Marie Van Der Zyl: The president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews may need to ask some serious questions of the other members of her organisation.
“I do not like the Board of Jewish Deputies,”
writes Martin Odoni in his excellent article about this incident.
“As a body, it falsely claims to ‘represent’ British Jews, but hardly ever consults any of us before arriving at its official position on any matter. They no more represent Jews than Mary I represented the people of England.”
This seems clear from its treatment of Rachel Shabi, who also happens to be Jewish, and who tweeted a response to Karen Pollock of the Holocaust Educational Trust, who in turn had claimed that Gary Lineker had been wrong to make Holocaust comparisons to current events:
This is plainly wrong. A key tenet of Holocaust education is never again, for anyone. The Holocaust is unique, but "never again" is universal. Drawing out similarities and parallels is critical and part of the education https://t.co/d5fbRRQJ5E
I agree with Shabi, most particularly in light of the many, many examples, during eight years of anti-Semitism hysteria directed at the British Left, of wildly hyperbolic and irresponsible Holocaust comparisons being misused – think of Margaret Hodge – to which the HET ‘mysteriously’ never responded. (Once again, the outrage only follows when the comparisons are made with the modern British Right.)
But such comparisons can be accurate, and the horrid rhetoric the current Tory Party are using when discussing asylum seekers is indeed barely distinguishable, at least in tone, from the sort of anti-Semitic propaganda that was omni-present in Nazi Germany in the 1930s.
However, the Board of Deputies of British Jews was apparently outraged. It published a (now-deleted) tweet, to which Ms Shabi responded… actually in thoroughly reasonable tones, considering the content. Look:
“Rachel Shabi telling the head of the Holocaust Education Trust that she’s “plainly wrong” about, er, the Holocaust, is the definition of chutzpah. The shamelessness of this asshole.”
Is that really appropriate language for the body claiming to represent all British Jews?
After the inevitable public backlash, even the BoD agreed that it isn’t, with an apparent claim – clarified by Ms Shabi – that the tweet was intended to go from a member’s personal account rather than the organisation’s official Twitter feed:
Hi @BoardofDeputies thanks for the apology, though the problem isn't just the language but the substance of the post.I'm concerned that the person intending to post this on their personal account is responsible for your twitter account.Can you take action? https://t.co/WzXWSBlYif
Mr Odoni has information about the person apparently responsible for the BoD’s Twitter account, but I’ll leave it to him to explain it to you, over in his article.
But I will pass an observation by an onlooker about what the apology says about the BoD:
Translation:
We meant to post that abusive tweet about Rachel Shabi on one of our numerous sock puppet accounts, but we accidentally posted it on our official account by mistake. We're not remotely sorry about the content of the tweet. We're just sorry we used the wrong account. https://t.co/tdqmb7zvGo
— Frank Owen's Legendary Paintbrush🥀🇵🇸🇾🇪 (@OwenPaintbrush) March 12, 2023
Whatever happened here, it is likely to tarnish the reputation of this organisation for some time to come.
BoD president Marie van der Zyl may need to explain what’s going on – because if Gary Lineker can be removed from his position at the BBC over a tweet he published on his personal Twitter feed, then surely a member of her organisation should be removed for publishing a tweet containing inappropriate language and inaccuracies, on its official Twitter feed rather than their own.
Or will we see some more double-standards in this increasingly twisted saga?
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:
Be among the first to know what’s going on! Here are the ways to manage it:
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the right margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
5) Join the uPopulus group at https://upopulus.com/groups/vox-political/
6) Join the MeWe page at https://mewe.com/p-front/voxpolitical
7) Feel free to comment!
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!
Please share the image, or even tweet it to @Keir_Starmer if you like it.
Those of us who have taken to watching the anti-Semitism of Keir Starmer’s Labour Party from outside can only gape appalled at the latest announcement from the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
According to that body, it is satisfied that Labour has made enough changes to the way it handles complaints of anti-Semitism to counter the criticisms it made of how the party handles anti-Semitism complaints and will be winding up a two-year monitoring process.
But you’ll also need to be aware that since Keir Starmer took over as party leader, Labour has embarked on a programme (or should that be pogrom) of removing Jews from the party – specifically targeting Jewish people with left-wing views.
Here‘s a report from December last year, on the removal of three high-profile left-wing Jews. All anti-racists, they were accused of anti-Semitism.
Notice that, in this report, Heather Mendick commented that “her branch used to have ‘lots of active Jewish members’. All were ‘lefties’ but just one of them is still a member.”
How about the resignation from Keir Starmer’s own Constituency Labour Party of Stephen Kapos, a Holocaust survivor who the party told must choose between his duty to teach people about its horrors and Labour policy demanding he may not support a group that has been proscribed by the party (albeit for questionable reasons)?
