Fake antisemitism claim, shock!

 Oh look, yet another false claim of antisemitism. I see Lee Harpin is now writing for the Jewish News maybe as a result of some merger of it and the Jewish Chronicle. Anyway, Lee Harpin is reporting on the fakery which is unusual because reports on fakery in Jewish media are more often about Harpin than by him. But this involves a false allegation that a nurse made a cutthroat gesture at a Jewish patient following the patient's refusal to be treated by a nurse wearing a badge indicating support for the Palestinian cause.

The Harpin report headed, Royal Free staff member’s ‘cut-throat gesture’ claim found to be fictitious, was the first I heard of the case. Let's see some of that report: 

The director of communications at the north London NHS hospital confirmed on Wednesday that following a “thorough” probe into last week’s allegation the claim was found to be “fictitious and has subsequently been withdrawn.

It had been alleged that a patient attended the hospital for a blood test last month when she allegedly noticed the health professional wearing a Palestine flag on their jacket and a badge which said: ‘Stop killing our children.'

So I did a bit of googling and found among the original reports of the alleged incident, the Campaign Against Antisemitism was claiming to be "in contact with a witness and officials from the hospital". But in the Jewish News it said that "the claim was found to be 'fictitious'." So who was CAA's witness?

Is Baddiel calling Ken Loach a Holocaust Denier?

David Baddiel attempted a bit of a pile on against me a couple of weeks ago and in so doing seems to have accused Ken Loach of Holocaust denial.

The smearing of Ken Loach begins with the BBC wildly misrepresenting a speech by Miko Peled at a fringe meeting hosted by Free Speech on Israel at the Labour Conference 2017. Labour had done remarkably well in the general election of that year and the establishment decided to focus all the smearing on exaggerated, manipulated or fabricated allegations of antisemitism. Anyway, here's Miko Peled:

There was no discussion, just that remark by Miko Peled. Anyway, let's see now what the BBC did with that:

It's interesting but at some point in the interview the interviewer notes that Loach is alleging that some Labour MPs - actually it was mostly Labour MPs - were "confecting" allegations of antisemitism before going on to do exactly that herself. But anyway, this is the interview where Loach is wrongfooted by a Beeber flat out lying about what had occurred at the aforementioned FSOI meeting. She said that there had been a discussion as to whether or not the Holocaust had happened. Having no clue what she was talking about but knowing she was lying, he couldn't straight up condemn Holocaust denial or debate because that would have seemed like confirming that the discussion that had not taken place had taken place.  Wow, I just looked at the video again and the Beeber was such an outrageous liar.  Look from 01.44 "there was a discussion about the Holocaust, did it happen or didn't it?" Loach shakes his head vigorously and says "I don't think there was a discussion". She then says "well it was reported and it was on the [unintelligible]" She then says 01.57 "would you say that is unacceptable?" Loach then says "I think history is there for us all to discuss", thereby turning to a generalisation about history, not the specifics of the Holocaust.

This is one of the most lied about lines of the whole long smear campaign and the BBC's tweet truncating the clip so as to lie about Loach is still in place. Dave Rich of the Israel lobby and security group, Community Security Trust, couldn't resist his own mischief, tweeting that "Ken Loach said....whether the Holocaust happened "is there for us all to discuss".

But Dave stops short of calling Loach a Holocaust denier. He was challenged by Linda Sayle.

You are wickedly mis-quoting Ken Loach. He said "history is there for us all to discuss". Calling people holocaust deniers without basis and scattering accusations of antisemitism around like confetti does great damage.

— Linda Sayle (@LindaSayle) February 5, 2020

Now if you look, even Dave Rich wasn't stooping to accusing Loach of denial, just of tolerance towards deniers and debate with them.

I didn't call anyone a Holocaust denier, so you are misquoting me. I have no idea whether you are doing it "wickedly" or not.

— Dave Rich (@daverich1) February 5, 2020

Poor Linda didn't know how Dave likes to play with quotation marks. Do you see how his quotes are simply around "is there for us all to discuss", not "whether the Holocaust happened"? Dave does that all the time. Anyway, Dave did not, repeat not, call Loach a Holocaust denier. But note, he stops short of denying "scattering accusations of antisemitism around like confetti". He should have stopped at "I have no idea".

Anyway, David Baddiel picks up and runs amok with Dave Rich's smear and, for the book, sexes it up just a tad.  See page 66 on:

The film director Ken Loach was made a judge of a school competition run by Show Racism the Red Card, which is a football anti-racist charity similar to Kick It Out. In 2016, [it was 2017] during an interview at the Labour Party conference, Loach said, on being asked about the presence at a fringe meeting of a speaker alleged to have questioned the history of the Holocaust, [Miko Peled in the above clip] ‘Well, I think history is there for us all to discuss.’ He has since very strongly refuted being a Holocaust denier*, [my italics] but nonetheless this appointment led to protests from the Jewish community. For a while, SRtRC reacted angrily, doubling down, getting Eric Cantona to tweet about what a great anti-racist Ken Loach was and suchlike. In the end, Loach did step down from judging the competition, but as ever there was no outcry from progressive quarters – only Jewish ones – about the possible incongruity of his appointment.

