommendations in a tweet but excluded films about the Holocaust. Further tweets directed offensive remarks at various other minorities.
Mr Rivers tweeted an apology on Tuesday: “To every single person who is hurt, offended and disappointed: I’m sorry. The tweets are horrible. They are abhorrent. They are ugly. They are so hateful.”
The Gay Times released a statement confirming that Mr Rivers has been sacked: “After an investigation of the facts surrounding historical tweets by Josh Rivers, the newly appointed Editor of Gay Times magazine; we announce that his employment has been terminated with immediate effect. We sincerely apologise for the offence that has been caused, particularly to those members of our wider community to whom such inappropriate and unacceptable commentary was the focus. Gay Times does not tolerate such views and will continue to strive to honour and promote inclusivity.” It added: All articles written by Josh Rivers have been removed.”
Campaign Against Antisemitism welcomes the swift and firm approach taken by the Gay Times which has sent a strong message that antisemitic hatred will not be tolerated.
In an article for The Guardian about stereotyping Jews, Michele Hanson has peddled the stereotype that people are accused of antisemitism merely for “expressing a smidgin of concern about the Palestinians”.
In an article titled “Nigel Farage isn’t just crass, I find him dangerous and cruel” she wrote: “I notice Theresa May mentioned illegal settlements to Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu last week, but he wasn’t keen to chat about them, and instead started droning on about his commitment to peace and ‘the battle against militant Islam’. That was a pretty daring move by May, because some people might easily have called her antisemitic, as she was expressing a smidgin of concern about the Palestinians and questioning the Israeli government’s actions.”
It is ironic that Ms Hanson made this unpleasant and derisive remark in an article about “insidious stereotypes” in which she criticised Nigel Farage over his remarks to LBC listeners that he believes that American Jews wield disproportionate political power. Ms Hanson wrote that “I would like to write Farage’s statement in bold, 10ft-high letters to shame him, but it wouldn’t work.”
Instead of welcoming Ms Hanson’s criticism of Nigel Farage, which echoes our own thoughts on his remarks, we find ourselves faced with an article about stereotyping Jews which claims that antisemitism is wielded as a political weapon to stifle Israel’s critics. In so doing she deploys the so-called Livingstone formulation, named for the notorious Ken Livingstone.
The International Definition of Antisemitism adopted by the British Government, states that “criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” Campaign Against Antisemitism suggests that Ms Hanson takes a close look at the definition and retracts her comments that conflate criticism of Israeli government policy with accusations of antisemitism.
Whilst attempting to point out and isolate Nigel Farage for his remarks, she has simultaneously echoed the poisonous claims of Len McCluskey, Ken Loach and Ken Livingstone. She should be ashamed to keep such company.
We are now making a complaint to The Guardian which we will withdraw if Ms Hanson apologises.
We are grateful to UK Media Watch for bringing this matter to our attention.
Channel 4’s flagship Dispatches investigative journalism programme has gone undercover with British Transport Police to showcase how they work to catch racist football fans on trains.
Using CCTV, the programme shows how football thugs on trains subject staff and passengers including children to a torrent of abuse as they travel to matches. For their victims, there is no way to escape as they are often blocked in their seats and even if they move carriage, they cannot leave a moving train.
Some of the most shocking footage shows an elderly Jewish man forced to move carriage as Chelsea fans shout that the “Yids” are “on their way to Auschwitz” and that “Hitler’s gonna gas ‘em again”. As the elderly man leaves, the thugs can be seen looking on “triumphantly”, according to a British Transport Police Inspector who is reviewing the footage following a complaint. Fortunately in this case, another passenger, journalist Tamanna Rahman, was sitting nearby and filmed the incident on her smartphone despite the danger to herself, then provided footage to the police. A plumber, Melvin Kerswell, was identified by police and sheepishly admitted his involvement in the repulsive thuggery, but to the frustration of the police, by the time they had identified him and tracked him down, the deadline for bringing a prosecution had passed.
The programme uses a number of cases to show the impressive lengths that British Transport Police are going to so that offenders can be identified. This tallies with Campaign Against Antisemitism’s experience of British Transport Police, whose record of investigating hate crimes tends to be stronger than that of many other police forces. For example, since passengers often fail to inform the police about hate crime on trains, police now send undercover officers posing as football fans on problematic routes. The programme shows how cases are transformed when police are provided with smartphone footage, as CCTV usually fails to capture the audio that is so crucial, especially in cases of hate crime. It also shows how far officers will go to track down individuals.
The Chief Constable of British Transport Police, Paul Crowther OBE, also shames the football clubs which all too often fail to ban fans who engage in abuse.
We commend British Transport Police for its exemplary zero tolerance approach to hate crime. Its example should be admired and replicated.
British Transport Police can be contacted by calling 0800 405040, or by sending a text message to 61016. In an emergency, always call 999.
BBC presenter Andrew Marr has claimed in an interview with the visiting Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, that “a lot of Jewish friends” and “a lot of Jewish community leaders have said that Israeli government policies are feeding antisemitism in Britain.
Mr Marr asked Mr Netanyahu: “Can I ask you about the condition of Jews in this country because I’ve got a lot of Jewish friends and there are a lot of Jewish community leaders who are very worried about your government and they say that particularly the settlements issue has made it much, much harder to defend Israel in this country.” However, Mr Marr then added: “We have always had antisemitism in Britain but it has been quite quiet for a long time and it is back on the rise.”
Mr Netanyahu correctly answered: “Well, you know, I wouldn’t blame Jews for antisemitism any more than I would blame blacks for racial hatred stirred against them, or anti-gay hatred. It’s because of what they are.” Mr Netanyahu appeared to have more to say, but Mr Marr interjected: “There’s a distinction between Jews and policies.” Mr Marr was correct to draw such a distinction, which makes his suggestion that many Jews think that rising antisemitism in Britain has been fuelled by the political positions adopted by the Israeli government so extremely clumsy.
There is no evidence that Israeli government policy, which has not changed terribly markedly in recent years, has had any impact on rising hate crime against British Jews, nor is there any evidence that there is any policy that the Israeli government could adopt to stem the tide of hatred aimed at British Jews by the neo-Nazis of the far-right, the extremists of the far-left, or Islamists inspired by groups such as ISIS.
