Labour’s Disciplinary Procedures would put the Star Chamber to Shame

Labour’s Disciplinary Procedures would put the Star Chamber to Shame

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Post-Blog

Labour Party Witch-hunters Employ the   Daily Torygraph to Pursue Bogus
Allegations of Anti-Semitism

Update

The printed version of the Daily Telegraph is significantly different from the Internet version (see bottom of post).  Out has gone allegations that I alleged that Jews supported the Nuremberg Laws.  Instead the idiots believe that it is anti-Semitic for me to have ‘compared Israel’s views on inter-racial marriage to the Nazi party’s Nuremberg Laws on race.’
I have to confess that this is true.  In ‘when Nuremburg came to Israel’ I make exactly this comparison.  When Israel’s Education Ministry ban a book ‘Borderlife’ from the high school English syllabus because it depicts a relationship between Jewish and an Arab teenagers as a ‘threat to national identity’ this is exactly the mentality of the Nuremberg racial laws and anyone who denies this is a hypocrite and a liar.  But it isn’t just me who makes this comparison.  The greatest Jewish political scientist and philosopher of the 20th century, Hannah Arendt said exactly the same in her book ‘Eichmann in Jerusalem – the Banality of Evil’.  She wrote:

Israeli citizens, religious and non-religious seem agreed upon the desirability of having a law which prohibits intermarriage… there certainly was something breathtaking in the naiveté with which the prosecution denounced the infamous Nuremberg Laws of 1935, which had prohibited intermarriage and sexual intercourse between Jews and Germans. Hannah Arendt, p.7 Eichmann in Jerusalem – The Banality of Evil, Penguin Books, London 1994.

And why was it breathtaking?  Because in Israel to it is impossible for a Jew and a non-Jew to marry.  Sexual relations between Arabs and Jews is a social taboo and the government funds groups, like the fascist Lehava group, which campaign against this.  Lehava in particular doesn’t hesitate to attack Arab men in ‘Jewish areas’.  So yes, I plead guilty to this particular charge!
Daily Telegraph article is significantly different from Internet version


Even the Board of Deputies Jamie Slavin admits that Tony Greenstein has fought anti-Semitism in the Palestine solidarity movement when people like Gilad Atzmon have surfaced

On March 18th
I was informed by John Stolliday of the Labour Party’s Constitutional/
Compliance Unit that I had been suspended from membership on the basis of
comments I am alleged to have made. 
Despite writing to the said Stolliday twice, I have not been informed as
to the nature of these alleged comments. 
Today (April 1st) I received a letter from Harry Gregson,
Acting Regional Organiser, informing me that he was intending to put off his investigation
until after the local elections. 