I wouldn’t particularly mention this – it’s just a standard, everyday example of #JewsDontCount – were it not for the fact that while this minor furore was going on, a man called Dave Rich, who works for a charity, the Community Security Trust, which provides security against racist attack for Jewish schools, synagogues and community centres, [and lobbies the government for Israel and smears Israel's critics] tweeted this:

Followed by a second tweet that just said: ‘I can think of better judges for an anti-racism competition.’ I retweeted it. And then Ken Loach’s son, Jim, tweeted this:

I see @Baddiel casually retweets internet trolls like @daverich1 who defame my father @KenLoachSixteen. You’d think with his background he’d be a bit more careful when accusing others. pic.twitter.com/6gSlz4KSKw

— Jim Loach (@JimLoach) February 6, 2020

First up Baddiel misrepresents Miko Peled. Baddiel has written a book which he intends to be taken seriously. Clearly he is either lying about Miko Peled or he simply didn't check anything, even the thread that he RTd a tweet from. In fairness the lack of checking is possible given he gets the year wrong. But even without checking, surely he realised that Dave Rich was being slippery with the Ken Loach quote. If he didn't know any of this or didn't reason any of this for himself, then why did he ignore most of Jim Loach's tweet?  "@Baddiel casually retweets internet trolls like @daverich1 who defame my father @KenLoachSixteen".

Jim Loach protests Baddiel RTing "internet trolls like @Dave Rich who defame" his father. No pause for thought over the word "defame", no? Jim Loach is accusing Baddiel and Rich (and by extension and most concerning of all, the BBC) of lying about Ken Loach, which they all were. But Baddiel had points to score and scores to settle so he takes the opportunity to show what a know-nothing he really is. 

You see, Jim Loach references one of Baddiel's racist outbursts, this one against the former footballer, Jason Lee who Baddiel encouraged famously racist football fans to mock by way of Baddiel donning blackface makeup and wearing a pineapple on his head to represent dreadlocks.Googling Baddiel, pineapple, Jason Lee, stuff like that, you will happen upon many an article with Jason Lee saying that Baddiel never apologised to him for what he did. Baddiel claims he apologised. He doesn't say who he apologised to and doesn't seem to realise even what he did wrong. Now see page 70:

What the apologies make no difference to is the recurring presence of that photo on my Twitter timeline. Particularly since I started speaking out publicly about anti-Semitism, whether it be anti-Semitism in general or on the left. In fact, it can seem that what the people demanding apologies from me want is not apologies. What they seem to want, really, is silence. They want me to shut up, particularly about anti-Semitism. As far as they are concerned, the photo of me as Jason Lee is a trump card that means I cannot speak about racism...

There is a tactic some of you may be aware of called Whataboutery. 

Yup, there is a tactic called Whataboutery. It's when you justify your own wrongdoing by reference to the wrongdoing of your opponents.  But Jim Loach is not accusing Baddiel of doing what his father has done. He is correctly calling Baddiel a liar about his father and a hypocritical liar over antisemitism. 

But there is another charge of hypocrisy to be made against Baddiel. He says that his own racism is used to try to disqualify him from talking about racism in other situations, in particular in his case, against Jews, He says this is a #Jewsdon'tcount instance. But that's exactly what Baddiel is saying about Ken Loach. The only difference is that Baddiel, Rich and the BBC all lied about Loach. You don't have to look far to find examples of Baddiel's racism. That is, you don't have to lie to make a racist out of Baddiel.

Here he is saying he looks like a "pikey".

Here he is essentialising Blacks, Asians and Jews by occupation. He got some rare mainstream flack for that, albeit in the Guardian's letters page.

But really mentioning two (three with blackface - many with blackface many times) examples of Baddiel's racism spanning over 20 years doesn't convey nearly enough of it.

He does another slippery thing. He claims that people have tried to silence him since he started talking about antisemitism as if this postdates the examples of his racism which go back to the 1990s but I'm sure I saw him alleging antisemitism against Israel's leftist critics back in the 1990s, which you could say was Baddiel's racist heyday if only it was over. 

But the final thing is this. I remember the first time I read Baddiel's stupid book, the line about Ken Loach that baffled me the most was after Baddiel claimed Loach was challenged about "the presence at a fringe meeting of a speaker alleged to have questioned the history of the Holocaust" we have what looks like a non sequitur:

He has since very strongly refuted being a Holocaust denier

Now remember Dave Rich insisted he certainly wasn't accusing anyone, certainly not Loach, of Holocaust denial. So who did accuse Ken Loach of being a Holocaust denier? Why would Baddiel say he denies it?

