Tag Archives: JLM

‘Zionism’ remarks: Burgon urged to apologise – to supporters of atrocities

Richard Burgon: He has no need to apologise.

I can’t say I’m impressed with Richard Burgon’s rationalisation of his remarks about Zionism, that were caught on video five years ago.

Investigative journalist Iggy Ostanin posted a video showing Mr Burgon denying having made the comments to the BBC’s Andrew Neil, followed immediately by proof that he did:

Interesting clip, that.

It’s from 2014, when the Israeli government had launched Operation Protective Edge, a hugely-controversial offensive against Palestinians in Gaza in which it was estimated that more than 2,125 Palestinians were killed and more than 10,500 wounded, compared with 67 military and six civilian Israeli deaths, with 469 Israeli soldiers and 87 civilians wounded.

It is known that Israeli government policy is to deprive the Palestinian people of their land and – if they resist – of their lives. We have seen that in action but if you would like evidence of their behaviour, here’s some:

According to Maureen Murphy, “The Israeli military killed one Palestinian child in the West Bank and Gaza per week on average last year, typically injuring them in their upper body and head. You can’t blame Hamas for Israeli snipers training their guns at children’s torsos and heads, however hard you try.” She supported this with a link to evidence. Read it here.

The ideology that informs these atrocities is Zionism. It is an ethno-political belief that a Jewish nation in what is now Israel should be established and – now that it has been – developed and protected. It should never be connected directly with the Jewish people as a whole; they are separate and many Jews reject Zionism, especially as it is practised by the Israeli government and its supporters.

It is an ideology of hatred. Before Israel was established, it was considered by many to be anti-Semitic. Think about it: anyone saying they support the migration of Jewish people away from their current home to a foreign land (that was already occupied, remember) could open themselves up to accusations that they hate Jews because they are Jews – the classic definition of the anti-Semite.

Now Israel has been established, anybody supporting the Zionism practised by its government and soldiers is supporting the theft of Palestinian land and the displacement – or genocide – of Palestinian people. And it could still be said to be anti-Semitic as the behaviour of the Israeli government and its soldiers is likely to breed opposition against them that develops into hate. That hate could then be spread to apply to all Jews.

Oh, and it turns out there are many Jews who don’t support Zionism. Many do, but if anyone tries to tell you they speak for all Jews in supporting this ideology, they are lying.

In this context, it is clear that Mr Burgon’s comments in 2014 were reasonable expressions of opinion, based on the facts. As they continue to be. It’s just a shame he felt he had to backtrack on his words about Zionism as practised by the Israeli government.

His critics – defenders of Zionism like The Board of Deputies of British Jews (who don’t represent a huge number of British Jews at all – secular Jews represent a third of the population in the UK and have nothing to do with the BoD), Jonathan Goldstein of the Jewish Leadership Council, Labour Friends of Israel director Jennifer Gerber and Jewish Labour Movement chairman Mike Katz – have tried to equate peaceful opposition to their hate-filled ideology with hatred of all Jews and that is nothing but a lie. It’s a despicable lie, at that.

Why have they done it? Well…

Another commenter, Phil Vanes, suggested: “Do remember me saying some time ago that because Corbyn is untouchable, his opponents will instead concentrate on picking off his close supporters one by one. Well guess what? It looks like it’s Richard Burgon’s time now.”

One more point: In the clip of him attacking Zionism, Mr Burgon calls for Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) resign from that group “to show support for all humanity” instead of supporting the atrocities carried out by the Israeli government and its soldiers, yet we have seen LFI’s Jennifer Gerber, and Mike Katz of the Jewish Labour Movement, condemning those words.

Logic dictates that they must therefore support the atrocities in the articles to which I have linked above.

LFI and the JLM support the theft of Palestinian land.

LFI and the JLM support violence against – and the murder of – Palestinian people.

Their outbursts against Mr Burgon prove it.

Or are we about to see a protestation of opposition to these Israeli atrocities? I won’t hold my breath waiting.


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

Chakrabarti’s plea to the Jewish Labour Movement – backstabbing Corbyn and Palestine?

Questionable: Baroness Chakrabarti’s plea to the Jewish Labour Movement contained some highly dodgy implications.

I am deeply disturbed by the words of Shami Chakrabarti on Sky’s Sophy Ridge politics show today (April 7).

It seems a new, co-ordinated campaign of disinformation linking Jeremy Corbyn with anti-Semitism has been launched, starting with a ‘fake news’ smear piece in The Sunday Times, and continuing with news coverage on the mainstream media throughout the day.

It’s all leading up to the annual general meeting of the Jewish Labour Movement, when members (who may not be either Jewish or part of the Labour Party) will be asked to vote on a motion of ‘no confidence’ in Jeremy Corbyn because of his handling of anti-Semitism accusations against party members (many of which have been shown to be fake).

They may decide to disaffiliate from Labour on the basis of this disinformation.

Baroness Chakrabarti, speaking on the Sophy Ridge show, appealed for the JLM not to disaffiliate.

She said: “My plea to the Jewish Labour Movement is to stay in the Labour movement and to tackle racism together, not to personalise it and make it about Jeremy Corbyn, because he is one person and he won’t be leader forever.”

What is she saying, exactly?

That we all know Labour isn’t a harbour for anti-Semitism?

That the JLM has another reason for hating Mr Corbyn – possibly his desire for a peaceful resolution to the Israel/Palestine question?

That once he is gone, Labour can get back to supporting Israel’s slow genocide of Palestinians?

Is that what she’s saying?

If so, that’s despicable.

Baroness Chakrabarti needs to clarify her words immediately.

Source: Shami Chakrabarti urges Jewish Labour ‘not to personalise’ anti-Semitism – Mirror Online

UPDATE: It seems Baroness Chakrabarti’s plea fell on deaf ears. Nobody should be surprised.

Apparently, after supporting the motion of ‘no confidence’ in Mr Corbyn, Jewish Labour Movement members are considering whether to disaffiliate.

