Tag Archives: Christine Shawcroft

Anti-Semitism furore tips into farce as Shawcroft quits NEC to be replaced by Eddie Izzard

Eddie Izzard: In the name of honesty, he wasn’t giving his vote to the author of Vox Political but to someone called Mike le Surf.

Left-wing Labour member Christine Shawcroft has been bullied off Labour’s National Executive Committee after she was forced to resign as head of the disputes panel in a row over an alleged holocaust denier.

The worst part of this story isn’t the fact that Ms Shawcroft will be replaced by comedian Eddie Izzard (on the NEC – not as chair of the disputes panel, unless anyone knows better).

No – it’s the possibility that the charges against Alan Bull, whose alleged anti-Semitism was questioned by Ms Shawcroft, may have been entirely fabricated.

Here‘s Mr Bull’s comment on the matter:

In June 2015 I had 5000 Facebook friends, many of whom enjoyed discussing a wide range of controversial subjects that didn’t appear in the mainstream media. My habit then, as now is as follows — friends send me posts they think are of interest. I repost mostly without comment to discover what other friends have to say about the article/MEM. When a friend comments, I cut and paste this-complete with their name, and paste above the article before reposting. This stimulates more comments and we all get a better understanding of the subject as a result. The most controversial article I posted privately to friends only, 2 years ago, was a documentary, with the controversial title, “Red cross confirm holocaust is a hoax”. The more accurate and considerably less shocking sub heading of this title was excluded by the screenshotter for maximum impact. As were ALL of the 46 comments, including a short exchange I had with a Jewish friend who commented, “Can I ask the intent of this article, are you denying the holocaust”? To which I replied, “Not at all, just posting for discussion and debate, as usual, best wishes, Alan”.

These comments were removed, to create the impression that I, in some way agreed with the article in an attempt to misrepresent my intention and have me suspended from the party.

Other articles claiming I was anti-Semitic included supporting a petition to reinstate Ken Livingstone and another article which was actually written by one of my Jewish friends!

Interesting to see that support for Ken Livingstone is now taken to be support for anti-Semitism, even though he was not found guilty of any such offence.

Mr Bull’s case is now irretrievably prejudiced due to the publicity it has received.

And here‘s another severely prejudiced case: Marianne Tellier, the former secretary of Labour’s Park and Arbourthourne branch, in Sheffield, has been suspended after tweeting this picture:

Her accusers are suggesting she tweeted it in support of the Holocaust – the slogan, of course, hangs over the gates of Auschwitz. The significance is that Iain Duncan Smith, former Work and Pensions Secretary, visited Auschwitz in 2010 and famously stated, “Work makes you free” in at least one speech afterwards.

Satirists took the phrase and applied it to a Job Centre Plus sign (Mr Duncan Smith, as Work and Pensions Secretary was responsible for Job Centres at the time), making a double point, that he was behaving like a Nazi in both word and deed, as thousands of people were dying due to savage benefit policies.

I can’t say for sure that this is why Ms Tellier used the image, but it’s certainly my reason for doing so.

What we’re seeing is the disruption of due process by unscrupulous people with a political agenda – to harm the Labour left.

Red Labour explains it well, below:

https://twitter.com/Redlabour2016/status/979751140354150400

The text in the attachments states:

As socialists, we have to uphold the principle of natural justice, based on due process. If we don’t, it makes it very difficult to talk about either democracy in the Labour Party or the importance of proper, legal protections, under the law in wider society.

We have heard a lot of talk, mostly from people not in the Labour Party, about ways to deal with the anti-semitism problem in the party. There is a sense that if only Jeremy, as leader, was tougher, the problem could be solved. Or, if we just could instantly expel people on the spot, the debate could move on.

However, that’s not the way it works in a democratic party, indeed any party which has any semblance of rights and engagement for its members. The Labour Party isn’t a private company, with a Donald Trump-style CEO in charge, pointing the finger and “sacking” people on the spot.

If it takes longer in these cases, that is because it is potentially life-changing (especially for a lifelong Labour activist) to be expelled from the Labour Party for anti-semitism. Indeed, it is important that all those accused are treatted fairly, and discretely – and with the principles of natural justice (including the ability to get a fair trial) because even being suspended can have a massive impact on your mental health.

What we can’t ever accept is summary justice. As Red Labour have maintained throughout, we acknowledge there are cases of anti-semitism in the party, and that it is a problem. We think it right for anyone to be expelled if they are found guilty, after detailed questioning and reviewing of the evidence, but if we accept the demand to expel people based on a swirl of hatred, we will struggle to call ourselves a democratic and socialist party in the future.

