Tuesday, August 5, 2003
The Observer and Richard Ingrams have responded to the furor over this disgracefully anti-semitic Ingrams piece from a couple weeks back.
Ha'aretz - UK press watchdog backs writer who won't read mail from Jews
Stephen Pritchard, the readers' editor at the Observer, wrote on the issue that "the editor of The Observer is a member of the Commission, though, naturally, he takes no part in deliberations concerning the paper. He saw Ingrams's piece as an attack on the supporters of the current Israeli government's hardline policy on Palestine. `This was anti-Sharon, not anti-Semitic,' was how he put it to me.
"Ingrams' piece was inflammatory, but I cannot see how it can be viewed as anti-Semitic to oppose the policies of Ariel Sharon, any more than it is racist to oppose the policies of Robert Mugabe. That is not excusing the bigotry implicit in that opening paragraph. I agree with a reader who pointed out that Ingrams's piece displayed such a degree of prejudice against Jews that it will be impossible ever again to take seriously anything he writes about Israel.
"I put this to Ingrams, and this was his response: `From a logical viewpoint, I don't see how an article by me can simultaneously be guilty of prejudice against Jews but not anti-Semitic. Nor is it clear how a statement calling for Jewish correspondents supporting Sharon to declare an interest is indicative of bigotry. The fact that you yourself do not indicate whether your correspondents are Jewish merely confirms my view. I shall continue to write about Israel while bearing in mind that though you may not take me seriously there are plenty of others, including many Jews, who will.'"...
Disgrace upon disgrace. The despicable Ingrams piece said nothing about the Sharon Government. It was about Jews and a particular Jewish writer (Amiel). These bigots are so used to trying to hide their Jew-baiting behind criticism of Sharon and Israel, they don't even realize when they've been caught with their peckers hanging out.
Update: More thoughts related to this here.
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: "UK press watchdog backs writer who won't read mail from Jews".
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.solomonia.com/cgi-bin/mt4/mt-renamedtb.cgi/909
I can't find it right now but another blog I read's take was first they won't read article about anti-semitism from Jewish names.
A newer story said now they won't read positive articles about Israel from Jews. This seems more PC acceptable to them.
Assumably they will take articles non supportive of Israel from Jews?
Lets get a few facts straight. Richard Ingrams is allowed to not read certain letters if he really wants to. The fact that he chooses to behave in an almost childish manner is up to him. More importantly,Ingrams has always had an air of anti-Jewish sentiment about him as well as a degree of anti-Israel feeling. Again though he is quite entitled to do that assuming he is not stirring up racial hatred. As most people know, Ingrams was for many years the editor of the satrical magazine "Private Eye", of which I am normally an avid reader. One of the founders of the magazine was the "Comic" and "Writer" Peter Cook who was a renowned anti-semite. Richard Ingrams history might just go before him therefore but we live in a democracy, where we can generally choose what we buy and this includes newspapers. As the "Observer" is one of the very lowest selling national Sunday papers along with its weekly titles, the low circulation "Guardian" and the tiny circulation "Independent" this tells me something. Not many people are that interested in Ingrams views. Lets not get to excited, there are more important things to concern ourselves with.
Hmmm...perhaps there's some confusion here. I'm not arguing about the government commission's decision not to censure him - I frankly don't give a rat's ass about that. I'm skipping straight to the substance - that the guy who wrote it and the people who publish it continue to see no problem with it, and that apparently, one heck of a lot of Englishmen don't either.
So he's always been a bit of an anti-semite? Oh, OK, then...HUH?! This is supposed to be an excuse? It is not alright, and reflects badly on himself and anyone who publishes him. Being a raving bigot isn't some cutesy little personality quirk. It needs to be cast out and shouted about and made socially unacceptable, not by the government, but by ordinary people.
That's the trouble with "thought crimes laws" - the danger is that if the act is not against the law ("stirring up racial hatred"), well, nothing to be done about it, it's OK, then. No, I'm sorry, that's not the way it works. I don't need some government agency to tell me what's right and what's wrong.
I wouldn't call for Richard Ingrams to be put in jail, but he should certainly pay whatever price there is for his bigotry (And anti-semitism isn't just a method to make one interesting at cocktail parties, at least it shouldn't be. It certainly isn't here in the US, not since the second half of the 20th century), and so should whoever publishes him suffer whatever shock to their credibility comes with giving him a voice - and I believe that while the Observer may not have huge circulation, it is a generally reputable and somewhat influential paper within its circle, no? Perhaps the Aryan Nations newsletter needs a columnist and he can find work there. If not, may the Observer find itself on the same newsstand pile.
BTW, by "price for his bigotry" let me emphasize that I do not mean jailed or beaten or anything of the sort, but just as I said, that his paper and his columns should suffer the proper categorization of being the bigoted junk they are.