Thursday, 26 September 2019

IS fanatics force Waterstone's to cancel book launch (Sept. 25, 2019)

https://azvsas.blogspot.com/2019/09/book-burners-r-us-waterstones-shameful.html


Wednesday, 25 September 2019

Book Burners ‘R’ Us – Waterstone’s Shameful Decision to Cancel the Book Launch of Bad News for Labour is an Attack on Freedom of Thought

‘This is worse than McCarthyism’ – Now even a peer-reviewed Academic Critique of the false Anti-Semitism Smear Campaign Must Be Suppressed



This is not the first time that the Zionist movement in this country has sought to attack freedom of speech and the arts.
 Over 25 years ago they sought to ban a play Perdition by socialist playwright Jim Allen, which was based on real live events in the Jerusalem District Court, when in 1944 the leader of Hungarian Zionism, Rudolf Kasztner was found to have aided Adolf Eichmann in deporting half a million Jews to Auschwitz.  In the words of Judge Benjamin Halevi, Kasztner had 'sold his soul to the devil.'
The Royal Court Theatre under Max Stafford Clarke shamefully bowed to the pressure but the result was that instead of a few hundred people seeing the play in the Royal Court Upstairs, thousands of people learnt about what was being banned and why. Eventually it was shown over 6 days at Conway Hall in London and was the subject of a book. Dramas Played Off Stage 
That is what we need to see happen with Bad News for Labour. The Zionists know that their anti-Semitism smear campaign in the Labour Party is fraudulent and that they have cowed and coerced timid Corbyn into going along with the nonsense that the Labour Party is full of anti-Semites including himself. We must ensure that this book is publicised because it contains all the ammunition and evidence we need to demonstrate that the ‘anti-Semitism’ smear campaign has nothing to do with antisemitism and has no evidential basis. 
Book Launch at the Rialto
It is shocking enough that the supporters of Israeli Apartheid have been able to ‘persuade’ through threats and abuse, venues like the Holiday Inn, Jury’s Inn and Friends Meeting House into cancelling meetings with Chris Williamson. The cancellation on Monday night of a book by 5 academics ofBad News for Labour - Antisemitism, the Party and Public Belief takes this one step further. It is an attack on freedom of thought and inquiry and demonstrates the police state mentality of Zionism's rabid supporters.
Greg Hadfield introduces the book launch

As Justin Schlosberg, a Senior Lecturer at Birkbeck College, London University said last night, this is worse than McCarthyism and is approaching the book burning of the Nazis.  Heinrich Heine prophetically wrote in 1832 ‘Where books are burned, in the end, people will also be burned."
Ken Loach and Chris Williamson at the book launch - standing room only!
Cancelling a book launch and threatening to boycott Waterstones for holding the event is a Nazi tactic. It demonstrates just how far along the road to destroying our civil liberties and freedom of speech the Zionists have travelled. Literally Zionism is the enemy of a free society, not only in Israel/Palestine but in Britain, Europe and the United States.
If the Left had done this and attacked a right-wing book such as Douglas Murray’s racist Strange Death of Europe – Immigration, Identity and Islam then you could expect the Tory press to shriek in protest about the Left’s attack on basic freedoms.
Audience at the book launch
But the cancellation of a book by five academics, based on peer reviewed research, has gone unnoticed except in theCanary and Skwawkbox.  I await to see, with interest, the ‘liberal’ press – the Guardian and Independent – who have been at the forefront of the fake ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign, will now find their liberal principles.
Barely literate Zionists ask a 'when did you beat your wife question' - they assume that the book launch would have been antisemitic - evidence is not their strong point
Twitter has given a voice to every idiot Zionist - apparently cancelling a book launch is to 'stand up to defeating antisemitism' - these Zios don't have the honesty to say that in their eyes supporting Israel and Zionist human rights abuse is their idea of opposing 'antisemitism'
It is fortunate that because of the advance threats of the Zionists to prevent Chris Williamson and others speaking in Brighton that Brighton and Hove Labour Left Alliance with the support of a friendly charity, took steps to ensure that freedom of speech would prevail in Brighton. 
Sussex Friends of Israel supporter and former councillor Cattell suggests a boycott of Waterstones - these same people are opposed to boycotting Israel because it is about 'hate'
The cancellation email said that the book launch had been cancelled 'due to reasons out of our control' itself a lie
We hired the Rialto Theatre in Dyke Road, Brighton. The venue were warned in advance that they should expect a barrage of abuse and that is what happened. To their immense credit they stood firm against the Zionists and racist scum like former councillor Julie Cattell who has beenurging people on Twitter to contact Trip Advisor to give The Rialto a false and lying review.  These are the tactics that the enemies of free speech sink to.
My ticket for a book launch that never was

