Is THIS how Margaret Hodge expresses regret?
Margaret Hodge: “Expressed regret”? Really?
I’m not convinced at all.
A Labour MP who “expressed regret” for launching a foul-mouthed tirade against her party leader in a public place would not, I think, immediately release a statement vilifying the organisation for following its procedures.
But that is what Margaret Hodge has done.
And she tried to pervert the issue, claiming that it was about anti-Semitism, when it was in fact about her display of behaviour falling well below the standards expected of a Labour Party member, let alone an MP.
For the record, she is also entirely wrong about the issue she wanted to promote.
The IHRA working definition of anti-Semitism is not as good as the descriptions in Labour’s code of conduct.
It allows those with malicious intent to accuse people of anti-Semitism if they dare to criticise the policies of the Israeli government, and this is not acceptable.
Even its author, Kenneth S Stern, has condemned it as an instrument that curbs freedom of speech.
So why is Ms Hodge so desperate to make malicious, fake accusations of anti-Semitism easier?
Perhaps we should take a look at the list of people making donations to her. It clarified a great deal when that happened to Tom Watson.
Labour has ended its disciplinary action against the MP Margaret Hodge, launched by the party after she called Jeremy Corbyn “an antisemite and a racist” over his handling of Labour’s dispute with Jewish community leaders.
Labour sources said Hodge, the MP for Barking, had “expressed regret” to the party’s chief whip, Nick Brown, “for the manner in which she raised her views”.
Hodge said in a statement: “I’m pleased that the Labour party has finally dropped their ‘action’ against me. After 55 years of LP membership, going after me instead of addressing the issue was wrong.
“In 2018, antisemitism has again reared its ugly head and the campaign against it goes on. The Labour party must adopt the IHRA definition in full to start to rebuild trust. Thanks to everyone for kind messages of support which have kept me going.”
Source: Labour ends action against Margaret Hodge in antisemitism row | Politics | The Guardian
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:
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:
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
I thought the Labour Party HAD adopted the definition but rejected or adapted four of the ‘examples.’ SO why is Hodge saying they should accept the definition in full if the definition has been accepted in full. The examples aren’t the definition are they? If they are why are they called examples?
It goes beyond criticism of Israel. You’re not even allowed to cite the Bible, for fear of being labelled anti-Semitic! Allegedly, the person who detailed Tom Watson’s donors said something along the lines of, even Judas only accepted 30 pieces of silver. This was said to be anti-Semitic.
This is P.C in the extreme! Jesus [Christos] WAS A JEW! (or rather, what we understand, today, as being Jewish.) The Jews even recognise him as one of their prophets. How is comparing the actions of one person to those of another anti-Semitic, if the comparison is valid?
I know that he is in a difficult position but I am beginning to lose faith in Jeremy Corbyn. Anti-Semitism might be a problem, in today’s society; it might even be a problem in the £abour Party but is it a bigger problem than is racism? Is it a bigger problem than is Islamophobia? Is it a more urgent problem than the actions of this Government? Does it warrant such media attention and scrutiny? Nobody cares about racism; we black people are always told either to shut up, or that racism doen’t exist, our claims are exaggerated etc. How many Jews have been murdered, in recent years, in England, because they are Jewish? That is not a rhetorical question, I really would like to know. I am trying to understand why such a big deal is being made of this. I lived in Finchley for 14 years (would that I were still there), my best friend of 18 years in Jewish, I work with many Jews; of course, I worry for their safety, especially if this escalates, given the current political climate. What I ask is, is what is happening necessary? As Hajo Meyer said, “[we] Jews have the monopoly on suffering.” We know that this is not true and as my friend told me, most people can’t tell who is Jewish. The Jews aren’t a race.
So where has all of this come from and why is it such big news? Why is almost anything said, that has anything to do with Jews, anti-Semitic and disgusting? This is very worrying, indeed. People will be afraid to speak, they will blame the Jews and then what? I am very, very worried. What do Margaret Hodge et al have to gain from this and is the safety of Jewish people a price worth paying?
I don’t think she ever expressed regret for boosting the BNP in 2006.
The BNP was losing support until her comments rescued it .
Ah so everything is rosy again I bloody think not just another of those who is greedy toe rag and should do the decent thing cross the floor before she is deselected
So, now Ian Austin’s lawyers are claiming that he doesn’t know why he is being disciplined?