My Administrative Suspension from the Labour Party

OK, here's the letter suspending me from the Labour Party. I don't know why it's so difficult to publish a pdf but you need to click on the top right corner of the doc below and then you'll see the whole thing:


 

Betrayed by Bureaucrats? That Leaked Labour Report and the Disappearing Daily Mirror Article

I did a post yesterday night about how an article in The Daily Mirror about the "leaked Labour report", had been disappeared from its website. I found it on the Wayback Machine and copied and pasted it to my own post without much comment but I am mystified as to its content and why it has been pulled. Most newspapers only do that in extreme circumstances like they've been threatened in some way by the state or by lawyers.

Let's see that article again:

Labour ask police to investigate claims staff worked for Tory election victory 

EXCLUSIVE: Sir Keir Starmer ordered the probe after being elected the new leader of the Labour party - and police have started to look in to death threats made against staff

Labour chiefs have called in police as part of an inquiry into claims party HQ staff worked secretly for a Tory election victory. 

A probe was ordered by new Labour leader Keir Starmer and approved by an emergency meeting of the National Executive Committee last week. 

Death threats and abuse against staff involved have been reported and police called as the wide-ranging probe gets under way.  

A full-scale operation has been mounted to shut down distribution of a leaked report alleging that senior campaign managers were part of a clandestine group trying to stop Jeremy Corbyn becoming PM.  

A report has been filed with the Information Commissioner’s Office while an internal investigation is looking at a “serious” data breach via WhatsApp messages and email. 

Party officials have also contacted social media companies to take down any copies of the report still online and local parties told not to share it. 

Crucially, the NEC decided to prioritise the claims made in the report over the circumstances of how it was leaked. 

An NEC member confirmed it was decided to refer the matter to the police, who will be updated on the party’s findings. The inquiry has been fast-tracked to conclude in mid-July. 

There is speculation it may be headed by Lord Larry Whitty, who was party general secretary under Neil Kinnock.

So, the headline tells us that the police have been called to "investigate claims staff worked for Tory election victory". Ok, so already there is ambiguity. Are police investigating the staff for some breach of electoral law or are they investigating those who claim that McNicol, Sam Matthews, et al (the Mirror report doesn't name them) worked for a Tory election victory?

The Mirror then says that "Sir Keir Starmer ordered the probe" [my emphasis] but it hasn't said what the probe probing. It then says that the police are looking into death threats made against the staff. So what started as the possibility of police investigating allegations of serious, possibly illegal, misconduct by a bunch of Blairite bureaucrats quickly becomes an attempt to garner sympathy for the people the police might truly be investigating.

The Mirror was clearly working on the assumption that anyone who follows these things, Labour members and many voters would know about the "leaked Labour report". The report might well be findable on the net but if you can't find it, Craig Murray's report on the report is as good as any except he falls for the false allegations of antisemitism against Ken Livingstone. Sorry, don't let me digress.

Anyway, so the Mirror has said police are on the case of matters in connection with the now famous, in spite of the media and a certain Zionist lawyer trying to bury it, "leaked Labour report" but it doesn't say what the police are investigating apart from death threats and abuse.

Now the evidence of skulduggery and possibly illegality on the part of McNicol and his cohort is evidenced in the report. I mean it's possible that whoever wrote the report simply fabricated the content of emails and WhatsApp messages but a) it's not likely and b) layers have threatened proceedings over Data Protection and breach of privacy. I reckon that suggests that the alleged content of the emails and WhatsApps must be true or else how could it be a breach of privacy or data protection protocols?

And then the Mirror piece gets back to the stuff of the headline. Apparently police have been called to look into the work the skulduggerers were doing to secure a Tory election victory. I don't know if that is illegal or how illegal it was to do what they did. The Mirror kind of says that it's the Labour leadership that has called in the police for this but then seems to be saying that Starmer is more interested in the leaking of the report.

Labour chiefs have called in police as part of an inquiry into claims party HQ staff worked secretly for a Tory election victory. 

A probe was ordered by new Labour leader Keir Starmer and approved by an emergency meeting of the National Executive Committee last week. 

Death threats and abuse against staff involved have been reported and police called as the wide-ranging probe gets under way.  

See? it's all a bit garbled but whereas the "leaked Labour report" purports to show evidence of what it is alleging, where is the evidence of death threats against the people named in the report? The only evidence I heard of a death threat against anyone named in the report was against Sam Matthews and that threat was made by Sam Matthews himself and he admitted, well claimed as much in the now notorious BBC Panorama programme by John Ware supposedly on Labour antisemitism.

The article then speaks of the extraordinary effort going into barring the report from public view and reports of data protection breaches before making this interesting observation:

Crucially, the NEC decided to prioritise the claims made in the report over the circumstances of how it was leaked. 

Now that would be a crumb of comfort if it were true. The claims made in the report are absolutly damning and have already led to the welcome departure of Lord McNicol from the Labour front bench while Sam Matthews seems to have dug in and Zionist and Blairite lawyers together with leading Goyishe Zionist, John Ware, making all sorts of legal threats over I'm not sure what.

