Originally Posted by
KerrAvon
Your understanding is incorrect, raging. He didn’t state ‘his support for an artist's right to convey their thoughts on the world as they see it through their art’. He saw a piece on Facebook where a graffiti artist talked about plans for the mural in question to be removed and responded with the following: “Why? You are in good company. Rockerfeller destroyed Diego Viera’s mural because it includes a picture of Lenin.”
The reference to Rockefeller was to a mural taken down in New York in 1934.
There’s nothing there about ‘his support for an artist's right to convey their thoughts on the world as they see it through their art’, is there?
So you then move on to ‘At that point there was no evidence that he had seen that mural.’ Well, no there isn’t if you suspend all sense of reason and reality and approach matters upon the basis that The Great Leader is in the habit of mooching around the internet until he comes across the Facebook account of a graffiti artist who is about to have some work taken down and then defends their work without bothering to look at it.
And, of course, there is the ‘apology’ issued by him in which he stated I sincerely regret that I did not look more closely at the image I was commenting on, the contents of which are deeply disturbing and anti-Semitic. I take the words ‘I did not look more closely’, as an admission that he did look at it. Can you think of an alternative interpretation? What is the line that Momentum suggests for when dealing with this issue? Or is that what we got last night?
Let me put it this way - no criminal offence has been committed here but, if a jury had to decide whether The Great Leader saw the mural before posting about it, I’d prefer to be prosecuting rather than defending. And if I were defending, I’d be giving The Great Leader some firm advice about how limited his prospects of success were.
I suppose one of the questions that someone might ask of The Great Leader is when his ‘support for an artist's right to convey their thoughts on the world as they see it through their art’ arose given that he was a speaker at a rally condemning the Danish Mohammed cartoons. A follow up question would be to ask him why he appeared to be happy with art that is offensive to Jews, but not art that is offensive to Muslims. Perhaps you believe that he had an epiphany on the bus one day?
In my job, I sometimes have to advance arguments that I don’t think hold any water at all, so I know what a miserable task that can be. With that being the case, I do feel for you as you to try to hold to the Labour line on mural gate. But given that you tell us that spreading Labour spin and disinformation isn’t your job there must surely come a point where your intellectual self-respect says ‘enough’ isn’t there? I don't have you down as a gullible reader of any particular newspaper, because I don't think anyone of your obvious intelligence could actually believe in the argument that you are trying to make.