Demonising the Quenelle. Silencing dissent?

Brown Bomber

Was reading a BBC article on Anelka getting banned and Zoopla, who are apparenlty co-owned by a Jewish man, pulling the plug on their sponsorship deal with WBA.

It'd be great if someone familiar with French culture or even the French language could fill in the gaps for me on this. Who is this Dieudonne guy and why are the authorities going to such lengths to silence him?

Is the French government abusing their powers to censor dissent?

If he is actually inciting hatred then I support the censorship, but I don't see how an arm movement could do so. All I am reading is that the gesture "is described by some as being anti-semitic" which is a completely meaningless statement. Especially with the certainty of French Abe Foxman's calling "anti-semitism" on everything, so if anyone could fill in the gaps.

Incidentally, in trying to find out about it I came across this guy Fred Destin, who has been tweeting about how out of order Anelka is.

https://twitter.com/fdestin

Turns out Destin "has led a number of investments including Zoopla"
http://www.atlasventure.com/team_bio/fred-destin/

Also found this with English subtitles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qgxZ6JEynk

kryogen

Sponsorship deal was up at the end of the season anyway, they took this as an opportunity to gain some publicity out of it.

Its an anti zionist thing, of course, people confuse that with anti semetic.

Brown Bomber

kryogen wrote: »

Sponsorship deal was up at the end of the season anyway, they took this as an opportunity to gain some publicity out of it.

Its an anti zionist thing, of course, people confuse that with anti semetic.

That's what I get too, not simply anti-Zionist but anti-corrupt authority. The opposite of a bow.

Though aren't Zoopla threatening to cut ties immediately if Anelka plays for the Albion again?

Was just listening to Gilad Atzmon on youtube. He makes a good point I think, he asks why Jewish politics is e most upset about this theatrical challenge of authority.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpbI-Z2anlw

Don't really know what to make of this. I admire dieudonne for not backing down but he does come across as a bit prejudiced but it's hard to tell from out of context comedy sketches in a foreign language.

Sacksian

Why would anyone have a problem with a pose that was simply intended as an anti-establishment gesture? That makes no sense whatsoever. If anyone is not sure of how the quenelle is understood and used by Dieudonne and his supporters, this might make it clearer:

http://k00ls.overblog.com/2013/12/pour-ceux-qui-pr%C3%A9tendent-que-la-quenelle-n-est-pas-un-geste-antis%C3%A9mite.html

One theory about Dieudonne is that his anti-zionism is a cloak for rabid anti-semitism (although he isn't really trying to disguise it that much). That seems to be backed up by the sort of routines he has done (one routine involved presenting a Holocaust-denier with a medal, with an assistant wearing a concentration camp uniform), his relationships with holocaust deniers, and the recent recording of him talking about Jewish journalist Patrick Cohen: "When I hear him talking, I say to myself: Patrick Cohen, hmm... the gas chambers… what a shame". Obviously, many people disagree with this interpretation and I'm sure a number of them are not anti-semites.

riffmongous

The major problem is that even if the gesture was intended as anti-establishment, was it ever used as anti-establishment by anyone other than Dieudonne? Because it has certainly been used as an anti-semitic gesture in some pretty sick photos

weisses

This controversy reminded me of this

Company Controversy

In the 1980s and 1990s, the Lonsdale brand received some negative publicity when Nazi youth and racist groups in Germany and the Netherlands adopted the clothing line as their "uniform." These youth were known as Lonsdalers or Lonsdale-youth and their hateful behaviors caused several schools to ban the clothing. At least one major sports clothing distributor threatened to ban Lonsdale clothing from its catalog. The company countered this image by sponsoring peaceful events, launching anti-racism advertising campaigns and working hard to recapture their brand. However, the brand is still tarnished today and the company stopped selling its clothes altogether in Holland. Today, it is still controversial to wear Lonsdale clothing on the European continent.

The company has also suffered some financial controversy. In 2003, the Lonsdale brand was acquired by UK-based sports retailer Sports Direct International. This company also owns other popular niche brands such as Kangol, No Fear and Dunlop. CEO Mike Ashley took Sports Direct public and the earnings have suffered ever since. Ashley is an outspoken and sometimes outrageous public personality and his comments often upset investors.