My own case has been undergoing trial by bigotry, of course. Someone in Labour’s NEC (or an officer reporting to it) gave a biased report about me to a Sunday Times newspaper reporter, and I was deluged with hatred on the social media – including messages from at least two Labour MPs, with a third being quoted discussing my case in other national newspapers. There is absolutely no chance that my case can ever have a fair hearing now.

Would you like to read the names of 39 Labour MPs and peers who demanded that Jeremy Corbyn enact summary, swirl-of-hatred justice against Christine Shawcroft, on the basis of her questioning the validity of the allegedly-doctored evidence against Alan Bull – even though he doesn’t have the authority? Here they are:

The letter states:

It is utterly wrong that somebody who defends a Labour candidate who has been suspended for Holocaust denial should be a member of Labour’s governing body.

This is highly offensive to the Jewish community and all those of us who wish to see the scourge of antisemitism eradicated.

We urge you to suspend Christine Shawcroft from the Labour Party immediately, thus ensuring she is removed from the NEC.

You pledged this week to be an ally in the fight against antisemitism. This action would represent an initial step in honouring that commitment.

Before going on, I should point out that, under the current, flawed system, all Labour members who are accused of anti-Semitism have their membership suspended before the evidence is considered – and that evidence is only considered by members of Labour’s governing body. We may therefore conclude that the signatories of this letter want everybody who is even accused of anti-Semitism to be dismissed without any opportunity to be defended by their NEC representatives, or even to defend themselves.

They want to make it possible to dismiss political opponents on the basis of false and malicious anti-Semitism charges, and that is not acceptable.

The Labour MPs and peers who want to pervert justice in this way are:

Siobhain McDonagh
Ian Austin
Luciana Berger
Chris Bryant
Ann Coffey
Mary Creagh
Stelly Creasy
Stephen Doughty
Louise Ellman
Jim Fitzpatrick
Dame Margaret Hodge
Mike Gapes
Lilian Greenwood
Mike Kane
Liz Kendall
Stephen Kinnock
Peter Kyle
Chris Leslie
Catherine McKinnell
Rachel Reeves
Jonathan Reynolds
Joan Ryan
Gavin Shuker
Ruth Smeeth
Angela Smith
Wes Streeting
Anna Turley
Chuka Umunna
Phil Wilson
John Woodcock
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top
Lord Beecham
Baroness Cohen of Pimlico
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Lord Harris of Haringey
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Lord Livermore
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale

I have stated that Mr Corbyn does not have the authority to sack anybody from Labour’s NEC. By resigning her position, Ms Shawcroft has rescued him from an impossible situation:

Of course, the only people to benefit from this are the Conservatives. Tory slimeball Sajid Javid was stoking the fires of disaffection on Twitter:

But we’ve all got the measure of him:

What we are witnessing here is an attack against justice, by the Labour MPs and peers named above, with the support of politicians from the Conservative Party (and no doubt many of the others, too).

It must not be allowed to succeed.

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:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

Change in the chair won’t stop Labour’s disputes panel being a kangaroo court

Christine Shawcroft, newly-elected chairperson of the Labour Party disputes panel [Image from her website].

This Writer seems to have become a minor part of a major political news story – that really shouldn’t be.

It seems a certain quality of commentator has been trying to make a big thing of the fact that Ann Black has been replaced by Christine Shawcroft in the chair of Labour’s disputes panel, which rules on the handling of issues including allegations of anti-Semitism against members.

Like Aaron Bastani, I’d rather be discussing something else. Never mind – this has happened, so it must be addressed.

No sooner was she voted in than Ms Shawcroft was accused of going soft on anti-Semites, with announcements that some members were to be given a warning and sent for “training” by the Jewish Labour Movement, rather than their cases going on to be examined in detail by the party’s National Constitutional Committee, with a view to expulsion. It turns out that she didn’t vote and therefore had nothing to do with the decision apart from running the meeting at which it was made.

So attention shifted to Momentum founder – and recently-elected member of Labour’s National Executive Committee – Jon Lansman, who – we’re told – managed to clear This Writer of the anti-Semitism charge against me.

That one isn’t true either.

For a quick recap of the claims about me – and my response to them – nip across to the article I wrote about it back in April last year. Basically, someone with malice aforethought took comments from some of my articles out of context and presented them as proof that I was an anti-Semite, in a bid to affect the result of last year’s council election in the Powys ward where I was standing.