Considering that the Sky News report quoted the falsehoods in today’s Sunday Times lead as an apparent reason for the vote – after Labour denied that there was any truth in its claims – the party should act pre-emptively and expel the Jewish Labour Movement. Its activities and spokespeople attempt to bring the Labour Party into disrepute and there is no place in any political organisation for an affiliate that works to bring it down from the inside.

Enough is enough.


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

Was Sunday Times smear timed to influence Jewish Labour Movement confidence vote on Corbyn?

Jeremy Corbyn is clearly not an enemy of the Jewish people.

Of course it was. We are looking at a co-ordinated campaign of disinformation about Labour and its leader.

In case you’ve been living under a rock since around 11pm on April 6: The Sunday Times has published another smear piece claiming a link between Jeremy Corbyn and anti-Semitism. I debunked it immediately (here) and now the Labour Party has also attacked the article as a load of nonsense.

According to a Guardian report, “Labour said the figures… were not accurate and that lines had been selectively leaked from emails to misrepresent their overall contents.”

This corresponds exactly with the way the author of the Sunday Times article, Gabriel Pogrund, treated me when he smeared me in a piece in February last year.

I have to admit I am not wholly sympathetic to Labour as regards this defence, because the party is guilty of using the same practice – selectively quoting information – to create a false impression that I was an anti-Semite (from which Mr Pogrund took his cue when he wrote his piece about me, although he also altered the material to fabricate another false claim).

It would be easy to ask how party representatives feel, now that the shoe is on the other foot.

It would be satisfying to point out that this is what happens when you try to appease an aggressor by giving in to its claims and helping persecute innocent people.

And in the run-up to the Jewish Labour Movement’s annual general meeting, at which members are expected to support a vote of “no confidence” in Mr Corbyn, I think it is important that the Labour leadership be made aware of its huge blunder and the harm it has done to innocent people and the party’s own good name.

The Guardian quotes shadow attorney general Shami Chakrabarti pleading with the JLM “to stay in the Labour movement and to tackle racism together, not to personalise it and make it about Jeremy Corbyn, because he is one person and he won’t be leader forever”. Wrong!

Although it is the Labour Party’s official Jewish affiliate, the JLM does not require its members to be Jewish, or even to be members of the Labour Party. It is a huge security risk to Labour as it provides an opportunity for supporters of other political organisations to infiltrate and sabotage Labour affairs.

One example of this is the way JLM members have secretly and unethically recorded Labour members during events at party conferences in 2016 and 2017, at which those members had the right to expect confidentiality, in order to falsely accuse those members. Why on Earth would anybody do this?

It is clear that the Jewish Labour Movement has a different agenda from that of the Labour Party and it is time the organisation was expelled.

There are far more appropriate alternative organisations that could take over as the party’s official Jewish affiliate. Jewish Voice for Labour represents Jewish people who are members of the Labour Party exclusively – no entryists – and is far more appropriate as a representative of Jewish Labour views.

If you’re still unconvinced that The Sunday Times and the Jewish Labour Movement are trying to spread false claims that Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-Semite and that the Labour Party under him is rife with anti-Semitism, perhaps you should consider Mr Corbyn’s record. Feel free to check the following facts for yourself, if you like:

1. In October 1936, Jeremy Corbyn’s mother participated in the battle of Cable Street in defence of British Jews after British fascists had staged an assault on the area. Corbyn was raised in a household passionately opposed to antisemitism in all its forms.

2. In 23rd April 1977, Corbyn organised a counter-demonstration to protect Wood Green from a neo-nazi march through the district. The area had a significant Jewish population.

3. On 7 November 1990, Corbyn signed a motion condemning the rise of antisemitism in the UK

4. In 2002 Jeremy Corbyn led a clean-up and vigil at Finsbury Park Synagogue which had been vandalised in an anti-Semitic attack

5. On 30 April 2002, Corbyn tabled a motion in the House of Commons condemning an anti-Semitic attack on a London Synagogue

6. On 26 November 2003, Jeremy Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion condemning terrorist attacks on two synagogues

7. In February 2009, Jeremy Corbyn signed a parliamentary motion condemning a fascist for establishing a website to host antisemitic materials

8. On 24th March 2009, Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion praising British Jews who resisted the Holocaust by risking their lives to save potential victims

9. Nine years ago, Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion praising “Jewish News”for its pioneering investigation into the spread of antisemitism on Facebook

10. On 9 February 2010, Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion calling for an investigation into Facebook and its failure to prevent the spread of antisemitic materials on its site.

11. On 27 October 2010, Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion praising the late Israeli Prime Minister for pursuing a two state solution to the Israel/Palestine question.

12. On 13 June 2012, Corbyn sponsored and signed a motion condemning the BBC for cutting a Jewish Community television programme from its schedule.

13. 1 October 2013, Corbyn appeared on the BBC to defend Ralph Miliband against vile antisemitic attacks by the UK press.

14. Five years ago Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion condemning antisemitism in sport.

15. On 1 March 2013, Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion condemning and expressing concern at growing levels of antisemitism in European football.

16. On 9 January 2014, Jeremy Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion praising Holocaust education programmes that had taken 20,000 British students to Auschwitz.

17. On 22 June 2015, Corbyn signed a Parliamentary motion expressing concern at the neo-nazi march being planned for an area of London with a significant Jewish population.

18. On 9 October 2016, Corbyn, close to tears, commemorated the 1936 Battle of Cable Street and recalled the role his mother played in defending London’s Jewish community.

19. On 3 December 2016, Corbyn made a visit to Terezin Concentration Camp where Jewish people were murdered by the Nazis. It was Jeremy’s third visit to such a camp, all of which were largely unreported in the most read UK papers.

20. Last year, a widely-endorsed 2018 academic report found ninety-five serious reporting failures in the reporting of the Labour antisemitism story with the worst offenders The Sun, the Mail & the BBC.

21. On 28 February 2016, five months after becoming leader, Jeremy Corbyn appointed Baroness Royall to investigate antisemitism at Oxford University Labour Club.

22. On 27 April 2016 Corbyn suspended an MP pending an investigation into antisemitism.

23. A day later, Corbyn suspended the three times Mayor of London after complaints of antisemitic comments.

24. On 29 April 2016, Corbyn launched an inquiry into the prevalence of antisemitism in the Labour Party. In spite of later changes in how the inquiry was reported, it was initially praised by Jewish community organisations.

25. In Corbyn’s first seven months as leader of the Labour Party, just ten complaints were received about antisemitism. 90% of those were suspended from the Labour Party within 24 hours.

26. In September 2017, Corbyn backed a motion at Labour’s annual conference introducing a new set of rules regarding antisemitism.

27. In the six months that followed the introduction of the new code of conduct, to March 2018, 94% of the fifty-four people accused of antisemitism remained suspended or barred from Labour Party membership. Three of the fifty-four were exonerated.

28. When Jennie Formby became general secretary of the party last year, she appointed a highly-qualified in-house Counsel, as recommended in the Chakrabarti Report.

29. In 2018, Labour almost doubled the size of its staff team handling investigations and dispute processes.

30. Last year, to speed up the handling of antisemitism cases, smaller panels of 3-5 NEC members were established to enable cases to be heard more quickly.

31. Since 2018, every complaint made about antisemitism is allocated its own independent specialist barrister to ensure due process is followed.

32. The entire backlog of cases outstanding upon Jennie Formby becoming General Secretary of the Labour Party was cleared within 6 months of Jennie taking up her post.

33. Since September 2018, Labour has doubled the size of its National Constitutional Committee (NCC) – its senior disciplinary panel – from 11 to 25 members to enable it to process cases more quickly.

34. Under Formby and Labour’s left-run NEC, NCC arranged elections at short notice to ensure the NCC reached its new full capacity without delay.

35. Since later 2018, the NCC routinely convenes a greater number of hearing panels to allow cases to be heard and finalised without delay.

36. In 2018, the NEC established a ‘Procedures Working Group’ to lead reforms in the way disciplinary cases are handled.

37. The NEC adopted the IHRA working definition of antisemitism and all eleven examples of antisemitism attached to it.

38. A rule change agreed at Conference in 2018 means that all serious complaints, including antisemitism, are dealt with nationally to ensure consistency.

39. Last year, Jennie Formby wrote to the admins and moderators of Facebook groups about how they can effectively moderate online spaces and requested that any discriminatory content be reported to the Labour Party for investigation.

40. Since last year, no one outside Labour’s Governance and Legal Unit can be involved in decision-making on antisemitism investigations. This independence allows decisions free from political influence to be taken.

Is that clear enough for everyone?


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

Supporters of the Jewish Labour Movement respond to This Site’s critique – with abuse

Ironic: Supporters of the Jewish Labour Movement have been demanding that there’s no apartheid in Israel – on the eve of the 15th international Israeli Apartheid Week, which now takes place in more than 200 cities across the world with events including lectures, film screenings and cultural performances to raise awareness about Israel’s apartheid regime.

It was only to be expected.

Those who support the witch-hunt that accuses innocent people of anti-Semitism seem unable to respond to reasoned criticism of their activities with anything other than abuse – that is often libellous as well.

I knew I should expect it when I wrote my piece arguing that the Labour Party should not be pleading with the Jewish Labour Movement to remain affiliated, but should in fact be slinging it out on its ear.

The organisation decided to keep its affiliation for the time being – prompting suspicions that its leaders are planning a high-profile walkout, to stoke anti-Labour (and anti-Jeremy Corbyn) sentiment with falsehoods.

In response to my arguments that the Jewish Labour Movement has an agenda that supports the racist, apartheid administration in Israel, above the needs of Jewish people in the Labour movement or the UK as a whole (consider its treatment of rival organisation Jewish Voice for Labour), I faced personal abuse based on the false accusations that were levelled against me.

It seems those who are responsible cannot even recognise the huge contradiction in trying to bully those they are accusing of victimising them.

Example:

Here’s another personal attack. Note the recourse to obscene language at the end:

Some of the responses tried to pin more false accusations on me, like this, which implies that I was saying Jews aren’t welcome in the Labour Party. Of course I stated no such thing:

There has been no response at the time of writing.

How about this, from Jewish Chronicle hack Lee Harpin? It follows the classic tactic of making a broad accusation without any attempt to support it with evidence.

Wasn’t Mr Harpin recently pilloried for writing an article that was full of inaccuracies? I didn’t keep a record of it because – well, it’s the Jewish Chronicle. Perhaps a reader could remind us all? So it’s a bit rich, him accusing me of lying. Let’s see how it turned out, though:

Not so well for Mr Harpin, it seems!

Most important to this set of detractors, it seems, was a need to undermine my claim that the JLM supports the racism and apartheid of the current Israeli government – making the JLM itself racist and apartheid-supporting:

https://twitter.com/JohnQSmithIII1/status/1103585883469631488

I don’t need to.

There’s a wealth of evidence, like the United Nations’ finding that the Israeli military may have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity in their actions against Palestinians:

On a broader theme, consider Ronnie Barkan’s speech in court, earlier this week, in which he blows JohnQSmithIII’s claim that “nealry 2m Arabs live with full social, economic & political rights in Israel” to smithereens:

Perhaps most damning is the condemnation of the world’s most celebrated opponent of apartheid – and his surviving family.

In the article linked below, Nelson Mandela’s grandson, Nkosi Zvelivelile states: “Even before Israel passed its “nation state law” (stipulating that only Jews have the right of self-determination in the country) it was easy to see, for anyone willing to look, that the country’s government was committing the crime of apartheid. Its segregation wall, discriminatory admissions committees, ID-card systems, roads built for settlers which are not accessible to Palestinians, and the bantustan-like fragmentation of the West Bank gave the game away.”

He was following in a great family tradition as his grandfather was also outspoken against Israeli apartheid:

Point made?