Mr Netanyahu responded by paraphrasing a speech given by the Prime Minister at an event to commemorate the centenary of the Balfour Declaration, a British statement which was a major milestone in the fight to establish the modern State of Israel. In her speech, the Prime Minister pointed out that calling for the destruction of the world’s only Jewish state is antisemitic and not a legitimate political criticism.
Mr Marr then moved on to a question about whether Mr Netanyahu would expect good relations with Britain were it run by Jeremy Corbyn.
It is disappointing and concerning that an experienced broadcaster like Mr Marr, who was the editor of The Independent and then the BBC’s political editor, should see fit to conflate criticism of Israeli policies, which is not antisemitic, with rising antisemitic crime.
Campaign Against Antisemitism has met with members of the senior management of the Sunday Times to discuss how it came to publish an antisemitic column by Kevin Myers in July.
The column by Kevin Myers contained the following paragraph about the BBC pay row: “I note that two of the best-paid women presenters in the BBC — Claudia Winkleman and Vanessa Feltz, with whose, no doubt, sterling work I am tragically unacquainted — are Jewish. Good for them. Jews are not generally noted for their insistence on selling their talent for the lowest possible price, which is the most useful measure there is of inveterate, lost-with-all-hands stupidity. I wonder, who are their agents? If they’re the same ones that negotiated the pay for the women on the lower scales, then maybe the latter have found their true value in the marketplace.”
On the day that the column was published, Campaign Against Antisemitism asked that the newspaper apologise, remove the column and end its relationship with Mr Myers, which the Sunday Times did almost immediately.
At a meeting on Tuesday between leaders of Campaign Against Antisemitism and senior managers of the Sunday Times, it was explained how processes have been tightened to preventfurther publication of such material. .
The newspaper’s management was transparent about how the article came to be published, and though it should not have slipped through the editorial process, we now understand how it did. We are satisfied that processes have been improved and we are grateful to the Sunday Times for being so open with us. Consequently we are withdrawing our complaints with the Independent Press Standards Organisation and the Irish Press Ombudsman.
Though this matter had an unhappy beginning, we are very pleased by the outcome and the message that it sends that the Sunday Times will not tolerate antisemitism.
Presumably taking his cue from antisemitic conspiracy myths, the Daily Telegraph’s Digital Travel Editor, Oliver Smith, has published a list of the only three countries in the world which “don’t have a central bank owned or controlled by the Rothschild family”. According to Mr Smith, and antisemites all over the world, the three countries are Cuba, North Korea and Iran.
Antisemitic conspiracy myths have long placed the predominantly Jewish Rothschild family of bankers and philanthropists behind the world’s ills, accusing them of leading a global Jewish conspiracy. The myth gained widespread currency at the when the Nazis recognised its potency for turning Germans against the supposed hidden hand of the Jews, who their propaganda claimed was ruining Germany’s national future.
Modern use of the myth has often claimed that Cuba, North Korea and Iran are the only countries whose central bank is beyond the grasp of the Rothschilds, which supposedly is the reason for a media and military campaign for Western powers to dominate those alleged bastions of independence from Jewish hegemony.
Though the article has now been amended, the Daily Telegraph must immediately investigate this matter and act firmly. We are in contact with them.
Readers of Metro appear to have rushed to respond to the paper’s prominent page two coverage of Campaign Against Antisemitism’s new research by proving British Jews right about antisemitism.
Our Antisemitism Barometer research found that 83% of British Jews believe that the Labour Party is harbouring antisemites, whilst 78% have witnessed antisemitism disguised as a political comment about Israel or Zionism, 81% believe that media bias against Israel was fuelling persecution of Jews in Britain, and 78% feel intimidated by tactics used to boycott Israel.
Two Metro readers rushed to respond by writing in to ably demonstrate exactly how British Jews are shouted down or ignored when they complain about antisemitism, in a double antisemitism whereby Jews not only suffer racism, but are then accused of lying when they complain about it.
One reader, Tom, complained bitterly: “Antisemitism is evil, but political discussion is not. Fighting antisemitism depends on knowing the difference. Fear of Senator McCarthy was part of my Detroit childhood and I know a witch-hunt when I see it. Labour must stop the witch-hunt.”
Another reader, who remained anonymous, also had strong feelings to share, writing: “There is a massive difference between antisemitism and being against Zionists who are anti-Palestinian.”
We are disappointed that Metro felt that these comments were worth publishing. Anybody can reply by sending a text message to 65400, beginning their message with the word: “VIEWS”. The best text messages may be published by Metro, which says that texting the number is charged at the standard network rate for a text message.
Following discussion between Campaign Against Antisemitism and News UK, which owns the Sunday Times, a further statement has been issued accepting our recommendations: “Further to our earlier statement we can confirm that Kevin Myers will not write again for the Sunday Times Ireland. A printed apology will appear in next week’s paper. The Sunday Times editor Martin Ivens has also apologised personally to Claudia Winkleman and Vanessa Feltz for these unacceptable comments both to Jewish people and to women in the workplace.”
The senior management of the Sunday Times previously sent Campaign Against Antisemitism an apology over the publication of an antisemitic column by Kevin Myers which has now been removed.
Martin Ivens, editor of the Sunday Times, said: “The comments in a column by Kevin Myers in today’s Irish edition of the Sunday Times were unacceptable and should not have been published. It has been taken down and we sincerely apologise both for the remarks and the error of judgement that led to publication.”
Frank Fitzgibbon, editor of the Sunday Times in Ireland, said: “On behalf of the Sunday Times I apologise unreservedly for the offence caused by comments in a column written by Kevin Myers and published today in the Ireland edition of the Sunday Times. It contained views that have caused considerable distress and upset to a number of people. As the editor of the Ireland edition I take full responsibility for this error of judgment. This newspaper abhors antisemitism and did not intend to cause offence to Jewish people.”
