A defiant Ken Livingstone insisted he had nothing to apologise for as he arrived at a misconduct panel facing fresh criticism from campaigners over his controversial comments about Adolf Hitler.
The former London mayor repeated his claim that there was "collaboration" between the Nazi leader and the Zionist movement before the Second World War and denounced the hearing as "unfair".
Around one third of voters believe he should be expelled from the party, according to polling, and the Holocaust Educational Trust said Mr Livingstone had persisted in causing offence.
The Labour veteran was suspended in April last year after claiming that Hitler supported Zionism in the 1930s before he ''went mad and ended up killing six million Jews''.
A hearing run by Labour's national constitutional committee that could last up to two days will decide if he should be kicked out.
But Mr Livingstone said the process was "completely unfair" and criticised the decision to hold it in private.
"They have dropped all the charges that I'm anti-Semitic," he told reporters. "They've dropped the charge that I said Hitler was a Zionist."
Mr Livingstone insisted he had nothing to apologise for, repeating his previous argument that he had only stated historical fact.
"I simply said, back in 1933 Hitler's government signed a deal with the Zionist movement, which would mean that Germany's Jewish community were moved to what is now Israel."
He added: "You had, right up until the start of the Second World War, real collaboration."
In a written submission to the panel released earlier this week, Mr Livingstone said he had ''raised the issue of the collaboration between Hitler and a section of Zionism in the early 1930s'' as a result of a misunderstanding of presenter Vanessa Feltz's question during a BBC London interview.
He said he had ''no intention'' to cause offence but was ''sorry'' if his remarks did so.
The ally of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said he had taken to the airwaves to defend the reputation of the party after MP Naz Shah had come under fire for social media posts she subsequently apologised for, and admitted contained anti-Semitic language, although Mr Livingstone said they were ''not obviously anti-Semitic''.
He faces a charge of engaging in conduct that was grossly detrimental to the party.
A ComRes poll for Jewish News found that 29% of voters believe Mr Livingstone should be expelled from the party over the comments, compared with 20% who did not.
The study also found that 34% of voters said allegations of anti-Semitism in the party made them "think twice about voting Labour" while 29% said they did not.
It is not the first time Mr Livingstone has become embroiled in an anti-Semitism row.
In 2006 a High Court judge said he made ''unnecessarily offensive'' and ''indefensible'' remarks likening a Jewish reporter to a Nazi concentration camp guard. But he was cleared of bringing the office of mayor into disrepute.
Karen Pollock, chief executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust, said Mr Livingstone had persisted in causing offence.
She said: "Even when it has been made blatantly clear that his comments have caused deep hurt and offence to Jewish people, and in particular to Holocaust survivors, still Ken Livingstone has persisted down this route - repeatedly invoking the Holocaust, promoting a misleading and misinformed version of history to further his agenda. Enough is enough."
Mr Livingstone, who is being represented by high profile lawyer Michael Mansfield QC, was previously expelled from the party when he announced he would stand as an independent in the London mayoral race after losing the Labour selection process.
:: ComRes interviewed 2,034 British adults online between March 24-26. Data was weighted to be demographically representative.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel