Smear 1 - Corbyn supports
anti-Semitism - The 2012 Mural
The narrative of the Main Stream Media (MSM), Right Wing Press (RWP) backed up by the wider Anti-Corbyn lobby regarding this particular incident is basically that in 2012 Jeremy Corbyn “supported” an artist who it is claimed
had produced an anti-Semitic mural and this is therefore an example of Corbyn’s
personal antisemitism.
The
essential facts as far as I can determine them and set out in chronological
order are:
1.
Sometime around October 2012 an
American artist Kalen Ockerman posted something on Facebook don’t exactly know what or exactly when) about a mural of his being whitewashed by Tower Hamlets
Council
2.
On 2nd October 2012 Somehow
– (can’t find the Facebook dialogue), Corbyn became aware of this and posted on
FB (see link in point 7 below for a Screen shot of Corbyn’s 2012 FB post)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Why? You are in
good company.
"Rockerfeller
destroyed Diego Viera's mural
because it includes a picture of Lenin."
-----------------------------------
3.
On 4th October 2012 The
Jewish Chronicle produced a piece on the mural (no mention of Corbyn) including
a quote from the artist Kalen Ockerman (my highlighting) that:
“A group of conservatives do not like my mural and are playing a
race card with me. My mural is about class and privilege. The banker group is
made up of Jewish and white Anglos. For
some reason they are saying I am antisemitic. This I am most definitely not…
What I am against is class.”
4.
On 5th October 2012 the BBC
reported that the mural was going to be destroyed because of complaints it was
antisemitic (no mention of Corbyn)
5.
On 6th of October the Times
of Israel produces a piece about the mural, quotes around the word
‘anti-Semitic’ to acknowledge that it’s a claim rather than a fact, and
acknowledging the artist Kalen Ockerman statement that his mural was not intended to be anti-Semitic
as per his quote shown above and including the white
Anglos dimension (no mention of Corbyn)
6.
On October 8th, 2012 the
mural was defended as below:
7.
Three years later 6th November 2015 and two months after Corbyn had been
elected Leader of the Labour party The Jewish Chronicle starts an article with:
“Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn apparently backed the painting
of a mural which was condemned as having antisemitic undertones”.
8.
This article includes a screenshot of Corbyn’s 2012
Facebook post from which the quote in point 3 above is taken and uses a rather
transparent piece of disingenuity to obscure the source and motivation for the article
by claiming “it has emerged”. No mention of how, by whom or for what
purpose it emerged- but see later how this magical
emergence occurred, it’s not a surprise ..
9. Somewhat bizarrely they claim “..apparently backed the painting of a mural” despite their own screen shot of Corbyn’s post having nothing about the painting of the 2012 mural only comparing its destruction to that of a 1934 mural.
10. Interestingly
at this time the Jewish Chronicle only describes the mural as having “antisemitic
undertones” and that the mural depicts “a group of businessmen and bankers
sitting around a Monopoly-style board and counting money”. Note the absence of
the word Jewish - I presume because the Jewish Chronicle at that time actually accepted KO’s
rebuttal that the bankers he depicted were in fact not solely Jewish.
11. In March 2018 the MSM and RWP vigorously resume their ongoing "Corbyn is an anti-Semite " narrative (just do a search). Here’s a typical example
from the Daily Mail - noting again the use of “emerges” as a pathetic cover for
deliberate dirt digging and the blatantly false claim see original post that he
“..once defended ‘anti-Semitic’ mural..”
“Labour fury as it emerges Jeremy
Corbyn once defended 'anti-Semitic' public mural showing a group of
'hook-nosed' men around a Monopoly board”
12. In a public response on the subject J Corbyn states that:
“I sincerely regret that I did not
look more closely at the image I was commenting on.”
13. At least
one Jewish individual (admit I can’t verify he is Jewish) does not go along
with the RWP narrative
14. In March
2019 Nick Cohen somehow (he’s nothing if not persistent in his underlying bigotry
regarding Corbyn) feels compelled to get the mural issue into a Guardian piece on
hucksters fomenting racial hatred on Non-European immigration (??). He even manages
to get “Nazi” in for good measure. Note - you need to read a fair way into the
article and follow the hyperlinks to see it )
Now some Rhetorical questions
- Is there anything in Corbyn’s original 2012 post that provides evidence or is it even a claimed by the MSM or RWP that they know or have evidence he did more than glance at the mural and hence cannot legitimately claim to be unaware of its arguable use of some anti-Semitic imagery?
- Does Corbyn directly or indirectly express an opinion on the mural itself in his post in 2012?
- Can you make any form of anti-Semitic phrase from the 18 words used by Corbyn in his 2012 Facebook post?
- How did a trivial FB post by Corbyn from 2012 just “emerge” in 2015 in the Jewish Chronicle?
- Probably as the result of a concerted effort to dig up information to use to discredit Corbyn (See below)
- In March 2018 when the RWP and MSM dredged up this 6-year-old post to use as evidence of anti-Semitism did Corbyn try and defend the mural?
- NO - see his statement above
So, what do I think actually happened?
Given I think most people, well at least those who
may read this blog!, are aware Corbyn is and always has been associated with support
for “the underdog” and, if using binary terms, is more anti- rather than more pro
- establishment I think it went like this:
a)
Corbyn saw a FB post that appeared him
to be an example of a street artist Kalen O. (the underdog) being in some sense
"oppressed" by the establishment (Tower Hamlets Council) and
instinctively without too much thought as he’s of anti-establishment tendency
posted a short supportive FB reaction to the destruction of the mural
b)
Do I think he looked at the mural in
any detail in 2012? – Probably not
c)
Why do I think that? Because if he had
I don’t think he would have started his FB post with “Why?" (was it being destroyed ). IF he had looked at the mural in any detail he would easily have
seen how it could and would by some seen by some as containing anti-Semitic undertones..
d)
Do I think any aspect of the above
provides any evidence whatsoever of Corbyn’s personal anti-Semitism? Self-evidently
- NO
Why do I claim this provides evidence
of a smear campaign against Corbyn?
