Jan 20 2013

CiF Watch reader emails the Guardian asking why white supremacist isn’t banned

On Jan. 16 we posted about a Guardian reader whose commenting privileges were not suspended by the editors, despite the fact that he promoted Holocaust denial in the comment section under a Guardian story (on Jan. 14) about Holocaust education in the UK, and the fact that his user profile contained a link to a white supremacist site called ‘British Resistance‘.

As we revealed, not only was the commenter, who uses the moniker ‘CorshmCrusader‘, a fan of ‘British Resistance’, but actually serves as the site’s deputy editor - a Nazi sympathizer named Mark Kennedy.

We asked our readers to consider emailing the Guardian’s ‘Comment Editor’ asking for an explanation regarding why someone who clearly violates ‘Comment is Free’ “community standards” has not been banned.

Today we were contacted by a fan of our blog, a Holocaust educator and author named Dan Hennessy, copying us on the email he sent to the Guardian.

Here it is, with Mr. Hennessy’s permission:

To the editors:

As a Holocaust educator, it is disturbing that you treat the individual using the moniker “CorshmCrusader,” who is known to be a white supremacist, as you would any other “contributor” to your periodical; and yet, you [ban others] who obviously disagree with you. Who is allowed freedom of speech in your domain? Everyone? Or just those who toe the line with regard to your ideological bias?

I just taught 1984 by George Orwell in an upper division secondary English class. Your decisions in this regard seem quite in line with Ministry of Truth standards.

~ Daniel Hennessy

Again, here’s the email for the Guardian editor if you also want to inquire about the status of CorshmCrusader.

comment.editors@guardian.co.uk

CiF’s Jonathan Romain, and ‘Guardian Left’ rationalizations for antisemitism (cifwatch.com)
Not banned by the Guardian: White nationalist crusader against the ‘Holohoax’ (cifwatch.com)
Jonathan Freedland’s illusions about the nature of modern antisemitism (cifwatch.com)
Guardian readers, and Holocausts real and imagined (cifwatch.com)
Banned by the Guardian: My journey at ‘Comment is Free’ comes to an end (cifwatch.com)

Apr 25 2011

Guardian Newspeak: Intentionally vague headline of the day

“The B vocabulary consisted of words which had been deliberately constructed for political purposes: words, that is to say, which not only had in every case a political implication, but were intended to impose a desirable mental attitude upon the person using them.” – from the definition of “Newspeak” in George Orwell’s dystopia, 1984.

Here’s a quintessentially Guardian headline, via a Reuters story, on the Palestinian policemen who opened fire without cause on Jewish civilians who had worshiped at Joseph’s Tomb:

For those unschooled in the Guardian Left strategy when events force them to report on innocent Jews murdered by Palestinians, see our previous post which listed and expanded upon the four main rules using, as a helpful illustration, Conal Urquhart’s report on the terrorist attack in Jerusalem.

Here are the rules:

1: Never use the word “terrorist” or “terrorism” as such language is inherently loaded, and influenced by one’s subjective opinion on how to define the word.

2. Use passive language which may obscure the fact that an intentional act of violence was perpetrated by Palestinians against innocent Israeli civilians:

3: Use vague language meant to avoid, whenever possible, reaching even the most obvious (politically inconvenient) conclusions regarding such attacks:

4. Deflect responsibility from the terrorists who everyone knows committed the act by changing the subject or blaming Israel and blurring the causality:

In looking at the headline the first thing which jumps out is rule #1, as you’d have no idea from reading the headline that the “Policemen” who murdered an innocent Israeli civilian was a Palestinian Authority Policeman.

Moving along, we see #3 employed in reference to the “West Bank Holy Site”. Unless there’s a hitherto unknown distinct West Bank religion, with its own sacred sites, it would seem that the “Holy Site” referred to is a site holy to Jews, Joseph’s Tomb.

Also, in the sub-heading, rule #4 applies, as we are told that Israeli victims who had gone to Joseph’s Tomb were there “without permission”, thus blurring causality and deflecting responsibility for the attack – the mere presence of Jews, of course, acting as sufficient provocation for Palestinian gunfire.

Finally, here’s what a headline (and accompanying text) about the incident would possibly look like if written by an editor free of such anti-Zionist ideological conditioning.

Nov 15 2010

On “Jewish Privilege”, and the unlikely midwife to such a hideous idea

“There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.” – George Orwell

Before I moved to Israel and began working for CiF Watch, I worked for the Anti-Defamation League – an organziation which fights anti-Semitism, but also promotes diversity education and multiculturalism – largely through a program called A World of Difference Institute (AWOD). Though I have a lot of respect for my former colleagues and naturally support AWODs stated goal of “recognizing bias and the harm it inflicts on individuals and society,” some of the rhetorical discourse, and ideological currents, which lay at the foundation of AWOD often caused me concern. An especially egregious example was one of ADL’s recommended readings for AWOD educators: Peggy McIntosh’s “White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack.” (The recommended reading list isn’t available on their website, but this ADL sponsored conference demonstrates the group’s endorsement of McIntosh’s views). McIntosh, associate director of the Wellesley Center for Women, in the essay, says:

In my [white] class and place, I did not see myself as a racist because I was taught to recognize racism only in individual acts of meanness by members of my group, never in invisible systems conferring unsought racial dominance on my group from birth.

Disapproving of the systems won’t be enough to change them. I was taught to think that racism could end if white individuals changed their attitudes. [But] a “white” skin in the United States opens many doors for whites whether or not we approve of the way dominance has been conferred on us. Individual acts can palliate, but cannot end, these problems.

To redesign social systems we need first to acknowledge their colossal unseen dimensions. The silences and denials surrounding privilege are the key political tool here. They keep the thinking about equality or equity incomplete, protecting unearned advantage and conferred dominance by making these taboo subjects. Most talk by whites about equal opportunity seems to me now to be about equal opportunity to try and get into a position of dominance while denying that systems of dominance exist.

It seems to me that obliviousness about white advantage, like obliviousness about male advantage, is kept strongly inculturated in the United States so as to maintain the myth of meritocracy, the myth that democratic choice is equally available to all. Keeping most people unaware that freedom of confident action is there for just a small number of people props up those in power, and serves to keep power in the hands of the same groups that have most of it already.

Continue reading →