And the Jews named in this article (which I’m aware includes some of those mentioned above).
It has been claimed that Jewish Labour members are almost five times more likely to face anti-Semitism charges than non-Jewish members.
But against this background of shockingly anti-Semitic behaviour, Starmer has issued an ultimatum to all remaining left-wing Labour members: support him or leave.
The BBC reports him saying:
“We are never going back. If you don’t like it, nobody is forcing you to stay.”
What a horrifying message for Jewish members of the Labour Party.
Starmer is saying that he will continue to purge them from their political home; to deny them a voice; to remove their identity (shades of Germany in the 1930s).
And their only alternative is to leave before they are forced out.
And that is what the euphemistically-named Equality and Human Rights Commission is praising.
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.
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!
Israeli apartheid: this barrier separates Israelis from Palestinians, who are treated as a lower class of human being by the government of Israel.
There is no way that Amnesty International is an anti-Semitic organisation. It simply is not possible when one considers the composition and purpose of that organisation.
The world’s largest human rights organisation, it has just published a report labelling Israel as an apartheid nation and demanding change:
It’s official. Amnesty has concluded that Israeli occupation authorities are enforcing a system of apartheid against ALL Palestinians living under their effective control – whether they live in Israel, occupied Palestine, or in other countries as refugeespic.twitter.com/TspoveeqNt
You can read the full report by following the link at the bottom of this article. It is sensible and balanced.
But when UK-based organisations that claim to represent British Jews caught sight of it, they made fools of themselves by denouncing Amnesty:
We have seen a copy of a report due to be released by @AmnestyUK tomorrow. We are shocked but not surprised by the content given the history of AI UK’s one-sided positioning on Israel. @bodpres and @JLC_uk Chair Keith Black have issued the following statement: pic.twitter.com/0X7NHzBxNd
— Board of Deputies of British Jews (@BoardofDeputies) January 31, 2022
“The report is completely biased and applies standards to Israel that are not applied to any other country.”
A lie.
“The emotive term “apartheid” against Israel is a preposterous slur.”
Another lie. Israeli apartheid is well-documented – not least in the Amnesty video that appears above.
“Despite AI UK’s claim to recognise the Jewish claim to self-determination… it does not support that right.”
A lie. Amnesty does not suggest that Jews should not have that right.
“It chooses to focus on demonising the one Jewish state, holding it to clear double standards.”
A lie. Amnesty’s report attempts to hold Israel to the same standards as any other nation.
“The situation for the Palestinian people is indeed distressing; this will not be alleviated by destroying Israel.”
There is nothing in the Amnesty report that even remotely suggests dismantling Israel.
“This is a bad faith report hostile to the very concept of Israel.”
I think we can all see who is acting in bad faith!
Like all controversial acts, the Amnesty report has attracted detractors (who follow the BoD/JLC attack line) and supporters. Let’s focus on the supporters because they are right:
Today Amnesty International published a report detailing what they describe as 'Israel's apartheid.'
This must be a wake-up call for leaders across Britain, Europe, and the United States.
It’s time to face up to the reality of the injustice suffered by the Palestinian people.
Amnesty International says Israel's treatment of Palestinians is a crime against humanity and is illegal under international law — adding that Israel's "domination" of Palestinians amounts to apartheid.https://t.co/op6YYaUilZ
The response by the Bod and the JLC has also led to another conclusion:
If the Board of Deputies and the Jewish Leadership Council are prepared to falsely and maliciously accuse Amnesty International of "antisemitism" in order to discredit their report, isn't it just possible their accusations against Jeremy Corbyn were equally false and malicious?
— Frank Owen's Legendary Paintbrush 🟨🟥🥀🇵🇸 (@WarmongerHodges) February 1, 2022
The response from the Board of Deputies and the Jewish Leadership Council to Amnesty International's report declaring Israel an apartheid state is a million times worse than anything Jeremy Corbyn said in response to the EHRC report into Labour's "antisemitism crisis".
— Frank Owen's Legendary Paintbrush 🟨🟥🥀🇵🇸 (@WarmongerHodges) February 1, 2022
It’s a fair point, which leads to a further issue: Keir Starmer’s support for apartheid Israel.
So come on, @Keir_Starmer, famous lawyer, explain forensically why you disagree with Amnesty International's finding that Israel's treatment of Palestinians amounts to apartheid.
— Glenn Barnacle-Milieu #DaveNellist4Erdington (@leftnotlabour) February 1, 2022
We shouldn’t hold our collective breath waiting for a response. Starmer is a coward and will run away from a challenge like this.
While we do wait, we can all read the Amnesty report.