Today the company sponsors British heavyweight Michael Sprott and English football club, The Blackburn Rovers. Sports Direct plans to broaden the distribution for Lonsdale and eventually expand into footwear.

http://mens-fashion.lovetoknow.com/Lonsdale_Clothing_Sportswear

I have to admit when i moved to Ireland an seeing normal people wearing lonsdale clothes i thought WTF .... (bloody brainwashing)

Torakx

So thats how to take down the illuminatti Wear their symbolism and signs then wreck the place lol

Brown Bomber

riffmongous wrote: »

The major problem is that even if the gesture was intended as anti-establishment, was it ever used as anti-establishment by anyone other than Dieudonne? Because it has certainly been used as an anti-semitic gesture in some pretty sick photos

Par example.

Conas

Everything is anti-semitic these days, what the hell is going to come up next? <mod snip>

Mod: Banned for anti-semitic remarks.

Sacksian

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Par example.

...

Not sure how that supports your case that it is used as an anti-corruption or anti-establishment gesture??

Anyway, I posted a link to a blog post above which had a lot more relevant examples of how the quenelle is typically used and understood by Dieudonne and his supporters, not sure how you missed them (there's quite a few). The first one is this:



Quite a few more, all socking it to the establishment and not being at all anti-Semitic:

Alain Soral, mate of Jean-Marie Le Pen and Dieudonne, doing a quenelle at the Holocaust Memorial in Berlin (protesting against corruption??).



Jean-Marie Le Pen



Taken at Auschwitz



Loads more...hopefully anyone who was genuinely unsure about the background to the gesture and its use can see that it is quite evidently used as an anti-semitic gesture, despite the lame attempts to cloak it as some sort of anti-establishment or anti-corruption movement. Don't be conned.

weisses

Sacksian wrote: »

Not sure how that supports your case that it is used as an anti-corruption or anti-establishment gesture??

couple of points

With the right spin and influence you can turn the shamrock into an antisemitic symbol.

And do you find the Hindus displaying the swastika antisemitic ?

Is wearing lonsdale clothes Antisemitic ?

If establishment are putting antisemitic labels on everything that doesn't go well with them you risk that the term Antisemitic will loose its meaning plus you could demonize people calling them antisemitic when in fact they aren't

Sacksian

weisses wrote: »

couple of points

With the right spin and influence you can turn the shamrock into an antisemitic symbol.

And do you find the Hindus displaying the swastika antisemitic ?

Is wearing lonsdale clothes Antisemitic ?

If establishment are putting antisemitic labels on everything that doesn't go well with them you risk that the term Antisemitic will loose its meaning plus you could demonize people calling them antisemitic when in fact they aren't

I think that symbols and gestures get most of their meaning from the context in which they are used. So, I don't find Hindu or Ancient Greek use of the swastika antisemitic. And it would take a fair bit of work to popularise the shamrock as an anti-semitic symbol.

What do you think of the guy doing the quenelle at the holocaust memorial?

weisses

Sacksian wrote: »

What do you think of the guy doing the quenelle at the holocaust memorial?

If his meaning is to use it as an antisemitic symbol he should be shot on site as far as i care

My issue is that symbols and such that in principle have nothing to do with antisemitism are used for that idiot behavior

Another example would be that an Irish bloke flying to Amsterdam a couple of years ago could be assaulted for wearing Lonsdale clothing while in fact he has feck all to do with Antisemitism

And don't think its difficult to make the shamrock an Antisemitic symbol, if the wrong pictures or videos go viral anything could happen.

Sacksian

weisses wrote: »

If his meaning is to use it as an antisemitic symbol he should be shot on site as far as i care

My issue is that symbols and such that in principle have nothing to do with antisemitism are used for that idiot behavior

Another example would be that an Irish bloke flying to Amsterdam a couple of years ago could be assaulted for wearing Lonsdale clothing while in fact he has feck all to do with Antisemitism

And don't think its difficult to make the shamrock an Antisemitic symbol, if the wrong pictures or videos go viral anything could happen.

Lonsdale had associations with Neonazism, not anti-semitism, because you could display the NSDA (NationalSozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) of Lonsdale wearing the clothes a certain way. So, that's how it become associated with Neonazism- it wasn't just invented out of thin air - it had a lot of momentum with support from a lot of groups. I'm sure there must be people who are innocently doing the quenelle because they don't realise the connotations, but lots do.

What about that specific picture at the Holocaust memorial (or the one at Auschwitz), do you think this particular guy is using it as an antisemitic gesture?

tipptom

Sacksian wrote: »

Not sure how that supports your case that it is used as an anti-corruption or anti-establishment gesture??