It rankled with me as I was sure my skim reading had let me down. That's one reason I got the Kindle version, so I can cross-reference, search, copy and paste, etc.

But then a couple of weeks ago I was googling for something, probably Baddiel related and I found that Baddiel himself has been "confronting Holocaust denial", ie, debating with Holocaust deniers,ie, what I thought Baddiel, Dave Rich and the BBC were falsely accusing Ken Loach of promoting.

I noticed that in the BBC puff for the stuff two Holocaust deniers are named and it appeared that Baddiel goes off to debate these people. I tweeted that Baddiel was doing what he falsely accused Ken Loach of doing, ie, debating the Holocaust. Actually, it's worse, it's publicising not simply the fact that some people deny the Holocaust but their names. This meant that people intent on denying the Holocaust could hone and further publicise their arguments by going to the go-to names. 

I tweeted my criticism in a four tweet thread.

The irony of David Baddiel smearing Ken Loach as a promoter of Holocaust debate is that Baddiel & Lipstadt both publicise Holocaust denial and confront it with the facts thereby engaging in the very debate Baddiel falsely accuses @KenLoachSixteen of promoting. https://t.co/dtbyzR5saQ

— Jews Sans Frontieres (@jewssf) April 3, 2021

When Lipstadt wrote a book on deniers, including Irving, Irving's plan was to cross-examine her on the Holocaust & expose that she knew nothing. Thankfully she didn't have to take the stand so he lost but it could have been a disaster. That's the dangerous game they're playing.

— Jews Sans Frontieres (@jewssf) April 3, 2021

The BBC's lie that Jewish socialists discussed whether or not the Holocaust happened was the most disgusting of all the lies in a smear campaign that is still ongoing. In fact, Baddiel's book with the Loach smear replicated in it is the most recent contribution to the campaign.

— Jews Sans Frontieres (@jewssf) April 3, 2021

And the fact that Baddiel publicises Holocaust denial is of course much worse than irony, worse than hypocrisy, in fact it wasn't even hypocrisy,it was projection: accusing people of doing a bad thing that they don't do but Baddiel does.

— Jews Sans Frontieres (@jewssf) April 3, 2021

That could have been that but rather then respond to my first tweet that QRTd his tweet, he grabbed the fourth one which didn't name anyone and didn't tag him. He knew that I was slagging him over Loach but none of his followers could know because he grabbed the tweet, he didn't QRT it. Sneaky huh? Look: 

Here's @jewssf suggesting that because I did a documentary challenging and exposing Holocaust denial, I am secretly a Holocaust denier. When people on here hate you, for whatever reason, it's amazing the contortions they will undergo to channel that hate. pic.twitter.com/wg1VOv41Is

— David Baddiel (@Baddiel) April 4, 2021

Now even in the tweet he grabbed there is no suggestion he is a Holocaust denier. That's just silly and his followers are silly. Many of them replied to him saying how illogical I was and some had a go directly at me. I responded pointing out that I had said that he condemned Loach for promoting Holocaust debate whereas by confronting Holocaust deniers he is engaging in the debate that he falsely condemned Loach for promoting.

Well in all the toing and froing, I finally said to someone, the only way Baddiel's tweet tagging me works is if he thinks that me comparing what he is doing to what he accused Loach of doing is if he is accusing Loach of Holocaust denial. Oh wait! Finally the penny dropped. "He [Loach] has since very strongly refuted being a Holocaust denier" followed by the word "but". Baddiel seems to be flatly contradicting his mentor, Dave Rich (or maybe Rich is Baddiel's mentee). Baddiel appears to be accusing Ken Loach of Holocaust denial. I wonder.

By the way, the smearing of Ken Loach is yet another score settling exercise in Baddiel's stupid book. This time it is more aimed at Ken's son Jim. What a piece of work that Baddiel (aged 55) is.

BBC still smearing Ken Loach after all these years

 This BBC tweet basically lying about Ken Loach should not still be there. But since it is, I'll embed it here to show what liars they are. 

"History is for us all to discuss." - Ken Loach on reported #Lab17 fringe comments about whether it's OK to ask if the Holocaust happened. pic.twitter.com/cXkpqMsb0R

— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) September 26, 2017

Please watch the 46 seconds that the BBC presents via its tweet. Thank you.

Now watch a fuller version of the same interview:

The length of that one is 2 minutes and 28 seconds. The fuller version shows the BBC's desperation in trying to present evidence of left antisemitism.

Does anyone know the name of the lying piece of shit from the BBC?

By the way, this is only clip I could find of Miko Peled saying "Holocaust, yes or no?" which was the only mention of the Holocaust at the Free Speech on Israel LabCon17 fringe meeting the Beeber was lying about. 

