I’ve got a lot of time for Eddie Izzard but he really needs to take some time of his own to find out what is going on, before he opens his mouth.
When he says Labour is “losing the perception argument” regarding its response to accusations of anti-Semitism among members, he is completely wrong on the details.
I know because I am fighting an allegation of anti-Semitism against me – and am crowdfunding for court action to clear my name. Please visit my JustGiving page for further information – and to donate.
The perception is that Labour is soft on anti-Semites, and it is a lie.
Don’t believe me? Look at the state of this, from Labour’s charge sheet alleging anti-Semitism against me:
“There are current and potential Labour voters of all backgrounds who are watching carefully what the Party does with cases like Mr Sivier’s. Taking definitive action in this case would send a clear and unambiguous message to all of them that Mr Sivier and the views he published extensively have absolutely no place in the party.”
It is a directive to find me guilty of anti-Semitism, no matter what the evidence shows.
Is that justice?
If you answered “yes” to that question, you badly need to change. Start by reading the following:
Labour is not easy on anti-Semites. Labour is intolerant of anybody who has even been accused of anti-Semitism. The allegation alone is enough to warrant expulsion from the party.
And that’s great news for anyone wanting to clear their political enemies out of the way.
Take a look at one of the charges against me: “On 18th January 2017 Mr Sivier posted a blog titled ‘Accusation games: It’s all falling apart for the knee-jerk “anti-Semitism” accusers’… To put ‘antisemitism’ in quotation marks implies that Jews are using the term falsely which diminishes the term and denies Jewish people the language to describe their own oppression. This is a completely unacceptable way to engage in political debate and falls significantly below the standards expected of Party members. This is clearly prejudicial and/or grossly detrimental to the Party.”
It seems to me that this charge is prejudicial and/or grossly detrimental to the Party, falls significantly below the standards expected of Party members and is a completely unacceptable way to engage in political debate.
- It presents my words out of context, so the reader has no way of knowing why I posted them.
- The article is about false allegations of anti-Semitism. They were proven to be lies.
- The claim is that I said Jews were using the word “anti-Semitism” falsely. In fact, I made no reference to the ethnic or religious origins of the accusers.
- The claim further suggests that Jews are incapable of telling any falsehood, without any evidence to prove it – and in fact we know that anyone can tell a lie.
- And here’s the biggie: The charge denies Jewish people the language to deny their own oppression – because it links serious discrimination with legitimate criticism of those who use the term deceitfully. It opens the whole debate to abuse.
This is only part of Labour’s prejudice against people who have been falsely accused.
For example, after receiving the notification of charges against me from the Labour Party, I got in touch with the named contact and requested a copy of all the procedures the party should have followed, as my case was considered by different officers and committees. My concern is that, according to a news report I examine here, Labour has abused these procedures in my case.
My request was refused, because “the NCC is only concerned with the procedures to be adopted after a charge is presented to it. It is entitled to act on the basis that the charge is properly brought before it and any complaints regarding the conduct of the investigation should be addresses to the General Secretary.”
Except, of course, misconduct by investigators would be legitimate evidence for the NCC (Labour’s National Constitutional Committee, which will rule on my case) to consider. If my case was mishandled with an intention to ensure prejudice against me, then that is a relevant matter.
So Labour may be trying to hide its misconduct from me – in order to prejudice the outcome of the case against me. Actually, Labour has a history of withholding information that includes breaking the law.
Back in February, I made a Subject Access Request for all information on me, held by the Labour Party. I wanted to know exactly what the party had received or generated in order to be pursuing a blatantly false accusation against me.
Labour had 40 working days to answer, or be in breach of the Data Protection Act. Labour failed to answer. Labour is in breach of the DPA.
I have that on good authority, having taken the matter to the Information Commissioner’s Office, which has ordered the party to submit all the information I required within two calendar weeks (of Friday, July 20).
So we have a Labour Party that plays fast-and-loose with its own rules – and the law of the land – in order to justify false allegations of anti-Semitism. That’s the polar opposite of the public perception that Mr Izzard has bemoaned.
I hope someone passes this article on to him.
And if you want to help put an end to frivolous, lying accusations of anti-Semitism, please visit the page at https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/mike-sivier and donate some cash. I’m hoping to raise £25,000 and have a long way to go.
Eddie Izzard has urged Jeremy Corbyn to put the antisemitism issue to bed, warning that Labour is losing the “perception argument”.
The comedian, who recently won a seat on the party’s ruling national executive committee, said Labour risked not being ready to attack the government and its Brexit plans because of infighting over an international definition of antisemitism.
Izzard said the changes had sent the wrong message. “The message I feel should have been sent was that we are with the mainstream on this, everything else can be done from here on, that was the time to do it. We are losing the perception argument,” he said. “This is a classic thing in the Labour party … and it is going to make it very hard now.”