We are left to ask why people like the Jewish Labour Movement and its supporters are keen to whitewash Israeli apartheid and racism – and falsely accuse anyone in the Labour Party who points out the contradiction. Dan El Rojo points out the contrast with genuine anti-Semitism found in other European Countries:

https://twitter.com/Socialismilucra/status/1103751757446950912

We all know the real reason: Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn wants a peaceful, equitable solution to the Israel/Palestine question that ends the apartheid and racism currently in force.

The JLM, wedded to the Zionist political ideology of the Israeli goverment and the racist apartheid system it supports, will do all it can to prevent Mr Corbyn from rising to power and putting his beliefs into practice.

Unwelcome guests: Jewish Labour Movement keeps affiliation with Labour – and threatens party members

.Margaret Hodge: This Labour ‘moderate’ (read: right-winger) has made wild, unsubstantiated claims alleging anti-Semitism in the party. She begged JLM members to keep their affiliation with Labour at this week’s meeting. Was that because she needs the support?

Who would you trust in a debate? Someone who makes an argument supported with evidence – or someone who responds with threats?

The Jewish Labour Movement seems to think that bullying is the viable option. It has announced its intention to remain affiliated to the Labour Party with a nasty little ultimatum:

Mainstream media reports are saying the decision was made on the basis of votes in London and Manchester, but this has been disputed by rival organisation Jewish Voice for Labour:

In any case, the vote was purely indicative and non-binding.

There will be no love lost between JLM and JVL over the latter’s attitude, as the following tweet, referring to a piece of Twitter nastiness by the troll David Collier attests:

Mr Collier’s tweet, attacking Jewish people as “the wrong kind of Jew”, is genuinely anti-Semitic – unlike comments by most of his victims.

You can read more about his hideous opinions – if you have the stomach for it – here:

The JLM announcement was met with deep contrition and concern by… practically nobody. The general consensus appears to be as follows:

https://twitter.com/MarxyMarxy/status/1103409306484043783

‘Marxy’ continued with a few facts about the JLM: “JLM are a tiny entity of around 2000 Zionists who pretend they are interested in peace and ‘a two state solution’. You don’t even have to be a member of the Labour Party so the membership is open to ANYBODY.”

That puts Mr Collier’s line about JVL being “a tiny fringe” into context, doesn’t it?

It seems the only people who showed any concern about the JLM’s threat were ‘moderate’ Labour MPs who have already nailed their flags to its mast.

Karl Turner tweeted: “This is very welcome news. We really must redouble our efforts to win back trust.”

And Stella Creasy posted the following: “Now more than before, time for us to show how affiliation means more than shared meetings, it means a shared struggle and shared values. You were there with us at birth of Labour @JewishLabour – we will fight to be worthy of your comradeship for our future too.”

Speak for yourself, Stella!

David Minto, responding to her tweet, gave a more balanced view: “So its orchestrated? Tonight threats from you & your MP pals & exclusion of any other Jewish voices @JVoiceLabour. No leave tonight but threat that in a month of “we could’ve left on 6th March & offered peace” At AGM it’ll be “still all AS so let’s all leave for Tinge.” Politics.”

This is the expected result.

It was predicted way back in July last year by Asa Winstanley of The Electronic Intifada. He tweeted a thread about it, showing how this tactic has been used in the past:

He had some good advice:

Sadly it seems certain that the likes of Mr Turner and Ms Creasy will ignore Mr Winstanley’s advice.

Let us hope Jeremy Corbyn and Jennie Formby do not. As I said previously, the Jewish Labour Movement is an organisation of racists who support the right-wing apartheid state of Israel under its current government. There is no place for its vile views in a progressive organisation like the UK Labour Party.


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

Labour should be throwing the Jewish Labour Movement out on its ear, not begging it to stay

Jackie Walker: The Jewish Labour Movement has smeared this Jewish woman, who happens to be black, as an anti-Semite – based on false evidence. The organisation does its best to deny her the ability to defend herself against its lies.

Why on Earth did more than 100 Labour MPs write a letter begging the Jewish Labour Movement to remain affiliated to the party?

This is an organisation that has caused a huge amount of reputational damage to the Labour Party by supporting the hugely over-hyped and often false claims of anti-Semitism among high-profile members of the party.

It has strong links with the State of Israel which suggest that it is more interested in putting forward that nation’s agenda than any involving Jewish people living here in the UK – and it attacks viciously any Jewish people here who make that suggestion.

The JLM’s former national director, Ella Rose (who quit to join the Holocaust Educational Trust) at the end of last year, previously worked at the Israeli embassy.

The organisation was mentioned by anti-UK government conspirator Shai Masot as one of his allies when he was secretly filmed encouraging a co-conspirator to “take down” a UK MP he considered to be acting against the interests of the Israeli government.

It supports the Israeli Labour Party, Havoda, which I understand openly supports the apartheid system currently operating in that country.

Labour accused me of anti-Semitism, partly because I accurately reported the JLM’s own affiliations and mission statements, as follows:

“The Jewish Labour Movement is also affiliated to the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Zionist Federation of the UK, and organise within the World Zionist Organisation… Our objects: To maintain and promote Labour or Socialist Zionism as the movement for self-determination of the Jewish people within the state of Israel.”

It’s all about Israel, see? Zionism is the movement for the re-establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people in what is now Israel.

The JLM was originally known as Poale Zion, “Workers of Zion” – and was part of a movement of Marxist-Zionist Jewish workers founded across Europe at the turn of the 20th century.

The accusation against me was that I was claiming the JLM does not represent Jews. This was not true. I said it does not represent Jews who are not Zionists – and we only have to examine its treatment of Jewish Voice for Labour or Jewdas to see the truth of my statement. As far as JLM is concerned, any Jew who does not support the apartheid Israeli government is the “wrong kind of Jew”.

I was also accused of denying the Jewish people the right to self-determination, which is nonsense. Self-determination, for a people, is about the right to freely choose their own sovereignty and international political status without interference. It refers to nations, not individuals. And by upholding the attitudes of an aggressively Zionist organisation, Labour was itself denying the right to self-determination – of the people of Palestine.