After all that, I have no answers and for the immediate term I only have one question, why did the Daily Mirror disappear the article?

Labour ask police to investigate claims staff worked for Tory election victory

That headline replaces my original headline for this post which was something about The Daily Mirror having disappeared an article from its website about the leaked Labour report and the fact that Labour chiefs have called in the police about it. By the time I had got to the end of the post, the article had disappeared from the Wayback machine though they might have some genuine technical problems. Anyway, I've changed the headline on my post to match the original headline from the Mirror piece. Now read on....

I don't know why this article has been disappeared, airbrushed if you will, from The Daily Mirror's website but thankfully the Wayback Machine and I am posting here in full. To be honest I have only read the headline so far, oh, and a Reddit discussion which slags the headline. So let's have a butchers.

Labour ask police to investigate claims staff worked for Tory election victory 

EXCLUSIVE: Sir Keir Starmer ordered the probe after being elected the new leader of the Labour party - and police have started to look in to death threats made against staff

Labour chiefs have called in police as part of an inquiry into claims party HQ staff worked secretly for a Tory election victory. 

A probe was ordered by new Labour leader Keir Starmer and approved by an emergency meeting of the National Executive Committee last week. 

Death threats and abuse against staff involved have been reported and police called as the wide-ranging probe gets under way.  

A full-scale operation has been mounted to shut down distribution of a leaked report alleging that senior campaign managers were part of a clandestine group trying to stop Jeremy Corbyn becoming PM.  

A report has been filed with the Information Commissioner’s Office while an internal investigation is looking at a “serious” data breach via WhatsApp messages and email. 

Party officials have also contacted social media companies to take down any copies of the report still online and local parties told not to share it. 

Crucially, the NEC decided to prioritise the claims made in the report over the circumstances of how it was leaked. 

An NEC member confirmed it was decided to refer the matter to the police, who will be updated on the party’s findings. The inquiry has been fast-tracked to conclude in mid-July. 

There is speculation it may be headed by Lord Larry Whitty, who was party general secretary under Neil Kinnock.

I can't see what's problematic enough for the article to be pulled. It doesn't name any names.

Oh wait. I sent the Wayback link to a friend and she couldn't open it. I said to just click it which I just tried to do and, what do you know? It's disappeared from Wayback. I'll need a masters in Kremlinology to get to the bottom of this one.  This JSF page might be the last surviving record of an unremarkable article except it seems to be trying to make martyrs of the biggest traitors against democracy and the Labour movement the UK has ever known.

UPDATE: 10:57 27/04/2020. I got an email from Wayback Machine early this morning because I had tagged them in two tweets complaining at the disappearance of the Mirror article from their website and they assured me that it was only a technical glitch and that they had fixed it which they have. So apologies to them and you, dear reader (if you exist), for any aspersions cast.  It's business as usual at the Wayback Machine.  BTW, the Mirror article was saved at Wayback three times before it disappeared from the Mirror website.

Is Corbyn Embarrassing Corbyn or the Zionist "Glitterati"?

I just noticed a Marcus Dysch article in the print edition of the Jewish Chronicle headlined, "Yet again, Corbyn has embarrassed himself".  I googled those very words out of quotes to see if the piece is on line and, yes, it is.  Here's the search, Yet again, Corbyn has embarrassed himself.  And top of the list is Dysch's article.  It's a gripe about Jeremy Corbyn refusing to attend the Balfour Declaration celebratory dinner.

It was, of course, an open secret among communal leaders that Jeremy Corbyn was unlikely to accept their invitation to next week’s gala Balfour Declaration centenary dinner.

The Labour leader, with decades of anti-Israel campaigning under his belt, was never going to sit alongside the country’s glitterati — its political, social, religious, diplomatic and charity leaders — for the slap-up meal.

When the invitations went out, I was told by a senior Jewish Leadership Council figure that no pressure would be put on Mr Corbyn to turn up, nor would a fuss be made if he declined.

After the past two years of trials and tribulations between the Labour chief and the community, there was no desire to cause embarrassment, or a major row, on either side. 

As my source predicted, Emily Thornberry will represent Labour, although the Leader of the Opposition’s office failed to live up to the other part of the prophecy and blame a diary clash, offering instead no explanation for his absence.

So there was a muted response beyond Jonathan Goldstein saying it was “deeply unfortunate” and Hamas welcoming the news.

Let’s be honest, few friends of Israel will have wanted Mr Corbyn there. But it is the principle that counts.

Ms Thornberry filling in for Mr Corbyn at a Labour Friends of Israel reception at the party conference last month brought ridicule on them both when she claimed he was preparing for his speech but everyone knew he was out partying.

For the Labour leader now to avoid this major event sends another clear message, and shames his party. 

If Mr Corbyn wants to be Prime Minister, he needs first to learn how to be a statesman. The great offices of our nation demand more than former backbenchers still clinging to personal grievances.