Starmer’s hypocrisy: this image was made when Starmer was accusing individual Jews of anti-Semitism. Now he’s attacking organisations that will have Jews in their memberships – and Neil Coyne has called for one Jewish group to be proscribed as well, in an echo of Nazi demands during the Weimar period in Germany.
Boris Johnson’s Tories may be unfit to govern but Keir Starmer’s version of Labour is in no condition to take over as it continues its self-harming course to the political scrapheap.
Starmer’s latest big idea for electoral success is to make Labour even more like the Conservative Party by ending its pretence of being a “broad church”; he wants to ban membership from anyone who claims to be a socialist.
As stated in a previous article, he’s doing this by claiming that socialists – who want self-determination for people of all ethnicities, particularly those that currently suffer persecution – are anti-Semites (because this means they want self-determination for Palestinians who are persecuted by the Israeli government that Starmer smarms up to).
First on the list to get the chop are around 1,000 party members who also belong to Resist, Labour Against the Witchhunt, Labour in Exile and Socialist Action.
Their crimes appear to be claiming that many anti-Semitism allegations, for which Labour members have been suspended or expelled, were blown out of proportion and politically-motivated; welcoming such expelled or suspended members into their own ranks; and demanding the re-admission of Jeremy Corbyn into the Parliamentary Labour Party.
All of these stances may be demonstrably connected to support for Palestinians against Israeli persecution.
Here’s the part that marks Starmer out as an imbecile, though: in cutting members out of the party, he’s cutting off the membership fees that he needs, in order to maintain the machinery he is using to attack them.
As it is – at the same NEC meeting where he will demand the removal of the above-named groups, he will have to propose plans to make around a quarter of Labour Party staff jobless:
“@UKLabour’s ruling NEC is set to discuss plans for large-scale redundancies among staff, with up to 90 jobs at risk, as @Keir_Starmer seeks to repair the party’s shattered finances.”
Hilariously, the Guardian report tells us that the plan has been devised in a report entitled Organise to Win!
The report states:
Labour’s finances have been hit hard by fighting three general elections in the past six years, as well as a string of costly legal cases, and hopes of a membership bounce after Starmer took over failed to materialise.
The party paid out a six-figure sum a year ago to settle a case brought by seven former employees and a veteran BBC journalist, admitting it defamed them in the aftermath of a Panorama investigation into its handling of antisemitism.
It doesn’t mention the possibility that Labour had no need to settle, as its legal advisors had told Starmer that the party was likely to win if the case came to court. His decision to capitulate is inexplicable.
And how many other disasters have gone unreported? Labour lost thousands of pounds defending itself in court against This Writer’s case, that the party had broken its own disciplinary rules in order to expel me.
The finding was that the party had not broken its rules, which are extremely vague in respect of what may actually be done – but Labour did appear to have broken the regulations it had in place at the time, in order to justify throwing me out. The court ordered that Labour should not be repaid the thousands of pounds it had spent on the case.
How many other such cases have taken place? What other disputes have eroded the party’s funds?
Remember: Labour became the richest UK political party under Jeremy Corbyn because he inspired hundreds of thousands of people to join up – people Keir Starmer has been desperately trying to throw off since he became leader.
Starmer’s plan, it seems, was to go back to relying on donations from big businesses – the same model as that used by Tony Blair during the ‘New Labour’ period of the mid-1990s to 2015.
But his failure to inspire popular support – because he hasn’t said what he stands for – means businesses aren’t supporting him.
There is only one conclusion to draw:
Here’s an obvious, incontrovertible sentence you won’t read in the press tomorrow as Labour makes more layoffs:
The party is in a financial death spiral because of Keir Starmer. I have no idea whose advising him – it’s as if he’s trying to end the Labour Party.
If he isn’t trying to end his own party, then it is ironic that he might be saved from his own stupidity by NEC members who oppose the proscription plan. The UK’s biggest union, and Labour’s biggest donor – Unite – is against it:
Oh, brilliant plan. Labour is haemorrhaging member subscriptions, and is so broke it is having to lay off staff, so @Keir_Starmer's idea of repairing its finances is to enrage the party's largest donor by purging and victimising socialists. https://t.co/p6FzA7TW2Npic.twitter.com/qEsThNwAc2
— leftworks #WeAreCorbyn #IStandWithJeremyCorbyn (@leftworks1) July 19, 2021
The quoted section in the above tweet is from the Guardian article, again, and states:
Labour’s biggest donor, the Unite trade union, attacked the plans on Monday, saying: “While working-class communities are continuing to bear the brunt of the sickness and employment worries made much worse by Conservative mishandling of the pandemic, Labour is abandoning the field of battle against this government to turn its fire on its members instead.”