Labour HQ, in its wisdom, suspended my membership pending an investigation – which didn’t start until October, six months after the claims were made. Late that month, I attended – with a friend of Jewish heritage who was acting as a witness – an interview with an officer of Welsh Labour who questioned me about my allegedly dodgy comments. I spoke for nearly two hours, putting forward a forceful case (I thought) that the claims were rubbish, put forward by people who were making mischief at election time (which is a crime).

If what I’ve heard is accurate, then I may as well not have bothered attending that meeting.

You see, the report presented to Labour’s disputes panel contained none of the information I passed on. I’m told it repeated the out-of-context quotations from my articles and then claimed that I was “unclear” in my responses to questioning and did not seem to understand how my words could be interpreted as anti-Semitic. I can only interpret that as a lie.

The officer conducting the meeting had handed me a pile of printed copies of some of my articles, and questioned my on passages he had highlighted. In one such passage I stated that the Jewish Labour Movement “is not a movement that represents Jews; it represents Zionists”, and asked me why I had made that suggestion.

I looked at the printout and asked him if he had read the article in full. He said no – he had only been told to ask about the parts he had highlighted (meaning, incidentally, that was admitting he had absolutely no understanding of my attitudes or what I actually do).

I then pointed out that this was a shame as, if he had glanced down the page, he would have realised that my source was the organisation’s own website, which states that the JLM “is also affiliated to… the Zionist Federation of the UK, and organise within the World Zionist Organisation… Our objects: To maintain and promoted Labour or Socialist Zionism as the movement for self-determination of the Jewish people within the state of Israel.”

“‘Zionist’… ‘Zionist’… ‘Zionism’,” I had written. “It should be ‘Zionist Labour Movement’.”

That is an accurate description – the evidence bears it out. Nobody can honestly say that my response was unclear. And how can those words be interpreted as anti-Semitic? They are the Jewish Labour Movement’s own words, from the JLM’s own website.

The officer suggested that I had used the anti-Semitic trope of the international Jewish conspiracy in the comment, “it is a conspiracy, have no doubt about that.” I pointed out that the comment was in an article about Israeli Embassy staffer Shai Masot, who was exposed in an attempt to conspire with UK citizens to undermine members of the government who were deemed to be unsympathetic to the state of Israel, including then-Deputy Foreign Minister Sir Alan Duncan. You can read about the organisations he claimed to have set up and supported here (among many other pages). That’s the conspiracy to which I was referring – and it was a conspiracy.

Is there anything unclear about that? Anything anti-Semitic about discussing an Israeli diplomat’s attempt to undermine the UK government at a time when it was an issue of the day? No. Of course not.

I could go on, but the point is made, I think.

The problem with the disputes panel is that it acts as a secret court, in which members who are accused of breaking party rules are tried and convicted without seeing any evidence or having a chance to argue against it.

The prevailing attitude among members seems to be that “there’s no smoke without fire” – that virtually anyone facing disciplinary charges is guilty and the officers are just doing their job. Those who challenge the officers’ recommendations, I’m told, are regularly reproached in the strongest terms for impugning the professionalism of the officers and, in effect, attempting to shield bullies, bigots and trouble-makers.

This brings me back to Jon Lansman. I’ve never met Mr Lansman. I understand he is of Jewish heritage but self-defines as an atheist. All things considered, he has no reason to stand up for me…

Apart from a belief that I am innocent of the accusations against me.

Perhaps – unlike the officer who investigated my case – he has read This Site and carried out a bit of research.

Anyway, his intervention – and that of Welsh NEC member Darren Williams, who does know me – seems to have done some good, as the recommendation to refer my case to the National Constitutional Committee with a view to expulsion was rejected.

But those interventions weren’t completely successful. The disputes panel voted to give me a warning – and send me for “training” with the Jewish Labour Movement, of all people.

The JLM? The organisation that advertises “safe space” “training” meetings in which people are encouraged to discuss any issues they may have with Judaism, only to discover later that their comments have been recorded and released to the media as evidence of anti-Semitism? I should bleedin’ cocoa.

It is a choice that was put forward by another left-winger, Pete Willsman, as a compromise after certain members refused to accept the facts of my case – and I am grateful to him for trying.

But it is a result that still assumes guilt.

I am not guilty of anti-Semitism and won’t be treated as such. I have rejected the decision and the members of the disputes panel had better think again. They can try considering the facts this time.

The disputes panel itself is a kangaroo court that considers reports that are fabricated to confirm a predetermined conclusion, and consequently treats members referred to it as guilty, regardless of whether the evidence suggests this – with no opportunity to prove themselves innocent.

That cannot be changed by the arrival of a new person in the chair.

The conduct of the disputes panel is an offence to British justice and must be reformed.

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:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook