It appears that stand up comedians should adapt their humour to Stalin’s pogroms instead of Hitler’s, that way they can make the same jokes and nobody will get upset.

If you actually checked what poor Mr. Stone said initially you would realise the lobby he was talking about was forcing him to this regressed position. If you researched the history you would realise he was quite factually correct in his estimation. This does not take from the horror’s of Auswitcz, Majdanek and the other dreads visited on the Jewish people, however as a journalist and thus I would assume a proponent of freedom of speech, why do you feel it is necessary to point to the curbing of a fellow intellectual’s freedom of speech?
Even if you disagree with what one says shouldn’t a supposed free press defend his right to say it.

What would you expect from a pig but a grunt? I think it’s time that we told these pathetic celebrities where to get off.

The point he was trying to make is still a valid one, despite the way in which he made it. Why exactly IS the holocaust the first thing we think about, despite all of the other equally horrific atrocities committed by the Nazis? It really could not be an accident that as a society we seem to forget about the suffering of Russians, Poles or Romanian peoples at the hand of the Nazis. It was indeed clumsy to say that this is due to “Jewish domination of the media”, but he was right in saying that the Jewish lobby is a powerful one. They become ‘outraged’ easily, and quickly descend on every off-the-cuff comment they might find offensive, citing their past suffering, even if the point is a valid one. This causes a certain level of apprehension when discussing these issues in public, with a tendency to defer to the Jewish viewpoint for fear of being portrayed as a racist or prejudiced or in some way being insensitive to their suffering. This tendency might indeed influence journalists. Perhaps not all of them, but is it really that big of a leap of the imagination to think it might affect enough of them to slightly nudge the dominant public opinion in their favour? I don’t know, but this kind of thing is comparable to the Islamic outrage inspired by even the slightest criticism of their culture or religious beliefs. But at least this is widely understood to be irrational delusion. A certain level of critical discussion is healthy, and should not be suppressed by those without he power to do so. And I am disappointed in you Deaglán… you are glad? Should you not be more supportive of free speech and the right to individual opinion?

Ah yes, the old “free speech” argument again. I fully support people like Stone to be free to make a complete ass of himself yet again. Probably he has some movie coming out and needs the publicity. And interesting that he so quickly issues an apology. Keeps the publicity train moving, perhaps? I know, I’m being cynical. In reality there is nothing original in his comments in that interview, it all having been said many time before by others. This time he said it, that’s all. And the fact that he himself is half-Jewish (from his father) may possibly also be a interesting factor re his remarks on the Holocaust.

But what really annoys me is the shallowness of the alleged challenge to his right to “free speech”. It is very strange that some people should criticise Deaglan’s welcoming of Stone’s “apology” Free speech I believe it is called.

Yet, why are those who disagree and criticise Stone for his opinions – and most of these are not in fact Jews at all; but of course it is easier to select those “controlling” “powerful” Jews to criticise than it is to conclude that such forces are operating when the critics come from a mixture of different voices – to be regarded in some way as opposing free speech. Isn’t it amazing that some people feel they have the right to say whatever they want and then complain afterwards if people react and don’t invite them to their parties, employ them, speak with them.

The fact is that: people have free speech. And other people have the right to react within the law in any way they want to that person. Thus, I may not like what I read in a certain newspaper’s editorial, or when someone says something that seriously offends my values or moral system . That does not mean that I am obliged to buy that newspaper again, or continue seeing that person again. This is basic common sense and has not infringed that newspaper’s or person’s right to free speech.

Look, Stone expresed his opinions. Many objected. He “apologised”. Nobody forced him to apologise. Just as nobody forced him to retract his frequent supportive comments for those paragons of free speech and democracy, namely Chavez and Ahmadinejad, which he continues to repeat. Stone is not someone who ceases putting his big feet in his mouth, and is certainly someone who wouldn’t give a damn how you reacted to him.

He is regarded in America and Hollywood as a loose cannon. That is his right. And his recent interview yet again simply demonstrates his enjoyment of the enfant terrible role. No surprise to anyone familiar with his one-sided, half- baked, half-truthful utterances over the years, which have become so predictably unpredictable. I expect one day he will suggest that America faked the moon landings, and will think about remaking that great movie, Capricorn One. And probably call it Capricorn Three!!

Kielce 1946….there were still pogroms against the Jews even so soon after the war (and the atrocities of the concentration camps were widely known by then). And it wasn’t Nazis or Communists who instigated it. This deeply ingrained distrust is still evident in these countries to this day.

Kynos

re your recent posts that “international financiers” and “international financial speculation” caused World Wars One and Two:

Could you please explain who exactly you are referring to?

robespierre,

When you talk about “Jewish Americans” as “they” you are in fact referring to those American Jews who are in certain positions, at many different levels (acting, directing, producing music etc etc) in the movie business. You cannot extrapolate to mean the Jewish American community as a whole, just as certain Catholics or Protestants in these same positions would not mean the Catholic American community. Interestingly, most of the people in the movie business are in fact not Jews, but Gentiles, but conspirationalists like to propagate the opposite.

but michael mcdowell just asked a question to a question;

“there may be a gap in the market but is there a market in the gap?”. surely that’s more pressing political news than oliver ‘i shot a man and liked it’ stones pr machine in full effect?

It would be nice if I could Dave. But if I could, ‘exactly’, identify those who shorted the Weimar D-mark for example, and drove it to destruction and the ensuing social moral and political wasteland that arose in Germany as a result; I’d likely be also able to identify those who shorted United and American Airlines just before ‘9/11′ (tm, pat. pend. registered trademark of the NWO) and drove it to destruction and the ensuring ditto [del 'Germany' ins 'America'] ditto ditto. Or rather I’d be able to identify their DNA, for the sins of the fathers do rather tend to express themselves in the sons. If it’s not too Lamarckian to say so.

Kynos

A poor attempt at the writing style of Kynos:

Iinternational financiers are the causes of Phases 1 and 2, and most of 3 and 4 the next ones. Bow wow wow wow. Well jiggered be I, because interantional finance guys, Tour de france and the moguls were behing and in front of Phases 1 and 2. Woof-Woof. Wolf man Adolf in his high mountain lair went yaa yap at those who made Germans walk into bakery with 2 suitcases of 10 million marks just so they could buy one loaf. Yum Yum in my tummy and Hitlers’s dog – old yella faithful ate the jelly while he was invading Poland.

Kynos asserts one wow thing, then can’t produce the goods to back it up with names. Hollow empty conspiracies reign in Spain with no rain. Now, if that’s not Mednickian in the extreme, then what is?

You cannot separate a man from his comment from the context — otherwise no one could be held responsible for his words should they be offensive — given the legal strictures relating to free speech in any particular country — unless the man is suffering from a serious mental illness whereby his utterances are obviously the result of an obvious loss of contact with reality and which has been diagnosed as such by a relevant professional body. An “apology” imo is simply not enough in terms of reparation in such cases; an offender in this type of offence (such as Stone’s) should be made to break stones, for example, with a pickaxe in the full heat of the midday sun until the offence has been sweated out of him – the amount of stones and the length of time being in “sync” with the judicially-considered gravity of the offence……….and, given the context here (Mr Stone and his offensive remarks) if Mr Stone were the first, on which this penalty were to be imposed, it could from henceforth be referred to as “The Stone Penalty” and/or “The Stone Test of Attrition”……….yeah, that’d knock the smarmy celebrity hubris out of ’em…

@ dave
You hold that it should be acceptable that a person may “say” whatever a person might wish to any other person (and by extension, to any other people); and yet, cannot the unkind/nasty word inflict as much, if not more injury to a person than the injury caused to a person’s bone, for example, in the event of a person having been struck by a stick or a stone? Certainly, this would not be so in the case of a dog, for example, for if one said to the dog (in any language): “Dog you are fat and ugly and your existence is worthless”, the poor creature might just wag its tail and stare blankly. However, if those remarks were addressed by one schoolchild to another in the context, for example, of a schoolyard, then the schoolchild under verbal attack might suffer psychological hurt but not any apparent physical damage — and so extreme, it should be noted, has been the hurt suffered by many people on account of constant verbal abuse/bullying (and no one could deny that this has become a big issue in the workplace) that this has in some very sad cases led to death by suicide. So if (as is the case in Western Civilization at any rate) it is illegal for a person to “do” whatever a person might wish to another (for example, break a person’s legs) and at the same time, legal (as you would have it) for a person to “say” whatever a person might wish to another, where does one draw the line between the mind and body of a person in order to decide what may or may not have been injurious to a person in light of the fact that WORDS AFFECT PEOPLE
(ps psychiatry is not the issue here — I don’t think !!)

minXie,

Hold on there.

I agree fully that bullying using words or whatever – esp of children and the vulnerable – is not acceptable, and society must and should have ways that protect people from this. Bullying of this sort is pernicious and dangerous to the health and self-esteem of children, and is one of those things that occurs much more often than comes to light. I am sure most of us suffered this to some degree or other, and some have never got over it. It is truly a horrible experience that has hurt many a child’s development and engendered feelings of self-unworthiness.

People should have the right to be protected from such nasty harrassment as far as is practically possible.

However re Mr. Hypocrite Stone, we should be able to let him go on complaining to the media about his various beefs about Western democracies, promoting his personal agenda as he does, because his intellectual shallowness and hypocrisy will thus be revealed, and subjected to ridicule by the public in the same media. But if Stone were to bully some individuals or groups in public, and persist in harrassing them verbally, I believe he can be legally injuncted to stop this.

I believe also that such activity is an offence in many jurisdictions anyway, as of course is slander in most countries.

So I am all for free speech, within certain reasonable limits that prevent somone from harrassing and bullying others verbally.

minXie,

Also, your Stone penalty for people like him is a great idea, but unfortunately too great and innovative for it to be permitted in in the West. Iran and a few other countries that Stone is popular in might be interested though. They seem to have an obsession with stones, in the form of stoning those found guilty of certain offences.

Has it ever occurred to you by the way that Stone often looks stoned? Supposing just for the sake of argument that he were, then that would explain his periods of irrational thinking.

I remember years ago one of Ireland’s well-known guitar acts playing in a local dishco (the Carraig Springs) and at one stage in the night, when the set was goin hot an heavy, yer man starts beating a drum and saying in a sinister voice “This drum was made in Germany. By Jews. Or rather. Of Jews.” or words to that effect. Maybe he said ‘from Jews.”. Great roars of laughter from the crowd. No horrified caterwauling in the press the next day nor the next week nor the next month nor the next year. I’ll tell YOU who it is, Deaglan or Minxie or Harry or whoever’s editing the blog today, but I’ll ask you not to publish the name for a) it was a very long time ago and it WAS, I believe, a stupid joke and b) nobody else has ever complained about it and I ain’t gonna tar the guy now.

aidan,

You have now opened up a new area.

You would agree I hope that there is nothing that automatically precludes Tiernan fom being a sociopath. he would need to be assessed for that possibility to be tested out. I did not raise this possibility, and it is a red herring anyway. I don’t know the guy, so I can’t judge.

If I accept your argument re “oudlandishness” then I believe it then follows that it could be argued that Tiernan either:

1. Did not think that people -esp his irish audience – would be hurt at all or incensed by his employment of the gassing of Jews process as the means to be “outlandish” (I wonder why) or

2. He did think this, and just did not care if anyone was hurt or would be hurt, just in order to get a laugh.

I fully agree that Tiernan was not trying to make humour out of the Holocaust and the death camps per se, but that he was merely trying to get laughs out of the outlandishness of his exaggeration of the herding process. I would argue that his use of this can certainly be construed as callousness, and thus partly “sociopathic” if you wish to call it that. There is something rather insensitive and cruel about making fun of the Holocaust, no matter how you wrap it up in terms of “outlandishness” rationalisations. I know this might sound strange and unacceptable to Tiernan defenders, but for 6 million reasons the vast majority of Jews (perhaps not all) don’t think that there is anything remotely funny about the herding of Jews —”get along there, hurry up” or whatever Tiernan “joked”, I can’t recall the exact words, and can’t be botherd to look them up) into gas chambers or huge pits before they are shot and dumped into them, even if he was simply just trying to be outlandish. It is as simple as that. It was outlandish for him to think that he was simply being oudlandish to make a point.

There were a million other ways to “make a point”. Not everything in this life has to be made a joke of, and it could be argued that people who think it is are insane, sociopathic, or are pretty weird.

Although he made the “jokes” before an Irish crowd, the joke was bound to get out, and Jews and others were bound to feel hurt and complain. Wasn’t that bleeding obvious? And yet he didn’t care if so many people would be hurt. Tastelessness is not sufficient to describe such an action, but as Elie Wiesel has remarked: there are no words sufficient enough to describe the Holcoaust experience. Less joke about it.

Perhaps in telling this “joke in in front of an Irish audience indicates that he was aware that he would not be lynched (as he would probably have been in Israel or New York) but get a few laughs. His decision to tell it – whether considered beforehand, planned or not – in front of this audience may simply suggest naivity or stupidity, perhaps the true explanation.

has any older person noticed that oliver stone has metamorphosised into broderic crawford ??

dave @22 — sorry dave, bit confused about something. Are you saying that wasn’t kynos @ 20 ?

George,

Yes, Broderick Crawford..Highway Patrol man himself. Great actor, best role was in All The Kings Men. A masterpeiece.

“He was also right in the causes of the War of the Worlds, Phases 1 and 2, being international financiers. Among the causes. ” – is what I said Dave. And like I also said, their DNA, their offspring, will doubtless be amongst the causes of Phases 3 & 4. Now please, if you’re going to attack me, use the abundant legitimate grounds there are on which to do so. No need to go making up specious ones.

I don’t lie or make things up on this BB Dave. I can’t remember whether it was the lead singer or the drummer who said it. Therefore I give them both the benefit of the doubt.

There are not too many Irish people who speak up and agree with me as a general rule, on this BB or elsewhere Dave. Telling the truth as one sees it is guaranteed to make one the most upopular boy in the class. Which is probably the reason our politicians seem so allergic to the practice.

minXie,

No I was trying to spoof Kynos. I know, I know. Mission impossible.

Hitler also probably observed the weather was fine when it was, in fact, fine. But should we all on sunny days bewail the non-existent downpours just because it was likely the opposite that Hitler would do, Dave? Should we all cease listening to Wagner because Hitler liked to? I know Hitler blamed “the Jews” for the ’stab in the back/dolschluss” that made Germany stop fighting WWI when he was quite convinced She could still win. That was his hatred speaking. His desire to find an ‘other’ upon which to project his own internal splitting. Possibly some rage against his mother for allowing his father to sexually abuse him, as has been alleged. But his rage sought an alternative target, one that did not impinge upon his anima in that way. He could have blamed Ludendorff for cracking up at the horrendous waste of human life. Would have been no votes in that though.