The union added that such “acts of political machismo” create a “sense of despair among voters who see a party at perpetual war with itself”.
And NEC members from the left-wing Grassroots Voice organisation also oppose the proscriptions:
— Nadia Jama – #GrassrootsVoice (@MizJama) July 19, 2021
The group states:
We believe that asking us to consider this matter … is a continuation of the destructive, factional behaviours from the leadership of the party which have marked the last year.
This isn’t just about the organisations we are being asked to consider… it is about … setting a precedent, proscribing these organisations as a forerunner to proscription of more and more groupings on the left of the party, to ultimately expel large sections of the Labour left and erase the Bennite and other socialist traditions within the party.
Then again,
Starmer has a supportive majority on the NEC, so the plans are expected to be agreed.
If so, then Starmer has stuffed the NEC with drones who are just as stupid as he is and the Labour Party no longer deserves to survive.
So those like Mrs Gee, below, who believe the Left is on a hiding to nothing if it carries on with Labour, may be entirely justified in that view – and, while it may take decades to get a new party up to the popularity Labour achieved under great left-wing leaders like Clement Attlee and Harold Wilson, it may be better to work towards that than to support a lost cause:
If I'm honest I don't want the whip restoring to Jeremy Corbyn
I'd rather other Labour MPs resigned the whip in protest & started a new party as part of a progressive alliance to seriously take on the Tories across the UK because clearly centrist Labour has no plans to do that
Whatever happens, it seems the Labour Party, as run by Keir Starmer, is over.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
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.
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!
We all know the Board of Deputies of British Jews is dominated by Conservatives, don’t we?
The use of anti-Semitism accusations may therefore be seen as a way for Tories to exert unwarranted influence over the Labour Party.
Now it seems they are extending that influence – by which I mean the following:
Labour leader Keir Starmer let a Tory-run organisation order him to reject an invitation to an interfaith event.
The Board of Deputies told Starmer to avoid the virtual Iftar event because one of its organisers is a member of Cage, an international advocacy organisation with a focus on Muslim detainees and communities impacted by the so-called War on Terror.
Apparently this person had shared a demand for a boycott of Israeli dates.
Is it true? Were there good reasons for it if it was? These questions are relevant but don’t really affect the core issue.
What matters is that Starmer let a Tory group order him around and that will never be acceptable in a Labour Party representative.
And at a time when he is trying to make mud stick on Boris Johnson and the Tories for letting former MPs and ministers, party donors and friends influence them, it is shocking that Starmer would show himself to be so easily-led by a Tory-led group.
The Twitterati have been having a field day:
This is no different from withdrawing from an event in the 1980s because one of the participants was urging a boycott of products coming from Apartheid South Africa.
This can only do further harm to Starmer’s chances in the local elections…
… but right-wing Labour is spinning like a top in its efforts to make him look supportable.
Labour is plummeting in the polls, with Starmer’s leadership the clearest reason, but that didn’t stop Peter – sorry, Lord – Mandelson taking a pop at former leader Jeremy Corbyn. He told Huffington Post‘s Paul Waugh:
“The memory of Jeremy Corbyn is still strong on the doorsteps amongst Labour voters here, it’s still coming up and I’m afraid we have still got some way to go before we rebuild the confidence and trust that we just threw away.”
No, Peter. It’s your boy Starmer who’s throwing away confidence and trust.
Meanwhile, the object of the Right’s continued enmity has managed to remain astonishingly equivocal about Starmer – but still couldn’t manage to say anything nice about him when questioned by LBC’s Iain Dale:
I love how he simply ignores the request to say something nice about Starmer and just keeps making his point about the importance of an opposition (clearly implying that Starmer is crap at it). Corbyn is really great here.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
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.
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!
Jeremy Corbyn is a friend to Jewish people but right-wingers who publish fake news traduced him – made him look like the exact opposite. Sadly, too few readers fact-checked the false claims and his reputation suffered huge damage.
One would have thought an ethnic group that was once brutally attacked by propagandists would be immune to their influence; apparently not.
Right-wing newspapers intended for a UK Jewish readership are sporting headlines claiming that Jews in this country now feel safer, and that they have a future here, knowing that Jeremy Corbyn will not be prime minister.
What they aren’t saying is that this is because they have stopped filling their pages with anti-Corbyn propaganda – falsehoods that were designed to provoke fear in their fellow Jews.
Fake news.
And they’re still pushing it – it’s no coincidence that these headlines are appearing right after we learned Corbyn is launching a court action against the Labour Party over his suspension.
