TFI

Livingstone.

The first time I picked up a copy of “The Londoner” I thought that it was a real free paper. As I turned the papers I noticed each one was in some way sucking Ken’s c**k, the messages “Ken Loves You”, “Ken Cares” all mixed up with praise of his policitals stance, things like “youths ride free on buses” and how wonderful it was that our Venzullians friends could afford to pay for it. Other papers had commented how this corelated to huge rise in physical attacks on the busses …

How many people don’t see the difference between “Livingstonian propaganda” and a independant newspaper? How many people realise that this free complimentary (pun intended) paper is paid from thier own pockets.

Ken does I good job of running the transport systems. He should stay out of international policitics for all the reasons that Rumbold stated in this piece.

I’m not sure if Boris will do a better job on the buses, but I’m sure he won’t get confused and think that he is an international statesman and I’m prepared to vote for flop boy for that reason alone.

TFI

“so you won’t mind me practising the Sid stun gun on you every now and then.”

I have no idea what that means, but it made me laugh.

Robert:

“Doesn’t he [Rumbold] remember the 1980s, when Livingstone was denounced for taking a progressive line on gay rights at a time when this was far from the mainstream position it is today”

Which is why it makes it so sad that he is happy to use homophobic remarks in order to get himself re-elected.

“The objection to Tatchell’s line on the Grand Mufti and Moscow Pride 2006 is that Tatchell and OutRage! concentrated their fire on the Mufti as representing the main threat of homophobic violence (in Moscow, of all places!) while ignoring the real threat that came from the far Right backed by a section of the Orthodox Church. “

Tatchell condemned both the Mayor and the Mufti. Livingstone was smearing Tatchell because Tatchell called the Mufti homophobic, which he is.

“As with gay rights, Livingstone’s policy of engagement with the Sinn Fein leadership and his support for a negotiated settlement in Northern Ireland subsequently became the mainstream position.”

Livingstone’s policy regarding Sinn Fein/IRA was not one of engagement, it was one of celebration- lets all spend ratepayers’ money on a party to celebrate a group that murders British civilians.

“Which dictators? I take this to be a reference to Fidel Castro, and it is true that Ken has sided with Cuba against the efforts by successive US governments to bring the country to its knees economically and impose a pro-US regime on the Cuban people. And good for Ken on that one too, I say.”

Castro is a dictator. He does not allow elections, and imprisons those who call for democracy. What a noble struggle.

“In London the alliance with Chavez has given half-price bus fares to people on income support.”

That money should be spent on poor Venezuelans, not on subsidising one of the richest cities in the world. As for ‘authoritarian’, what else would you call introducing a law so as to rule by decree, persecuting those who signed petitions against you, and shutting down critical TV stations?

“The stuff about Qaradawi is just ignorant. Livingstone published a extensive answer to critics of his relationship with Qaradawi.”

That reply is simply Livingstonian propaganda. There is overwhelming evidence to show Qaradawi’s true views (his website for instance). Of course Livingstone is going to try and spin his association with Qaradaqi- that link you provided was hardly a rebuttal.

“And who is “Rumbold” anyway?”

Women want him, men want to be him (or the other way around, I am never really sure).

Doesn’t he remember the 1980s, when Livingstone was denounced for taking a progressive line on gay rights at a time when this was far from the mainstream position it is today? Indeed, if it is a mainsteam position today, this is due not least to the fact that prominent figures like Ken had the courage to take a stand on the issue in the face of a hostile media.

As for the Mayor of Moscow’s visit to London earlier this year, it’s nonsense to claim that Livingstone only grudgingly and belatedly condemned “his anti-gay stance”. Livingstone had already issued a statement back in May 2006 condemning the Mayor of Moscow over his ban on that year’s Pride demonstration.
http://tinyurl.com/265cp4

The objection to Tatchell’s line on the Grand Mufti and Moscow Pride 2006 is that Tatchell and OutRage! concentrated their fire on the Mufti as representing the main threat of homophobic violence (in Moscow, of all places!) while ignoring the real threat that came from the far Right backed by a section of the Orthodox Church. More details here: http://tinyurl.com/ywy6vh

“Rumbold” condemns “Livingstone’s grovelling before Irish terrorists in the 1980s, or his support for dictators in Latin America, or his backing of the authoritarian Hugo Chavez”.