To put it bluntly, I am not equating “the Jews” with “international financiers” who were among the causes of Phase 1 & 2 and will be again among the causes of Phase 3 & 4. I have little doubt that, masters of finance as certain Jewish families qua Houses became over the centuries in which Jews generally were debarred from other trades and from owning land, there arose certain financiers and family dynasties of Judaic matrilineal descentwho, as financiers and family dynasties do often, financed wars and moreover manipulated international economic systems in ways that gave rise to war, whether it was their actual intention to or not in the latter case. Just as I have little doubt that, masters of finance as many other Semites, Arab peoples, have become over the decades in which their lands were raped for oil and in which some, some I say, Arab families and houses were able to leverage their people’s resources to their almost exclusive financial benefit, there are/were Arab financiers and family dynasties who financed wars and moreover manipulated international economic systems in ways that gave and give rise to war, whether it was their international intention to or not. And the same might be said of Catholic and Protestant financiers and family banking dynasties. In an unpublished post I named one current Saudi Arab dynasty and one American WASP dynasty whose scions have been notably embroiled in the destruction of countless innocent lives for the sake of a percentage of recent times, and their mutual investment group, or rather that poshly named one to which both belong. The moderator declined to print this.

I could name other names, other families; other dynasties, financially powerful; Jewish and gentile, Muslim and Christian, Buddhist and Zoroastrian doubtless (Sargon the Great? They hardly poured holy water on that) whose nefarious activities for their own selfish interests have brought ruin and waste to vast tracts of this flogged and scourged planet, according to what I’ve read and learned. But unless I place them far enough back in history to ensure our beloved IT doesn’t get sued out of it I presume they’ll never see print either. So I’ll give you one name. Not a name involved in the 20th and 21st C Wars of the World, but rather the 14th to the 18th. I give you the Medici. Whose moral and fiscal depravity laid waste to Europe. And hope I don’t get chucked into a metal cage in Italy as the US government chucked Ezra Pound – an admirable poet but prone to reprehensible anti-Jewish sentiments – for doing just the same. Pound predicted that bankers would take over governments yet again and lay waste to our societies. I PeRCeive today that he was right. One doesn’t incur the ire of the US government for being wrong in these things. Only for being right. So dave, I hope it clarifies things for you. Not perhaps the answer you were hoping for (suspecting that you were seeking some foam-flecked rant against ‘the Jewish bankers’. But as you see I am not careless when it comes to using the definite article.) but my honest opinion. International capital causes wars. Has done ever since the first polished porcellanite axe head was traded for some other store of inherent value, and thereafter subjugated some technologically and/or fiscally less advantaged peoples who were only equipped with inferior flint tools qua weapons.
I believe that if we are ever to change this, we must force international capital and financiers to behave in ways that mean their activities will not lead to wars. But I suspect we’re going to have to undergo Phase 3 & 4 first. Thereafter what I say will be a no brainer to the survivors. Perhaps next time they’ll keep the porcellanite and flint for use in tool making only and eschew the weapons dimension.

@ 39 (now also @ 48 — Silly me; that was obviously you, dave, being kynos @ 22 hilarious actually — maybe even more kynos than the kynos himself — but no way that’s kynos @42 — kynos is never that specific — getting really suspicious now — paranoid even — maybe it’s catching, that Oliver Stone conspiracies-are-everywhere syndrome

Anyway, I think it has been established here that “not” everything goes in “Liberalandia” where — and no one seems to have mentioned yet — a mishmash of political correctness regulations is employed for the purposes of deciding acceptable (ethical or non-ethical) behaviour in society. Clearly this system is always going to have to play catch-up as more and more cases of public offence come to light in the glare of media publicity where the standard is obviously being set (in the media that is) and where getting caught seems to be the crime. It could come to this, for example — PC Regulation (random) No. 182: No celebrity may wear massive dark shades to prevent trained observers detecting possible malicious intent behind a potentially offensive utterance which might be visible in the facial expression, particularly the eyes.
Well they’re banning burkas aren’t they……….funny old PC World it is now — never shop there myself, at any rate

Aidan,

You say that you would be appalled if someone made a joke of the Holocaust.

But that is my exact point. You or Tiernan may try to dress up the exaggerated description of the herding of people into gas chambers in terms you desribe as an intention to be outlandish, but the underlying description is there out in the open. For there is no way that providing a premamble before or an explanation later – that it is/was meant simply to be a joke – is ever going to persuade generally average sensitive people to only pay attention to an intention to be outlandish and to just listen with their joking ears, and turn off that part of their selves that listens to the obscene content of what is conjured up. The two are inseperable, and that is the problem, especially in people who were closer to the Holocaust for personal reasons. I believe it is insensitive and expecting too much of such people to expect them “to get the joke”.

Now, since you feel it is acceptable for somone to make a point of pretending to be “outlandish” about certain people’s attitude to the extent that he can “joke about” the process gassing of Jews by exagerrating it, could you tell me what are the areas that you would object to someone trying to be outlandish? How about Tiernan pretending to be “outlandish” about the cancer that a loved one has, or the death of a child perhaps. That should bring the house down.

Dave,

You say this:

“For there is no way that providing a premamble before or an explanation later – that it is/was meant simply to be a joke”

I say this:
(This is from the Borat movie where a Jewish comedian plays a con-trick on an audience in a bar in Arizona. You should have said that, Aidan; not all of our readers are hip dudes like you. Deaglán)
“In my country there is problem,
And that problem is the Jew.
They take everybody’s money,
They never give it back.

Throw the Jew down the well,
So my country can be free.
You must grab him by his horns,
Then we have big party.

If you see the Jew coming,
You must be careful of his teeth.
You must grab him by his money,
And I tell you what to do…

Everybody!

Throw the Jew down the well
So my country can be free
You must grab him by his horns
Then we have big party ”

Now, that’s a pretty outlandish and racist song on the face of it, isn’t it? Is there any context in which you’d accept this in a comedy sketch?

As regards being outlandish, I’ve already put forward the Unclef**ker song in South Park as an example of outlandishness and comedy about a very serious subject.

As I said, we could go on all day with example after example. Tiernan’s joke was no more about the Holocaust than the South Park song is about pedophilia.

I will show you an example of comedian’s routine that is unacceptable, and consequently this comedian’s career is over (and rightly so): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCbrEbEyheM.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTUvRW7gtGU

Aidan, I hate to get involved in this discussion because Dave was doing a much better job of putting you in your box than I ever did. The Seinfeld video shows what would have happened to Tommy Tiernan if there had been some Jewish people or even a few decent liberals in the audience instead of, presumably, young Irish gobdaws who should be ashamed of themselves for not objecting. I don’t know why you included the Bob Monkhouse item. As someone who had to cope with Prostate Cancer myself, I think it’s perfectly okay.

The Bob Monkhouse sketch is just to show that comedians do joke about all sorts of dark subjects.

Deaglan, your argument has the whiff of someone who is desperate to be morally superior to everyone else. It’s tiresome. You can’t write five lines without calling someone “horrible” or morally inferior in some way. I’ve stopped listening.

Leave it to Dave here, thank you.

Dave,

“A rant is a rant is a rant” is a silly thing to say. Context is everything in comedy, and you can’t wish that away to suit your argument.

You could just as easily say “a song is a song is a song” when talking about Sacha Baron Cohen’s song referenced earlier.

Earlier you seemed to accept that Tiernan was being outlandish for effect, and now suddenly his is a full-blooded crazy rant? (Are you a different user posting under Dave’s name? Deaglan?) One suggests that he was in control and the other that he was out of control, so logically it can’t be both, can it? Please deal with that point.