Those of us who know the facts of this matter have given them short shrift:
Of course, many of my fellow Jews *feel safer*
They are no longer subject to the vile anti-Corbyn propaganda of the Jewish Chronicle and most of the mainstream media including the BBC
While their newspapers threatened them with institutional anti-Semitism on a national level, if Jeremy Corbyn had actually become prime minister he would have removed prescription charges from the English NHS.
If you call that cruelty, there’s something wrong with you.
And if you support, read and believe the periodicals that put out this propaganda, you’re not only harming yourself but helping to harm those around you.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
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.
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!
Keir Starmer: he’s caught between a rock and a hard place so perhaps he’s not quite so comfortable now.
I’ll tell you why at the top of this article: because Keir Starmer stupidly signed an agreement that he would let the Board of Deputies of British Jews dictate who could be in the Labour Party and how it would be run, during his leadership campaign.
The Board of Deputies doesn’t represent all British Jews. It represents a minority of them. Yet Starmer gave it power over him and every member of the Labour Party and now it is using it…
To direct racist abuse at black, female MPs, it seems.
The BoD – led from the front by president Marie Van Der Zyl, is calling for the expulsion from Labour of Diane Abbott and Bell Ribeiro-Addy after they appeared on a Zoom discussion which also featured contributions from audience members including expelled Labour members Jackie Walker and Tony Greenstein.
According to Ms Van Der Zyl, Starmer promised to expel any party member found to be giving a platform to former members who had been expelled for anti-Semitism.
There’s just one problem – neither Ms Walker nor Mr Greenstein were expelled for anti-Semitism.
So the attack on Ms Abbott and Ms Ribeiro-Addy comes across as nothing more than pure, unadulterated racism.
And that’s not a good look for a supposedly anti-racist organisation!
Let’s see how this progressed and what people are saying about it. Here’s Ms Van Der Zyl:
.@BoDPres has urged 'swift and decision action' following reports that Labour MPs have addressed an online meeting of activists which included figures expelled from the Labour Party. Full statement: pic.twitter.com/THMq7JhewS
— Board of Deputies of British Jews (@BoardofDeputies) April 30, 2020
“It is completely unacceptable that Labour MPs, and even ordinary members, should be sharing platforms with those that have been expelled from thie Party for antisemitism. Indeed, this breaches the Board of Deputies’ Ten Pledges that Keir and the other Labour leadership contenders signed up to.”
Now consider this:
Dear @BoardofDeputies neither I nor Tony Greenstein, who are both Jewish, were expelled for antisemitism
Targeted harassment. This has got to be illegal? Surely? @TwitterSupport please keep an eye on this issue
— ADN Alternative Daily News (@AdnAlternative) April 30, 2020
Well @BoardofDeputies care to say who exactly you claim have been been expelled for antisemtism? Cos @BoDPres has a history of not quite telling it like it actually is.
They’re all in Tory Party, but has never ever tackled A-S in their own chosen party!
— NOT MEMBER of STARMERs Tory Tribute Band !!! (@xpressanny) April 30, 2020
(In fairness, we don’t know how many members of the BoD are in the Conservative Party, but the organisation as a whole is highly supportive of the Conservatives, despite that party’s own record of racism and anti-Semitism.)
Let’s move on to the racism aspect:
The totally not racist witch hunt wants to force Diane Abbott and Bell Ribeiro-Addy our of parliament.
That’s Britain’s first black woman MP and one of Britain’s newest & brightest black women MPs.
Come for them, you’ll have to come through us all. Good luck with that. ✊🏾❤️ https://t.co/YBMj0aARU6
— Kerry-Anne Mendoza 🏳️🌈🏴 (@TheMendozaWoman) April 30, 2020
Either that, or the party grows a (moral) spine and stands up to these racists & weaponisers of racism.
Which it should have done from the start of their campaign, of course. But I don't see the party doing that … you may well be right if they don't. I think you probably are.
— The Rt Rev'd Mojito🍹 (@childofeternity) May 1, 2020
Me:
The witch hunt seems to have a deep, burning hatred for black women.
The witch hunt:
LIES!
Also the witch hunt:
Kier Starmer, we demand you sack Britain’s first black woman MP *and* one of the newest and brightest black women MPs in the House of Commons.
— Kerry-Anne Mendoza 🏳️🌈🏴 (@TheMendozaWoman) April 30, 2020
There’s also this:
Quick word to those remaining in the Labour party: always check with @BoardofDeputies before saying or doing anything. Remember: it's not your party, it's theirs.
Will he take action against the first ever black female MP and one of that ethnic minority’s rising stars in order to appease a minority of a minority – prompting more party members to walk out on him than have done so already? At this rate, by Christmas Labour will consist of him and Angela Rayner alone.
Or will he stand by his colleagues and risk re-sparking the war of words around alleged anti-Semitism in his party?
There is no easy choice but we should have no sympathy – he has done this to himself.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
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.
