Welcome To Zelo Street!

This is a blog of liberal stance and independent mind

Wednesday 9 January 2019

Rachel Riley Totally At Sea On Chomsky

After she had decided - wrongly - to tell the world that campaigner and linguist Noam Chomsky had “promoted anti-Semitism”, Z-list sleb Rachel Riley, whose CV extends to doing the letters and numbers for Channel 4’s Countdown and little else, could have taken time out to do a little of that research which was so sadly missing from her earlier efforts. But it was a temptation that she was able to resist.
Instead, she has latched on to what is known as the Faurisson affair, which concerns the controversy surrounding a work by the academic Robert Faurisson, latterly a Holocaust denier. A piece he published in 1980 had an introduction by Chomsky, and Ms Riley has leapt on to this in order to justify her claims of “promoting anti-Semitism”.

To all messaging outrage after recent thread re Antisemitism, not because of the AS I highlighted, but because I said one of their heroes (Chomsky) promoted Antisemitism. Here he is, supporting a Holocaust denier. If that doesn’t promote Antisemitism, I don’t know what does”. Sadly, this conclusion is plain flat wrong.
Chomsky said of his introduction - the text is available online with very little searching required - “I made it explicit that I would not discuss Faurisson’s work, having only limited familiarity with it (and, frankly, little interest in it). Rather, I restricted myself to the civil-liberties issues and the implications of the fact that it was even necessary to recall Voltaire’s famous words in a letter to M. le Riche: ‘I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.’

He went on “Faurisson’s conclusions are diametrically opposed to views I hold and have frequently expressed in print … But it is elementary that freedom of expression … is not to be restricted to views of which one approves, and that it is precisely in the case of views that are almost universally despised and condemned that this right must be most vigorously defended. It is easy enough to defend those who need no defense or to join in unanimous … condemnation of a violation of civil rights by some official enemy”.
The article in which Chomsky expounds these views, published in The Nation in February 1981, has a title which should put anyone unsure of the subject matter straight: “His Right To Say It”. Chomsky concludes by musing “It seems to me something of a scandal that it is even necessary to debate these issues two centuries after Voltaire defended the right of free expression for views he detested. It is a poor service to the memory of the victims of the holocaust to adopt a central doctrine of their murderers”.

Ms Riley has, it seems, not availed herself of Chomsky’s text. She condemns him for guilt-by-association, rather than bothering to read what he said. Chomsky had “little interest” in what Faurisson had to say: his concern was that the right to speak freely should not be subjected to censorship, or otherwise be abridged in any way.

Once again, Rachel Riley opts for the convenient smear, rather than undertake the less convenient alternative of five minutes’ searching, followed by ten minutes’ reading.

This field is, inevitably, more complex than doing a few sums. One can only imagine Channel 4 bosses willing her to stop digging herself in deeper.
Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by adding to its Just Giving page at


Mark said...

And yet she goes on to say in replies under this that its important you do your research and from sources you trust! Obviously her trusty source is David Baddiel who happily distorts the truth to suit his own ends.

Anonymous said...

Riley: "I don't know what is."

How true.

How VERY true.

Nigel Stapley said...

I'm so glad that I junked my television set over 12 years ago, so that I don't have to waste my life knowing who people like her are.

Anonymous said...

In other words: a schoolgirly, panicky and pathetic attempt to link Chomsky to AS. Fuck off. Seriously: fuck off. You have no idea.

Unknown said...

This woman is very naive and misguided. She clearly knows nothing of Chomsky's work or the history of the left of fighting all forms of bigotry. She didn't appear to know that Labour are the least AS political party, that they have adopted the dodgy IHRA definition and the fact that she quotes GnasherJew as one of her main sources illustrates the fact she doesn't yet understand how she is being manipulated.I can't make the same excuses for the producers at Ch4

Anonymous said...

Zelo Street, I am not sure you make your case that Rachel Riley is totally at sea on Chomsky.

First you base your position on what "Chomsky said of his introduction", but not on what Chomsky said in his introduction to the work in question.

In that introduction Chomsky goes beyond his later claim you quote: "I made it explicit that I would not discuss Faurisson’s work, having only limited familiarity with it" when he says:

"Putting this central issue aside, is it true that Faurisson is an anti-Semite or a neo-Nazi? As noted earlier, I do not know his work very well. But from what I have read — largely as a result of the nature of the attacks on him — I find no evidence to support either conclusion. Nor do I find credible evidence in the material that I have read concerning him, either in the public record or in private correspondence. As far as I can determine, he is a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort."

Clearly Chomsky is discussing the limited works of Faurisson he has read when professing that as far as he can determine Faurisson is a relatively apolitical liberal and neither an anti-Semite or a neo-Nazi.

Ironically, in another portion of "His Right to Say It" Chomsky makes the observation: "As Faye predicted, many showed themselves incapable of distinguishing between defense of the right of free expression and defense of the views expressed — and not only in France."

You would think Chomsky would have had the integrity to admit that he too was capable of making that simple error.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 22:19
So, by not having absolute proof that Faurisson is an anti-Semite makes Chomsky an anti-Semite?
You're almost as bad as the idiot Riley in your assessment.