As with gay rights, Livingstone’s policy of engagement with the Sinn Fein leadership and his support for a negotiated settlement in Northern Ireland subsequently became the mainstream position. If it hadn’t, we’d still be facing an IRA bombing campaign.

“Support for dictators in Latin America”? Which dictators? I take this to be a reference to Fidel Castro, and it is true that Ken has sided with Cuba against the efforts by successive US governments to bring the country to its knees economically and impose a pro-US regime on the Cuban people. And good for Ken on that one too, I say.

The “authoritarian Hugo Chavez” has been repeatedly endorsed by the Venezuelan people in numerous elections and referenda. He has had a hugely progressive impact on Latin America (and the Caribbean for that matter), shifting the relationship of forces against US imperialism. In London the alliance with Chavez has given half-price bus fares to people on income support.

The stuff about Qaradawi is just ignorant. Livingstone published a extensive answer to critics of his relationship with Qaradawi. It’s online (pdf) here: http://tinyurl.com/37sd8r

I suggest that “Rumbold” reads it, because there’s no sign that he actually knows anything about the subject.

And who is “Rumbold” anyway?

That would work if I actually cared….

Coming from someone whose sole raison’d'etre seems to be to insult people he disagrees with, that’s very amusing.

Why are Livingstone supporters so quick to insult anyone who dares disagree with Comrade Ken?

That’s not a policy and nor is he being homophobic when he smears gay opponents.

This policy of Bush is homophobic.

The brown element is incidental to the point of guilt by association. But it seems to be fundamental in your choice of what constitutes good homophobia vs bad homophobia.

Sid:

“Can you tell us which of Ken’s policies suggest he is homophobic?”

Smearing gay opponents as fascists and bigot because they disagree with him. Defending the views of violent homophobes as moderate, thus suggesting that all Muslims should strive to murder gays. Bush and Blair may have been mates, but I cannot remember Blair saying that Bush’s anti-gay policies were good.

“The brown element is incidental.”

That was not what you were saying in your previous posts.

Oh, that’s Sid pretty much down to a tee, alas.

How can we know that? I can’t remember any Muslims denouncing Qaradawi’s bigotry and intolerance. Is their passivity a form of endorsement of Qaradawi’s views?

So Livingstone is a homophobe and anti-semite because he chooses to shake hands with Qaradawi?
Why don’t we take this guilt by association to its logical conclusion? Or rather, I should say, why have you chosen to preclude high-profile staunch believers of other semitic religions that you probably support yourself?SID

Naw, Livingstone wouldn’t be a homophobe either were he to invite an equivalent twit…say Fred Phelps… to city hall and shake hands with him.

There’d be absolutely NO guilt by association, as we all well know. Ken would be commended and praised for his open-minded tolerance.

And just how does criticising Red Ken make one a supporter of other *semitic religions*?

What an absolute leap of logic; it’s as though you can’t sit on your hands for even a second and resist the urge to fling around barely disquised slurs implying Rumbold is a cryptic Zionist!

Are you a card-carrying Zionist, Rumbold? Were you trained by both the IDF and Mossad to subliminally push the Zionist agenda on this blog?

All semitic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, are homophobic. And all believers of these religions are compelled to believe that homosexuality is a sin and, to be precise, a sin worthy of death.

Please Sid, don’t give us this equivalence garbage; Christianne Amanpour already beat ya to it!

Both in The (nominally) Christian West and in Israel homosexuals and even drag queens have been elected to parliament.

I know of no city mayor or gov’t rep ANYWHERE in the Islamic world who is openly gay.

And it is worth noting that only the Grand Mufti and NOT the Patriarch of Moscow advocated murdering homosexuals.

Where does that place people like Ruth Kelly? Why have you chosen to leave out Tony Blair? Both are staunch believers of Christianity.

It leaves both in the camp of decency, Sid.

Blair’s intimate association with Bush and his views of homosexuality should mean, by the terms of your thesis, that he is a homophobe too. He’s a staunch Christian and a neophyte Catholic. What do you think his religion compels him to thinks of homosexuality?

Once again, Sid, let me clear this up for ya, but first a question.

If Blair is having an intimate association with Bush, are you then implying both are gay?

Neither Bush nor Blair, by their words, deeds, actions or legislation, have EVER, unlike the turbanned twit, advocated the killing of homosexuals.

As a homosexual, I can assure it’s a BIG difference; one, in fact, of such magnitude that people shouldn’t even mention Blair/Bush in the same sentence as Qaradawi.

Good posting Rumbold!