You are wrong about Richards. He didn’t try to justify it, at all. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hYrmPUwknk
He says he went into a rage and lost control. (You could have googled this easily yourself.)

Tiernan was clearly in control, and he prefaced his comments so as to put them in a clearly understood context. And as such he was defended by people who know what they are talking about, like Niall Stokes, for instance. No-one defended Richards, and no-one would go to his shows now. Many people defended Tiernan, there was very, very little outcry (Deaglan bemoaned this fact) and only one of his performances was cancelled. There is obviously a difference between the two incidents, and denying it only makes you seem like you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Now, as I’ve said before “Throw the Jew down the well” is a horribly offensive statement. And you could just as easily say “a statement is a statement is a statement”, but of course when you see the sketch you see how it works in a comedy context. If you allow context in that situation, why won’t you allow context in Tiernan’s?

I’ve dealt with the location argument before, but saying that comedian would do an act in a certain location because he or she would be assaulted or killed says nothing about the comedian and everything about the people who would assault him or her. Would you kill someone for performing a comedy routine? For instance, no matter what Richards said, a black man shooting him would not have been jusitified or understandable or anything like that, and it would not have been “just desserts”. Ditto if someone who was pro-life jumped up and shot Bill Hicks one night, or a Christian shot George Carlin.

Also, I have to say, I find the relish that you seem to have for people being assaulted for making Islamic jokes slightly disturbing.

Finally, on the point of joking on certain subjects. It is said that we shouldn’t joke about the Holocaust because millions of people were killed. Around the same time millions of people were also dying in conflicts, and millions of people have died in conflicts around the world since, and yet we have oodles of comedies which reference these events, and are in fact based around these events.

Dave is his own man!

Aidan,

Just for the record Ruairi Quinn TD on behalf of the Holocaust Educational Trust Ireland condemned Tommy Tiernan’s remarks and called on him to withdraw them. As far as I know he never did and that is a pity because I think most people would probably have accepted his apology and it would have been forgotten about.

It is not a good trend if that is the way comedy is going. I think we all can differentiate between different types of comedy and allow for a certain amount of cruelty and so on but comedians are the same as the rest of us, namely citizens that have responsibilites as well as rights.

© 2000 The Irish Times

Palestinians waiting for Godot as they seek right of return and nationhood
Sat, Nov 04, 2000

Deaglán de Bréadún

In the memorial park for victims of the Holocaust, Yad Vashem, situated on a hill overlooking Jerusalem, there is a special exhibit devoted to children, who comprised about one-quarter of the dead.

It was funded by a Jewish couple who found prosperity in the US but whose small son, Uziel, perished in Auschwitz concentration camp. There is a stone carving of the boy over the entrance, smiling, chubby-cheeked; had he lived he would be around 60 now, perhaps with smiling, chubby-cheeked grandchildren.

The carving is based on a photograph of Uziel, which can be found inside the building, along with other pictures of five-, seven-, and nine-year-olds, all beautiful and bright-eyed with freckles and pigtails. There is a special gleam in Uziel’s eye that tells of high-jinks and impish pranks: he must have broken his mother’s heart as well as being her pride and joy.

There are only eight or nine pictures, so how to remember one and a half million kids? The architect, Moshe Safdie, has assembled a set of inter-linked glass cases with the pictures suspended inside and an array of candles in memory of the dead. As you walk around the exhibit, the candles multiply almost to infinity in the glass. A voice recites the names of victims, aged five, seven, 10, from places such as Poland, France and Lithuania. There is a long list of countries.

It’s a powerful experience. You find yourself walking around and around this monument of glass and candlelight, like a Beckett character, not getting anywhere but unable to think of a reason not to keep going. Anyone looking for ways to remember the victims in the North should visit Yad Vashem.

Curiously, Beckett was also mentioned to me by a Palestinian intellectual, explaining the predicament of his people. Uprooted 50 years ago, and for the second time in 1967, they are scattered throughout the Palestinian territories and the Arab world, living in camps and seeking their right of return and their nationhood. “They are waiting for Godot,” my Palestinian contact said.

The Palestinian refugees in the camps at Jabalia on the Gaza Strip and beside the beach at Gaza City are not going anywhere. You can see that just from driving around the mean, sandy streets. This is truly a wasteland: the poverty at Jabalia is obscene but the Beach Camp is even more shocking because it is on the shores of the Mediterranean and in any properly organised and functioning society it should be an international holiday resort.

Instead it is a colony of deprived adults and many, many children. Like the little victims of Yad Vashem, they are bright-eyed and beautiful and their high spirits seem to thrive even in this wan environment. Conditions may be wretched, with little sign of hope or opportunity but I still saw a young girl with a comb in one hand and a large, blue mirror in the other.

The camps were quiet today because all the young men and boys were attending the funerals of three “martyrs” killed the day before in clashes with Israeli soldiers. In contrast with the silence of the camps, the streets of central Gaza were alive with chants and slogans, flags and megaphones. Kids crowded onto buses and lorries and the others, mostly in their teens or early 20s, packed the street and the pavements.

Someone said, “revolution is the festival of the oppressed” and, though ostensibly a sad occasion, there was an air of defiance and even a sense of liberation in the air. There was no weeping and, instead of the measured progress of a comparable Irish funeral, the mourners rushed along the street in a half-sprint as though excited by a sense of possibility.

They don’t wait long to bury people in the Middle East. These boys died only the day before from Israeli bullets and now they were being carried on stretchers draped in the Palestinian flag. Light as they are, there was no shortage of volunteers to carry the young men’s bodies. Two stretcher bearers would be enough but everyone wanted to be associated with their heroes. The blood was up: orators on a truck took it in turns to shout defiant speeches and slogans into a microphone: “Inti-fa-da! Intifa-da!” A plump boy of 13 held an automatic weapon aloft with his right hand-: he never seemed to get tired.

There are surprisingly few guns overall at the mass funeral, but this doesn’t make one feel any safer when you make the short journey from Gaza City to the Erez crossing point that leads back into Israel proper. There have been many deaths at this place since the trouble began five weeks ago. You don’t want to hang about, but the Israeli soldiers, apologising for the inconvenience, want to check your bag because word has come through about a possible bomb in someone’s luggage. Finally you are through, only to switch on the car radio and hear there has been a bomb in Jerusalem.

A touring German student is looking for a lift. Where are you from? “Nuremberg.” Suddenly, unexpectedly, you are transported to a time in the 1930s and footage of the Fuhrer preaching his message of hate against Jews. We know where it ended up, with bright-eyed little boys like Uziel Spiegel sent to an early death. After the war the Jews of Eastern Europe, their confidence in Western civilisation shattered, flocked to a new life in Israel. But instead of opting for a binational society where Jews and Palestinians intermingled on an equal, power-sharing basis and without borders between them, the founding fathers chose the model of a Jewish state. It might have worked if the Palestinians had been less numerous and more willing to accept the lot of a refugee nation and if the rest of the Arab world had the capacity to absorb their new, involuntary immigrants.

To an outsider, it is disquieting how little sympathy there is in Israel for the Palestinian victims and the popular mood seems to favour even harsher action. One also encounters little genuine Arab sympathy for the admittedly less numerous Israeli victims. That’s the way it is when two communities get involved in a stand-off. The rest of the world, especially Europe, has a responsibility to help ease the tension in this tragic place. The problems of the Middle East today are the last crime of the Holocaust.