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!
Marie Van Der Zyl: The president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews may find herself answering serious questions if she wants to keep her charitable status.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews has become the second self-declared “pro-Jewish” charity to be reported to the Charity Commission for breaking the rule never to support or oppose a particular political party.
Online commenter Simon Maginn quoted the Commission’s own documentation that states: “Whether or not charities choose to undertake political activity, they must never support or oppose a particular political party or endorse a particular political candidate.”
He continued: “The BoD have demanded the Labour Party, but no other, agree to a ’10 point pledge’. I asked the BoD why this was so; they explained that the Labour Party is “infested” with “anti-Jewish racism”, “more than any other party”.
“This is not what CST [Community Security Trust, an organisation established to ensure the safety and security of British Jews in the UK] statistics show, though. CST 17 shows antisemitism rising the further to the political right one goes… Thus, statistically, a Labour member or supporter is less likely to be antisemitic than a member or supporter of the Conservative Party.
“The House of Commons Home Affairs Committee report on Antisemitism in the UK (2016-17) says this:
“It should be emphasised that the majority of antisemitic abuse and crime has historically been, and continues to be, committed by individuals associated with (or motivated by) far-right wing parties and political activity. Although there is little reliable or representative data on contemporary sources of antisemitism, CST figures suggest that around three-quarters of all politically-motivated antisemitic incidents come from far-right sources.
“I asked BoD why, in light of this, they were singling out Labour as particularly problematic, when the available statistical information showed the opposite to be the case; they offered no statistical rebuttal.
“Thus, the BoD have made a very public statement that the Labour Party is problematic based on faulty data. They are ‘opposing’ the Labour Party in so doing. The issue is politically sensitive. The BoD’s ’10 point pledge’ has had enormous publicity, with all the Labour leadership candidates signing up to it. This, in my opinion, amounts to the BoD ‘opposing’ the Labour Party by singling them out for opprobrium and not demanding any other party sign the pledge.
“I think this politicisation of the BoD’s activities presents a negative image of charities, which the British people believe to be politically neutral. The suggestion that a charity might be using its charitable status to oppose one party and, by implication, support another is damaging to the reputation of the charitable sector generally.”
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
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.
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!
Marie Van Der Zyl: The president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews needs to think before issuing bigoted press releases.
Congratulations are due to Labour deputy leader candidates Dawn Butler and Richard Burgon, who refused to kowtow to the Board of Deputies of British Jews by supporting their frankly anti-Semitic “10 pledges”.
In a hustings on Saturday, both confirmed that they did not support the demands, even though their fellow candidates for the deputy leadership – and all the leadership candidates have.
Ms Butler said she intended to wait until she had seen the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) report on antisemitism in the party – and that she would support whatever it said. Personally, This Writer thinks that statement is premature; she should wait to find out what the verdict is before deciding whether it is worth supporting.
Mr Burgon, who has a history of questioning the so-called “witch-hunt”, said he had concerns about some of the demands. He made it clear that he would not support any move to pass investigation of anti-Semitism accusations to any external organisation.
He also said that he did not accept the Board of Deputies’ demand that only Jewish organisations it supported should be consulted on issues relating to all British Jews; all Jewish groups should have a voice. And he said the BOD needed to explain how the IHRA “working” definition of antisemitism could be implemented in the Labour Party without compromising freedom of expression or the rights of Palestinians.
(See this article for a full report – including video.)
Like the knee-jerk bigots they are, the Board of Deputies responded almost immediately – and stupidly.
“It beggars belief that after four and a half years of failure on antisemitism, Richard Burgon and Dawn Butler still think that they know better than the Jewish community how to fight this vile prejudice,” the BoD said in its statement. Trouble is, the Board of Deputies doesn’t represent “the Jewish community” because there isn’t a single, unified Jewish community in the United Kingdom.
Not only that, but neither of them said they knew better – this is falsely attributing words to people who did not speak them.
Oh, and after four and a half years, there is less anti-Semitism in the Labour Party than in the UK at large – and much less than in right-wing parties like the Conservatives. But we never hear the Board of Deputies complaining about that, do we? Because they are predominantly Tories, perhaps? (And don’t try to call this whataboutery; this is a political issue and the politics of BoD members is relevant.)
“No other minority would be treated in this way and this sort of thing is the very reason why Labour is being investigated for institutional antisemitism by the EHRC.” True in part: no other minority is treated the same as Jews, because the Board of Deputies has demanded that they be singled out for special treatment. This may be viewed as anti-Semitic in itself – applying double-standards by treating them differently from any other ethnic group.
And it is hypocritical to use the EHRC investigation against these candidates when one of them – Dawn Butler – specifically said she is waiting for its outcome.