Considering the above evidence – and the wealth of other information that is available online; all you have to do is a simple web search for it – it seems clear that Labour would be better-off without the misnamed Jewish Labour Movement.

No UK political party should affiliate itself with such an organisation. JLM is a group of racists who work to advance the interests of the Israeli government and attempt to harm all those who get in their way – including other Jewish people. The sooner it is out, the better.


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

Labour’s NEC – and NCC – has taken sides against the ‘wrong kind of Jews’

Last week I made it clear that Labour’s National Executive Committee has descended into racism in order to attack innocent party members like myself under a false pretence of anti-Semitism.

In the same accusation against me, the NEC also fell into anti-Semitism – by supporting an affiliated organisation that victimises people it considers to be the “wrong kind of Jews” (although they may not be described in that way).

By now, readers of This Site will be well aware that I attended a disciplinary hearing arranged by Labour’s National Constitutional Committee, at which a prejudiced panel arbitrarily decided that all the accusations against me were proved, despite having heard no evidence at all in support of such a claim.

One of these accusations concerns the Jewish Labour Movement and ran as follows:

On 2nd October 2016 Mr Sivier posted: ‘JLM is not a movement that represents Jews; it represents Jewish Zionists’. ‘The Jewish Labour Movement does not represent Jews who are not Zionists. It persecutes them’.

“This comment is grossly offensive to those the Party seeks to represent particularly the Jewish community. Comments like these have had and continue to have a serious impact on the Party’s position as an inclusive organisation, which stands against antisemitism.

“To state that the Labour Party’s official Jewish affiliate does not represent Jews denies Jews the right to self-define. This conduct is abhorrent, antisemitic and falls way below the standards expected of Party members. This is clearly prejudicial and/or grossly detrimental to the Party.”

Of course I was not suggesting that the JLM does not represent any Jews; my words make it clear that I was saying the organisation – the Labour Party’s official Jewish affiliate, according to the NEC – represents only those Jews who support the political doctrine of Zionism (and even then, only those who support the interpretation of that doctrine supported by that organisation’s leaders).

I confess I was amazed to see this put forward as a charge against me, because my reasons for saying this were supported by the Jewish Labour Movement itself.

When I was interviewed by Labour investigating officer Stewart Owadally about this and other charges in October 2017 and he challenged me on this, I asked him if he had read the article – and he said that he had not. He had not read any of my articles beyond the specific parts he had been asked to highlight and question. This explained why he had not spotted the answer to his question, directly below the words he had highlighted. I simply read it out.

My article argues: “Look at the organisation’s own website. It states:

“The Jewish Labour Movement is also affiliated to the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Zionist Federation of the UK, and organise within the World Zionist Organisation… Our objects: To maintain and promote Labour or Socialist Zionism as the movement for self-determination of the Jewish people within the state of Israel.”

““Zionist”… “Zionist”… “Zionism”… “within the state of Israel”.

““It seems clear that “Jewish Labour Movement” is a misnomer. It should be “Zionist Labour Movement”.”

In my written defence, I went further: “What about Jews who aren’t Zionists, as the JLM defines them?

“How do you think the members of Jewdas – attacked as the “wrong kind of Jew” after Jeremy Corbyn attended an event organised by the group – would describe the JLM?

“Here’s how. Responding to attacks on Mr Corbyn for attending the event in late March, the Jewdas website – at https://www.jewdas.org/enough-is-enough/ stated: “What has happened over the last week is anything but an attempt to address antisemitism. It is the work of cynical manipulations by people whose express loyalty is to the Conservative Party and the right wing of the Labour Party. It is a malicious ploy to remove the leader of the Opposition and put a stop to the possibility of a socialist government. The Board of Deputies, the (disgraced for corruption) Jewish Leadership Council and the (unelected, undemocratic) Jewish Labour Movement are playing a dangerous game with people’s lives.”

“So these Jews consider the JLM to be unelected, undemocratic, and playing a dangerous game with people’s lives. Representative of Jews in general? No.”

I continue: “What about Jewish Voice for Labour, which admits full membership only to Labour Party members who identify as Jewish – unlike the JLM, which allows full membership to non-Jews, and also to non-members of the Labour Party? This organisation has campaigned against what it sees as false accusations of anti-Semitism against notable figures like Ken Livingstone, Jackie Walker, and Marc Wadsworth (as has This Writer), and also campaigns against the persecution of Palestinian people by the state of Israel.

“And JLM members hate it. Responding to Harrow East Labour Party’s decision to affiliate to JVL, JLM chair Ivor Caplin told the Jewish Chronicle it was a “stupid decision” to affiliate with an “obsessive group that is often far too generous to antisemites and Holocaust revisionists”. But at least members of JVL are all Jewish, which is more than can be said for the JLM.”

So how can we describe the claim that I am denying Jews the right to self-define?

Bogus. It is the JLM that denies Jews the right to self-define – by siding with those who treat other Labour-supporting Jewish organisations as the “wrong kind of Jews”.

In declaring support for the Jewish Labour Movement and its anti-Semitic* aggression against such people and organisations, the NEC is also declaring its own anti-Semitism.

*I know – it seems strange to describe an organisation claiming to represent Jews as anti-Semitic. But the JLM’s aggression towards the JVL, Jewdas and the others is entirely due to their identity as groups of Jews, so it is entirely appropriate to describe that organisation – and therefore Labour’s NEC – in that manner.

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:

SWAHTprint SWAHTeBook

What are the political loyalties of the groups attacking Labour’s new anti-Semitism guidelines?

(Incidentally, this is the only definition of anti-Semitism anybody needs.)

I would like to see the Labour Party membership cards of every member of the Jewish Leadership Council and the Board of Deputies of British Jews who have criticised Labour’s new guidelines on how the party should deal with complaints of anti-Semitism.

If some of them aren’t members of Labour, then which political party do they support? I think that is a very important detail that is being missed out in all the coverage of them.