How so-called Jewish Labour Movement greeted Chakrabarti Report

With breathtaking arrogance and sheer dishonesty,  the so-called Campaign Against Corbyn Antisemitism has denounced St Paul's School for inviting Shami Chakrabarti to address pupils:

Shami Chakrabarti has been invited to speak at the prestigious St Paul’s School on the subject of “equality between people” on the occassion of International Women’s Day, despite her role whitewashing antisemitism within the Labour Party.

Following a complaint to us from an appalled alumnus, Campaign Against Antisemitism has written to the High Master of the boys’ school to ask why the disgraced peer has been invited to speak tomorrow, to insist that she is challenged on her role whitewashing anti-Jewish racism in the Labour Party, and to make welfare arrangements for Jewish students and anyone else affected by her address.

All very strange because CAA's partners in slime, so-called Jewish Labour Movement quite liked her report when it was first published:

Posted by Adam Langleben on June 30, 2016

Reacting to the publication of the Chakrabarti Inquiry report, the Jewish Labour Movement have released this statement:

"This is a sensible and firm platform which gives the Party an opportunity to get off the back foot and on to the front foot in setting a new standard for tacking racism and anti-Semitism. 

The report has accurately diagnosed the nature of the problem.  There will rightly be a debate and discussion about the specifics of the very detailed recommendations on rules, regulations and processes.

But all the talk about high standards will need to  be borne out by implementation. This will require strong leadership.

One of the very first tests will be how the party deals with the ongoing disciplinary case against Ken Livingstone. There can be no future for a politician with his track record in a post Chakrabarti report labour party. 

We at JLM will be meeting with the party leadership  in next few days to begin discussions around implementation."

ENDS

UPDATE: 6 July 2016

Read JLM National Chair, Jeremy Newmark on the Chakrabarti Report in The Jewish News - here. 

All the lies must catch up with them eventually.

 

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.

Chutzpah! If you want to know about racism why not ask racists, they should know

Read this and weep or laugh out loud. I suppose that's an option.  This is from a newsletter from the Board of Deputies of British Jews, aka the Tory Party at Shul.

Redbridge councillors reach out to Board of Deputies over antisemitism

Board of Deputies Vice President Amanda Bowman met Redbridge councillors, including Council Leader Jas Athwal, to discuss antisemitism. Elected representatives from Redbridge reached out to the Board of Deputies after allegations of antisemitic conduct in a Labour Party ward meeting emerged. Amanda said: “It was great to see both Labour and Conservative councillors reach out to the Board of Deputies to learn about antisemitism. That is just the sort of leadership political parties need if they want to rid themselves of racism.” Jas Athwal said: “It was wonderful to meet with Amanda Bowman and Daniel Elton from the Board of Deputies to get a fuller understanding of the challenges facing the Jewish community and our society as a whole. It was an important reminder that the Jewish community’s fight is our fight and that we must all play our part in driving out antisemitism in all its forms.’

The trouble is that one of the challenges facing the Jewish community, as in people who are Jewish, is that people masquerading as the Jewish community make false antisemitism allegations against Leftists whilst giving Rightists like Johnson, Rees Mogg & Co. a free pass.

North West Jewish Voice for Labour statement on "Say No to Antisemitism" Demo in Manchester

“Say No to Antisemitism” Demonstration

Manchester, 

Sunday 16th September

As members of Jewish Voice for Labour in the North West, we welcome genuine efforts to combat rising antisemitism,and indeed racism in all its forms.  Antisemitism exists in all parts of our society and,together with almost all forms of racism in the UK, there is some evidence that it is increasing. However, we harbour a great deal of scepticism and concern with regards to the demonstration today.

For the last three years there has been a concerted effort to discredit and unseat Jeremy Corbyn as Leader of the Opposition, a man who is quite possibly the most consistent anti-racist leader the Labour Party has ever known. This campaign has been led by a coalition of groups which are deeply opposed to Jeremy's championing of Palestinian rights together with political opponents many of whom have shown little previous interest in combating antisemitism. Rather than seeking to oppose genuine anti-Jewish hatred, they have cynically sought to amplify and manipulate the anxieties of British Jews in order to further their political aims.

Many of those organisations and individuals taking part this Sunday, including Margaret Hodge, Louise Ellman and the Board of Deputies,are the same instigators of the campaign against Jeremy, and purport to speak on behalf of “The Jewish Community”. There is no such thing. Jews in the UK are extraordinarily diverse, of every complexion and political persuasion. That progressive Jewish organisations, including those supporting Palestinian human rights, were excluded from participating suggests that the organisers and speakers are not acting in good faith. After all, antisemitism affects us too. For some of the headline speakers, however, the demonstration is not just about antisemitism. Rather it concerns the uncritical defence of some of the actions of the Israeli government whilst giving voice to those who want to remove Jeremy Corbyn,a consistent and principled supporter of Palestinian rights, as leader of the Labour party. We cannot emphasise enough that they do not speak for us.