Here’s a link to the tweet. Be sure to read the comments because many of them are scathing.
But don’t just take my word for it.
Jewish Voice for Labour has been a voice of sanity in this affair since the start, and its comment on the “10 pledges” is a damning indictment against the Board of Deputies.
“This organisation, deeply unrepresentative of British Jewry, presumes in effect to dictate to a major political party how it should run its internal affairs,” JVL states.
“Make no mistake – these are not ten requests: they are ten demands and one threat. The threat to each of the candidates for leader of the Labour Party. is in effect. accept our demands or we will attack you as enablers of antisemitism just as we contributed to making Jeremy Corbyn virtually unelectable. This not only brings shame on the Board of Deputies. It also brings danger to Jews living in the UK who will be seen as claiming a privileged place in determining how the country will be governed.” Applying double-standards by demanding that they be treated differently from any other group – see?
“It is deeply regrettable that all the Leadership candidates have succumbed to this blackmail.”
The statement goes on to explain what’s wrong with the “10 pledges”:
“Demand 1 is that all outstanding disciplinary cases should be swiftly concluded with a fixed timescale. That sounds good, but some cases are more complex than others. Those accused of something as serious as antisemitic behaviour must be allowed appropriate time to mount a defence, may need extra time because of serious illness, etc. Justice is complicated. The Board is simplistic. And underlying its attitude is the clear view that the only verdict that will satisfy the Board is ‘guilty’.”
Labour has a historic problem here, in that This Writer’s experience is that the party automatically assumes any accusation made against a member to be proof of that member’s guilt in any case.
“Demand 4 is that prominent offenders who were expelled or who left while under investigation should never be readmitted to membership. Never is a long time. The current Labour rules allow for the possibility of readmission after any offence, depending on behaviour, after a 5-year period. There is no reason, other than malice, that for this sole category of disciplinary finding the possibility of behavioural and attitudinal change should be excluded.
“The aim of this demand is revealed by its inclusion of the word ‘prominent’. How can it be just or appropriate to specify different penalties for people depending on how well known they are or have become? How can it possibly be acceptable to single out people by name? The explanation is that the two people mentioned [Jackie Walker and Ken Livingstone] were prominent ‘scalps’ claimed by a political campaign to extend the meaning of antisemitism. This is political vengefulness.”
Indeed.
“Demand 3 is that “Jewish representative bodies” (read, BoD) be given access to details of ongoing disciplinary cases. The confidentiality owed to ongoing investigations into allegations that have not been established to have merit is to be tossed out of the window. It beggars belief: the BoD is demanding the right to information that would give them, and their allies on the right of the Party, the ability to put pressure on how individual cases are determined. Out goes the independence of the judicial process. And what about the breaking of hard-won data protection laws?”
I seem to recall mentioning this myself.
“Demand 2 is the very purest chutzpah. The demand is that processing of all complaints, in effect the whole disciplinary process, be outsourced to an independent provider. This would mean that the Party would lose control of who was entitled to be a member! No autonomous organisation could implement such a scheme, least of all a political party. It strikes at the very heart of the freedom to organise for political change in this country. Parties are voluntary associations of people who come together to achieve shared ends, within national legal constraints. Their freedom of discussion and action and of self-regulation is the very fabric of our democratic processes.
“Demand 5 is headed “Provide no platform for bigotry”. But honesty in advertising would require it to be retitled “No platform for those who disagree with us”. What it says is that when people are going through the out-of-control disciplinary process assured by Demand 2, and while the details of the investigation are being fed to the BoD and its allies as a result of Demand 3, any other members who argues publicly that this treatment is misguided or unjust will themselves be suspended – and indeed perhaps expelled. If enacted this would ensure that no members could challenge unjust or slanted decision-making. Because those that did so would very likely cease to be members.
“Demand 6 – to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) “international definition of antisemitism” with all its subordinate clauses, without qualification – begs many questions. Apart from the fact that the Labour Party has already done precisely this (misguidedly in our view), the IHRA document has proved ineffective in actual disciplinary situations. This is because its definition of antisemitism is so confused and its examples highly contentious, with no rules as to how to resolve the inevitable resulting disagreements as to what is and what is not antisemitic. The document was never drafted as a legally binding document, as countless critics (including Ken Stern, its drafter) have affirmed.
“Demands 7 and 8 both seek to define the “Jewish Community” by excluding many Jews – evidently the wrong sort. The right sort include those who run the Board, and the cadres of the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM). The JLM it should be pointed out refused to campaign for the great majority of Labour MPs at the recent general election. It does not require its members to be either Jewish or in the Labour Party.