What's noticeable about the piece is the sheer arrogance it oozes.  The "country's glitterati" are to celebrate handing Palestine on a platter to the Zionist movement.  Seniors of the Jewish Leadershio Council decided, "no pressure would be  put on Mr Corbyn to turn up, nor would a fuss be made if he declined."  Well that's very big of the big wigs and Mr Corbyn didn't even have the decency to invent an excuse for refusing to celebrate the UK's and Israel's imperial past and present.

But the google search threw up other finds too including the words Corbyn and something with embarrass as its root.  A debate between Corbyn and Owen Smith in the second Labour leadership contest had a LabourList article asking, Was Corbyn "an embarrassment" or did he carry himself "with dignity"?  Of course we now know he carried himself with enough dignity to win the contest.  That was last year, 2016.

The next article in the search with the word "embarrassment" in it was one in the Telegraph.  The word "embarrassment" used regarding his wife's coffee business.  Nothing to do with him and anyway, that was back in 2015.

Next up we have Huffington Post finding "Ex-Jeremy Corbyn Supporters" who "Are 'Embarrassed' They Voted For Him".  That was before the second leadership bid.  2016 again.  I wonder how embarrassed they are now he came close to winning the general election this year.

The list on the google page goes on.  The fact is, Marcus Dysch's arrogance is misplaced.  Corbyn has not embarrassed himself at all.  He has shown himself to be in a position to embarrass the Zionist movement which is precisely why these Zionist "glitterati" aren't making a fuss about the second slap in the face Corbyn has dealt them since refusing to attend a Labour Friends of Israel rally at the recent Labour Party Conference 2017 in Brighton.

So is Corbyn embarrassing Corbyn or is Corbyn embarrassing the Zionist "glitteratti"  You might want to ask or tell Marcus Dysch of the Jewish Chronicle.  I can't ask or tell him on Twitter because he's blocked me.

Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi addresses the Labour Party Conference 2017

Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi helping to restore Labour's credibility as an ant-racist internationalist party after many recent betrayals of the Palestinian cause and its supporters since Jeremy Corbyn came under attack from Blairites and the Zionist movement upon becoming Labour leader.

Here's a transcript of the speech I've just nabbed from Tony Greenstein's blog:

Naomi: Thank you, thank you Chair. My name is Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi. Despite my grey hairs I am a virgin in terms of the Conference, first-time delegate, hooray. I'm from Chingford & Woodford Green, the newly marginal constituency, where we are going to unseat Iain Duncan Smith. [loud cheers and applause] Thank you, but don't take up too much of my three minutes. Come and help us bring about a sweet Portillo moment, when the time comes.

Now, I'm here today because although I care deeply about Brexit and the debate has been excellent in some respects, I want to welcome the insertion into the NPF Annual Report section on the Middle East of the key paragraph from our ground-breaking Manifesto which referred to Israel's occupation and settlement of Palestinian land [cheers and applause]. I am so pleased that this section has been put back in after being inexplicably omitted from the NPF Report. Let me tell you my perspective on this. I'm Jewish; I come from the tradition of anti-racist and anti-colonialist struggle, a Socialist Labour tradition of international solidarity with oppressed people. [applause] This is not some meaningless David Sparks slogan out of the pages of Private Eye. It's a fundamental feature of our traditions as a party committed to justice and equality.

Oppression and discrimination are rampant in today's world. So why Palestine? Well it's not only that this year marks 50 years of Israeli occupation and illegal settlement. It's not only that this year marks 10 years of the siege of Gaza with intermittent military onslaughts against its people. This year also marks 100 years since the Balfour Declaration, when a British foreign secretary promised the land of Palestine to the Jewish people, my people. The civil rights of the existing population, that's the Palestinians, were meant to be protected, but that turned out to be an empty promise. We Brits, all of us, have a responsibility for what occurred. Despite huge misgivings and even outright opposition from many Jews, our leaders, British leaders, facilitated founding a state which privileges Jews such as myself over non-Jews. [applause] Thank you. I've only got half a minute. Seventy years ago, 750,000 Palestinians were driven from their homes in what for them was a catastrophe, that they call the Nakba. More than 450 towns and villages were destroyed, the world's longest-running refugee population was created. We Brits need to take responsibility for the on-going Palestinian tragedy dating from Balfour's pledge.

So in this Policy Report we call for an end to Israel's blockade on Gaza, an end to occupation and settlements [loud cheering and applause -warned that her time is up she says: damn, I'm nearly there, nearly there, thanks - more applause - OK, I've got two more sentences and my time is up, so please indulge me] and endorsement of a Palestinian state. This is the very least that we should be doing. I say this as a Jew, as an anti-racist and as a dedicated member of this revived Socialist internationalist Labour Party. And Comrades, I'm not an anti-Semite, [cheering] and Conference, and Conference, this party does not have a problem with Jews. Thank you. [prolonged cheering, applause, standing ovation] [4:45' duration of speech]

The section of the Labour Party Conference 2017 that Naomi addressed was titled something like BREXIT and Internationalism.  Apparently Naomi waved a banner identifying her (and Ian Duncan-Smith's) Chingford & Woodford Green constituency and it caught the Chair's eye and she was called to speak almost by chance.

And what a speech!  She covered most of the main points.  She covered how a manifesto pledge on Palestine disappeared and reappeared. she mentioned the key anniversaries, Gaza blockade: 10 years, occupation: 50 years, Balfour: 100 years, Nakba: 70 years and, it shouldn't have needed saying but she made it clear that the Labour Party does not have a problem with Jews.  And it is just possible that her speech was the only one for Palestine that was main event and not fringe.

So what next?  I'm guessing Labour Zionist leader, Jeremy Newmark, will take the opportunity to reprise his disgraceful attempt to close down discussion of Israel/Palestine at the University and College. So let's just see if the so-called Jewish Labour Movement tries to prevent a situation where random activists can be called to speak for internationalism at the Internationalism section of the Labour Party Conference 2018.

This is a serious point. The Labour leadership has been pandering to the Zionist movement at every possible turn and in spite of that, Naomi managed to slip through the net for an open mic spot.  My guess is that the Zionists will try to close that loophole by the time of the next conference, but let's just see....

Ken Livingstone and Naz Shah

Here's an article on Ken Livingstone by David Rosenberg of the Jewish Socialist Group.  In it he seems to come on the side of those seeking Ken's expulsion from the Labour Party:

If  Livingstone had had the nous, he would have simply noted Shah’s acknowledgement that she had crossed a line into antisemitism, welcomed her apology and then used all the weight of his background in anti-racism in London to utterly condemn the Tories for their thoroughly racist campaign against Khan. That could,  and should, have been the story. Instead he tried to excuse Shah’s tweets as “completely over the top but … not antisemitic”. Immediately after this came his infamous remarks about Hitler and Zionism.

David goes on to take exception to Ken invoking Lenni Brenner as a source for his Hitler/Zionism remarks.  David finds Brenner's work wanting.

Brenner’s book reads much more like tabloid journalism than any serious academic study. It makes crude allegations of Zionist-Nazi collaboration, treats the actions of some Zionists as representing all Zionists, and utterly distorts the power relations between Zionists and Nazis.

Within the same article David mentions the main victims of Zionism who have been absent from most of this bogus antisemitism campaign, the Palestinians:

this whole effort to try to find evidence of Zionists behaving badly in the 1930s in order to expose the way Zionism behaves today, is such a poor way of supporting the Palestinians and their just demands. It rests on too many crude generalisations. You do not have to go back to Hitler and the 1930s in order to expose and challenge the oppression of Palestinians by Zionist ideology and practice today.

I have a few problems with David Rosenberg's take on all this and here's something I wrote elsewhere:

Did Naz Shah actually apologise specifically for saying "the Jews are rallying" for Israel or was it a more mealy mouthed showtrial sort of apology couched in terms that failed to pinpoint what she had actually said that was antisemitic?  I thought it was the latter. In fact the more she apologised the more she seemed to be saying something like, "I'm sorry I said whatever I said, I had no idea of the extent to which the Jews rally for Israel".

And did Ken Livingstone actually make an intervention? Or was he invited to a radio interview with Vanessa Feltz? I thought that was the latter.

The first mention of Hitler was by Feltz and Ken responded.  He seemed to be pointing up the hypocrisy of the Zionist movement on the whole question of Nazi Zionist collaboration or of comparisons between Israel and the Nazis.

Certainly Ken invoked Lenni Brenner as a source but there are many sources to support the idea of Zionist collaboration with the Nazis including some that say that Hitler himself must have intervened to maintain Ha'avara when other leading Nazis were against it.

I think to gift the Zionists by throwing Ken under the bus when the NCC seems to have deliberately avoided examination of what Ken (and by extension, Naz Shah) actually did say would be a major mistake not least because if Ken's offence in the eyes of the NCC was to defend Naz Shah then what becomes of people who defended Ken?

My own view is that the NCC didn't expel Ken and avoided discussion of the "historical facts" because, as David said, most of what Naz Shah said wasn't antisemitic and what she did say that was antisemitic was no different from what most Zionists say (and indeed did say at that appalling select committee).  

The NCC avoided what Ken said about Hitler, Nazism and Zionism because what Ken said was broadly correct regardless of whether we run with Lenni Brenner as a source or not.  (eg, see this)

Of course this isn't now simply about the NCC charges. Ken is now being condemned for defending himself whenever the opportunity presented itself.

Regarding whether or not an exposé of Zionist collaboration with antisemitism or nazism is good or bad for the Palestinians is irrelevant given that Ken isn't being accused by JLM or the NCC of not being good for the Palestinians and if he was being good for the Palestinians no doubt he'd be accused of antisemitism for that.

So I don't think we have to twist or ignore facts to support Ken Livingstone. We should welcome a more forensic examination of all of the facts of both Ken and Naz Shah's cases.

For a more detailed examination of the case of Ken Livingstone and the NCC see this article, Compulsory Lies by Mike MacNair in the Weekly Worker.

By its own admission Home Affairs Select Committee on Antisemitism barked up the wrong tree and had nothing to bark at anyway

What a performance about nothing.  The antisemitism crisis "engulfing Labour" has been about nothing, nothing at all.  Well alright, not completely nothing.  The rise of a Palestine solidarity supporter and leftist, Jeremy Corbyn, to the leadership of the Labour Party has sent Tories, Blairites and Zionists into a blind panic but as far as antisemitism goes there is little or nothing to see here.  I can't see and read the whole report.  I just look at snippets at a time.  I know there are outright lies in it from the precious little that I have read.  In fact I just saw this almost by accident:

Mr Livingstone has since admitted that it was “rubbish” to refer to Hitler as a Zionist. Regardless of academic rigour, his decision to invoke Hitler in a debate about antisemitism and Zionism—in defence of a Facebook post [by Naz Shah] comparing Israel with the Nazis—was unwise

Rubbish it may be but Ken didn't refer to "Hitler as a Zionist", he said Hitler supported Zionism for a time and he did.  Naz Shah didn't compare Israel to the Nazis, though there's no reason why she shouldn't. She invoked Martin Luther King to say that legality isn't the sole or a key determinant of right and wrong.  And it wasn't Ken who invoked the Nazis anyway, it was his interviewer, Vanessa Feltz.

Now my guess is that the pack of lies we've just seen gives a flavour of the whole report but something I saw on Twitter yesterday is a stand-out not as a lie but as a fact.  Here's the report.  Now see this:

Despite significant press and public attention on the Labour Party, and a number of revelations regarding inappropriate social media content, there exists no reliable, empirical evidence to support the notion that there is a higher prevalence of antisemitic attitudes within the Labour Party than any other political party. We are unaware whether efforts to identify antisemitic social media content within the Labour Party were applied equally to members and activists from other political parties, and we are not aware of any polls exploring antisemitic attitudes among political party members, either within or outside the Labour Party. The current impression of a heightened prevalence of antisemitism within in the Labour Party is clearly a serious problem, but we would wish to emphasise that this is also a challenge for other parties.

This is strange, if they wish to "emphasise the challenge for other parties" why didn't they?  Because they weren't trying to undermine other parties.  Because there are no other mainstream parties with a leader that supports (or supported) the Palestinian cause.  And that's what this has all been about, protecting the racist war criminals of the State of Israel from the criticism and condemnation that any illegitimate racist entity would attract irrespective of the ethno-religious identity of those it purports to represent.

Smearing anti-racists to protect Zionism

The above title was the heading for a letter by Free Speech on Israel's Les Levidow to the Camden New Journal. The letter appears in the print edition but not (yet) on line. Here it is:

As Vice-Chair of the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM), Mike Katz has again asked the Labour Party to expel members for antisemitic views and for a rule change making this easier. Otherwise the Party will be seen as ‘not welcoming to Jews’ (Katz plea, CNJ, 29.09.2016).  Which Jews does he mean?  And how does the JLM define ‘antisemitic views’?   

The latter question was raised at the JLM’s training session on antisemitism during the Party’s September conference.  Running the session, Mike Katz eventually claimed that the standard definition of antisemitism is ‘the EUMC definition’, i.e. from the European Union Monitoring Committee.  Many Jewish participants there objected, for good reasons: The EUMC never adopted the ‘working definition’ which was temporarily on its website; its successor body has disavowed it.  Although the definition rightly begins with ‘hatred toward Jews’, it also encompasses any views ‘Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g. by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.’  

The latter criterion aims to protect some Jews’ emotional or political attachment to Israel, despite its basis in colonial-settler racism which continues today.  This is perversely equated with 'Jewish self-determination'.  The JLM is affiliated to the Israeli Labour Party, which early on urged employers to select ‘Jewish-only Labour’, has supported new Jewish settlements and today colludes with anti-Arab racism. 

In the Labour Party here, why do pro-Israel activists want to make expulsions easier?    Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership has mobilised and attracted new Labour Party members sympathetic to the campaign of Boycott, Sanctions and Divestment (BDS) against Israel.   Many Jewish members are dissociating themselves from the Zionist project.  To counter these anti-racist forces, the JLM smears them as antisemites.  Many have been suspended from the Labour Party, with little recourse to the due process that was advocated by the Chakrabarti Commission.  In these ways, the JLM aims to protect the colonial-settler character of Israel. Both should be opposed as racist.  For more information, see our website.

Les Levidow, Free Speech on Israel, www.freespeechonisrael.org.uk

UPDATE: The letter is now on line at the Camden New Journal online

JC denies access to Jackie Walker article

I'm getting an Access Denied message on this Jewish Chronicle post but thankfully it is still accessible through Google cache. Google cache doesn't last long so here is the article in full:

Pressure grows on Labour as Momentum expected 

to 'remove' Jackie Walker

By Marcus Dysch, September 30, 2016

Jackie Walker, vice-chair of the Momentum group, on Channel 4 News (Photo: Channel 4)

Jackie Walker, vice-chair of the hard-left Momentum activist group, is expected to be removed from her position on Monday following comments she made about Holocaust Memorial Day.

The move is expected to be confirmed at a meeting of the committee of the pro-Jeremy Corbyn group after a Momentum spokesman told the Guardian that senior members were seeking to remove Ms Walker.

It is not known whether she will be suspended by the group, or by the Labour Party, of which she is a member.

In Monday’s Jewish Labour Movement training session on tackling antisemitism, which took place at the party conference in Liverpool, Ms Walker criticised Holocaust Memorial Day, claiming it should remember genocides other than the Shoah.

She was told that the annual memorial did recognise other episodes of mass murder, but Ms Walker, the vice-chair of the hard-left Momentum group, went on to claim she had not seen a definition of Jew-hate which she could “work with”.

Ms Walker – an ally of Jeremy Corbyn – was suspended and investigated by the party earlier this year for claiming Jews were responsible for the slave trade and an “African holocaust”.

The renewed calls for her to be expelled from Momentum came as Ms Walker defended herself on Channel 4 News.

In an interview with Cathy Newman, Ms Walker said she was not antisemitic, but admitted to being anti-Zionist.

She added: "Whoever leaked this story from a training event had malicious intent in their mind."

The claims of antisemitism were politically motivated, Ms Walker suggested, adding that “prominent” Jewish groups agreed with her.

There were also reports that Jon Lansman, the Jewish founder of Momentum and a friend of Ms Walker, had “reached the end of his tether” and wanted her to be thrown out of the group.

Further pressure came from the TSSA trade union. Manuel Cortes, its general secretary, said: "I am deeply saddened that a fellow member of our Labour and trade union family holds such antisemitic views.

"I am asking Jackie that in the interests of unity she resigns at once from our party and also as vice-chair of Momentum.

“If she doesn't, both the Labour Party and Momentum need to act to get rid of her at once. Furthermore, TSSA will reconsider our union's support for Momentum if she is still in post by this time next week."

Tony Greenstein, a Jewish anti-Zionist activist who was himself suspended from Labour earlier this year, wrote to the party’s National Executive Committee members on Thursday night telling them the JLM session had been “a publicity stunt”.

He wrote: “Jackie's points re the Holocaust not being a solely Jewish preserve and the fact that the definition of antisemitism is contested, are not in any way antisemitic.

“This artificial and concocted hysteria has nothing to do with antisemitism and everything to do with the Zionist movement’s attempt to construct a hegemonic narrative concerning the Nazi Holocaust.”

John Mann, the Labour MP who chairs the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism, said: "Enough is enough. Though she claims impunity for many reasons, Jackie Walker’s behaviour is discriminatory, provocative, offensive and by any standard unacceptable in a modern political party.

"Not only has she caused offense personally, she has inspired waves of antisemitic and racist backlash including Holocaust denial.

"Not only must she be expelled from the Labour Party immediately but all those abusing others in supporting her must go too.

"Temporary suspensions are not good enough, these people must be given permanent bans and no platform to express their antisemitism anywhere in the Labour Party, if we are to be serious about opposing anti-Jewish hatred.”

 The last time I noticed the JC denying access to an article was when it wrote in praise of some pig food product in its travel section and a reader complained. I wonder what's not so kosher about the above article.

UPDATE: 9/10/2016 The article has now been restored to the JC website complete with at least one libel.

The Video the Board of Deputies, Momentum's Jon Lansman & Politics Home tried to ban

Sheesh, I thought this video was lost and gone forever.   I first heard about it via this piece in Politics Home.  Here look:

A controversial video criticised as a “slap in the face” by Jewish campaign group is still posted on Jeremy Corbyn’s official Facebook page, PoliticsHome can reveal.

The film, made by Mr Corbyn’s campaign team, features his supporters responding to a number of accusations often levelled at the Labour leader’s backers.

One of the questions is ‘Do you promote anti-Semitism?’ – in reference to a string of suspensions and expulsions over the last year.

One of the participants in the video throws away a piece of paper with the question written on it and says “so that’s gone as well”.

The Board of Deputies of British Jews spoke to veteran left-winger Jon Lansman, Mr Corbyn's campaign director, who apparently agreed to withdraw the video.

It has since been taken down from YouTube and the main page of Mr Corbyn’s Facebook account, but it is still available to view on the ‘videos’ section of his page.

“The dismissive video was a ‘slap in the face’ for the Jewish community,” said Board of Deputies chief executive Gillian Merron in a statement released last night.

“Having spoken directly to campaign director Jon Lansman, the Jeremy for Labour campaign now recognises the inappropriate message conveyed and has committed to remove the video and apologise. This is the right result.

Now, after a couple more paragraphs Politics Home hosted the video that the Board of Deputies had complained about and Jon Lansman had apologised for but now look:

I think we can guess that under the capitulationist advice of Jon Lansman, Jeremy Corbyn's Facebook probably zapped the video too.  I asked one of the participants if they retained a copy but they hadn't. I was getting frantic.  Even when Politics Home hosted the video it couldn't be downloaded.   But when you see the video you will see that there was nothing in it to complain about or to apologise for which I am guessing is why Politics Home removed it.  And now thanks to Jamie Stern-Weiner who found it on YouTube here it is:

So just like the whole of the antisemitism smear campaign against leftists and Palestine solidarity supporters this is yet another case of "nothing to see here", which in the case of Politics Home and probably Corbyn's Facebook page is now literally true.

PS: I've just seen that Harry's Place has missed the point of the removal of the video and hosted it on their racist site.  It was actually HP's David Toube (he calls himself Habibi) who uploaded it to YouTube but rather smartly disabled the comments.

Zionist Reaction starts to devour Labour Party's Jewish Children

The clearly Zionist inspired antisemitism hysteria arising out of one antisemitic tweet and one antisemitic blog post has claimed its first Jewish victim.  Tony Greenstein has now been suspended by the Labour Party by way of a Kafkaesque letter:

Dear Mr Greenstein

Notice of administrative suspension from holding office or representing the Labour Party

Allegations that you may have been involved in a breach of Labour Party rules have been brought to the attention of national officers of the Party. These allegations relate to comments you are alleged to have made which will be investigated under 2.1.8 of the party's rules. It is important that these allegations are investigated and the NEC will be asked to authorise a full report to be drawn up with recommendations for disciplinary action if appropriate.

I write to give you formal notice that it has been determined that the powers given to the NEC under 6.1.1.A of the Party's rules should be invoked to suspend you from office or representation of the party*, pending the outcome of an internal Party investigation.

In view of the urgency to protect the Party's reputation in the present situation the General Secretary has determined to use powers delegated to him under Clause V111.5 of the constitutional rules of the party to impose this suspension forthwith, subject to the approval of the next meeting of the NEC. Because of the nature of the allegations received and concerns that your presence at branch meetings may be detrimental to the Party, while subject to this administrative suspension, you cannot attend any party meetings including your own branch meeting and Annual Conference and you cannot seek office within the Party or be considered for selection as a candidate to represent the Labour Party at an election at any level** .

The General Secretary has appointed Harry Gregson, Acting Regional Director, to arrange conduct of the Party's own investigation and you will be contacted by him in due course with details as to how he intends to proceed with enquiries.

It is hoped you will offer your full co-operation to the Party in resolving this matter.

Yours sincerely


John Stolliday
Head of Constitutional Unit

c.c. Brighton, Kemptown CLP Secretary
South East Regional Labour Party

* In relation to any alleged breach of the constitution, rules or standing orders of the party by an individual member or members of the party, the NEC may, pending the final outcome of any investigation and charges (if any), suspend that individual or individuals from office or representation of the party notwithstanding the fact that the individual concerned has been or may be eligible to be selected as a candidate in any election or by-election. (Disciplinary Rules, Clause 6.1.1.A)

** A 'suspension' of a member whether by the NEC in pursuance of 1 above or by the NCC in imposing a disciplinary penalty, unless otherwise defined by that decision, shall require the membership rights of the individual member concerned to be confined to participation in their own branch meetings, unless the reason for the suspension in part or in full is their conduct in party meetings or there are concerns that their presence at branch meetings may be detrimental to the Party, and activities as an ordinary member only and in ballots of all individual members where applicable. A suspended member shall not be eligible to seek any office in the party, nor shall s/he be eligible for nomination to any panel of prospective candidates nor to represent the party in any position at any level. The member concerned will not be eligible to attend any CLP meeting other than to fulfil the requirement to participate in ballots, (Disciplinary rules, Clause 6.1.3)

Something rotten about allegations of antisemitism in the Oxford University Labour Club

I first caught wind of these allegations of antisemitism within the Oxford University Labour Club from Harry's Place.  I immediately suspected that the allegations were false not simply because they appeared on Harry's Place but because they have come in the wake of the OULC deciding to support Israel Apartheid Week on campus, something which, of itself, is clearly not antisemitic.

Now look at the quote in the Harry's Place post:

“Whether it be members of the Executive throwing around the term ‘Zio’ (a term for Jews usually confined to websites run by the Ku Klux Klan) with casual abandon, senior members of the club expressing their ‘solidarity’ with Hamas and explitictly [sic] defending their tactics of indiscriminately murdering civilians, or a former Co-Chair claiming that ‘most accusations of antisemitism are just the Zionists crying wolf’, a large proportion of both OULC and the student left in Oxford more generally have some kind of problem with Jews. The decision of the club to endorse a movement with a history of targetting [sic] and harassing Jewish students and inviting antisemitic speakers to campuses, despite the concerns of Jewish students, illustrates how uneven and insincere much of the active membership is”.

It all looks very strawman. Let's break it down a bit:

 members of the Executive throwing around the term ‘Zio’ (a term for Jews usually confined to websites run by the Ku Klux Klan) with casual abandon.

The term, "Zio" is simply short for Zionist and is not confined to sites run by the Klan.

 senior members of the club expressing their ‘solidarity’ with Hamas and explitictly [sic] defending their tactics of indiscriminately murdering civilians, 

Solidarity with armed resistance to Israel whatever form it takes is not, of itself, antisemitic.Of course if attacks are indiscriminate or target civilians then that is to be condemned but the failure or refusal to do so or even to support such attacks is not of itself antisemitic.

a former Co-Chair claiming that ‘most accusations of antisemitism are just the Zionists crying wolf’ 

Most allegations of antisemitism are false and many are themselves antisemitic.

a large proportion of both OULC and the student left in Oxford more generally have some kind of problem with Jews.