The column by Kevin Myers contained the following paragraph about the BBC pay row: “I note that two of the best-paid women presenters in the BBC — Claudia Winkleman and Vanessa Feltz, with whose, no doubt, sterling work I am tragically unacquainted — are Jewish. Good for them. Jews are not generally noted for their insistence on selling their talent for the lowest possible price, which is the most useful measure there is of inveterate, lost-with-all-hands stupidity. I wonder, who are their agents? If they’re the same ones that negotiated the pay for the women on the lower scales, then maybe the latter have found their true value in the marketplace.”
The column has been removed from the online edition of the Sunday Times and we have now asked the Sunday Times for confirmation that Kevin Myers will never again work for a News UK title, and that the apology will appear in the print edition.
Myers is already known as a particularly unpleasant journalist who has called the children of single parents “bastards” and claimed that “Africa is giving nothing to anyone — apart from AIDS”. He has also devoted an entire column in the Belfast Telegraph to claiming that there was no Holocaust on the basis that not all of the Jews murdered by the Nazis were cremated, and attempting to nitpick over whether six million Jews really were murdered, claiming that the Holocaust had become a “dogma”. He wrote: “There was no holocaust, (or Holocaust, as my computer software insists) and six million Jews were not murdered by the Third Reich. These two statements of mine are irrefutable truths, yet their utterance could get me thrown in the slammer in half the countries of the EU.”
It is clear that Kevin Myers should not have been invited to write for the Sunday Times, and his editors should never have allowed the column to be published. That they removed the column and apologised for it within hours of its publication is proof that the decision to include the column was irrefutably wrong.
It is clear that the column breached clauses 12(i) and 12(ii) of the Independent Press Standards Organisation’s Editors’ Code and Principle 8 of the Irish Press Ombudsman’s Code of Practice by making discriminatory comments about Jews and also mentioning the religion of the Jewish BBC presenters at all.
In addition to no longer writing for the Sunday Times, we expect that Kevin Myers will no longer work as a journalist at any decent publication. We also understand that the Sunday Times will review its editorial procedures to examine how this lapse in editorial judgement was permitted in the first place.
The senior management of the Sunday Times has sent Campaign Against Antisemitism an apology over the publication of an antisemitic column by Kevin Myers which has now been removed.
Martin Ivens, editor of the Sunday Times, said: “The comments in a column by Kevin Myers in today’s Irish edition of the Sunday Times were unacceptable and should not have been published. It has been taken down and we sincerely apologise both for the remarks and the error of judgement that led to publication.”
Frank Fitzgibbon, editor of the Sunday Times in Ireland, said: “On behalf of the Sunday Times I apologise unreservedly for the offence caused by comments in a column written by Kevin Myers and published today in the Ireland edition of the Sunday Times. It contained views that have caused considerable distress and upset to a number of people. As the editor of the Ireland edition I take full responsibility for this error of judgment. This newspaper abhors antisemitism and did not intend to cause offence to Jewish people.”
The column by Kevin Myers contained the following paragraph about the BBC pay row: “I note that two of the best-paid women presenters in the BBC — Claudia Winkleman and Vanessa Feltz, with whose, no doubt, sterling work I am tragically unacquainted — are Jewish. Good for them. Jews are not generally noted for their insistence on selling their talent for the lowest possible price, which is the most useful measure there is of inveterate, lost-with-all-hands stupidity. I wonder, who are their agents? If they’re the same ones that negotiated the pay for the women on the lower scales, then maybe the latter have found their true value in the marketplace.”
The column has been removed from the online edition of the Sunday Times and we have now asked the Sunday Times for confirmation that Kevin Myers will never again work for a News UK title, and that the apology will appear in the print edition.
Myers is already known as a particularly unpleasant journalist who has called the children of single parents “bastards” and claimed that “Africa is giving nothing to anyone — apart from AIDS”. He has also devoted an entire column in the Belfast Telegraph to claiming that there was no Holocaust on the basis that not all of the Jews murdered by the Nazis were cremated, and attempting to nitpick over whether six million Jews really were murdered, claiming that the Holocaust had become a “dogma”. He wrote: “There was no holocaust, (or Holocaust, as my computer software insists) and six million Jews were not murdered by the Third Reich. These two statements of mine are irrefutable truths, yet their utterance could get me thrown in the slammer in half the countries of the EU.”
It is clear that Kevin Myers should not have been invited to write for the Sunday Times, and his editors should never have allowed the column to be published. That they removed the column and apologised for it within hours of its publication is proof that the decision to include the column was irrefutably wrong.
It is clear that the column breached clauses 12(i) and 12(ii) of the Independent Press Standards Organisation’s Editors’ Code by making discriminatory comments about Jews and also mentioning the religion of the Jewish BBC presenters at all. We have called on the Independent Press Standards Organisation to require the Sunday Times to prominently print apologies in the next edition; investigate the editorial process that allowed this column to be printed in the first place; and recommend that Kevin Myers no longer be employed by any newspaper as a columnist or journalist.
The BBC must immediately and unequivocally apologise for stating that “The Holocaust is a sensitive topic for many Muslims because Jewish survivors settled in British-mandate Palestine, on land which later became the State of Israel.”
The line appeared in a BBC News article about German Muslim schoolgirls who went on a visit to concentration camps in Poland suffering racist abuse from local people. The line has now been removed.
The Holocaust is indeed a sensitive topic for many reasons, not least because six million Jews were systematically massacred. It should not be a sensitive topic to Muslims, or anybody else, because of the foundation of the State of Israel. Zionism, the movement to create the modern State of Israel began decades before the Holocaust, and had the country existed at the time of the Holocaust, millions of innocent Jewish civilians may have lived.
For the BBC to lend credence to the notion that it is legitimate to be “sensitive” about the Holocaust because of the existence of the State of Israel invokes antisemitic notions that the existence of the State of Israel is in some way racist, and it is offensive to tar “many Muslims” in this way. The International Definition of Antisemitism states that “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination (e.g. by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour)” is antisemitic.
From fracking to tracking, campaigners are increasingly in the news for comparing their opponents to Nazis, or claiming that the people they purport to represent are being treated like Jews under the Nazis.