Jonathan Freedland – the Guardians liberal Zionist who always falls on the wrong side of the fence
Even Jonathan Freedland, the Guardian’s most prominent Zionist accepts that Tony Greenstein has opposed anti-Semitism without question – other comments refer to the editor of the Jewish Chronicle, Stephen Pollard’s support for the anti-Semitic Polish politician Michal Kaminski
I immediately
phoned Gregson and asked that I be sent copies of the evidence against me and the
name(s) of the complainants.  Gregson, a
minor apparatchik, despite having informed the Chairperson of Brighton Labour
Party, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, that I would be given this evidence within a week, informed
me that Labour Party procedures require that I should not be informed until
after he has conducted his investigation. 
This is clearly untrue.  The Executive
Committee’s guidance as to how to carry out an investigation clearly states
that ‘the respondent should be notified of the investigation and the nature of
the complaints or allegations at an early stage’.
John Mann MP was effectively called a liar by an Employment Tribunal when he gave evidence at the case of Fraser v UCU
Of course this
is not a matter of petty bureaucratic procedure or sticking to the rules but of
a political attack on the Left of the Labour Party, led by people like John
Mann MP, someone branded a liar, pompous and untrustworthy by an employment
tribunal.
Employment Tribunal in Fraser v UCU heavily criticise Jeremy Newmark, who is behind the allegations of anti-Semitism.  Newmark is Chair of the Jewish Labour Movement i.e. the sister group of the racist Israeli Labour Party
The pretext for
the attack is ‘anti-Semitism’ and that appears to be the basis of the
allegations which have been made against me. 
I say appear to be, because I can only take the word of the Daily
Telegraph for it. [Activist who derides critics as ‘Zionist scum’admitted to Labour in latest anti-Semitism scandal to hit Party
According to the Zionists, this sensitive and profound play is ‘anti-Semitic’
Whilst the
Compliance Unit has refused to give me the details of allegations made against
me, someone in the Unit has nonetheless passed the information on to a paper
which is not known for supporting the Labour Party and of course rent-a-mouth
MP John Mann was on hand to provide a quote.
The past few
weeks have seen a welter of charges around trivial examples of ‘anti-Semitism’ –
some real, some imagined.  There was the
case of Gerry Downing of Socialist Fight, who stupidly believes that a mythical
‘Jewish Question’ explains the support of the United States for Israel.  There are the foolish comments of a Vicki
Kirby made two years ago, there is the reference to 6 million dead Zionists by Khadim
Hussain, the former Mayor of Bradford.  Quite understandably he uses ‘Zionists’
instead of ‘Jews’ given that Zionists regularly confuse the two as a matter of
policy.
When Aaronovitch allowed a comment alleging I was anti-Semitic on his blog  I sued The Times which apologised and paid damages
The point he
made, namely the undue concentration on the extermination of Jews in school
syllabuses, when the 10 million dead Africans in the Belgian Congo alone, pass
without mention, is not in the least anti-Semitic.
Letter of Suspension from Labour Party
There are also
false allegations of anti-Semitism against Oxford University Labour Club for
supporting Israel Apartheid Week and York University Palestine Society for
putting on the play 7 Jewish Children. 
For details of these see Anti-Semitism– Weapon of Choice, Weekly Worker 24.3.2016 
Letter in response to Stolliday’s suspension letter – Stolliday has subsequently leaked details of the complaints to Daily Telegraph
The Telegraph
article by a Camilla Turner is wrong in a number of particulars.  It alleges that I refer to my critics as “Zio
idiots
” and “Zionist scum“, and claimed that Jews supported
the Nuremberg Laws.  I probably did
refer, on Twitter to Zio idiots.  There
is a 140 character limit and therefore one shortens words – it is certainly not
anti-Semitic.  Whether calling someone an
idiot or scum is anti-Semitic I will leave to other peoples’ judgment but when
you are accused of anti-Semitism, self-hatred etc. by people who justify the
murder of Palestinian civilians and even children it isn’t at all strong. 
The allegation
that I claimed that Jews supported the Nuremberg Laws is an example of
precisely the same offence as the former Mayor of Bradford is accused of,
confusing Jews with Zionists.
I have never
accused the Jews of Germany or anywhere else of supporting the 1935 Nuremberg Laws.  Laws which stripped German Jews of their
citizenship, which made German ‘blood’ the requirement for citizenship and which
enforced the legal the separation of Germany’s Jews from non-Jewish Germans.   They forbade inter-marriage and sexual
relations between Germany’s Jews in just the same way as Israel forbids Jews and
non-Jews to marry.  The Nuremberg Laws
were, in the words of Gerald Reitlinger ‘the
most murderous legislative instrument known to European history’.
[The Final
Solution, p.7, London 1998]
Letter from Gregson informing Tony Greenstein of delay in investigation – Gregson refuses to let TG know details of allegations
I do however say
that the German Zionist Federation [ZVfD] and not just the German Zionists were
enthusiastic supporters of these laws. 
As the Introduction
to the Nuremberg Laws stated:

If
the Jews had a state of their own in which the bulk of their people were at
home, the Jewish question could already be considered solved today… The ardent Zionists of all people have
objected least of all to the basic ideas of the Nuremberg Laws, because they
know that these laws are the only correct solution for the Jewish people too…

This quote can
be found in an article by Israeli socialist and Emeritus Professor Moshe
Machover and Mario Offenberg, Zionism and
its scarecrows’
p. 38., in the journal Khamsin 6, Pluto Press, 1978.  It is directly quoting Die Nurnberger Gesetze, 5. Auflage, Berlin 1939 p.13/14. 
The same
quotation appears in two books by Francis Nicosia, the Raul
Hilberg Distinguished Professor of Holocaust Studies at Vermont University. [The Third Reich and the Palestine Question,
I B Tauris, 1985 p.53 and Zionism and anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany [ZANG], p.
108, Cambridge University Press, 2008. 
which cites an article by Lohsener in the Nazi journal Reichsverwaltungsblatt 23.11.35].
Letter in response to refusal of Labour bureaucrat Gregson to hand over details of allegations to Tony Greenstein
Rabbi Joachim Prinz, President of ZVfD and later Deputy Chairman of the
World Jewish Congress explained that

‘Everyone
in Germany knew that only the Zionists could responsibly represent the Jews in
dealing with the Nazi government.  We all
felt sure that one day the government would arrange a round table conference
with the Jews… there was no country in the world which tried to solve the
Jewish problem as seriously as did Germany… It was our Zionist dream!…
Dissimilation?  It was our own appeal!…’ Joachim
Prinz, ‘Zionism under the Nazi Government’, Young
Zionist,
London Nov. 1937 p.18

Indeed I would
go further.  Whereas Jews the world over
were shocked and angry at the decision by Germany’s conservative establishment –
its industrialists, military and politicians – to put Hitler in power and began
a massive economic boycott of Nazi Germany, the Zionists welcomed Hitler to
power.  They even concluded their own
trade agreement, Ha’avara, with Nazi Germany in August 1933 which helped
destroy the Jewish and Labour Movement boycott of Germany.  This is not disputed.  It is covered in exhaustive detail in Edwin
Black’s Ha’avara – The Transfer Agreement, Brookline Books, 1999.
German
Zionism, which was a tiny minority amongst German Jews, welcomed the rise of
the Nazis.  They were the volkish Jews.  Nicosia wrote that “So positive was its assessment of the situation that, as early as April
1933, the ZVfD announced its determination to take advantage of the crisis to
win over a traditionally assimilationist German Jewry to Zionism”.
[ZANG
p.146].  Berl Katznelson, a founder of
Mapai [Israeli Labour Party] and editor of Labour Zionism’s daily paper, Davar,
[who was second only to David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister] saw
the rise of Hitler as “an opportunity to build and flourish like none we have
ever had or ever will have”. [Nicosia, ZANG, p.91].
Joachim
Prinz admitted that:

“It
was morally disturbing to seem to be considered as the favoured children of the
Nazi Government, particularly when it dissolved the anti-Zionist youth groups,
and seemed in other ways to prefer the Zionists. The Nazis asked for a ‘more
Zionist behaviour.” [Joachim Prinz, Zionism under the Nazi Government, Young Zionist
(London, November 1937), p.18].