This isn't just vacuous, it's antisemitic as it conflates Jews, Zionists and Israel.  That of course is without noting the absence of any links, names or anything that could qualify as evidence.

Now, given the flimsy and inarticulately expressed nature of the charges I would hope for this to be a repeat of the Zionists' biggest public humiliation involving false allegations of antisemitism.  I'm referring to the Fraser v University and College Union case which had the great and the good of the Zionist movement in the UK denounced by the tribunal as a bunch of "exaggerators, manipulators and arrogant liars".  But whereas this latest batch of allegations hasn't gone forensic it has got more legs than the FUCU case did.  Harry's Place has run the *story* as have The Telegraph (twice*) and The Guardian. Ironically one of the Telegraph pieces was written by one of the people described as an arrogant liar by the FUCU tribunal, Jeremy Newmark.  Now that might be a good omen for the cause of truth.  The problem right now is that it is all evidence free mud slinging and the sellouts at the Labour Party have decided to take the Zio's seriously but let's just see what happens.

*Woops. three times

When Benn didn't meet Benjamin

The greatest pro-war orator of all time, Hilary Benn, appears to have been snubbed by Bibi during a visit to occcupied Palestine.  Here's the Jewish Chronicle's report:

Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn made a low-profile visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories this week.

Accompanied by a political adviser, he landed at Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv on Monday morning for the start of the three-day tour.

Mr Benn - who avoided press interviews during the trip - started by travelling to east Jerusalem with the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs. On Tuesday, he laid a wreath at the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial museum.

Mr Benn had a series of private meetings with senior Knesset members and Palestinian Authority representatives.

He met PA president Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah and discussed settlements and a two-state solution.

So he met everyone who's anyone under the entity's rule with one fairly important exception:

It is thought many of his meetings were set up while on the road in Israel, with a late request to see Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu unable to be scheduled.

It's not known if he put in a similar "I was in the neighbourhood so I thought I'd pop by" request to Hamas but I'm guessing he didn't. In fact, taking his penchant for both Israel and for the UK's wars in the middle east, Mr Benn appears to be touting himself as a chip off the Blairite rather than the Bennite block. Maybe they'll make Benn a peace envoy one day but I am surprised Bibi couldn't or wouldn't make time for him.

Anger as Jeremy Corbyn fails to name the Zionist entity at a Zionist gathering

So Jeremy Corbyn addressed a Labour Friends of Israel fringe meeting a couple of nights back.  I haven't managed to find a transcript of his speech though I have seen three reports in Jewish News,  The Jewish Chronicle and The Daily Telegraph.  The last of those helpfully linked to a 4 minute, 27 second long video of the speech that was reported to have been 10 minutes long:


The video was made and uploaded by a Shlomo Anker for which Jeremy Corbyn duly thanked him on Twitter.

Mea Culpa or Wea Culpa?

Here's a curious opinion piece in the Jewish News owning up to the Zionist propensity for crying wolf with bogus allegations of antisemitism.  So far so welcome but the piece isn't actually objecting to the bogus allegation itself but to its efficacy.  It's also not clear what the author (Jack Mendel, JN online editor) is referring to when he objects to the crying of wolf.  And he makes the assumption that whatever it is he is objecting to he is expressing himself as if for the entire Jewish community.  Take this for openers:

Jeremy Corbyn’s likely ascension to Opposition Leader will mark the moment when the Jewish community becomes the community that cried wolf.

If we were to take a collective selfie to mark that moment, we would appear visibly worried, because we’ve long mocked the left-winger’s brand of politics, caricaturing the ‘loony left’ and degrading it as an insignificant, irrelevant fringe, only to now see it on the verge of victory.

So was the crying of wolf not taking the "loony left" seriously enough?  Or is it the taking it seriously now?  What's he saying?  Well he's certainly saying that we Jews don't like Jeremy Corbyn and now what are we Jews gonna do?

You see, having leveled the charge of antisemitism at so many people over the years we Jews may have devalued the currency.  My thoughts?  Well close to my thoughts except I don't go in for generalisations about "we Jews".  Nope, I was actually paraphrasing the articles rather confused and confusing author:

We are to blame. Looking back we have not picked our battles well, smearing and disparaging lesser men, running our account dry. Now, when a genuine need arises (i.e. to shed light on Corbyn’s questionable links) we find we are all out of credit, ourselves discredited as “smearers” out to blacken a good man’s name.

Compared to the likes of Galloway and Livingstone, Corbyn’s politics is more intelligent and palatable, but radical nonetheless, at least in our current climate of mundane consensus. Our reaction to him should have been different. Yet we have reacted to him as if he were calling for an Israeli-free London.

We have played the wrong game. We’ve relied on character assassination, but on this he seems impenetrable.[emphases added]

Apart from Mr Mendel's use of the word "we" there's not a whole lot to disagree with here.