Just in the last week, a fracking activist was condemned by The Times and the Daily Mail for producing a video called “Tina’s List” which spliced clips of police officers guarding a fracking site with clips from Stephen Spielberg’s film about the Holocaust, Schindler’s List. Yesterday, Janet Street-Porter told ITV’s Loose Women that she found the idea of putting microchips in children so that their parents can track them “offensive”, claiming: “It’s treating children as badly as we treat prisoners. We tag prisoners and during the last world war, Jews had triangles and had tattoos put on them and it was just absolutely offensive and I find this idea of sticking a microchip inside an innocent child —” at which point she was interrupted and forced to apologise for the comparison.
As the remaining the Holocaust survivors pass the responsibility for remembering the atrocity to future generations, it is appalling to see the Holocaust increasingly used as a banal comparison. Whatever one’s views on fracking, police guarding a fracking site are not like Nazi guards busily engaged in genocide and torture. Whatever one’s views on parents tracking their children, they are in no way similar to Nazis marking Jews out for murder, humiliation and abuse.
Comparing the worst crime in history to the challenges and problems of the modern day is a form of Holocaust denial, diluting the memory of the Holocaust by making such absurd comparisons.
We are pleased that public figures who make such comparisons are rounded on by most commentators, but we believe that we are witnessing a rise in the phenomenon of ‘Holocaust denial by comparison’, and we must remain vigilant in calling it out.
On 27th February, 244 academics attacked Campaign Against Antisemitism and the International Definition of Antisemitism in a letter published in The Guardian (and not for the first time either). The academics claimed that we were stifling criticism of Israel rather than acting against genuine Jew-hatred. It was not long before The Independent was repeating the claims.
After our Regulatory Enforcement Unit filed complaints with The Guardian and The Independent, both publications have finally granted Campaign Against Antisemitism the right to reply. The Guardian published ourletter, though it was poorly publicised, three days after the academics’ letter was published.
Now, more than two months later, The Independent has finally ended its stubborn resistance and a heavily-edited letter from Campaign Against Antisemitism has at last been published, addressing some of the falsehoods contained in the article about the academics’ letter in February.
We hope that in the future, The Guardian and The Independent will seek a response before publishing attacks on Campaign Against Antisemitism.
On Monday, 244 academics attacked Campaign Against Antisemitism and the International Definition of Antisemitism in a letter published in The Guardian (and not for the first time either). The academics claimed that we were stifling criticism of Israel rather than acting against genuine Jew-hatred. It was not long before The Independent was repeating the claims.
Neither paper had the decency to seek our comment before publishing the claims and indeed The Guardian initially refused to publish our reply to the letter.
After we lodged a formal complaint against The Guardian and The Independent, The Guardian agreed to publish the following letter. We will continue to pursue the outstanding elements of our complaints.
Sir,
The International Definition of Antisemitism adopted by the Prime Minister following a long campaign does not conflate antisemitism and criticism of Israel. Those who oppose the definition are simply blind to Jew-hatred. When the lynch mob of academics who wrote to you read the definition, they will have seen that it says that “criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic”. Their letter is therefore a deceit, because they claim that all they want to do is rationally criticise Israel and they fear that we will call them antisemites. That would be conflation of antisemitism with criticism of Israel, and as they well know, under this definition they have nothing to fear.
What the definition does consider to be antisemitic is calling Jews or the Jewish state the successor to the Nazis. That is not criticism, it is hate speech. The definition equally calls those who engage in spreading conspiracy myths about Jewish subterfuge and nefarious power antisemites, and of course the definition is right.
The 244 academics who signed the letter condemning Campaign Against Antisemitism are, in fact, engaging in the greatest of academic crime: dishonesty. It is therefore no wonder that we have asked students to gather evidence of antisemitism and send it to us so that we can take it up with universities.
Today, everybody carries in their pockets a high-definition video camera and so Jewish students are thankfully able to prove that they are being intimidated and abused, and we are able to help them. That must be what these academics fear: they fear that the particular brand of antisemitism that disguises itself as discourse about Israel is finally becoming political, social and professional suicide.
This recognition of the full spectrum of antisemitism comes not a moment too soon: on campuses where “oppression” is so frequently discussed, Jewish students are being squeezed out of student life. That is why the Minister of State for Universities has had to take a stand against bullying, unaccountable academics and student leaders who have long enjoyed partaking in the oldest hatred of all.
The International Definition of Antisemitism has been endorsed by thirty-one nations now, not out of fealty to Israel but out of recognition that antisemitism rots society from within, and that Jews are sadly, as ever, on the front line.
Yours sincerely,
Gideon Falter
Chairman, Campaign Against Antisemitism
On Monday, 244 academics attacked Campaign Against Antisemitism and the International Definition of Antisemitism in a letter published in The Guardian (and not for the first time either). The academics claimed that we were stifling criticism of Israel rather than acting against genuine Jew-hatred. It was not long before The Independent was repeating the claims.
Neither paper had the decency to seek our comment before publishing the claims and indeed The Guardian has now refused to publish our reply to the letter. We have made formal complaints to both The Guardian and The Independent, but in the meantime we are publishing the response that The Guardian refused to print.
Sir,
The International Definition of Antisemitism adopted by the Prime Minister following a long campaign does not conflate antisemitism and criticism of Israel. Those who oppose the definition are simply blind to Jew-hatred. When the lynch mob of academics who wrote to you read the definition, they will have seen that it says that “criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic”. Their letter is therefore a deceit, because they claim that all they want to do is rationally criticise Israel and they fear that we will call them antisemites. That would be conflation of antisemitism with criticism of Israel, and as they well know, under this definition they have nothing to fear.
What the definition does consider to be antisemitic is calling Jews or the Jewish state the successor to the Nazis. That is not criticism, it is hate speech. The definition equally calls those who engage in spreading conspiracy myths about Jewish subterfuge and nefarious power antisemites, and of course the definition is right.
The 244 academics who signed the letter condemning Campaign Against Antisemitism are, in fact, engaging in the greatest of academic crime: dishonesty. It is therefore no wonder that we have asked students to gather evidence of antisemitism and send it to us so that we can take it up with universities.
Today, everybody carries in their pockets a high-definition video camera and so Jewish students are thankfully able to prove that they are being intimidated and abused, and we are able to help them. That must be what these academics fear: they fear that the particular brand of antisemitism that disguises itself as discourse about Israel is finally becoming political, social and professional suicide.
This recognition of the full spectrum of antisemitism comes not a moment too soon: on campuses where “oppression” is so frequently discussed, Jewish students are being squeezed out of student life. That is why the Minister of State for Universities has had to take a stand against bullying, unaccountable academics and student leaders who have long enjoyed partaking in the oldest hatred of all.
The International Definition of Antisemitism has been endorsed by thirty-one nations now, not out of fealty to Israel but out of recognition that antisemitism rots society from within, and that Jews are sadly, as ever, on the front line.
Yours sincerely,
Gideon Falter
Chairman, Campaign Against Antisemitism
A Daily Mailstory about two imposters who posed as Muslim clerics and killed a woman during an ‘exorcism’ has been illustrated with an image of a book bearing a star of David.
The image is from Shutterstock, an stock image library which describes the image as a “Hallowe’en still life” with “magic books”.
This is probably not antisemitism, just sheer ignorance. We expect the Daily Mail and Shutterstock to remedy the situation.
For the record, we are not aware of any lethal exorcism process being condoned in the holy book of any mainstream religion, so we hope that we won’t see the star of David replaced with another religion’s symbol.
Katie Hopkins has built her career as a publicity-craving ‘provocateur’ but yesterday she crossed a line.
Some celebrities who thrive on outrage make genuine mistakes, but often they will deliberately wound and then apologise just to generate headlines. We cannot imagine that her latest move is a mistake.
Ms Hopkins has retweeted an American neo-Nazi called “AntiJuden” whose profile includes a swastika and the emblem of Hitler’s SS. The American neo-Nazi had cheered her support for racial profiling, tweeting: “Now that is the way it should be told”. Even without examining its timeline, the virulently antisemitic nature of the account, which now appears to have been closed down by its owner, should have been immediately apparent to Ms Hopkins.
When the inevitable Twitter backlash arrived, Ms Hopkins could have taken the opportunity to redeem herself by issuing a full and genuine apology. Instead, she tweeted a mealy-mouthed apology which trivialised the account’s extremist antisemitic views by referring to it as merely “dodgy” and was accompanied by a photo of Ms Hopkins striking a forthright pose but with a teardrop photoshopped onto her cheek, leaving little doubt as to the insincerity of her words.
Ms Hopkins has prior form in this area. In the run-up to the last General Election, she attracted opprobrium and scorn for making a Holocaust joke about the then Labour leader, Ed Milliband, who is Jewish, and his wife Justine.
Yes, be fair. Because being approvingly retweeted by a Jew-hating neo-Nazi who agrees with the things we say could happen to any one of us. pic.twitter.com/0joCH7iBWs
If yesterday’s episode was indeed an accident, Ms Hopkins has made herself accident prone. Having built her career on trolling the airwaves, she has developed quite a following amongst neo-Nazis like “AntiJuden”, which cannot come as any surprise to the LBC producers and Daily Mail editors who decided to give her a platform as a presenter and columnist. LBC thrives on debate, but having taken Ken Livingstone off air after his claim that Hitler supported Zionism, if they retain Katie Hopkins then their cover as a responsible broadcaster sometimes caught in the crossfire will be well and truly blown. The Daily Mail likewise.
LBC and the Daily Mail may decide to fire Katie Hopkins, and we would applaud them if they do. If they decided to reprimand her instead, she should, at the very least, be required to visit a Nazi concentration camp and for once make a positive contribution to a debate, perhaps by presenting a show and devoting a column to explaining how irresponsible demagogues are fueling the resurgence of Nazi propaganda online.
The BBC has published an analysis of the terrorist atrocity in Nice, claiming that the attach was somehow worse than the murder of Jews at the Hypercacher kosher supermarket last January because in Nice, “the people at large” were targeted despite doing nothing “provocative”.
Through the last 18 months of jihadist terror in France, a simple pattern is emerging: it keeps getting worse. If the January 2015 attacks were aimed at specific groups – Jews and blasphemers – the November follow-up was more indiscriminate. At the Bataclan and at the cafes the Islamists killed young adults, out being European hedonists. This time, it’s gone a step further. In Nice, it is the people at large – families and groups of friends – doing nothing more provocative than attending a national celebration. Ten children were among the dead.
The BBC claimed that it was not as bad when terrorists just killed “Jews and blasphemers”, and then asserted that what has happened in Nice is a “step further” because the Jewish people shopping for their Shabbat meals in the Hypercacher kosher supermarket were not “people at large — families and groups of friends”. Instead, they were clearly “more provocative” by being Jewish and partaking in a Jewish shopping activity.
The article, by Hugh Schofield, the BBC’s Paris Correspondent, goes on to suggest that the terrorist murderers were somehow not responsible for their own bloodthirsty atrocities, because they merely “fell prey to the torrent of jihadist propaganda emanating from so-called Islamic State”. By claiming that they “fell prey” to propaganda, the BBC suggests that rather than deciding to go out and kill innocents, the decision happened to them, such that they were passive and not in control.
Finally, the BBC imagines a “moment when the attacks become so outrageous they provoke a backlash. A mosque is burned to the ground. Some white youths go on a rampage through a banlieue (suburb)”. The implication is that the worst has yet to come, and that the worst will be attacks on Muslims which would be far worse than slaughtering Jews or “hedonists” or “blasphemers” or people in Nice. The BBC tells us “this is what IS desperately wants to happen, of course” as if the slaughter of Jews and other members of society is not what they are actually trying to achieve; it is just a technique to start “a truly bloody civil conflict”. The notion that the BBC believes that the terrorist massacres in Paris in January and November last year, and now in Nice last week was not “truly” a bloody conflict.
Complaints to the BBC can be made online or by calling 03700 100 222, however, based on past experience, the institutionally antisemitic, self-regulating, BBC is extremely unlikely to find itself at fault. You might instead prefer to complain to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, explaining why you have not felt comfortable reporting the matter to the BBC and leaving it in their hands. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport can be reached at [email protected] or by calling 020 7211 6000.
The BBC has cleared newsreader Tim Willcox over allegations of antisemitism brought by Campaign Against Antisemitism. Giving its final ruling, the BBC Trust decided that Willcox had not made antisemitic comments during two broadcasts in November 2014 and January 2015.
In the first broadcast, Willcox was presenting a review of the next day’s newspapers which included a headline about Jewish donors ending their support for the Labour Party. Injecting his own analysis, Willcox suggested that the “Jewish faces” of the “Jewish lobby” would also probably be opposed to the “mansion tax” proposed by the party.
In the second broadcast, following the aftermath of the January 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, during which four shoppers at a kosher supermarket had been murdered, Willcox conducted an interview with a French lady who called for greater acknowledgment that Jews were now being targeted by Islamist terrorists. Willcox interrupted her to observe that “the Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well.”
Media lawyer Tony Morris represented Campaign Against Antisemitism in our ensuing complaints to the BBC, which included complaints to the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit, Ofcom, the Director-General of the BBC and the BBC Trust. The BBC Trust is supposed to hold the BBC to account, but it fails to do so abjectly, as it has demonstrated in this case.
In a letter to BBC Director-General, Lord Hall, Campaign Against Antisemitism’s Chairman, Gideon Falter wrote: “I do not know of any other minority group so routinely told that its concerns are meritless by the BBC. Your organisation treats the concerns of Jewish licence fee payers with glib contempt, feigning to investigate but from the outset contriving to dismiss complaints at the earliest opportunity, and strenuously avoiding any meaningful public or private discussion.
Referring to the MacPherson principle used by the police and other public bodies when investigating allegations of racism, Falter continued: “In a country where the MacPherson principle is the gold standard for dealing with complaints of racism, I know of no other public body that, when faced with accusations of racism immediately retorts in the media that the accusations are groundless, the victims are not victims and that the matter is clear-cut. Normally one would expect a commitment to review the accusations in the most transparent and dispassionate manner possible, for example by means of an independent review, and public statements would be expected to reflect the fact that a review has been opened and no statement can be made that would prejudice it.”
Falter’s letter concludes: “Lord Hall, the BBC is part of British culture, but under your leadership and that of your predecessors, the BBC has become a blight for British Jews — a relic of the old-fashioned institutional antisemitism of the British establishment that has been excised from almost every sphere of public life, only to find sanctuary at your unaccountable, unrepentant BBC. You preside over an institution that is antisemitic both by act and concealment. The BBC that British Jews wish they could love and be proud of instead shames our country by shielding bigots.”
Campaign Against Antisemitism has called for the BBC Trust to be replaced by Ofcom as the BBC’s overseer, a finding that has now been supported by a government-backed report. However, in the case of the Willcox complaints, Ofcom refused even to investigate, despite the fact that it already has jurisdiction over the BBC in cases of antisemitism.
Ken Livingstone has been taken off air by LBC radio, following Campaign Against Antisemitism’s discussions with LBC’s owner, Global. Former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone was suspended from the Labour Party last month over his comments that Hitler was “supporting Zionism” for considering the forced deportation of German Jews to pre-state Israel. Livingstone has remained resolutely unapologetic and we felt that the disgraced former mayor should not continue to be afforded the platform of his own show on LBC.
Since 29th April, we have been demanding that LBC’s owner, Global, drop Livingstone, and yesterday Global confirmed to us that Livingstone would not be returning to his regular slot. Despite having a contract with Global, Livingstone is currently off air, and following our direct demands to Global that he should be permanently taken off air, they have now confirmed to us that his contract will not be renewed.
The strongest response to Livingston’s offensive remarks is for him to be shunned, which is what Global has rightly done, and we applaud them for heeding our calls.
Ken Livingstone has told Vanessa Feltz during an interview on BBC Radio London that Hitler “was supporting Zionism before he went mad”. He made the comments whilst claiming that disgraced MP Naz Shah’s comments were not antisemitic even though she had apologised for them.
The Labour Party must expel Ken Livingstone. Today he has claimed that Hitler was “supporting Zionism”. Enough is enough. He should not be suspended, he should be expelled today. He is a hardened politician who has spent his political career accommodating antisemitic extremists and making antisemitic gaffes. Jeremy Corbyn should understand that zero tolerance for offensive comments like these is all or nothing, and it is time for Ken Livingstone to be banished.
Transcript
Vanessa Feltz (VF): You will have seen yourself written about in the Telegraph today. It’s their editorial. It says: “Others are furious about the conduct of Mr Corbyn’s friend and ally, Ken Livingstone, who says Naz Shah’s comments were not antisemitic.” Now she’s profusely apologized for them, said she made a mistake. If she’s apologized for them, presumably she acknowledges they are antisemitic. Do you still maintain they were not?
Ken Livingstone (KL): No, she’s a deep critic of Israel and its policies. Her remarks were over the top but she’s not antisemitic. I’ve been in the Labour party for 47 years; I’ve never heard anyone say something antisemitic. I’ve heard a lot of criticism of the state of Israel and its abuse of the Palestinians but I’ve never heard someone be antisemitic.
VF: She talked about relocating Israel to America; she talked about what Hitler did being legal; and she talked about ‘the Jews rallying’, and she used the word ‘Jews’, not ‘Israelis’ or ‘Israel’. You didn’t find that to be antisemitic?
KL: No, it’s completely over the top; it’s not antisemitic. Let’s remember, When Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing 6,000,000 Jews. The simple fact in all of this is that Naz made these comments at a time when there was another brutal Israeli attack on the Palestinians. And there’s one stark fact that virtually nobody in the British media ever reports: in all these conflicts, the death toll is usually between 60 and 100 Palestinians killed for every Israeli. Now any other country doing that would be accused of war crimes. It’s like we have a double standard about the policies of the Israeli government.