“Demand 7 is that all Labour Party internal training in antisemitism should be carried out by JLM. For two years from 2016 the aggressively pro-Israel JLM did indeed deliver the Labour Party’s antisemitism training. Its course content was both didactic and dogmatic, based on the supposedly revealed truth of the controversial IHRA document. When in 2018 the Labour Party asked them to revise their approach JLM walked away in a huff. Now they want it back, but on their own terms. Demand 7 is that they be given it.
“Demand 8 extends the same monocular approach to the UK’s Jews as a whole. The Labour Party is required to agree to communicate only with ‘mainstream’ Jewish Groups. That is to demand the exclusion of two-thirds of the country’s Jews. Why would they be so afraid that Labour might communicate with the wrong sort of Jews? The Jewish Chronicle had a ready answer when it reported Demand 8 as being ‘to engage with the Jewish community via its “main representative groups and not through fringe organisations” such as Jewish Voice for Labour (emphasis added)’. Are our demands for a pluralistic vision of the Jewish communities in Britain really so much of a threat that contact with them is contamination? For the Board is demanding, in essence, that expression of our views be banned in the Labour Party.
“Oy Vey.”
Let’s just go back to the Board of Deputies’ tweet for the last part of its statement: “In the Deputy Leadership election, members now have a clear choice about whether they want to become a credible party of opposition or waste yet more years fighting the Jewish community about who gets to define our oppression.”
It seems clear that it is the Board of Deputies that is “fighting the Jewish community” – by falsely claiming to be representing it and demanding the exclusion of all others.
But Labour Party members do have a clear choice now.
It is impossible to ensure that nobody votes for the candidates who have misguidedly supported the Board of Deputies’ childish demand.
But what a message it would be, if Dawn Butler and Richard Burgon received more support than any of the other candidates – by a significant margin.
If you are a Labour member, and you want sanity to be brought back to the party, then This Writer would like to appeal to you to abstain from voting for any of the candidates who have supported the Board of Deputies’ pledges.
Use your votes to make a statement that they cannot ignore.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
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.
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!
Marie Van Der Zyl: What is the president of the Board of Deputies trying to achieve? And why is she trying to gaslight us all into thinking she represents all British Jews? She doesn’t.
This Writer came in for some flack a couple of days ago after I characterised the Board of Deputies of British Jews as undemocratic and unrepresentative.
A person on Twitter claimed that the BoD, that has managed to get eight of the Labour leadership and deputy leadership candidates to sign up to its 10 pledges intended to seal its anti-Semitism witch-hunt into party policies (see my recent articles), is democratic because it has elections.
Well, I did a bit of research, going to Jewish sources.
According to Jewish Voice for Labour – which I certainly trust more than the Board of Deputies itself or that organisation’s Wikipedia page – this is the situation:
The Board’s claim to be democratic is, however, distinctly tenuous. There are no British Jewish elections, no direct way for all British Jews to directly elect the board’s 300 Deputies. To be involved in electing Deputies, one must be a member of one or more of approximately 138 synagogues, or be connected to one of 34 ‘communal organisations’ (such as the UJIA or Reform Judaism) that are affiliated with the Board, all of which elect one to five Deputies—anyone not involved with these institutions does not have a vote, despite the Board still claiming to speak on their behalf. Inevitably, some individuals may be represented multiple times, through being members of more than one organisation.
The biggest problem, however, is with the elections held by affiliate organisations to select their deputies—it is these that justify the Board’s claim to be a representative democracy. Transparency is a fundamental requirement of democracy—there needs to be openness as to who the electorate is and how many of them turn out in order for any election to be considered legitimate. Despite its own constitution obliging it to receive the data (Appendix A, Clause 3: “the election shall not be validated unless the form incorporates… the total number of members of the congregation… and the number who attended the election meeting”), the Board does not release a list of the membership size or the numbers voting in each affiliate organisation, and claims to have no idea what the numbers might be. The Board’s spokesman explained to me that, “While we do need to be more thorough in collecting statistics, these figures wouldn’t add anything—they don’t speak to the democratic legitimacy of the organisation or to anything else.” This seems extraordinarily complacent—can we imagine a British election in which the size of the electorate, the list of candidates standing, and the turnout remained secret? It would be regarded as an affront to democracy.
So there you have it.
There are indeed elections for the Board of Deputies…
But they are an “affront to democracy”.
And this is the organisation that dares to lecture Labour on its policies, practices and procedures?
Pathetic.
The members of Labour cannot allow anyone who supports this group’s bigoted demands to have a senior role in the party.
I tweeted Jennie Formby, the party’s general secretary, to ask if there was a system by which the membership could hold a “no confidence” vote in the current election process.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
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.
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!
By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. This includes scrolling or continued navigation. more information
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.