Whilst we understand the anxiety that many Jewish people must be feeling after seeing shocking and frequently misleading claims in the Jewish press and the mainstream media about the Labour Party and Jeremy Corbyn, it is important to note that racist attacks on other groups such as Black and Asian people are far more prevalent. We would like to see a united campaign of Jews and other minority ethnic groups against both antisemitism and racism in it various forms.Jewish people have always been at the forefront of the labour movement, campaigning against racism in all its forms and that remains our commitment as Jews in the Labour Party.Labour has been a welcoming place for us and we do not recognise its description as a hostile environment for Jews. It is still the party for those fighting racism, and antisemitism, in stark contrast to the Conservatives.

The recent furore over the adoption of the IHRA definition and examples into the disciplinary code has been seriously misrepresented. The author of the IHRA, Kenneth Stern, an American-Jewish academic and self-avowed Zionist, has testified before the US Congress that it should not be used as a tool to combat antisemitism because of the likely impact on free speech. This view is supported by many eminent lawyers who have analysed it including Hugh Tomlinson QC, Geoffrey Robertson QC, Benedict Birnberg, and former Court of Appeal judge Stephen Sedley. The cross-party Parliamentary committee also warned it would need to have free speech safeguards added, and only 6 of the 31 members of IHRA have adopted it (three of them with a dubious record on tackling antisemitism). It has been used already at 2 North West Universities to curtail debate on Israel/Palestine. It is,therefore,wholly unreasonable to criticise the party for wanting a free speech clause in accordance with the Human Rights Act. This is essential to protect the rights of Palestinians and others who must not be silenced.  Demanding that the human rights of Palestinians be respected should not be equated in any way with anti-Jewish hatred or denying ourselves the right to self-determination.

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.

Out of 4 critical reviews of his silly book why does Dave Rich only promote the antisemitic one?

I was just browsing the recent tweets of Community Security Trust gopher (Mike Cushman would disagree), Dave Rich.  His pinned tweet touts his silly book, The Left's Jewish Problem.  Scrolling down I saw this:

"One of Zionist Racism's most sophisticated apologists". I think that's meant as a compliment. https://t.co/d31TklT8l7

— Dave Rich (@daverich1) November 19, 2016

Given Dave has a distinct lack of sophistication it might not have been meant at all.  I'm guessing he meant disingenuous or straight up dishonest though in fairness Dave might just be an ignoramus who takes his right to Jewish supremacy as read.

The link in Dave's tweet is to a tweet from an Ian Donovan.  I couldn't access his tweet from my regular @jewssf account because I'd forgotten that I blocked him long ago for antisemitism.  Dave's career revolves around pretending to see antisemitism when it isn't there so he couldn't tell in Donovan's case apparently.

Anyway, here are three reviews of Dave Rich's stupid book that he hasn't promoted because they are obviously from principled anti-racists, including my own sweet self:

First up is Richard Kuper's, titled Polemical intervention - or analytical contribution:

http://freespeechonisrael.org.uk/polemical-intervention-analytical-contribution/

Analytical contribution?  Now that is definitely a compliment Dave doesn't deserve.

Second is from Paul Keleman in Red Pepper.  His critique is titled, Increasing antisemitism or disappearing Palestine?

http://www.redpepper.org.uk/increasing-anti-semitism-or-disappearing-palestine/
 Keleman's review gets to the heart of the main motive behind the antisemitism smear campaign of which Dave Rich's book is a bit of a primer.

Third, from me:

http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/book-review-lefts-jewish-problem-by.html

As far as I could see, but I didn't look that far, Dave hasn't promoted any of the above critiques.  Rather he chose to promote one by an antisemite.  And he complains when anyone suggests that Zionists want antisemitism.

Leon Rosselson at Housmans

BOOK AND MUSIC EVENT

Wednesday 1st June 2016, 7pm

Entry £3, redeemable against any purchase

Leon Rosselson is appearing at Housmans Bookshop in Caledonian Road.

Here's the invite from the man himself:


I'll be talking (and singing) about this pamphlet, and the accusations of 'anti-semitism' in the Labour Party, at Housmans Bookshop, 5 Caledonian Road, London N1 9DX. No idea who'll be there but I hope to see some friendly faces.

What kind of racist low life uses "AsaJew" as a putdown?

Have a little look at Baroness Royall's blog post over at the blog of the ethnic cleansing enthusiasts, the Jewish Labour Movement:

I know that you will share my disappointment and frustration that the main headline coming out of my inquiry is that there is no institutional Antisemitism in Oxford University Labour Club.  That is true, but it is only part of the story.  I am clear that in the OULC there is a cultural problem which means that Jewish students do not always feel welcome.  And we have to take action to change this situation.   Many students reported that should a Jewish student preface a remark “as a Jew …” they are likely to face ridicule and behaviour that would not be acceptable for someone saying “as a woman …” or “as an Afro-Caribbean”.  This should not be tolerated.  