Neither the BoD nor the JLC are Labour-affiliated organisations. They have been allowed input as groups representing Jewish interests, but they do not represent all Jews, nor even all British Jews – and where are the howls of outrage from Jewdas?

The Jewish Labour Movement is affiliated to the Labour Party, of course – but its currency is now so tarnished that many believe that affiliation should be revoked.

Let’s look at the criticisms:

It seems even though the new guidelines adopt the hideously flawed International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism, the JLC, BoD and JLM don’t think it goes far enough to include the full list of behaviours listed as anti-Semitic by this legally-questionable document. They single out:

  • Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
  • Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.
  • Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
  • Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

And they are lying.

I cannot find any other explanation for such a gross inaccuracy. These behaviours do not appear in the list of seven examples given in Labour’s guidelines because they are explored in detail, later in the document. This detail is needed to avoid ambiguity.

It seems to This Writer that the reason for the animosity from the JLC, BoD and JLM can be found in the comment by JLC chair Jonathan Goldstein and BoD president Marie van der Zyl, who said anti-Semitism was “for Jews to determine”.

This ties in with the so-called ‘Macpherson Principle’, according to which an incident is anti-Semitic if it is perceived to be so by the victim – a principle that is wide open to abuse of the worst possible kind by cynical political manipulators.

To me, it seems the JLC and BoD have indicated an intention to shoehorn their political enemies into definitions of anti-Semitism that they are happy to make up as they go along – which is, of course, what we have seen throughout the course of the Labour anti-Semitism debate.

A good example would be the rather desperate attempt to describe me as a Holocaust denier – about which I hope to be able to report more later in the week.

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

It is for this reason that anti-Semitic intent must be clearly visible in any complaint. If the complainant has to resort to saying that they felt an argument in a social media post (for example) was anti-Semitic without any evidence to back it up, then they have no complaint. If they have to alter quotations by the alleged offender (as happened in my case), then they have no complaint – but the focus of their aggression clearly does.

That’s why Labour now needs to examine every complaint of anti-Semitism against its members, going back over the last two years since the Naz Shah incident.

I’m sure some of the people who were thrown out of the party did not deserve to go, and were victims – like me – of malice.

That’s why I say those who made these false accusations should now face investigation, so we can ascertain why they lied and what they hoped to gain from it.


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

Newmark refuses to stand down as Jewish Labour Movement chair, despite deception claims

Jeremy Newmark (centre) campaigning with JLM members in 2017 [Image: JLM/Twitter – from the JC].

UPDATE: The Jewish Labour Movement has published the following:

“Jeremy Newmark has announced his decision to step down from his role as JLM National Chair to enable him to act in a clear and individual capacity in seeking redress following the publication of historic allegations about him and others during his tenure at the Jewish Leadership Council. Jeremy has refuted these allegations.

“Jeremy has been in discussion with the JLM NEC about establishing the best course of action for the Movement since Wednesday. At all times Jeremy has been clear that the position of the Movement is paramount. The claims made by the Jewish Chronicle earlier today suggesting otherwise, and describing the content of those discussion as well as making the specific allegation that Jeremy had been asked to resign and refused are completely untrue.

“The NEC will ensure that the important work of the Movement continues, and we look forward over the coming months to campaigning in the local elections, fighting for the rights of affiliated organisations within the Labour Party’s democracy review, and continuing to ensure the Party take robust action against antisemitism.”

One of Labour’s most persistent problems, recently, has been persistent vexatious complaints of anti-Semitism against people who were innocent. It will be interesting to see if these reduce in number now Mr Newmark has resigned.

It’s probably a good thing that it is unlikely that Mr Newmark will stand again as a Labour candidate for Finchley and Golders Green, as LabourList suggests.

There’s already a petition to have Mr Newmark reported to Labour’s National Constitutional Committee, for possible expulsion from the party. This Writer might meet him there!

PREVIOUSLY:

You can really understand why I didn’t want to go for ‘training’ with this organisation, can’t you? Especially under this leader!

Mr Newmark is facing serious allegations, backed up with documentary evidence – and is refusing to stand down as leader of the Jewish Labour Movement.

The organisation’s other leaders are worried about reputational damage, now that the allegations have come to light.

That’s fine, but let’s face the facts – thanks to Mr Newmark, the JLM’s reputation has been in trouble for a long time.

Senior Jewish Labour Movement figures have urged Jeremy Newmark to step down from his role leading the group following revelations in the JC.

But it is understood Mr Newmark has refused to resign as national movement chair.

Senior members of the group are now believed to be deeply concerned about the potential for reputational damage to the JLM if he remains in charge.

It emerged on Thursday that Mr Newmark, the former chief executive of the Jewish Leadership Council, was the subject of an internal audit into his conduct at the JLC.

The report alleged he had deceived the organisation out of tens of thousands of pounds and misled charities about the cost of the projects he worked on.

Following the revelations, JLM national executive committee members held an emergency conference call on Thursday night to discuss his future.

Only two of the JLM’s 18 NEC members are backing him and it is understood MPs in the group all believe he should go.

Source: Jewish Labour Movement calls on Jeremy Newmark to resign as chair – The Jewish Chronicle


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

The Jewish Labour Movement is right – Labour IS acting too slowly on complaints of anti-Semitism

(Incidentally, this is the only definition of anti-Semitism anybody needs.)

Yes: This Writer agrees with the Jewish Labour Movement about something.

Of course, we split again over the details. Let’s look at the issue, as reported in The Observer:

The bitter Labour party controversy over antisemitism erupted again on Saturday night, as the main organisation representing its Jewish members accused the leadership of failing to deal with a “vast backlog” of complaints and of allowing a second inquiry into Ken Livingstone to get “stuck in limbo”.

The accusations from the national chair of the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM), Jeremy Newmark, came as party sources told the Observer that a group of members, including activists and councillors, was preparing legal action against the party for failing to act on complaints about antisemitic incidents, some of which date back more than six months.

Newmark said the delays in dealing with many cases raised serious questions about whether the party had learnt lessons after an inquiry last year by Labour peer and former head of Liberty Shami Chakrabarti.