Deaglán de Bréadún,

The one thing I would point out is that the Holocaust and the West’s 2000 years of persecuting the Jews was the prime motivation behind their wanting their own Jewish state, one that they and not others can control. Whatever the rights and wrongs are on both sides – let’s not go there – in 1947 the UN recognised that partition into two states was the only viable way to resolve the longstanding (going back decades before the Holocaust) deep murderous conflict between the Palestinian Jews and the Palestinian Arabs. The Jews accepted partition and the surrounding Arab countries – for various self-interests, and ignoring the Palestinian Arabs’ interests – took it upon themselves to reject this as a solution. Had these Arab countries accepted the partition solution, there would have been relative peace rather than wars.

That was 63 years ago, and today, 63 years later, the Arab states would like to accept what is essentially the partition solution. About 10 years ago Arafat rejected the Clinton plan, leading to more bloodshed on both sides, and now 10 years later the Palestinian Authority is still trying to get roughly the deal that Arafat was offered. Hamas rejects any such deal that allows Israel to exist, and is in an ongoing power struggle with the West Bank leadership. As in 1948, again the real national interests of the Palesinians continue to be neglected, this time in Gaza, in favour of party and ideological interests, which leads to extremist elements in Gaza trying their best to sabotage Abbas and the Palestinian Authority.

Sometimes it makes you feel like locking all the damned parties into a room and making them hammer out a solution, and then forcing them to put the finally agreed solution to their respective peoples to be voted on. The people who vote not to compromise at all should then be isolated from the international community, and treated as a pariah state until they come round to agreeing.

And then there is the Iran issue, lurking dangerously in the background, with Syria somewher in the mix. Perhaps if Iran gets the nuclear bomb it will shake up things a good bit , and might persuade the Arab states and Israel that their interests would be better served if they were to agree to form mutual defence pacts, and also may lead to Israel and the Palestinian Authority working quickly to achieve the 2 state solution. Wishful thinking, probably? And there will still be the problem of Hamas and Hizbolleh, who are backed by Iran, which wishes to lead the Islamic world in the Middle East, and thus will work to undermine any solution agreed with Israel. It seems hopeless

I had an internet glitch, so if a post went through before this one disregard it and don’t post.

Anyway. Seriously? That’s the clip you chose to ban because this “is a family paper”? And yet, you posted a clip from South Park, an 18+ movie. You posted the Aristocrats movie clip before, another 18+ movie…If this is a “family paper”, why did you post those clips and baulk at this one?

All I can surmise is you’re removing this for effect, trying to paint me as someone who is out to offend, when all along I’m trying to discuss offensive statements that work in the context of comedy, and I can’t do that without using examples.

Here’s another link you can post: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0445114/ It’s the IMDB rating for the show Extras which that clip is taken from. 9/10, a very high rating by that site’s standards. You will also note that this show has won a Golden Globe and many other awards. How do you suppose that this show won awards like that if it contains scenes which are deeply offensive to homosexual and Jews. Shows that are deeply offensive to homosexuals and Jews don’t do well in Hollywood, do they?

Ricky Geravis has also gone on to be extremely successful in America. Again, something difficult to do if one is prone to make offensive jokes about homosexuals and Jews. There are obviously a lot of homosexuals and Jews who have no problem with Ricky Gervais. And, of course, that clip caused no furore when it was aired. None. None at all. It was also commissioned, filmed and released by the BBC, and not many shows they put out contain jokes which are deeply offensive to Jews and homosexuals.

I’ll tell you what I am delighted about. You’ve just taken a blunderbuss to your feet here. You have shown that your understanding of comedy is laughable, and that there is a hair trigger on your offense meter, which rather puts into perspective your opinion of Tiernan. I bet you didn’t even think to do a little research on Extras, a show you clearly haven’t watched.

Now, as you have set yourself up as someone who demands apologies on behalf of vulnerable groups, I expect you to write a blog post demanding an apology from Ricky Gervais and Keith Chegwin. If you had seen that show when it first aired would you have asked for an apology. Please say you would have. That would be too delicious.

Deaglan,

Are you having a laugh? So, if someone wants to discuss the offensiveness of, let’s say, the song at the end of the Life of Brian, they have to somehow post a link to the entire movie? You must be joking? That’s a ridiculous defense.

Can I not expect that before commenting on the offensiveness of something that you would do a little bit of legwork? What you are in effect saying is that you are prepared to condemn something without knowing about the context, or even wondering about it, which rather goes to prove my point that you went off half-cocked at the Tiernan incident.

Ricky Gervais is hardly an unknown or obscure comedian – in fact, it could be easily argued he is one of the most successful comedy writers of the last decade – and his style in The Office, in Extras, and in his movies is very, very well known. He often sets up incidents of hapless racism or homophobia, and it is the predicament of the person desperately trying not to be racist, or a person trying to deal with someone else’s surprisingly deliberate racism or homophobia that is source of comedy. This goes to the point that you are inexcusably ignorant of the subject you are writing about.

You, an Irish Times journalist, just said that Ricky Gervais was so offensive to homosexuals and Jews that you couldn’t post a clip on a “family website” (no explanation as to why you posted the clips from 18+ movie before – a tad inconsistent there, Deaglán). Clearly that isn’t the case, and you realise it now. Without retracting that condemnation, it diminishes your opinion that anyone is offensive to homosexuals or Jews, and you can’t really be taken seriously on the subject. You can call that “silly head games” all you like (retreating behind name-calling etc. again), but it doesn’t change the fact that you’ve made a serious error of judgement here in the context of the discussion.

“”Tiernan gave clear context to the comments (you can easily check the script of what he said on-line and you should again)”

With your fabled internet expertise do please send a link to TT’s script for our readers to make their own judgment about and I don’t mean the one on the Hot Press site which costs Eur20 as here: http://www.hotpress.com/archive/5849883.html“”

No need to link to it. Here it is, with my notes:

My note: As I’ve said before the joke works thus: two people are offended by a mild joke and he doesn’t know why these people get so offended – he could say anything! Sure, he could have said B (something deliberately outlandishly offensive for effect). That’s how the joke works, and it’s about the comeuppance of two righteous people.

“Have I ever been accused of being anti-Semitic? I certainly have yes. In America these two people waited for me after a show. And I used to do this joke about, it was along the lines–the Jews were blamed, the Jews say they never killed Jesus. And the joke was I say that ‘Well it wasn’t the fucking Mexicans,’ was the joke like and yeah. Jewish people came up to me afterwards and they…”

My note: This is mild joke “A” that really isn’t that offensive.

“Have you ever seen people whose eyes are so aflame with righteousness, and they never had–the whites of their eyes are so pure and fucking white, they’re just, they’re one stream people. They’re not people that have gaps for more than one train of thought. This one train of thought purified them. These people were just–that the Israelis are a hounded people. And I, God. Olaf might have more to say about that in a minute than me but [laughs]. But I, you whatever. I’m not here to hound anybody but these people spoke to me afterwards and said, ‘What you said…’

My note: Sets up the joke as being about righteous people, and them being small-minded, and ready to find anything offensive: “one-stream people” etc. Sets them up as the villains, although it’s a young audience at The Electric Picnic, and they would have already thought that the people who complained about the Mexicans joke were fuddy duddys.

“You know what I don’t fucking like actually. Just an aside. I read something that Frankie Boyle said, the Scottish comedian. And he said, and it made me very angry because he said any time he hears a comic doing a pisstake of an accent he goes up to them an tells them ‘That’s racist.’ And I thought to myself–that kind of attitude doesn’t belong on the comedic stage because comedic… It’s all about being reckless and irresponsible and joyful. It’s not about being careful and Protestant and Scottish and mannered. [some clapping and cheers] It’s about being…trusting your own soul and allowing whatever lunacy is inside you to come out, in a special protected environment where people know that nothing you’re saying is being taken seriously.”

My note: He’s being very, very careful to set the audience up to tell them that what he is about to say is not to be taken seriously, and then he proceeds to be outlandish and deliberately offensive for effect, in character if you like:

“But these Jews, these fucking Jew cunts come up to me [audience laughing and clapping] Fucking Christ killing bastards. [audience continues] Fucking six million, I have ten, I would have got ten million out of that. No fucking problem. Fucking two at a time they would have gone. Oh lads, get in there. Leave us your teeth and your glasses. [more laughing, some groans?] No. I don’t really know. [audience cheering and clapping. Olaf wraps up the interview.]“

My note: and then, after doing what he could to set up the audience that what he was to say was not to be taken seriously, he is outlandishly offensive “part B” in order to show that these people were getting in a tissy over nothing compared to the horribly offensive things that could be said. The audience is cheering because it is the comeuppance of the fuddy duddys.

It’s not about the Holocaust, anymore than Gervais’s sketch is about homosexuals or Jews. It’s about the characters in the context of the joke. It’s so very, very clear, and it’s lazy journalism to say otherwise. Gervais doesn’t need to apologise for his sketch, and Tiernan doesn’t need to apologise either.

P.S. That script is taken from a comment here, http://bocktherobber.com/2009/09/tommy-tiernans-holocaust-rant, but I have a copy of the script and it’s correct.

Aidan, There is a definite touch of Stalin or Goebbels about the authoritarian, Orwellian way you “guide” us throught the Tommy Tiernan script. Incidentally it is devilishly difficult to find the original. In that link you gave, it only appeared as part of one of the comments. You trumpet the fact that Hot Press supported him in the controversy, but they are charging Eur20 to gain access to it. If they are so proud of Tommy, they should be giving it out free surely? Here is the link I picked up anyway and the disgraceful Holocaust bit is at the very end. https://www.tommytiernan.com/podcasts/podcasts/tommy%20tiernan_hot%20press%20chat%20room_electric%20picnic.mp3

By the way, I have a high regard for Ricky Gervais’s talents. It is the item you took out of context that I am not prepared to run in any blog-discussion under my name. Anyone who is interested can go to YouTube and search for Keith Chegwin, Ricky Gervais and no doubt find that 1min28secs clip on “Jews and Queers at the BBC”.

A few questions, Aidan: “The Jews killed Christ” is a staple of anti-Semitism down through the millennia. Millions of Jews have been put to death through the ages with that as a war-cry. What’s so funny about Tommy Tiernan breathing some life into it? Why is he doing so? Why should it not be regarded as an irresponsible appeal to the most ignoble instincts of humankind? Does Tommy have a problem with Protestants also or are we meant to take that Frankie Boyle reference as a “joke” as well.

I note that you say the “Christ-killing” remark “really isn’t that offensive”. That’s like equating “Sieg Heil” with “Good Afternoon”. How ignorant you are – there is no other word – and where do you get such values, or lack of them? Sounds like you spend too much time humourlessly watching “edgy” comedy on YouTube.

And once again, Aidan, tell me what’s so funny about this excerpt from the Tiernan monologue (do you know any Jews or have any Jewish friends or have you ever even met a Jewish person in your life?):
“But these Jews, these fucking Jew cunts come up to me [audience laughing and clapping] Fucking Christ killing bastards. [audience continues] Fucking six million, I have ten, I would have got ten million out of that. No fucking problem. Fucking two at a time they would have gone. Oh lads, get in there. Leave us your teeth and your glasses. [more laughing, some groans?] No. I don’t really know. [audience cheering and clapping. Olaf wraps up the interview.]”

Deaglan.

Hot Press charge 20 euro to access archives, just like the Irish Times charge to do so. If the Irish Times is so proud of it’s past work they should be giving it away for free, surely? Hmmm? What is the Irish Times trying to hide? (I think this demonstrates how stupid your point against Hot Press is)

You posted the entirety of “Throw the Jew down the well” without context, so your argument about not posting this Extras clip because it is “out of context” is BS. You said that because I didn’t post a link to the “entire episode” that it was “out of context”, but none of the links I have posted have contained links to entire episodes!!! What is going on here?

Now Deaglan, you don’t know much about the internet. You most certainly will not find that clip by searching YouTube for “Gays and queers at the BBC” Try it. The joke is not about that. Search for “Keith chegwin extras”. The humour in that clip is not the homophobia or anti-semitism, it is from the stunned and awkward reaction of the Ricky Gervais character (a device he employs a lot, which, you being a fan, should know!) and his reaction as Chegwin ramps it up more and more. Also the idea of someone who’s known for being a bubbly children’s presenter saying things like that is funny. The clip in it’s 1-28 seconds works brilliantly in context without anything else.

Now, you asked me to get a script of Tiernan piece and show it in context. I did that. Your reply was to say that I had a touch of “Stalin or Goebbels” about the way I did it. What way should I have done it? I tried to explain how I saw the clip, and you could have the basic courtesy to actually reply to that instead of resorting to more cheap and frankly idiotic name-calling.

What’s so funny about the piece you quoted is exactly what’s funny about the Extras sketch. As the homophobia is ramped up, it is the increased awkwardness of the Ricky Gervais character that is funny. We’re not laughing at the homophobia, we’re laughing at Ricky Gervais’s surprised face and the idea of Keith Chegwin saying things like that (totally out of character). That’s funny. Very funny. Ricky Gervais is a very funny writer.

In Tiernan’s piece the ramping-up of the outlandish anti-semitism serves as the come-uppance of the righteous one-stream characters who would complain about anything. That is why the audience cheer. They’re not laughing or cheering at the anti-semitism any more that we are laughing at homophobia in the Gervais sketch. We’re laughing at the imagined reaction of the two complainers.

I’ve been over and over and over this with you and you keep on just reposting that one piece (by the way, how hypocritical of you to post that piece out of context with the rest and then upbraid me for posting something you feel is out of context) and saying “Is this funny?” If you posted the script of what Keith Chegwin said it would not be funny either. It would be deeply offensive. But it WORKS in the sketch, in context.

That is my point. Statements that out of context would be deeply offensive, work and work well in some comedy sketches.

Deaglan,

Unfortunately it says much much more about the Irish audience than it does about Tiernan. He’s merely their reflection. An audience composed of ordinary people like you and me. But if they can laugh at those descriptions they might also be capable of enacting them given the wrong conditions. Such is the infinite cruel potentiality of human nature, as evidenced many times over by history.

I hesitate to get involved in this.. but isn’t that precisely the ‘joke’..i.e. taking the part of the bigot to extremis…thereby exposing the ludicrousness of the statement? Anyway if the Jews didn’t kill Jesus who did ?

Aidan, This newspaper provides a certain amount of older/historical/archival content for free on its website, e.g., http://www.irishtimes.com/150/articles/a-paper-with-no-border-in-mind.html

You are always boasting about the Hot Press’s defence of Tommy T. So I am sure you will agree that it is somewhat surprising an exception wasn’t made so that people could still access the Holocaust monologue for free. It’s such a pity, after they had gone out of their way to stand up for the guy. I really think it is rather unfortunate. I mean, it shouldn’t be all about money, don’t you agree, and if TT is worth defending, then his material should be easily accessible.