Anyway, I posted a link to a blog post above which had a lot more relevant examples of how the quenelle is typically used and understood by Dieudonne and his supporters, not sure how you missed them (there's quite a few). The first one is this:



Quite a few more, all socking it to the establishment and not being at all anti-Semitic:

Alain Soral, mate of Jean-Marie Le Pen and Dieudonne, doing a quenelle at the Holocaust Memorial in Berlin (protesting against corruption??).



Jean-Marie Le Pen



Taken at Auschwitz



Loads more...hopefully anyone who was genuinely unsure about the background to the gesture and its use can see that it is quite evidently used as an anti-semitic gesture, despite the lame attempts to cloak it as some sort of anti-establishment or anti-corruption movement. Don't be conned.

Ha Ha,the old boy on the left of Le Pen cant do it properly and if Le Pen had his way in the world the other three boys would be bound on a locked train to fu*k knows where out of France and they would count themselves lucky when the guard opened the doors that it might be just Algeria.


What am I going to do with all my cheap Lonsdale tops from Heatons!

weisses

Sacksian wrote: »

Lonsdale had associations with Neonazism, not anti-semitism, because you could display the NSDA (NationalSozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) of Lonsdale wearing the clothes a certain way. So, that's how it become associated with Neonazism- it wasn't just invented out of thin air - it had a lot of momentum with support from a lot of groups. I'm sure there must be people who are innocently doing the quenelle because they don't realise the connotations, but lots do.

Sorry but i link Neonazism to being Antisemetic,

But do you agree the connotations where not antisemitic to start with

Sacksian wrote: »

What about that specific picture at the Holocaust memorial (or the one at Auschwitz), do you think this particular guy is using it as an antisemitic gesture?

I think its used as an antisemitic gesture yes

Brown Bomber

Conas wrote: »

Everything is anti-semitic these days, what the hell is going to come up next? <mod snip>

Mod: Banned for anti-semitic remarks.

Surely a contender for funniest post/mod comments ever?

Brown Bomber

weisses wrote: »

Sorry but i link Neonazism to being Antisemetic,

But do you agree the connotations where not antisemitic to start with

I think its used as an antisemitic gesture yes

If you were to do a thumbs up and smile at Aushwitz for a photo then it would be antisemitic. Doesn't make the thumbs up gesture anti semitic.

weisses

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If you were to do a thumbs up and smile at Aushwitz for a photo then it would be antisemitic. Doesn't make the thumbs up gesture anti semitic.

I get your point.

Same as a Hindu displaying a swastika in Auschwitz (wouldn't be the most considered thing but ...)

But i cannot stick my head in the sand and not question their motives

I don't think they meant the original meaning of "up yours" pointed at the Nazi regime showing them they lost the war.

Brown Bomber

weisses wrote: »

I get your point.

Same as a Hindu displaying a swastika in Auschwitz (wouldn't be the most considered thing but ...)

But i cannot stick my head in the sand and not question their motives

I don't think they meant the original meaning of "up yours" pointed at the Nazi regime showing them they lost the war.

I don't think you can argue against SOME of those photos being anti-semitic, to be fair but this is not down to purely the use of the quenelle, it is the context and motivation that makes it anti-semitic.

If you remove the context and motivation as in the case of vast majority of cases then it isn't anti-semitic.

For example, some Jews would find a little old Polish nun praying at Aushwitz and making the sign of the cross offensive, seeing as they are in the Jews eyes worshipping a a false prophet at a scene of the Holocaust.

As she has no bad intentions and her motives are pure no reasonable person could consider her gestures as anti-semitic

tipptom

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't think you can argue against SOME of those photos being anti-semitic, to be fair but this is not down to purely the use of the quenelle, it is the context and motivation that makes it anti-semitic.

If you remove the context and motivation as in the case of vast majority of cases then it isn't anti-semitic.

For example, some Jews would find a little old Polish nun praying at Aushwitz and making the sign of the cross offensive, seeing as they are in the Jews eyes worshipping a a false prophet at a scene of the Holocaust.

As she has no bad intentions and her motives are pure no reasonable person could consider her gestures as anti-semitic

They would be no better than the ones doing the Quenelle.

Brown Bomber

tipptom wrote: »

They would be no better than the ones doing the Quenelle.