Well
I think it’s clear that what happened is that the anti-Corbyn lobby
1. Simply decided to assume that
in 2012 Jeremy Corbyn studied the mural and was fully aware of its contents and
the use of some images that can legitimately be claimed to be anti-Semitic
Most of them Ignored the mural removal/destruction
issue 2012 as it wasn't an issue to them at that time exceptions being the Jewish Chronicle/ Times of Israel and the BBC seemed to pay attention
to it. There is also a short Daily Mail article on it in 2012 (possibly others)
2. Decided to ignore from 2018 onwards the arguments from
the original artist and his supporters that his mural was not anti-Semitic -an argument supported by others one
himself a Jew
3. Decided to Ignore the white
Anglos aspect as acknowledged originally even by the Jewish Chronicle
and Times of Israel as it significantly weakens their narrative that the mural
clearly is and was deliberately intended to be anti-Semitic
4. Have decided to ignore the first element of Corbyn 2012 post – was
“Why?” (was the mural being removed)
a. Any reasonably politically aware person looking at the mural can
see that it contains some imagery
typically used by anti-Semites (See below) So surely if Corbyn was aware of
this would he would not have asked “Why?”
5. Have used ad hominem AND guilt by association attacks
that as Corbyn has expressed some sympathy/empathy for Kalen O not even on the content of the mural on but on its destruction then using their own assumptions that Corbyn studied the picture
& hence must be fully aware of its arguably anti-Semitic undertones to claim
this as proof Corbyn is himself antisemitic.
6. Have made false accusations regarding Corbyn’s clearly stated expression of regret
and his claims that he didn’t look closely enough at the mural originally.
7. I believe the author of the piece above was perfectly comfortable making his false and obviously malicious claims about Corbyn in the almost certain knowledge he would not be sued for
libel - Anyone who dared to do so would of course become embroiled in immediate claims of being antisemitic .
8. Also, interesting to note his the use of extra emphasis to support claims :
“Even the then Mayor of Tower Hamlets, Lutfar Rahman, himself ordered council officials to “do everything possible ..” to destroy the mural
9. Why is that relevant you may well ask? – Well because Lutfar Rahman is the 1st directly elected UK Mayor to be removed from office for being found guilty and in 2015 of corrupt and illegal practise and is banned from standing for office for 5 years until 2022 - something a responsible/honest journalist referencing him in 2108 should have have been aware of.. However, the author has no problem referencing someone already convicted of corrupt and illegal practices in support of his bigoted and false claim that “Corbyn is a liar”.
10 In addition the article clears up how Corbyn’s Facebook post magically “emerged” originally in
2015 – The author now states - “When we unearthed Mr Corbyn’s comment
in 2015..” which I take to mean the Jewish Chronicle themselves had unearthed
it and had therefore been actively searching for material to attack
Corbyn with but at that time were to dishonest to admit it. I believe this attempt to hide their action provides support for my view their motives are very little to do with genuine, paranoia driven excluded,
concerns about Corbyn’s alleged antisemitism.
11 No
such concern about exposing motives in 2018 - Smearing a Leader of the Opposition is an acceptable form of political “blood sport” indulged in by far too many who should know better. Alas that also includes the so called more “liberal” press such as The Guardian who are now irredeemably tarnished in my mind for not only condoning but positively supporting this incredibly viscous "witch-hunt" and their shameful role in damaging honest respectful and open political debate.
12 Its also a clear indicator of a smear campaign when any achievements of the person being smeared are discounted & ridiculed. That's why Corbyn who increased Labour's percentage of the UK votes cast to 40% in 2017 election from the 30.4% won by Labour Ed Miliband in 2015 - an increase of 31.6% in 2 years (work it out!) is still called by the anti-Corbyn lobby a "failure", "liability", "unelectable"etc. In comparison Labour under Tony Blair only won 40.7% of the vote in 2001 and only 35.2% in 2005. When Labour got back into power under Blair/Brown in 1997 they had increased their vote share to 43.2% from 34.4%in 1992 .. Mm darling Tony only managed a percentage increase of 25.6% over the 3 years since becoming leader in 1994.
In summary
I consider the points above display all the key defining
characteristics of a bigotry driven smear campaign i.e.
· Claim that (X) whom you already intensely
dislike is guilty of a transgression (Y)
· Vastly exaggerate the actual significance
/ impact of the transgression (Y)
· Distort and/or simply omit to mention
any facts that don’t support your claim of X’s guilt
· Ignore any counter arguments from
anyone questioning X’s guilt
· Use your own assumptions as evidence
to support your argument that X is guilty
· Only reference those already of the
same mind - however discredited they might be - as providing evidence X is guilty
· Get as many nasty and highly charged emotive
words into your claims, irrespective of relevance– “terrorist sympathiser”, “anti-Semite”, "hook nosed" or even better the ultimate emotive word “Nazi”, as used gratuitously by Nick Cohen in The Guardian, will do the job admirably.
· Supplement your claims about X’s guilt by
bringing up unrelated claims making sure to get plenty of emotive words in.. (See future article Smear part 2)
· If anyone questions the real motives behind your claims and why you are so very, very outraged and spending so much effort to
publicise issue (Y) i.e the content of a obscure 18 word Facebook post which which took 3 years to dig up, claim you are now
acting on a “matter of principle” and supporting freedom of the press/honesty/truth/patriotism – whatever..
· keep lying and distorting the truth ...over and over and over again.. …