The more I read from you, Aidan, the stronger the impression of a Beckett-type character squatting in a darkened room all day watching comedy re-runs from YouTube. You should try to remember that it’s a big world out there and people have other interests. Why, I am sure there are poor benighted idiots who read Tolstoy or Dostoevsky or even Beckett when they should of course be watching the latest “outrageous” stand-up performers. Just like there are people who think it is more important to preserve the lives of the audience in the crowded theatre than to defend the absolute right to shout “Fire!” from the stage.

Incidentally, none of the context you speak about in relation to Chegwin and Gervais is evident in the 1 min 28 secs clip you provided – except to the initiated such as yourself. Nor did you bother to provide such context, it had to be dragged out of you. Whether you like it or not, the readership of this newspaper and hopefully this Blog extends wider than the fan-base of “alternative” comedy. You are a very intelligent and articulate man but with a narrow range of cultural interests.

Deaglan,

Also, as far as I recall Hot Press put an access charge on it pretty quick, as I could not access it within about 2-3 weeks of the story breaking.

Dave, You seem to be under the impression that “Humorist” might be a pseudonym for Tommy T. In fact, the email address supplied with the comment shows it is another pseudonym for the contributor who usually calls herself “Ruby”. I had warned her before about using different pseudonyms but this one slipped through the net.

Actully dave you’re wrong…no-one did because he didn’t exist!

Minxie,

Sacha Baron Cohen’s character is also sexist, and the last time I checked he wasn’t a woman.

(MODERATOR’S NOTICE: THIS IS RUBY UNDER YET ANOTHER PSEUDONYM) Hilarious! Despite all your lambasting of Tiernan and his comedy routine you couldn’t resist the temptation to check the email addresses to see if it was him that had posed the comment….LOL…wheeze…LOL…! DUH!

…and Minxie, the point is that the joke is not about the Holocaust, so your comparison to a “joke about the Famine” is erroneous.

Joanna,

Most young people are not anti-semitic. Some of them disagree with Israel, to put it simplistically, but that is not the same thing as being anti-semitic.

Most of them, however, do have a problem with people who are self-righteous, especially my generation who have seen the self-righteous exposed as frauds more than any other generation previously. I have no problem with people who make the self-righteous the butt of a joke.

I don’t think that the Mexicans joke is that offensive, and one would have to wonder if a couple found a joke like that offensive what they were doing at a Tommy Tiernan show in the first place.

That aside, the reason I think the joke works is that the audience cheer. Now, if it was a bigoted rant thinly disguised as a poor joke, as you say, then you would have to accept that the audience were bigots cheering at bigoted statements. Now, generally the only place where bigots cheer at biggoted statements is at BNP rallies, and Ugandan anti-gay rallies etc. where they know they are among bigots. There may have been some racists in the room when Michael Richards went on his rant, but nobody cheered, because the racism was meant, and racism isn’t to be cheered and isn’t funny, obviously.

Now, logically, this would also have to lead you to the conclusion that people who were there or read the script, or saw the clip and defended Tiernan were bigots defending another bigot.

That is, of course, not the case. The editor of Hot Press is not a bigot, and he edits a paper which reports on irish comedy, art, music and culture, so I think he’s a pretty good judge of what works and what doesn’t work in an artistic sense. I think he’s a far better judge than Deaglán who knows so much about Irish culture that he thinks arresting a few celebrities might lessen drug use in this country (because every time Pete Doherty gets arrested people go “jesus maybe I shouldn’t be smoking this spliff”) Deaglán finds the Gervais sketch so offensive that he won’t post a link to it here, and yet not one Jewish or Gay organisation has complained about it, so far as I know. Is he really a good judge of what is offensive and what isn’t?

How do you account for the fact that the editor of Hot Press, the person who interviewed him on the day, people who aren’t anti-semitic but still go to Tiernan shows in their droves disagree with your summation of the joke? Perhaps this is just not your sort of humour.

We could go for comment after comment about whose opinion is right or wrong, but at least we can accept that it is a matter of opinion about a joke. I think that politicians have better things to be doing than demanding apologies from comedians whose jokes they think don’t quite work.

I have no problem with people using accents on stage, just as I have no problem with actors using accents in a movie or TV show, and Frankie Boyle is a fine one to go on about offending people (if Deaglán decides not to post this you can find it by searching for Frankie Boyle offensive jokes).

Finally, you say this trend in comedy is worrying. I don’t. Consider this: comedy by Ricky Gervais would not have been possible 40-50 years ago, because some people at the time would have had no problem cheering at homophobia, racism, sexism, which would have destroyed the joke of the social awkwardness of the situation….and indeed many comedians of that era made successful careers touring around making quips about minorities. Those comedians have disappeared in mainstream comedy (they may still scratch around working men’s clubs and BNP meetings). Don’t you think that that is actually a good development?

There are times when I feel like a Social Democrat in Munich circa 1923 or that I have woken up in a bierkeller in Nuremberg ca. 1936. There are elements about so-called “alternative” comedy that suggest an incipient type of reactionary politics. The repopularisation of so-called “humour” directed against Jews, for example: “It’s only a joke, you’re not cool if you don’t laugh.” And elsewhere, the permissive attitude towards hard drugs, giving a free ride to an evil, multi-billion-dollar network of crime and cruelty that is destroying society. Every time a young man is shot dead in the latest Dublin gangland shooting, a middle-class drug-user in the south city is helping to pull the trigger.
Aidan: you are misrepresenting my position on hard drugs. I don’t oppose stricter law enforcement of course but my real target is the tolerant attitude of society in general, including people like yourself. I would argue that drug-dealers and indeed “celebrity” drug-users should be treated like paedophiles in terms of public opinion. The kind of coverage given to the convicted rapist Larry Murphy should also be given to drug-dealers on their release.
BTW It’s a bit pathetic the way you hide behind the skirts of Hot Press. If they really are such stalwart and proud defenders of TT as you say, let them stop charging Eur 20 for access to his Electric Picnic routine and share this supposed magnificence with the hoi polloi.

Ruby is right.

No matter how many examples of really offensive statements that work in a comic context I come up, and how I build my case, all I’m going to get is personal insults and childish remarks about Stalin and such.

I find it disappointing that the standard of discussion on this subject has been so low, especially on a blog hosted by the purported “paper of record”.

There was a chance to have a proper discussion about what is and isn’t acceptable in a comic context, how context works etc, but it seems that the host is more interested in labelling people who disagree with him as mini-hitlers and ruminating on their characters.

I hope in the future that the Irish Times does something like The Guardian and has guest bloggers to blog on both sides of a subject, and that if they allow demands of apology on their blog that a least the demands will come from people who actually have a knowledge of the subject they are writing about.

Just because this is the “blogs” section, it doesn’t mean that The Irish Times should accept a lower standard, and it certainly shouldn’t accept a standard as low as this. It’s laughable that someone who finds the show Extras to be horrifically offensive is the best the Irish Times has to offer on the subject of a comedian’s routine.

Then again, The Irish Times did send a man who admitted he’d never been to a live comedy show before to investigate Tiernan. That being said, Mr. Mc Garry wrote a decent article. Dave, this is essential reading for you:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/1013/1224256508929.html

“The recent fuss was so much ado about nothing.”

Aidan,

Aidan @102 “Deaglán finds the Gervais sketch so offensive that he won’t post a link to it here, and yet not one Jewish or Gay organisation has complained about it, so far as I know. Is he really a good judge of what is offensive and what isn’t?”