Now astute readers will see immediately what has happened here.  Baroness Royal was supposed to go into the Oxford University Labour Club and find lots of evidence of antisemitism.  She couldn't find anything that would pass muster, even on a Zionist blog, as evidence so she's invented an example or she's running with the invented examples of other people.

See this again,

Many students reported that should a Jewish student preface a remark “as a Jew …” they are likely to face ridicule and behaviour that would not be acceptable for someone saying “as a woman …” or “as an Afro-Caribbean”.  This should not be tolerated.  

See that?  "as a Jew".   People can face ridicule for saying that.  Really, there are racists out there who will ridicule you for prefacing a remark "as a Jew".  What kind of scum can they be?  Surely there's some evidence.  I know, let's try googling "AsaJew".

And what do we see?

First up we have UK Media Watch and an article headed "As a Jew explained".  Taste:

Jewish anti-Zionists give their identity politics a strange twist. Instead of claiming to represent the opinion of most of their fellow Jews, they mobilize their identity “asaJew” in order to give their oppositional view more legitimacy. 

 Then there's the Jewish Chronicle.  Here's JC editor, Stephen Pollard:

The AsAJews only ever come from one side of the fence: anti-Zionist, pro-boycott and anti-anti-antisemitism. Have you ever heard anyone say: “As a Jew, I must say how much I support Israel’s right to exist”, or “As a Jew, let me state how much I disagree with the idea of a boycott”?

Next up there's even a hashtag for this racist expression: #AsaJew.  Let's have a look at that. On second thoughts, this is a family blog but I didn't see any anti-Zionists sneering at the expression "As a Jew".

Now I would have skipped over this Reddit but the little bit of blurb on the google page drew me in:

This subreddit is for public shaming of loudmouthes thinking that pretending being jewish adds them credibility. A typical post of this kind of person starts with "As a former jew, converted to humanity..."

So much has this "AsaJew" putdown been chucked around it even got an entry in The Encyclopedia of Decency back in 2009

THURSDAY, 3 DECEMBER 2009

AsaJew
Insult
Bizarre ethnoreligious insult used by wackadoodle wingnuts to demean and disregard the opinions of non-wingnut members of the Jewish faith that this writer, for one, is not touching with a fucking bargepole.
Posted by Malky Muscular at 09:17
Labels: Insults

And they are the top entries I found on the google search and yet Baroness Royall had no awareness of them.   If I had kept going I could have listed Harry's Place and a Harry's Placer called Marc Goldberg.  But as I said this is a family blog and besides the list of Zionists using the antisemitic putdown "AsaJew" is literally endless since more come on stream every day.

Now I can well understand Baroness Royall treating false allegations as evidence but what I don't understand is how she missed so many egregious examples of Zionist antisemitism as to leave such a hostage to fortune. 

What kind of rabid antisemite would accuse an Israeli tank commander of targeting children?

Look at this quote:

She reacted like some Israeli tank commander on being confronted by a stone-throwing Palestinian.

It was over something to do with education policy and a spat between Theresa May and Michael Gove. So what's that got to do with how Israeli soldiers routinely respond to Palestinian children, ie, by killing them?  Well nothing except the person saying it was pointing out that Theresa May had overreacted or responded angrily and disproportionately.

So was it a sympathiser with the Palestinian cause ever eager to embarrass Israel at every possible turn?  Nope, it was actually Toby Young, a fanatical Zionist who simply hadn't got the hang of the Zionist project and how to promote it.  For Young, Israel's wanton disregard for Palestinian lives is something to joke or even brag about whereas your more seasoned and savvy Zionist knows to deny or justify these things to the wider public.

But Toby Young was being watched by Zionists who have got the hang of it:

Within seconds of this being broadcast, dozens of people denounced me as an "anti-semite" on Twitter. Some people felt so strongly about it, they even tracked down my email address and let me have both barrels.

And so the upshot of this throwaway line was that Young had to haul himself across the coals and denounce himself in the Jewish Chronicle.

It was supposed to be a joke, but I now recognise it was an ill-judged remark. I was appealing to a stereotype of the Israeli Defence Forces that has been put about by Israel's enemies and is completely at odds with the reality. 

Perish the thought that Israel would fire on stone-throwing children.

If there are any Israeli tank commanders reading this, men who probably risked their own lives to avoid killing civilians, I apologise. The question of the survival of the state of Israel is no laughing matter.

I did a quick scan of Toby Young's Twitter account and he hasn't stuck the boot into the hapless Naz Shah as much as he might have been expected to but then as a rabid antisemite himself how could he?