Earlier this week I bought a ticket for the launch of Bad News for Labour - Antisemitism, the Party and Public Belief. I did not imagine that even the execrable racists of Sussex Friends of Israel would attack a book launch.  I was wrong. There is nothing these people will not do in order to defend their bastard state.
Bad News for Labour’s authors are Professor Greg Philo, Mike Berry, Justin Schlosberg, Antony Lerman and Professor David Miller.
Abusive social media attacks on Waterstones - their PR and CEO James Daunt denies there was any such pressure



As the blurb for the book explains:
Accusations about the Labour Party have made headlines on a daily basis. In the three years after Corbyn became leader there were over five thousand news stories and articles in the national press alone.
Bad News for Labour examines the impact of this coverage on public beliefs about the Party. It replaces media hype with the rigorous analysis of evidence. The authors draw on carefully compiled research to reveal surprising findings in this guide to the reality behind the headlines.
 However this is what the Zionists were most afraid of.  An academic study demolishing the myths of Labour ‘anti-Semitism’. Zionist propaganda can only thrive in the darkness without proper scrutiny aided by a yellow press not interested in the truth.
Publisher Pluto Press attributes Waterstones cancellation of the book launch to 'external pressure' which of course it was 
The decision to cancel the book launch was not taken in Brighton.  On the contrary the staff were livid about what had happened.  The decision was taken by the CEO James Daunt in New York who when I spoke to him earlier today accepted responsibility. Mr Daunt insisted that the only reason that the event was cancelled was because it had been unprofessionally organised and he laid the responsibility for that at the feet of the publishers Pluto Press. 
This idiot objects to the media Professor David Miller speaking during Labour Party conference on some vague grounds of 'antisemitism'
However as I explained to him this is not credible. Since when does the CEO of a large company or even its head office cancel a locally organised book launch?
Explanation for cancellation sent to one complainant
I put it to him that the real reason for the cancellation was the pressure that Waterstones had been subject. He denied this but then he would of course. I also suggested that in the circumstances standing up for freedom of speech was more important than the alleged lack of professional organisation.  Corporate capitalism has no sense of ethics or morality. In the words of George Soros capitalism is essentially amoral.
All the authors were scheduled to appear, as they did at the event.  They had books on them what more was needed? The event itself was sold out. The arguments about lack of professional organisation are simply not credible.
However Daunt has assured me that he is happy to reschedule the event if it is properly organised.  The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. I suspect that is one promise that will fall by the way.
Their Events Team also denied that they had been subject to any harassment or threats which is directly contradicted by the volume of abuse directed at Waterstones by various Zionist trolls on Twitter as can be seen below.
Waterstone's PR Department struggles to explain the cancellation of the book launch - they blamed it on the unprofessionalism of their own staff
Eva von Reuss of Waterstone's PR Department explained in 5 contradictory bullet points why they bowed to the Zionist twitter campaign
It is also at variance with the explanation sent to me by Eva von Reuss. She explicitly stated that  ‘it raised considerable emotion from various parties on both sides of the debate.’ Presumably this would mean that one should not stage a book launch for any controversial or indeed anti-racist book because racists might take exception.  Perhaps a book on climate change should not have a book launch because ‘climate sceptics’ might object!
‘we do not wish to be caught in this debate at an especially emotive moment: it is not a debate from which we shy in terms of book stock but it is not one in which we wish to be perceived to have taken sides
There have been 'especially emotive moments' since time immemorial.  This is just a means of avoiding responsibility for one's actions.  Reuss went on to state that they hope to ‘reschedule the talk in this shop, or in others when we can be better prepared’.
Ms Reuss claimed that ‘the shop decided to cancel the event in discussion with the central events team’.  Having spoken to the staff it is very clear that this is untrue.
Jewish News hack Jack Mendel reports with ill-concealed glee the cancellation of a book launch on antisemitism
As Professor David Miller of Bristol University, one of the authors told The Canary: “It is really extraordinary that [this book event] has been cancelled as a result of threats”. He called it a “serious attack on both freedom of speech and academic freedom”.
In alleging antisemitism wherever the Zionist agenda isn't followed these people trivialise genuine antisemitism
Waterstones should hang their head in shame for bowing to this campaign of censorship. This is the road to a police state.  Bookshops in particular should be vigilant to protect freedom of speech.  The fact that supporters of the Israeli state, a state which to the Palestinians is a police state with censorship, torture and arbitrary imprisonment, are seeking to prevent any discussion of their propaganda offensives abroad, is reason enough to hold firm.
As Edmund Burke was reputed to have said (in fact it was John Stuart Mill) “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
The attacks on free speech by the Zionists need to be fought. We know what their ‘anti-Semitism’ campaigns are about and they are not about Jews but about the State of Israel.
Tony Greenstein

