Lord Ahmed allegations

 
CST unreservedly condemns Lord Ahmed’s reported antisemitic statements that appear in today’s Times newspaper. CST welcomes the Labour Party’s suspension of Lord Ahmed and expects a full investigation pending further disciplinary measures.

If accurately reported by The Times, Lord Ahmed’s allegations about Jews controlling British politicians, judiciary and media, will be the most blatantly antisemitic remarks by such a public figure for many years. As The Timeseditorial correctly states, such themes are the bedrock of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the notorious tract purporting to demonstrate a world Jewish conspiracy".

The Times alleges that the Labour peer made these antisemitic statements in Urdu, “during a television interview on a visit to Pakistan...thought to have been broadcast in April last year”.The Times article begins:

A Labour peer who was jailed for sending text messages shortly before his car was in a fatal motorway crash has blamed his imprisonment on a Jewish conspiracy.

Lord Ahmed claimed that his prison sentence for dangerous driving resulted from pressure placed on the courts by Jews “who own newspapers and TV channels”. Britain’s first male Muslim peer also alleged that the judge who jailed him for 12 weeks was appointed to the High Court after helping a “Jewish colleague” of Tony Blair during “an important case”.

He claimed, falsely, that Mr Justice Wilkie was hand-picked and sent from London to carry out the 2009 sentencing at Sheffield Crown Court because no other judge was willing to handle his case. The alleged plot to punish him stemmed, Lord Ahmed claimed, from Jewish disapproval of his support for the Palestinians in Gaza.

The Times further claim that Lord Ahmed told the paper yesterday:

that he had ‘no recollection’ of giving the TV interviews last year. ‘I’ve done a lot of interviews. If you’re saying that you have seen this footage then it may be so but I need to see the footage and I need to consult with my solicitors before I make any comments in relation to this’ he added.

The Times then states that it:

Sent a transcript of Lord Ahmed’s comments in Pakistan to his solicitor, at the peer’s request, but no further response was provided.

It is sad to note that those who agree with Lord Ahmed's reported antisemitism will merely regard this Times story as proof of their convictions.

Furthermore, if the reports are shown to be accurate and the Labour Party then punishes Lord Ahmed accordingly, we can be assured that the antisemites will regard it as further vindication of their poisonous hatred.

Finally, there is what this teaches us about the remarkably precarious nature of such arguments. If Lord Ahmed claims (or is shown) not to have made these remarks about "Jews" controlling the media and politicians - but rather about "Zionists" or "pro-Israelis" controlling them, then how would that differ from what passes for legitimate, even de rigeur, comment within certain leftist and mainstream circles today?