Exaggerators, Manipulators and Arrogant Liars - Who said it and of whom?

Here's an article that first appeared in the now defunct online magazine, Cartoon Kippah.  It's by a thinking person's Zionist called Adam Wagner who is some kind of human rights barrister.  I'm not sure how he squares that circle of support for human rights and being a Zionist but the "exaggerators, manipulators and arrogant liars" comes from his own take on the infamous Fraser v UCU (PDF) debacle of late 2012/early 2013, so here is the whole article as lifted from the Jews for Justice for Palestinians website:

By Adam Wagner, Cartoon Kippah

April 05, 2013

Sometimes we need an outsider’s perspective to bring into focus uncomfortable truths about ourselves. Just before the Passover festivities, the Employment Tribunal released a 45-page judgment full of Biblical fury which did just that.

The judgment was about a legal claim brought by a maths teacher, Ronnie Fraser, against his teaching union. He claimed that the Union had harassed him in breach of equality laws due to its handling of the Israel-Palestine debate.

The full judgment can be read here (PDF). If you have any interest in Jewish communal politics and in particular how the Israel-Palestine debate is handled, I highly recommend you read it. Perhaps set aside half an hour over a well-earned post-Passover sandwich – it’s worth it, I promise.

I won’t try to summarise Employment Judge Snelson’s findings here, but I would like to draw out a few points. The main one is that the Claimant, represented by solicitor Anthony Julius, lost in a big way. This was a total, unqualified demolition job. As an outcome, it really was ten plagues bad.

The language of the judgment is harsh and at times sarcastic. As a lawyer, you can take it from me that it doesn’t get much worse than this. This was a “sorry saga”, the Tribunal “greatly regret that the case was ever brought”, at its heart the case was “an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means”. Perhaps worst of all, the claim showed a “worrying disregard for pluralism, tolerance and freedom of expression.”

Let’s just step back for a moment. Just because a judge rules on something doesn’t mean they are right. Judgments get appealed and overturned. Reading this one, and not having been in court for the weeks of evidence, there are at least two possibilities. First, that the Tribunal has taken an irrational or perverse dislike to the claimant, his lawyers and some of his witnesses – that is a real possibility, given how scathing the judgment is. The second is, however, is that the Tribunal has got it broadly right, having listened to the extensive evidence and nonetheless dismissed the case out of hand.

As I said, I wasn’t there – this is an evidence heavy case so you really have to have sat through it to reach a proper conclusion. But assuming for the purpose of this article that the Tribunal did get it right, there is a lot here to be worried about.

Preposterous
Let’s take just a single paragraph, number 148. Here the Judge is summarising his conclusions on the claimant’s witnesses who included British Jewish luminaries such as the author Howard Jacobson. Some gave “careful, thoughtful, courteous evidence”. Others however, “seemed more disposed to score points or play to the gallery rather than providing straightforward answers to the clear questions put to them.” Again, ouch.

Particular criticism was reserved for Jeremy Newmark, the Chief Executive of the Jewish Leadership Council, a committee of community grandees:

We regret to say that we have rejected as untrue the evidence of Ms Ashworth and Mr Newmark concerning the incident at the 2008 Congress… Evidence given to us about booing, jeering and harassing of Jewish speakers at Congress debates was also false, as truthful witnesses on the Claimant’s side accepted. One painfully ill-judged example of playing to the gallery was Mr Newmark’s preposterous claim, in answer to the suggestion in cross- examination that he had attempted to push his way into the 2008 meeting, that a ‘pushy Jew’ stereotype was being applied to him. The opinions of witnesses were not, of course, our concern and in most instances they were in any event unremarkable and certainly not unreasonable. One exception was a remark of Mr Newmark in the context of the academic boycott controversy in 2007 that the union was “no longer a fit arena for free speech”, a comment which we found not only extraordinarily arrogant but also disturbing.

Wow. Here are some words you never want to hear in litigation: “untrue”, “false”, “preposterous”, “extraordinarily arrogant”, “disturbing”. To recap, this is the Chief Executive of an organisation which is arguably now the main ambassador of the Jewish Community to the wider British community. This may all be unfair and perverse, but if it is not then we should be worried about the implications.

Then came the MPs. Not just any MPs, but Denis MacShane and John Mann, both well known to the Jewish community; Mr MacShane chaired the The All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism, Mann authored the Football Association Taskforce on Tackling Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. Again, it’s bad:

We did not derive assistance from the two Members of Parliament who appeared before us. Both gave glib evidence, appearing supremely confident of the rightness of their positions. For Dr MacShane, it seemed that all answers lay in the MacPherson Report (the effect of which he appeared to misunderstand). Mr Mann could manage without even that assistance. He told us that the leaders of the Respondents were at fault for the way in which they conducted debates but did not enlighten us as to what they were doing wrong or what they should be doing differently. He did not claim ever to have witnessed any Congress or other UCU meeting. And when it came to anti- Semitism in the context of debate about the Middle East, he announced, “It’s clear to me where the line is …” but unfortunately eschewed the opportunity to locate it for us. Both parliamentarians clearly enjoyed making speeches. Neither seemed at ease with the idea of being required to answer a question not to his liking.

