Steven Pollard responds to latest smears
Another conference, another set of guilt-by-association smears. Yet again we have seen attempts from the left to represent MEPs from Eastern Europe as racists or anti-semites in the hope that some of the mud will stick to David Cameron.
Insofar as there is any substance behind any of this it takes the form of "A is allied to B who used to work with C who used to be a member of group D which is dodgy" and because of the difficult circumstances of those Eastern European countries who were caught between the Nazis and the Stalinists, you can use this tactic to attack some MEPs from all the major groups in the Brussels parliament, including the one which of British Labour MEPs are part, and also the group which the Conservatives left to form the European Conservatives and Reformists group (ECR).
However, some of the allegations made seem to me to be dubious indeed. Last week the Foreign secretary stooped to this kind of mudslinging and received a robust answer from William Hague which I quoted a few posts again.
This week Jonathan Freedland on the Guardian's website is the latest to deploy the same line of attack against the ECR leader Michal Kaminski and against the Latvian the "For Fatherland and Freedom" party which is also part of the ECR.
Roberts Zile MEP, leader of "For Fatherland and Freedom", gave the following response to these charges when they were made by David Milliband: "What has surprised me on this issue was I never thought this would come from a western democratic party. I would expect it to come from Moscow or the Kremlin, as it does from time to time.
"What happened was during the second world war [Latvian] people were often conscripted against their will to fight for both sides, Germans and Russians. Once a year these people commemorate their war dead, the people they fought alongside. They don't in any way commemorate Hitler or the Nazi regime. We would never do business with anyone who we thought glorified the SS."
The attack against the Latvian party was also dismissed by shadow Europe minister Mark Francois, who said:
"This is a slur which comes from the Soviet era, that was thrown by the Soviet authorities at the Latvian people. They in no way whatsoever commemorate anything to do with Hitler or the Nazi regime. The Latvian ambassador in London has chided the foreign secretary for using this tack, which basically dates from the days of Soviet propaganda."
Francois added: "All the parties in the group are signatories to the Prague protocol and we are perfectly happy with all of our partners that they believe in a liberal society and full respect for human rights."
The Editor of the Jewish Chronicle, Stephen Pollard, who was himself the subject of a certain amount of criticism in Freedland's acticle, responded to Freedland's comments here.
He wrote
"Freedland seems to have decided that Kaminski is an antisemite; but, far from this, Kaminski is – as his record in Brussels shows clearly – one of the greatest friends to the Jews in a town where antisemitism and a visceral loathing of Israel are rife."
Antisemitism, homophobia, and racism are wrong. So is accusing others of those things on inadequate grounds to score a cheap political point.
Insofar as there is any substance behind any of this it takes the form of "A is allied to B who used to work with C who used to be a member of group D which is dodgy" and because of the difficult circumstances of those Eastern European countries who were caught between the Nazis and the Stalinists, you can use this tactic to attack some MEPs from all the major groups in the Brussels parliament, including the one which of British Labour MEPs are part, and also the group which the Conservatives left to form the European Conservatives and Reformists group (ECR).
However, some of the allegations made seem to me to be dubious indeed. Last week the Foreign secretary stooped to this kind of mudslinging and received a robust answer from William Hague which I quoted a few posts again.
This week Jonathan Freedland on the Guardian's website is the latest to deploy the same line of attack against the ECR leader Michal Kaminski and against the Latvian the "For Fatherland and Freedom" party which is also part of the ECR.
Roberts Zile MEP, leader of "For Fatherland and Freedom", gave the following response to these charges when they were made by David Milliband: "What has surprised me on this issue was I never thought this would come from a western democratic party. I would expect it to come from Moscow or the Kremlin, as it does from time to time.
"What happened was during the second world war [Latvian] people were often conscripted against their will to fight for both sides, Germans and Russians. Once a year these people commemorate their war dead, the people they fought alongside. They don't in any way commemorate Hitler or the Nazi regime. We would never do business with anyone who we thought glorified the SS."
The attack against the Latvian party was also dismissed by shadow Europe minister Mark Francois, who said:
"This is a slur which comes from the Soviet era, that was thrown by the Soviet authorities at the Latvian people. They in no way whatsoever commemorate anything to do with Hitler or the Nazi regime. The Latvian ambassador in London has chided the foreign secretary for using this tack, which basically dates from the days of Soviet propaganda."
Francois added: "All the parties in the group are signatories to the Prague protocol and we are perfectly happy with all of our partners that they believe in a liberal society and full respect for human rights."
The Editor of the Jewish Chronicle, Stephen Pollard, who was himself the subject of a certain amount of criticism in Freedland's acticle, responded to Freedland's comments here.
He wrote
"Freedland seems to have decided that Kaminski is an antisemite; but, far from this, Kaminski is – as his record in Brussels shows clearly – one of the greatest friends to the Jews in a town where antisemitism and a visceral loathing of Israel are rife."
Antisemitism, homophobia, and racism are wrong. So is accusing others of those things on inadequate grounds to score a cheap political point.
Comments