Newmark said: “We remain seriously concerned about what is now a vast backlog of cases involving alleged antisemitism that appear to be stuck in the system, in some cases for over a year. That is not a good indicator of the party having embraced Shami Chakrabarti’s imperative to adopt a gold standard in dealing with antisemitism.”

Readers of This Site will be aware that I was suspended by the Labour Party at the beginning of May last year, based on a vexatious complaint of anti-Semitism that seems to have come from a so-called charity known as the Campaign Against Antisemitism.

It took a staggering eight months for this open-and-shut case to be heard by Labour’s disputes panel. We shall discuss the failings of the report to that panel momentarily. Let’s get back to Mr Newmark and some of the allegations to which he refers:

“We will be closely monitoring the outcomes of a number of high-profile cases due to be determined by the national constitutional committee over the weeks ahead. These include former Momentum vice-chair Jackie Walker and [activist] Marc Wadsworth [who are to contest the accusations].

“The second investigation into Ken Livingstone appears to be stuck in limbo.”

Last April, Livingstone avoided expulsion from the party after an NCC disciplinary panel ruled he should be suspended for another year for bringing the party into disrepute over comments about antisemitism, Hitler and Zionism. He was censured after having suggested that Hitler at one point supported Zionism, and for defending the Labour MP Naz Shah over an antisemitic Facebook post for which she subsequently apologised.

Livingstone’s defiant reaction to the suspension caused further outrage among Labour MPs, many of whom were already dismayed at what they saw as a far too lenient ruling. Corbyn said that the former mayor’s comments after the ruling would be the subject of further investigations by the NEC after representations from party members.

Several Labour MPs and senior officials have also expressed private concerns that – despite promises by the leadership to show “zero tolerance” in cases where antisemitism had been alleged – the party had been slow to investigate. In some cases where complaints had been found to have had substance, the party had recommended surprisingly lenient punishment.

It should be pointed out that anything Jeremy Newmark says should be taken with a pinch of salt. He was found to have lied while giving evidence at an employment tribunal in 2013, and it seems he is too keen to see anti-Semitism where it isn’t actually present.

Okay – there’s a lot to address here.

The case of Jackie Walker will be interesting because it arises from a so-called ‘safe space’ session of ‘training’ run by – guess who? – the Jewish Labour Movement. The organisation had claimed that attendees would be able to discuss their concerns about issues related to Judaism without fear of being attacked for it – then either allowed Ms Walker’s words to be recorded, or the organisation itself recorded her and released her words to the news media in order to present her as an anti-Semite.

That is not reasonable behaviour. It is deceitful to take words that are presented as discussion points and use them out-of-context to support a false claim about a person’s character.

Mr Wadsworth’s case arises from the launch of Shami Chakrabarti’s report into alleged anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, in June, 2016. Mr Wadsworth, a member of Jeremy Corbyn supporting organisation Momentum, attended and was handing out press releases from the organisation when he saw a reporter from the Daily Telegraph – a Conservative-supporting newspaper – handing a copy to Ruth Smeeth – a Labour MP who had resigned her position as a Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Shadow Scotland and Northern Ireland teams three days previously, in protest at Mr Corbyn’s leadership of the party, and who may therefore be said to have been an opponent of Mr Corbyn at the time.

He is quoted as having said: “I saw the Telegraph handed a copy of a press release to Ruth Smeeth MP; you can see who is working hand-in-hand.”

It seems clear that he was suggesting anti-Corbyn Labour MPs were working with the anti-Corbyn press to criticise him. Right?

In a statement released after the incident, Ms Smeeth tried to claim that: “I was verbally attacked by a Momentum activist and Jeremy Corbyn supporter who used traditional anti-Semitic slurs to attack me for being part of a ‘media conspiracy’. It is beyond belief that someone could come to the launch of a report about anti-Semitism in the Labour Party and espouse such vile conspiracy theories against Jewish people.”

“Media conspiracy”? When did Mr Wadsworth make that claim? He didn’t.

So her claim that Mr Wadsworth was making an accusation that Jewish people control the media – which is certainly an anti-Semitic trope – is, as journalist Craig Murray described it, “untenable”. He added that, considering the subject matter of the meeting and her own Jewish ethnicity, Ms Smeeth’s reaction may have been genuine, and “she read into the remark something not intended”.

Ken Livingstone’s words have been discussed exhaustively on This Site. His Labour Party membership was suspended by the party’s National Constitutional Committee on grounds that the controversy over his defence of Labour MP Naz Shah had brought the party into dispute. He had been accused of anti-Semitism, but it had been proved that he had not said anything anti-Semitic. The Guardian‘s report, that he was “censured after having suggested that Hitler at one point supported Zionism” tells only part of the story. The claim against him was initially that he was an anti-Semite because he had claimed Hitler was a Zionist – something he never did. Labour MP John Mann, oddly accompanied by a TV camera crew, claimed he said it in an incendiary confrontation on a stairwell but the facts proved otherwise. The grounds for his suspension were that he had upset the UK’s Jewish population – and this, too, is questionable as many British Jews came forward to support him.

The Guardian states that Mr Livingstone was also censured “for defending the Labour MP Naz Shah over an antisemitic Facebook post for which she subsequently apologised”. In fact, it was a tweet, stating that “The Jews are rallying” to vote in an online poll by John Prescott on the appropriateness of Israeli military action against Palestinians in 2014. The message was indeed anti-Semitic and Ms Shah was right to apologise for it. If she had said “supporters of Israel are rallying”, she would have been in the clear. According to legal opinion, criticism of Israel that alleges ill treatment of Palestinians (the subject of the discussion at the time) cannot be taken as evidence of anti-Semitism.