As I said, wow. These are MPs who have been lionised by the Jewish community, and in particular the Jewish Chronicle (perhaps not incidentally, Anthony Julius chairs the JC board, a point highlighted by the Judge). ”And on the topic of that Parliamentary Committee”

157… The Respondents defended themselves courteously but robustly against treatment by the Parliamentary Committee the fairness of which was, to put it at its very lowest, open to question.

The sarcasm drips off that final sentence, doesn’t it? Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that contrary to the claimant’s arguments, the Union’s meetings were “well-ordered and balanced” and that almost the entire case was “manifestly unmeritorious”. Most importantly, the Tribunal rejected out of hand the argument that “a belief in the Zionist project or an attachment to Israel or any similar sentiment” can amount to a protected characteristic.

Lessons not learned
Where does this leave us? It is tempting to see this “sorry saga” as no more than an unfortunate and hubristic litigation fail, or an “act of epic folly” as the Jewish Chronicle’s ‘Ask the QC’ QC Jonathan Goldberg commented. But I think there are wider lessons here which we would ignore at our peril.

Anyone who follows Jewish communal politics and reads the JC will recognise many in the cast of characters as well as the arguments. Anti-Zionist or pro-Palestinian campaigners are regularly branded as anti-Semites. Despite the good work of organisations like Yachad, this is still a regular and well-supported narrative at the centre of much of the Jewish communal response to criticism of Israel. But that approach – which really amounts to communal comfort food – has clearly failed. And yet it is still wheeled out: watch, for example, this stirring but flawed recent speech by the Chief Rabbi to AIPAC, an American pro-Israel lobby. They hate us, so they would say that. Etc.

Of course, some criticism of Israel is linked to or motivated by anti-Semitism, but isn’t it time to stop using vast resources to paint legitimate debate as racial hatred? As well as failing miserably as an pro-Israel argument, this approach also risks fatally undermining work against real anti-Semitism. Aren’t we just a little bit ashamed for major communal leaders and organisations to have backed a claim showing a “disregard for pluralism, tolerance and freedom of expression”?

In a prediction of Michael Fish quality, the JC originally said of the case that unless UCU repented its “clear antisemitic behaviour”:

we could be set for this decade’s version of the Irving trial – a specific case which acts to crystallise broader themes and issues

It certainly did crystallise broader themes and issues. But not the ones the cheerleaders hoped for. As said above, it is possible that this Tribunal reached a perverse decision. No doubt some will say so once the recriminations begin to fly. I imagine some will even accuse the Judge of anti-Semitism. But assuming for a moment that he was right, we should, as a community, be embarrassed by this ruling. It involved not just the looney fringe but central figures in the community, who have been branded exaggerators, manipulators and arrogant liars. More importantly, the ‘anti-Zionism equals racism’ argument is plainly bankrupt and has no purchase in wider society. We should move on to something which might actually work. And that is the lesson of this sorry Passover saga.

Adam (@adamwagner1) is a barrister specialising in human rights & medical law. He is founding editor of UK Human Rights Blog….”

Zios' campaign defaming Anti-Zionist activists is "making Jews something of a laughing stock" and worse....

Here's a good couple of letters in today's Jewish Chronicle by Tony Klug and a chap called Andy Coombes.  The JC doesn't publish letters online so here's a pic I snaffled from Ben White's tweet:

Curiously the JC hasn't gone in too hard on named individuals like The Telegraph and Times did in the case of Tony Greenstein, only to find themselves humiliatingly having to retract.  It's also curious that the JC has allowed any criticism of its own sheer dishonesty. 

Given that both the letters focus on what is most obvious to anyone which is simply the dishonesty and exaggeration, it's gratifying that Tony Klug has touched on a very important aspect of specifically Jewish anti-Zionist activism: the question of inter-community relations.  Zionist have been trying for a few years to get Jewish supremacy recognised as a protected characteristic of being Jewish above ethnicity and religion.  That is, they claim their Zionist ideology or their support for Israel to be an integral part of their identity. Given the obviously racist nature of their ideology this means placing the Jewish identity above others; a disaster for community relations.  Now look at Tony Klug's words:

The incessant campaign is drowning rational thought and analysis and making Jews something of a laughing stock in the wider public, especially among the young and other demographics with their own serious problems.

Yes, Zios are making Jews look like a bunch of Woody Allens (when he used to be funny) but the impact of their dishonest racist antics is harmful to community relations and that's no laughing matter.

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)