VF: You see, some people will say there’s a double standard operating in the Labour Party, that what’s really a flagrant kind of antisemitism, a deeply-embedded systemic antisemitism is hidden behind a mask of anti-Zionism or criticism of Israeli foreign policy, but that’s not what it really is. It’s really – as John Rentoul the political commentator for the Independent said on my programme, using a phrase that I would hesitate to use but he used this morning – he said “these are Jew haters, long-term Jew haters, and they can use criticism of Israel as a cloak behind which to mask that sentiment”
KL: He’s lying. As I said, I’ve never heard anyone say anything antisemitic but there’s been a very well-orchestrated campaign by the Israel lobby to smear anybody who criticizes Israeli policy as antisemitic. I had to put up with 35 years of this, and being denounced, because back in 1981 we were campaigning to say the Labour Party should recognize the PLO. We were accused of antisemitism and then 12 years later the leader of the PLO’s on the White House lawn, shaking hands with the Prime Minister of Israel
VF: How could it be therefore that you would think it was alright for Naz Shah to mention Hitler at all. If her comments were anti-Zionist or anti-Israeli foreign policy, why would that be part of the argument? Why would Hitler’s name even come into it?
KL: I don’t think she should have done that. As I said, she was over the top but we need to step back and look at the anger there is at the sort of double standards. We’ve just had nearly a decade of painful sanctions against Iran. We invaded Iraq because we thought they were going to get nuclear weapons but Israel’s had nuclear weapons for 40 years at least, and there’s never any sanctions any complaint by anyone in the West. It’s these double standards that make people angry.
VF: What do you think “over the top” really means? If I say, “Was it antisemitic?” and you say, “No, it wasn’t. Categorically no. Anyone who says it was is a liar but it was over the top”, over the top of what?
KL: Basically, to think of antisemitism and racism as exactly the same thing, and criticising the government of South Africa, which is pretty unpleasant and corrupt, doesn’t make me a racist. And it doesn’t make me antisemitic when I criticise the brutal mistreatment by the Israeli government. Let’s look at someone who’s Jewish, who said [… unclear …] Albert Einstein, when the first leader of Likud, the governing party now in Israel, came to America, he warned American politicians, “Don’t talk to this man because he’s too similar to the fascists we fought in the second World War.” Now if Naz or myself said that today, we’d be denounced as antisemitic but that was Albert Einstein.
VF: Lord Levy, a senior Labour peer I think you’ll agree, I said to him on the programme, “I’m going to be speaking to Ken Livingstone. What would you like me to say to him?” He said, “In saying what Hitler did was legal, in talking about moving all Jews from Israel to the United States (and of course, there are more Jews now in Israel than in any other country in the world), Ken Livingstone, in saying those things were legal, must be living on another planet. Vanessa, will you ask him, is he living on another planet and, if so, which planet is it?”
KL: Well, after Jeremy became leader, I was having a chat with Michael. He said he was very worried because one of his friends who was Jewish had come to him and said, “The election of Jeremy Corbyn is exactly the same as the first steps in the rise to power of Adolf Hitler.” So frankly, there’s been an attempt to smear Jeremy Corbyn and his associates as antisemitic from the moment he became leader. The simple fact is we have the right to criticize what is one of the most brutal regimes that’s going in the way it treats the Palestinians.
Conversation moves on at this point to the London mayoral election
For at least twenty years, the British Jewish community has been out in front when it comes to interfaith work. As Britain’s Muslim population has grown, British Jews assumed that interfaith models that led to huge advances in relations with British Christians, could apply just as well to relations with British Muslims. Indeed building bridges with British Muslims has become the focus of outreach work by British Jews.
Today, our analysis of the ICM survey of British Muslims for Channel 4 and Juniper Television shows that the gradual buildup of understanding and friendship between Britain’s Jews and Muslims has been utterly eclipsed by growing antisemitism amongst British Muslims.
On every single count, British Muslims were more likely by far than the general British population to hold deeply antisemitic views. It is clear that many British Muslims reserve a special hatred for British Jews, rating Jews much less favourably than people of other religions or no religion, yet astonishingly British Muslims largely do not recognise antisemitism as a major problem.
It has long been suspected that sections of the British Muslim population harboured hatred towards British Jews. This survey goes some way to identifying pockets of prejudice, but it also shows that the prejudice is horrifyingly widespread.
From the ICM survey data made available by Channel 4 and Juniper Television, we have been able to identify some of the worst pockets of prejudice but the data is frustratingly limited in one some respects, and one in particular: it does not delve into the various political and religious movements that comprise the British Muslim population.
This data shows that Jews remain the ‘canary in the coal mine’, as they have been throughout history: those who harbour hatred of Jews also hate British society and sympathise with our most deadly enemies. Britain must confront antisemitism within its Muslim population, but also amongst the general population, whose shocking views should be no less concerning simply because the views of British Muslims are worse.
Sir David Clementi has concluded his government-backed independent review of the BBC by calling for “fundamental reform of the system of governance and regulation,” suggesting that the BBC Trust be relieved of its regulatory duties, with Ofcom taking over instead.
In the past year, the BBC has rejected several complaints from Campaign Against Antisemitism including about:
The assertion by newsreader Tim Willcox that “Jewish faces” and a “Jewish lobby” oppose the mooted ‘mansion tax’;
The assertion by newsreader Tim Willcox that the murder of Jewish shoppers in Paris last January might be caused because “Palestinians suffered hugely at Jewish hands”;
A thirteen-minute antisemitic diatribe on BBC Radio London in December during which a caller was allowed to deliver a lengthy discourse about a supposed Jewish conspiracy, with barely a challenge from the presenter throughout; and
A completely gratuitous line during a drama: “Jews, whenever there’s a problem, there’s Jews at the bottom of it”
The BBC routinely dismissed our complaints by issuing press releases claiming that there had been no antisemitism, before any internal investigation had taken place. After a particularly reprehensible BBC broadcast in January, Campaign Against Antisemitism Chairman Gideon Falter wrote to the BBC’s Director-General, Lord Hall: “I do not know of any other minority group so routinely told that its concerns are meritless by the BBC. Your organisation treats the concerns of Jewish licence fee payers with glib contempt, feigning to investigate but from the outset contriving to dismiss complaints at the earliest opportunity, and strenuously avoiding any meaningful public or private discussion.”
Referring to the MacPherson principle used by the police and other public bodies when investigating allegations of racism, Falter continued: “In a country where the MacPherson principle is the gold standard for dealing with complaints of racism, I know of no other public body that, when faced with accusations of racism immediately retorts in the media that the accusations are groundless, the victims are not victims and that the matter is clear-cut. Normally one would expect a commitment to review the accusations in the most transparent and dispassionate manner possible, for example by means of an independent review, and public statements would be expected to reflect the fact that a review has been opened and no statement can be made that would prejudice it.”
Falter’s letter concludes: “Lord Hall, the BBC is part of British culture, but under your leadership and that of your predecessors, the BBC has become a blight for British Jews — a relic of the old-fashioned institutional antisemitism of the British establishment that has been excised from almost every sphere of public life, only to find sanctuary at your unaccountable, unrepentant BBC. You preside over an institution that is antisemitic both by act and concealment. The BBC that British Jews wish they could love and be proud of instead shames our country by shielding bigots.”
Lord Hall’s office responded to “reject your allegation”, but offered no constructive measures to improve the investigation of widespread concerns of a culture of impunity at the BBC, which are felt particularly by many in the Jewish community. Despite welcoming the call for independent regulation today, the BBC did not accept our call for independent investigation of our complaints of antisemitism.
Whilst there are legitimate artistic reasons to use antisemitism as part of a drama, if antisemitism is gratuitous and irrelevant to the story or art it should not be included. This is supposed to be elementary, but we are very concerned by the BBC’s unjustifiable references to Jews in some of its broadcasts.
The first example is a serialisation of Agatha Christie’s mystery thriller, And then there were none, episode two of which was aired on 27th December 2015 at 21:00. In one scene, the characters discuss the identity of the mysterious “Isaac morris”. During the discussion, one character says: “Jews. Whenever there’s a problem, there’s Jews at the bottom of it.”
While this totally gratuitous antisemitism is conserved in the BBC’s adaptation of the book, the title of the adaptation was changed to remove a racist term for black people, and since the antisemitism is irrelevant to the plot and characters, it is totally unclear why the BBC included it in the adaptation.
The second example is from popular soap opera Eastenders. In the episode that aired on 6th January 2016 at 18:00, one character tells another that Herod was “King of the Jews” before reciting his villainous acts.
There is nothing new about nativity stories in which the villains are all explicitly described as Jews, while the fact that Jesus was Jewish is forgotten. The Church however has rejected this antisemitic telling of the nativity story, but the tradition seems to be alive and well at the BBC.
The BBC has a complaints hotline (03700 100 222) but it seems to specialise in telling Jews why they were wrong to be offended. Ofcom (0300 123 3333) has jurisdiction over the BBC in matters of racism and this year MPs (www.writetothem.com) will vote on renewing the BBC’s charter.
Last week on BBC London Radio, during a phone-in, a BBC presenter and a caller discussed Jews.
The caller was given over thirteen minutes of airtime, spewing vile antisemitism, with many of his arguments left unchecked. Though it was clear from the outset that the caller was an unrepentant antisemite, the presenter allowed him to opine at length on the subject of Jewish world domination, even telling his caller: “I’m giving you more than I have done anyone.”
In addition to providing the full recording, we have produced the following excerpts for inclusion in any complaints that our supporters might wish to make to the BBC. Complaints can be made online at or by telephone on 03700 100 222. The comments were made during the Simon Lederman talkshow on BBC London Radio on Tuesday 22nd December at 5:07am.
Excerpts
BBC presenter:
“There is a debate, listen I’m not saying there is no debate, clearly there is a debate about whether Israel in its current form should be where it is.”
Caller:
“They are trying to control us more and more and more. They want to put a chip up our backsides, a ring through our noses, and a vizor for our horizons… the elite… the Rothschilds”
“It’s not just about old money, it’a about the Zionists”
“Most of the Jews of the world come from eastern Europe, from a place called originally, an empire called Khazaria… The Rothschilds, the people who own the Bank of England, the people who own the Federal Reserve, they’re all Zionist Jews. The people who own corporate America, the media, you’ll find if you just do a little bit of research, they’re all Zionist Jews. We are ruled by Zionist Jews.”
“The history of Jews from Palestine, that area of Judaism, it’s a long long history of thousands of years, has nothing to do with Zionism.”
“True Judaism… they’re against Zionism, those guys with the hats and the curly hair.”
“They control the money, the money, finance… 80% of corporate America, of the media, is owned by Jews. And they’re Zionist Jews.”
“We are dominated by the Jews’ system, the financial Jewish system.”
“We keep going on about the Jews… mainstream media, they keep banging on about the Jews and the Holocaust… we keep going on about six million Jews.”
The official programme for the BBC’s flagship Proms summer music festival contained an antisemitic caricature.
Leopold Auer was a famous Hungarian Jewish violinist to who numerous pieces of music were dedicated, including a piece by Tchaikovsky. The BBC Proms programme included Tchaikovsky’s Violin Concerto and to illustrate it, the BBC used a caricature of Auer — Tchaikovsky dedicated his Violin Concerto to Auer but changed it to Brodsky after Auer suggested revisions. The caricature featured Auer as a ghoulish figure with an enormous hooked nose.
The caricature used may well have been licensed from the Lebrecht Library, which lists the drawing as an “antisemitic caricature”. If the BBC did indeed purchase the rights to use the image from the Lebrecht collection, it is hard to imagine that they could have missed the description of the caricature.
In response to Twitter users who demanded answers, the BBC said: “We use a range of caricatures and illustrations in our concert programmes and wanted one of Leopold Auer. We’re sorry to anyone who was offended by the image choice — this was never our intention.”
This is a mealy-mouthed half apology which does not acknowledge that the caricature is antisemitic in nature and should never have been used. The BBC has not explained how this happened or how they will discipline those involved.
Please make a complaint to the BBC and write to the press asking the BBC explain how this happened, who was responsible and how they will ensure it doesn’t happen again.
We may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.
Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.
Essential Website Cookies
These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.
Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refusing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.
We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.
We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.
Google Analytics Cookies
These cookies collect information that is used either in aggregate form to help us understand how our website is being used or how effective our marketing campaigns are, or to help us customize our website and application for you in order to enhance your experience.
If you do not want that we track your visit to our site you can disable tracking in your browser here:
Other external services
We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.
Google Webfont Settings:
Google Map Settings:
Google reCaptcha Settings:
Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:
Other cookies
The following cookies are also needed - You can choose if you want to allow them:
Privacy Policy
You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.