Monday, 23 September 2019

Kiwiblog loon compares Greta Thunberg to Nazi propaganda (Sept. 24, 2019)

Israel’s Murderous Response to Peaceful Protest is an Ongoing Scandal (Sept. 24, 2019)

Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Israel’s Murderous Response
to Peaceful Protest is an Ongoing Scandal
“Israel has three regimes. First, there is the ‘liberal democracy’ which is the privilege of its Jewish citizens, but there are many threats to this. The second regime is aimed at the Palestinians—the ‘Israeli Arabs’ who comprise 20 per cent of the population, and who have formal civil rights; they are deeply discriminated against in every way. The third regime is very different from any ‘liberal’ posturing—this is Israel’s dark heart, the regime in the Occupied Territories. This is one of the most brutal tyrannies on Earth today, no less than that.”

Thursday, 12 September 2019

Peter Greste’s panel discussion in Sydney (Sept. 7, 2019)

Peter Greste’s panel discussion in Sydney: Support for censorship and throwing Assange to the wolves

By James Cogan 
7 September 2019
A panel discussion, on the subject “My Crime is Journalism,” took place on September 1 at the Sydney Opera House. The promotion for the event stated: “Around the world, leaders attack truth through censorship and state control. But even in the face of harsh punishment, journalists are still committed to exposing corruption, documenting abuse and combating misinformation.”
The forum was hosted by Australian journalist Peter Greste, who was imprisoned for 14 months in Egypt from 2013 to 2015 on politically motivated charges of “spreading false news” as a reporter for Al Jazeera. The panel consisted of Steve Coll, a writer for the US New Yorker magazine; Maria Ressa, of the Philippines-based Rappler website; Lina Attalah from the Egyptian publication Mada Masr; and Irina Borogan, deputy editor of the Russian-based Agentura.ru news-hub.
Peter Greste with Maria Ressa and Irina Borogan (Credit: Judith Neilson Institute for Journalism & Ideas)
The context of the discussion was the recent police raids on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), and News Corp journalist Annika Smethurst, over the publication of whistleblower leaks revealing Australian war crimes in Afghanistan and secret government plans for expanded domestic surveillance. Trials are taking place of a whistleblower and lawyer who revealed that the former Australian government bugged East Timor negotiators in 2004 during fraught talks over the division of energy resources in the Timor Sea.
Internationally, the best-known journalist suffering “harsh punishment” is WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange. The US is seeking to extradite him on 18 charges, including 17 of espionage, over WikiLeaks’ 2010 publication of leaked documents that exposed war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, and diplomatic intrigues around the world. Assange is threatened with up to 175 years’ imprisonment—a life sentence.
Chelsea Manning, who leaked the information that was published by WikiLeaks and major media publications, has been incarcerated until she agrees to falsely testify that Assange “conspired” with her. As well as being deprived of her liberty, she is being bankrupted by a fine of $1,000 for every day she refuses to perjure herself.
The event at the Opera House, however, was not organised to contribute to the defence of Assange, Manning or any other journalist or whistleblower. Instead, it was used by the panelists to appeal to the very state apparatus attacking freedom of speech to put its trust in the major media companies and assist them to maintain profitability by censoring alternative news and opinion being distributed via internet platforms.
Until audience questions were taken at the conclusion of the discussion, Assange’s case was only referenced in passing by Coll, who noted the implications for the official press of a publisher being prosecuted as a “co-conspirator.” Greste immediately shifted the discussion to the “dangerous environment” produced by terrorism, in which “national security” has been declared by governments to be at risk. The state, he implied, has simply gone too far in giving “priority” to security “over journalistic freedom.”
Coll responded with the revealing assessment that the state did not need to target the establishment media. The “press and government had functioned successfully,” he asserted, to censor what the authorities did not want made public. He related how when he was working for the Washington Post during the “war on terror” and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, editors would have “informal discussion” with various state agencies and agree on what information should be “withheld.” This arrangement of self-censorship, he stated, had “operated successfully for 30 to 40 years.”
Maria Ressa, a conservative pro-US publisher who is hostile to WikiLeaks, opined that the problem had been the emergence of alternatives to the establishment press. One of the “great selling points of the internet and social media,” she said, had been that it would “democraticise” the publication of news and opinion. Instead, she asserted, it had enabled people to bypass the mainstream media “gatekeepers,” who “vetted” information before it was published. “We forgot the gatekeepers,” she complained.
Coll agreed, adding that there had been “euphoria” and “utopian thinking” that social media would lead to a more educated populace. The problem, he pontificated, was that “news organisations lost control of the distribution of truth.” The information available on the internet, he said, had “drowned out the media.” In fact, large numbers of people use internet sources because they can access truthful information and critical opinions that they simply do not find in the establishment press.
