On anti-Semitism, Eddie Izzard is on the wrong side of the argument

Mistaken: Eddie Izzard.

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.”

Oh, really?

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.

My reasons:

  1. It presents my words out of context, so the reader has no way of knowing why I posted them.
  2. The article is about false allegations of anti-Semitism. They were proven to be lies.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.”

Source: Labour has got to solve antisemitism issue, says Eddie Izzard | News | The Guardian

8 thoughts on “On anti-Semitism, Eddie Izzard is on the wrong side of the argument

  1. Simon Cohen

    The whole ‘antisemitism’ argument was mishandled from the get go when the underhand and malicious ‘Guido Fawkes’ dug up the mural business. Labour have allowed the Tories and a hostile media to dictate the terms.

    It has been a good sign that Corbyn has not allowed himself to be bullied by the Board of Deputies and the Jewish Labour Movement and has resisted taking on all of the IHRA examples of anti-semitism which if applied would even implicate some Orthodox groups who are very critical of Israel!. Groups like Jewish Voices for Labour are a more reliable source of information on this debate.

    As a Jew, I find it deeply disturbing that something as serious as anti-semitism has been ‘weaponised’ and cynically manipulated in this way.

    I wish you luck with your ongoing struggle to clear your name, Mike. It’s sad you have to use your valuable energies this way.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      Thanks. And I agree – it is sad that I have to waste my time on this. But that’s the idea – tie up good people with nonsense so the bad ones can have free rein to do what they want.

      1. Zippi

        Sadly, I’m not earning, at present so, I’m unable to offer financial assistance but I wish you well.

    2. John.

      The entire purpose of tried and tested, vicious slurs, subsequent lobotomized outrage and successful diversion is in it’s entirety to prevent Mike’s energies, or anyone else with a platform, from exposing the real problem to a wider audience.

      The land grab abomination in the M.E. and the US sponsored and protected murderous supremacist cult controlling it, have almost completed their assimilation of Judaism (and elimination of Palestine).

  2. Zippi

    Again, I ask, why is anti-Semitism even a thing? We have laws to combat racism, which politicians of all stripes seem to agree anti-Semitism is and we have laws to combat religious hatred. If these laws are insufficient, or not robust enough, surely that is for Parliament to deal with, not a reason to bring the £abour Party, or leadership into disrepute. Furthermore, if there have been instances of lawbreaking, why have there been no charges brought, for racism is a crime, no? I say, again, we must dispense with so-called antiSemitism and deal with the law as we have it; this would bring treatment of Jews into line with every other minority ethnic group in the country and stop making them a special case with no apparent reason for this to be so. If crimes are committed, let them be reported and let our judicial system deal with them, rather than what is evidently political attacks and manipulation and exploitation of Jewish people.
    I wrote the the Party, today, outlining my concerns regarding specific examples of the definition of anti-Semitism, as outlines by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance and gave my reasons and asked the Party to list those examples that it sees as problematic and say why. I also asked for Jewish M.P.s to contact me. Why should Jewish people be entitled to greater protection than I?

  3. foggy

    ‘It is a directive to find me guilty of anti-Semitism, no matter what the evidence shows.’

    Isn’t this constructive & unlawful expulsion (similar to that of constructive dismissal in employment) ? Google it Mike !

    Get lawyered up, don’t go into the kangaroo court without an ACE beside you. All the best Mike.

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      I can’t find any information on constructive and unlawful expulsion in UK law.

Comments are closed.