I don't quite follow. Who would be no better the nun praying or the the Jews who could find it offensive?

tipptom

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't quite follow. Who would be no better the nun praying or the the Jews who could find it offensive?

The Jews who could possibly find an old nun praying for the dead offensive.

Brown Bomber

tipptom wrote: »

The Jews who could possibly find an old nun praying for the dead offensive.

I agree.

And if you don't believe it could happen consider the Convent that was opened in Auschwitz

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0002_0_01611.html

And you won't find any crosses in Auschwitz either

tipptom

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I agree.

And if you don't believe it could happen consider the Convent that was opened in Auschwitz

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0002_0_01611.html

And you won't find any crosses in Auschwitz either

Thanks for the link but Jesus it makes depressing reading.

Brown Bomber

tipptom wrote: »

Thanks for the link but Jesus it makes depressing reading.

Yeah, it's sad alright, especially when you consider all the Polish Priests, nuns and monks who died in the camps with the Jews and the Jews who had their lives saved by being taken in and hid in the monasteries and convents.

shanered

I think places like Auswitz and the holocaust are not the shared experience which the events were with many religions and nationalities which perished during them times.

People of all colour and creeds died during that period, and I think it a shame that Auswitz seems to be remembered solely for the Jewish victims.

I think the hype about the arm gesture that this thread is about I'd one where context has to be taken into account and with subjective issues like this it's always better in my opinion not to jump to conclusions, such is the argument about a Hindu with a swatizka being anti~semitic....
We are entering a dangerous territory here where am ancient symbol could be criminalised and banned because of some groups use of it.

Brown Bomber

shanered wrote: »

I think places like Auswitz and the holocaust are not the shared experience which the events were with many religions and nationalities which perished during them times.

People of all colour and creeds died during that period, and I think it a shame that Auswitz seems to be remembered solely for the Jewish victims.

I think the hype about the arm gesture that this thread is about I'd one where context has to be taken into account and with subjective issues like this it's always better in my opinion not to jump to conclusions, such is the argument about a Hindu with a swatizka being anti~semitic....
We are entering a dangerous territory here where am ancient symbol could be criminalised and banned because of some groups use of it.

Yeah, now that I think of it I think I've had my head ****ed with this message of Jewish exclusivity to Holocaust suffering. For example, if I see footage on the History Channel of the Holocaust my pavlovian response is "the poor Jews". Never the poor Jehovas Witnesses, The poor Slavs or the poor gypsys and so on when the appropriate response should be the "the poor people".


It's even happened to to me in this thread with the guy doing the Quenelle at Aushcwitz. Why should it be more anti-Semitic than anti-Slav or anti-anything-else?


25% of the Polish population who are mostly Catholic were wiped out during WWII.

tipptom

I think its bizarre that that one group should demand that one camp should be exclusively about them and to disregard the thousands that was murdered alongside them there.
If I went in to a famine graveyard and found someone of another religion praying for the dead there I would find it very touching that they cared.

Tzar Chasm

well to be a bit cynical about it, its about the money, jewish groups lobbied for reparations, by acknowledging the suffering of others they acknowledge their claim to some of that cash.

there's no business like shoah business

Putin

tipptom wrote: »

If I went in to a famine graveyard and found someone of another religion praying for the dead there I would find it very touching that they cared.

Speaking of the famine, maybe us Irish should claim universal ownership of the potato, it's use and symbolism. Considering the millions that died and millions that were forced to leave this island. We should pat ourselves on the back, for not trying to send the nations of the earth on repeated guilt trips for something they were not responsible for.

shanered

Being offended is ones right, and anti~fenianisim, anti~potatoesisim, anti~holocaust~hijackisim and many more "isims".
But one must question is there any benefit in the offence for the offended and does it achieve any aims or goals...

Playing the victim has been done by many and will be a tactic.of many more to come through this world.
To add weight to that statement, there are and will be many victims that deserve justice and compensation and condolences.
It becomes a bit like the boy who cried wolf if one acts the victim and and is then actually in trouble.
it's a pity the word anti~Semitism has almost become over used in my opinion.
And the stance of offence should not he lighted taken.
I think when it gets to the Stage that making a gesture that is essentially subjective and punishing it, even though it has gained meaning through association, is just a little too much on the side of easily taken offence, it should be presumed that it is non~offensive until proven to Be offensive.
In my opinion of course.