And yet, Aidan, when Jewish organizations complain that some of Tiernan’s “jokes” are anti-Semtic and offensive to them you dismiss their compalints away in terms of them not really understanding Tiernan’s real motives.

Aidan, you’re full of contradictions. Mind you, aren’t we all. But in this instance you, unlike Deaglan, have not got a clear appreciation as to what Jews and gays find offensive. According to you they appear not have a right to judge this in Tierann’s case. ! I won’t lower myself to the level where somone might just want to call you a bit of a schmuck (although I will be honest with you: I have on occasion thought it, but then dismissed it).

However I do admire your tenacity in the face of overwhelming logic and common sense thrown at you.

You are very entertaining though. You would do a good job as a PR spokesperson or agent for Tiernan. However one suggestion if you ever do take it up: concentrate on Iran. He is exactly the type of comic they’d love. As they are so obsessed over there with denying the Holocaust, I am sure that they’d go into hysterics at Tommy’s Holocaust humour over there.

Pity he’s a few years too late for Iran’s “Best Holocaust Cartoon Competition”. Had he put his routine into cartoon form he’d have won it by a mile.

Aidan,

You’re right it’s not my type of comedy. I was of the impression from previous comments by you before that you did not think this particular routine by Tommy Tiernan was a good one. The cheer means nothing. There is an element of crowd behaviour when people laugh and clap at things and sometimes in audiences some people act on automatic, but you might find that many in the audience were cringing during his routine and found it unfunny. I have found routines of Tommy Tiernan’s very funny though, when he did routines about his school years for example, but I attended a do for a friend’s work a few years ago and I was very dissapointed with his routine, it relied a lot of crude jokes that I did not find funny.

To me a lot of the comedians that are sucessful now come accross as immature, not in the clownish sense but rather like 40 year old teenagers. I think there are some great comedians around now, but there were great comedians around before too like Dave Allen, Mike Yarwood, Morecombe and Wise. I can’t think of any comedian now that is as funny as they were then. Of course that’s my taste and opinion. You might say I am old fashioned. You are right in what you say, about people disagreeing with Israel not being antisemitic, but anti israeli sentiment, is a different thing to being critical of Israeli actions and there is a thin line between it and racism and anti semetism. Why in this particular joke does Tommy Tiernan bring up self righteousness about Israeli’s being a hunted people? He is interchanging being Jewish and being Israeli in that part of the routine. I am not demanding his apology by the way just saying it is something that I expect, not as a politician, just as a fellow Irish person. You said earlier there was no outcry and I was bringing to your attention that the organisation tasked with educating people in Ireland about the Holocaust had condemned him and sought an apology. He is an ambassador for Ireland when he performs abroad, and now he is a public broadcaster, and there is a latent anti semetism and racism out there that he should make sure he does not play to, in my view.

Deaglán,

The logic is quite simple. I’m sure Hot Press are proud of their work on lots and lots of different and far more important issues etc. ALL OF IT is archive material. All of it!

It’s not as if they have removed it from their archives, and €20 is not exactly an insurmountable sum to pay for information you want, is it? I’m sure you could fish it out of petty cash there.

If they gave away the work they were proudest of for free, you MIGHT have a point. And that’s still a might. This issue is hardly huge and isn’t of huge interest to most people. However, they don’t do that, and therefore you haven’t even got a whisper of a point.

To have to explain this to someone who writes for The Irish Times is depressing.

That anyone – comedian, Nazi, human rights activist, anyone on this earth – could think that the following lines are funny is beyond me: “F—ing six million? I would have got 10 or 12 million out of that. No f—ing problem. Two at a time they would have gone. Hold hands. Get in there. Leave us your teeth and your glasses.”. Regardless of the purpose. Just as we know that describing the death of Christ or anyone at all in similar obscene terms -even though it was simply meant to make a point – would be to go against most sane people’s sense of common decency.

The ABSURD subtext of the Breadun Bunch hysterics (not pun intended) taken to its logical conclusion is that: only Jews can make jokes about Jews, only ‘Niggaz’ can make jokes about ‘Niggaz’, only GAYS can make jokes about GAYS only Women can make jokes about Women and only ‘Paddies’ can make jokes about ‘Paddies’…
Ergo Sacha Baron Cohen aka Ali G is racist when he makes jokes about ‘Gangsta Rappers’ or sexist when he refers to womens ‘punani’ (I know a great anecdote about that but I’ll save it for my memoirs…
Satire is a way of lampooning stereotypes…
‘Alternative comedy’ is a bit more hardcore, in your face and it makes people confront their prejudices/stereotypes…
What’s HILARIOUS about the crawthumping B/S on this blog is that the usual right wing reactionaries who normally accuse anyone slightly to the left of Attila the Hun of being a ‘liberal fundamentalist’ (a contradiction in terms I know!) have come over all PC about a comedy routine….I feel your PAIN…!
Deaglan you really neEd to get some therapy and resolve that anal fixation you have about pseudonyms…inadequate potty training perhaps…? You’re obviously very tight if you can’t afford 20 euro for an internet link….

((MODERATOR’S NOTE: THIS IS ‘RUBY’ UNDER ANOTHER PSEUDONYM)) @91 Joanna…If your going to lecture someone on Anti Semitism For God’s Sake get the spelling RIGHT…you’ve spelt it anti semetic TWICE…

@99 dave if that’s waht passes for ‘Wit’ in your Casa then God bless you…and illustrates better than any of your posts that you are not really in a postition to criticise anyone’s comedy…
Are you Jewish btw?

Aiden You should consider suing the Irish Times for the appallingly defamatory insults you have been subjected to on this blog.

Aidan I apologise most profusely if I have mispelt your name…long day at work …the cutting edge of Criminal Law…no offence…
Save that my comment about who killed baby Jesus followed by my follow up remark ‘no one because he didn’t exist’ was ironic …
I treat Dec’s rant with the contempt it deserves…
I have no problem with Jewish people in fact some of my many Jewish friends and best boyfriends were ‘Chosen’ as they frequently reminded me…that old Jewish humour again! …
They quite often had a problem with Gentiles particularly Catholics tho’, probably your your contemporaries probably Deaglan/barbera aka minnie/mingie etc…
I asked the question of dave because of his in-depth knowledge and obvious passion about the Politics of the Middle East and Gaza…try again man!
Have you got a degree in missing the bleeding point…?

@118
ruby says:

“Aiden You should consider suing the Irish Times for the appallingly defamatory insults you have been subjected to on this blog.”

Read my response in Ali G accent : And you is da one talkin’ about freedom of speech! You is a dumb ass!

By your flawed and easily refuted reasoning, I use the term loosely, Johnny Speight who created everyone’s favourite bigot ‘Alf Garnett’, played coincidentally by that exceptional Jewish actor Warren Mitchell, must also be a racist Anti Semitic and Homophobic…!
Btw I asked dave if he was Jewish because there are some Canadian dave’s in my family and I thought we might be related…In fact I might even be Jewish…
barbera/minniie.minxie/mingie…I’d stick with the Mr Ed/Beverley Hillbillies… more your gen/era…
Haven’t you got any fights to pick on the Scree**iter blog or are you still licking your would from Neary’s drubbing….l?
Gotta leave it to you Aidan…not that you need any support…up to my proverbials in work…

Okay, folks, I’m off on holidays and this discussion is now closed. We’ve heard a wide range of arguments and it’s been very interesting and informative. My thanks to all who showed a genuine interest, and may I extend a special welcome to the new contributors. I intend to be back blogging in a few weeks’ time and I hope you will all still be full of vituperation, anger and the occasional sharp insight. ‘Bye for now