Mr Livingstone also defended Ms Shah for retweeting two images. One was controversial as it was a response to a plan propossed to the Israeli Parliament, the Knesset, to forcibly move Palestinians from the land that has been theirs for centuries, relocating them in neighbouring countries. The image proposed moving Israel – the whole country, physically – to within the borders of the United States (on the assumption that the US was Israel’s greatest ally). The idea is of course ridiculous and it would be inappropriate to take it seriously. The accompanying text drew flak for referring to the “Jews-only state”, but consider this: certain so-called representatives of Jewish people (including current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, come to think of it) like to conflate Israel with Judaism. It seems strange that certain organisations that demand the two should be intermingled should then complain about it.

The other image was of a man posing for a police ‘mug’ shot, above the words, “Everything Hitler did in Germany was legal”. Mr Livingstone was taken to task by Vanessa Feltz on her radio show over this image, which she claimed was an attempt to justify Hitler’s anti-Semitism. This was a huge mistake: The man in the image was Martin Luther King, and the point he was making was that actions that are entirely legal can still be entirely wrong.

Isn’t it curious that nobody has tackled Ms Feltz over her gross misinterpretation of the image? Has anybody even bothered to ask her, or is it only permitted to question the accused, and not the accusers?

The Guardian goes on to report Labour MPs and officials’ concerns that “despite promises by the leadership to show ‘zero tolerance’ in cases where antisemitism had been alleged – the party had been slow to investigate. In some cases where complaints had been found to have had substance, the party had recommended surprisingly lenient punishment.”

“Zero tolerance” with allegations? This implies that guilt is assumed, no matter what the evidence may be – which brings me to my own case.

Here‘s a site called The Red Roar, reporting my refusal to accept the disputes panel’s decision to give me a warning and send me for “training” with the JLM. It is inaccurate, or at least misleading by omission, in several places:

A Labour member accused of anti-semitism could face expulsion from the party after publicly refusing to take part in a training programme because it is run by the Jewish Labour Movement.

Mike Sivier was defended by Jon Lansman at a hearing of Labour’s Disputes Panel on Tuesday after being suspended for blog posts described as anti-Semitic. The Momentum founder helped to broker a compromise agreement that was endorsed by the Panel by the narrowest of margins, which Sivier has now effectively broken.

Party officials had recommended Sivier should be referred to the National Constitutional Committee, which has the final say on disciplinary matters. But several NEC members argued on Tuesday he should be given a second chance if he agreed to take part in training. It is unusual for the Disputes Panel to ignore the advice of Party officials, but it voted by 12 votes to 10 in favour of the compromise agreement.

Readers of This Site will know that I am not an anti-Semite. The allegations against me were entirely false.

If you’ve come late to the debate, or have only seen the other side of it, I recommend a quick trip here and here.

I’ve already mentioned the fact that it has taken Labour eight months to bring my case before the NEC’s disputes panel.

For nearly five of those months, I heard nothing from Labour at all. Then I was invited to an interview, to discuss the matter, and encouraged to bring evidence supporting my side of the issue, details of other people who could be contacted for supporting evidence, and a witness – who may not speak but may ensure that proceedings take place equitably.

In hindsight, I have no idea why I was invited to that interview; I might as well have stayed at home. My evidence was ignored; my documents went unexamined; my supporters uncontacted. And what’s the point of having a witness if she isn’t allowed to review the report to dispute panel members for accuracy?

The report delivered to the panel, as I understand it, dismissed nearly two hours worth of verbal evidence as “unclear”, and claimed that I did not understand why Jewish people might take offence at what I had said.

The reason they chose to take offence is perfectly clear: For political gain. My accusers did not want me to do well in the local government elections last May, so they released the article making their claim about me in the week before – to ruin my chances. This is against the law.

None of this information was provided to the disputes panel – and it seems that some of its members seem to assume guilt, simply from the fact that a complaint has been made. It can hardly be a surprise that they were not prepared to accept Mr Lansman’s argument – and that of others who were there – that I am innocent.

Indeed, it seems that some of the panel even took offence at attempts to introduce evidence I had given at my interview into their deliberations, as it had not been mentioned in the one-sided report they’d had from the officer.

Oh, and Mr Lansman didn’t put forward the proposal to give me a warning and send me for training – that was someone else.

Sivier has since written that he will not take part in the training because it is run by JLM “of all people”. That is an apparent reference to the fact that it was his controversial online statements about JLM that prompted his suspension from the party in the first place.

No, it’s a reference to the evidence that JLM uses its “training” events to smear innocent people with fake anti-Semitism accusations (as Jackie Walker discovered).

Also, it is surprising that whoever wrote the Red Roar article apparently hasn’t read the allegations against me. That’s poor journalism. My statements about the JLM cannot be described as anti-Semitism as they do not fit any of the definitions; they are criticism of the JLM as an organisation, not Jews.

Sivier now faces being referred to the NCC, as recommended by party officials.

Yes indeed. Hopefully I’ll be able to inject some much-needed factual accuracy into this sorry saga. I am already calling for reform of the disciplinary procedure as it clearly causes injustice.

His refusal to undergo training will embarrass Lansman and other Momentum NEC members who argued on his behalf earlier this week. Lansman has publicly conceded that Labour has a problem with anti-semitism which is has so far failed to address.

Those who spoke in my favour “understand” my decision and “applaud” my “strong principles”.

As for Mr Lansman’s agreement that Labour has a problem with anti-Semitism – he said it is on the rise nationally, and “it would be extremely surprising if it wasn’t also present in the Labour Party”. He didn’t say Labour had failed to address the problem, but did say “it has to be dealt with”.

He’s right – but not by automatically penalising anybody who has been accused. That merely encourages mischief-makers to make vexatious complaints in order to discredit people they don’t like – and that’s not acceptable.

Don’t forget that cases of apparently genuine anti-Semitism were discussed by the disputes panel and sent on to the Natonal Constitutional Committee last week. Where the party’s rules are clearly breached, it acts appropriately.

It is only in cases where the innocent are accused that Labour seems to tie itself in knots.

So, yes, I agree that Labour takes far too long dealing with these complaints. But Labour needs to reform its procedures to ensure that everybody who is accused can ensure that their case is heard fairly and that justice is served. That is not happening at the moment.

And that’s why I’m telling the disputes panel to think again.


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