But, Coll declared, “in Europe they are fighting back.” He did not elaborate, but he could only have been referring to sweeping censorship laws that have been imposed by the European Union on the pretext of protecting copyright, or the even more draconian German laws compelling that “illegal content” be removed or blocked within 24 hours. Internet companies, working hand-in-hand with intelligence and police agencies, have been given unchecked power to decide what is commercially unlawful or political “hate speech” and extremism. It has enabled the wholesale censorship of content that is critical of government policy or exposes corporate abuses.
The European laws followed already pervasive censorship by Google, which since 2017 has rewritten its algorithms to give preferential placement in searches to establishment news and downgrade into virtual obscurity independent and critical sources. Facebook, Twitter and other platforms also engage in flagrant censorship of content on behalf of the ruling class and state apparatus of countries.
It is worth recalling the origins of Google and social media censorship. Much of the establishment media, along with the CIA and other intelligence agencies, asserted that “fake news”—not the objective reality of capitalism in crisis and breakdown—is why the majority of Americans view society as unequal, unjust and undemocratic. The defeat of Hillary Clinton and the victory of Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election was blamed on “Russian interference,” not the fact that millions of workers refused to vote for either right-wing representative of the billionaire oligarchy.
In that context, it was significant that Peter Greste concluded the discussion by drawing attention to surveys in the US that found people only view politicians with more distrust than the official media. He worryingly asked: “How much is it a problem of our own making?”
The simple explanation is that masses of people view the official media with distrust and contempt because that is all it deserves.
The almost universal propagation by the establishment media of the claims that Iraq was concealing “weapons of mass destruction” has left an enduring legacy. The credibility of the establishment television and newspaper corporations was shattered by their belated admission that they had propagated a tissue of lies to justify an illegal war. It has never really recovered.
Moreover, the discrediting of the official press coincided with the exponential improvement of internet technology and growth in usage. The political implications were demonstrated in 2010–2011. The masses of Tunisia and Egypt, responding in part to exposures published by WikiLeaks, extensively used social media to disseminate news and organise the overthrow of seemingly entrenched US-backed dictatorships. The Tunisian upheaval was nervously described by Newsweek magazine as the “first WikiLeaks revolution.”
Today, in every country, mass movements are developing in the working class against social inequality, authoritarianism and militarism, with revolutionary implications. When Greste, Coll and Ressa et al. talk about restoring the “control” of the corporate media as the “gatekeeper” of information, they are advocating working with the state to suppress independent and critical media, as part of its attempts to head off open challenges to the capitalist oligarchy.
That is why the US, British and Australian ruling classes are so determined to make an example of Assange. And it is why an entire layer of the ex-liberal and ex-left political and media establishment have thrown the WikiLeaks publisher to the wolves. They oppose any journalism that is committed to providing the population with truthful exposures because, in today’s conditions of extreme class antagonisms, it could trigger unpredictable social upheavals.
Peter Greste is one example, though a great deal could also be said about the public hostility conveyed by Coll, Ressa and Borogan toward Assange and WikiLeaks.
In April, just after Assange was dragged by British police from the Ecuadorian embassy in London and incarcerated in the high security Belmarsh Prison, Greste publicly denounced him in a column in the Sydney Morning Herald.
Greste wrote: “To be clear, Julian Assange is not a journalist, and WikiLeaks is not a news organisation.” Journalism, he condescendingly pontificated, “demands more than simply acquiring confidential information and releasing it unfiltered onto the internet for punters to sort through. It comes with responsibility.”
That is, Greste advocates the elitist and anti-democratic conception that a “responsible journalist” censors information about goings-on in the political and corporate establishment that is deemed too controversial for the population to know.
Greste wrote his April column in his capacity as the spokesperson of the “Alliance for Journalists’ Freedom (AJF),” which is backed by the media corporations and trade union. The misnamed organisation denies the relationship between the persecution of whistleblowers and journalists in Australia, and the precedent established by the near nine-year, Australian government-backed, US-led vendetta to silence and destroy WikiLeaks. It is seeking to undermine the campaign to defend Assange.
After the discussion, Greste and his panel were posed with three questions on Assange from the audience. Coll said that his case raised the need to be “vigilant.” Greste admitted his prosecution was a “travesty” and that he was unlikely to get a “fair trial.” Neither of them, however, offered any support for the campaign defending Assange and Manning and demanding their freedom.
With the countdown underway toward the February court hearing in Britain to rubberstamp Julian Assange’s extradition to the US, all organisations and individuals must decide on which side of the fence they will stand—with the fight of the working class for democratic and social rights or with the lurch by the ruling elite toward dictatorship.
The conclusion that this writer drew from the Opera House event is that the panelists had made their choice.

We need your support

This week, the WSWS published its 75,000th article. Become a monthly donor today and keep up this vital work. It only takes a minute. Thank you.
Share this article: