Fake anti-Semitism: Labour’s guilt-manufacturing machine

This should be a complete answer to accusations that Labour is “soft” on anti-Semitism: The party’s dispute procedure allows it, not only to demand that defendants be found guilty in spite of the evidence, but also to produce new evidence with no warning, if the original claims are disproved.

This is not justice. It is a good reason for you to support my bid to take this matter – and others – before a real judge in a court of law.

You’ll remember I wrote about the paragraph in Labour’s charge sheet against me that stated: “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.”

This, I said, was a directive to find me guilty of anti-Semitism, no matter what the evidence shows.

Well obviously I got in touch with Labour to demand an explanation as to the meaning of this outrage. I also took the opportunity to check whether I had, in fact, received all the evidence that was likely to be used against me.

Here’s the answer: “It is actually part of the opening submissions that the NEC proposes to make at a hearing of its charge that purpose of which is to persuade the NCC panel to find in favour of the NEC.  It is open to you to rebut such statements in your answer to charge and to make your own statements at the hearing to persuade the Panel of your case.  It is for the Panel whether they are influenced or not by such statements.”

Not acceptable. It is an attempt to persuade the judging panel that they must find me guilty because of concerns beyond those related to my case – that it will look bad to outsiders if an innocent man is found innocent.

That is so backward, so corrupt, it should be shouted from the rooftops until Labour changes its barbaric ways.

On the evidence likely to be submitted, I was told: “The Party’s rule book allows the presenter of charges to reply to a respondent’s answer to charge and to provide new witness statements and other evidence in support of that reply, all of which will be copied to the respondent prior to a hearing.  If either party however wishes to produce any documentary evidence at a hearing that has not been previously seen by the other party and the Panel, they need agreement of the Panel to do so.  Such permission is usually only given if the evidence is material to the matters to be decided and there is a valid reason why the evidence has not been disclosed before e.g. it has only come to light after the disclosure of other evidence.”

This suggests that, if my evidence defeats the charges against me, my accusers will bring forward something else – with no prior warning, allowing me no time to assemble a defence against it.

Corrupt again.

I’ll be writing another stern letter, of course. In the meantime, don’t forget to contribute to my crowdfunder – or share it with someone who might, if you have already given.

After this has blown over, those of us in the Labour Party will need to overhaul its procedures and root out the unfairness that has been written in over the last few decades.

Visit our JustGiving page to help Vox Political’s Mike Sivier fight anti-Semitism libels in court

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.

1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.

2) Follow VP on Twitter @VoxPolitical

3) Like the Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/VoxPolitical/

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

4) You could even make Vox Political your homepage at http://voxpoliticalonline.com

And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:


9 thoughts on “Fake anti-Semitism: Labour’s guilt-manufacturing machine

  1. jaguarjon

    Did Kafka write the Labour Party rules?
    It’s a fundamental tenet of English Common Law: innocent until proven guilty. Also, they breach the rules of evidence: all evidence must be disclosed to both parties before any hearing. This is to avoid ambushing, so beloved of TV drama, but likely to draw the criticism of the Court because it’s an interference with due process. Any ‘new’ evidence introduced must allow both sides to consider it before proceeding.

    I have contributed and Shared on Facebook.

  2. foggy

    Who will be stating this opening submission statement ? Is this statement used in every case, if not why not ? How many cases have been thrown out even if/when this statement has been used ?

    Too many unanswered questions that are in dire need of answers

    1. Mike Sivier Post author

      I’ve used that phrase before, describing the NEC’s disputes panel.

  3. john thatcher

    It shames a party that calls itself democratic and socialist to even countenance such appalling methods.

  4. rotzeichen

    This dispatches documentary made before 2010 explodes the Israeli Lobby wide appart and could also be used as evidence to how these lobby groups funded by Israel have used anti Semitism to silence criticism of Israel.


    Even the then editor of the Guardian was outspoken about how they attacked him over false claims.

Comments are closed.