I suspect that
this aspect of the charges will be quietly dropped because the historical
record is so clear and embarrassing to the Zionists.
The more general
accusation of ‘anti-Semitism’ is equally ludicrous.  Not only am I the author of the book The
Fight Against Fascism in Brighton and on the South Coast
, published by Labour
History Workshop but I was a founder member of Brighton and Hove Anti-fascist Committee
in the 1970’s as well as being Secretary of the Anti-Nazi League in Brighton in
the early 1980’s when we cleared out the National Front and an Executive Member
of Anti-Fascist Action.
When a member of
Brighton PSC, Frances Clarke Lowes came out in support of holocaust denial in
2012 I proposed his expulsion both to the local PSC group and national PSC.  I also helped lead the campaign to isolate
and remove supporters of Gilad Atzmon, the anti-Semitic Jazzman, from the Palestine
solidarity movement at a time when others, Zionists included [Michael Ezra and
David Taube] were arguing that he wasn’t anti-Semitic.
Even Jamie
Slavin of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, which is not exactly shy when
it comes to supporting Israel right or wrong, admitted that ‘I stumbled across Tony Greenstein’s blog this morning. Tony is an anti-Zionist,
Jewish member of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC). Whilst his views on
the situation in the Middle East are a complete anathema to me, to his credit,
he has led the opposition within the PSC against rising levels of antisemitism.’
And lo and
behold, even Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian, the person who maybe more than
anyone else has led the current campaign to confuse anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism
confessed in a private e-mail to me on 23rd October 2015 that:

‘I
have always had respect for the integrity of your position:  I remember your admirable stance on Gilad Atzmon
for example’

I have
incidentally given Jonathan Freedland notice that I might have to publish his
email, despite the ‘Not for Publication’ note and it is my understanding that
he is happy with this.
The attempt
therefore to paint me as anti-Semitic has no legs and I have given the Labour
Party functionary, Harry Gregson, due warning that I will not hesitate to
resort to the libel courts if there is any attempt by Labour’s witch-hunters to
suggest otherwise.
The only other
aspect of the Torygraph’s allegations
is the question of the legitimacy of the IRA’s attempt to assassinate Thatcher
in 1984.  This is a historical
question.  Thatcher herself is now
dead.  The Labour Party in Brighton discussed
this at length when a councillor, Richard Stanton, said exactly this.  There was a furore in the Evening Argus
locally but the Labour Party and his ward, Queens Park, overwhelmingly backed
Richard.  Richard stood for re-election
and despite the Tories putting out a leaflet with a picture of a Guy Fawkes style
bomb on it, Richard doubled his majority. 
Most working-class people at the time were not taken in by the ruling
class hypocrisy over the attack on Thatcher. 
This was a woman who told us to ‘Rejoice, Rejoice’ when nearly a
thousand men lost their lives when the General Belgrano was sunk by a British torpedo.  She was the woman who caused countless deaths from suicide and depression in the coalfields because of her destruction of the industry.  There was a war between the IRA and the
British armed forces, in which Republican politicians were seen as legitimate targets
by the Army and its dirty tricks brigades, such as the Force Research Unit.   Not only Republican politicians but ordinary Catholics were murdered by Loyalist
death squads who were aided by British intelligence. 
Although some
senior Labour politicians might today disavow their previous support for the
Republicans the fact is that the IRA were fighting on behalf of the nationalist
community in Northern Ireland.  One does
not have to agree with all their tactics to understand the legitimacy of their
struggle.  They were not terrorists, they
were backed by the majority of the Catholic community as is evidenced in the
fact that Sinn Fein have become the majority party of that community.
I am looking
forward to doing battle with the Zionists and their supporters.  I have no intention of backing down.  I hope that Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell and
others in Momentum with weak spines will understand that the attack on people
like me is not because of genuine anti-Semitism.  ‘Anti-Semitism’ is a useful vehicle with
which to attack the Left.  It is a means
of attacking the Corbyn leadership itself. 
Corbyn and McDonnell have a choice – they can allow the witch-hunt by
Labours civil service at the behest of the Right to go ahead or they can call a
halt to the process before they too are its victims.  Or as Kipling put it “Once
you pay them Dane-geld you never get rid of the Dane” 
In other words, don’t appease the Right fight
them.


The Torygraph’s article – based on a leak from the Compliance Unit

 

 

 

0 Comments

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share This