Jeremy Corbyn was absolutely right in the comments that got him suspended: “One antisemite is one too many, but the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents”.
It is a real shame that he did not say so when he could have made a real difference to the civil war in the Labour Party. Unfortunately, it was the Corbyn leadership’s silence and complicity in the witch-hunt that made his suspension possible in the first place. Hundreds of socialists and Corbyn supporters have been suspended and expelled for comments that often do not amount to much more than what Corbyn said.
We need to understand that the campaign by the right inside and outside the party was never about fighting antisemitism. It was always a campaign designed to get rid of Corbyn and make sure that the Labour Party becomes once again a safe “second eleven” that could run Britain on behalf of capitalism, and follow the US into any new military adventure.
Sadly, it appears as if Corbyn and his allies still do not understand this basic reality. The six candidates supported by the Centre-Left Grassroots Alliance in the current NEC elections have made sure not to mention the word ‘witch-hunt’, or propose any actions on how to stop it.
In a tweet following his suspension, Corbyn writes that, “I’ve made absolutely clear those who deny there has been an antisemitism problem in the Labour Party are wrong. I will continue to support a zero tolerance policy towards all forms of racism.”
Corbyn himself has now become a victim of this “zero tolerance” approach he champions. The fight for socialism is intrinsically linked to a culture of free speech and open debate on all issues – including, importantly, the question of Israel/Palestine.
Anyone who believes that Jeremy Corbyn was suspended on the basis of what he actually said today needs their head examining. It was planned long ago. Back in July there were rumours emanating from Starmer’s office that Corbyn would be suspended when the EHRC Report was released.
‘According to a few Labour sources this morning, it’s “very possible” and “highly likely” that Jeremy Corbyn will have the whip removed very soon, as a result of some of the recommendations in the EHRC report.’ #LabourAntisemitism.
Starmer is using the recommendations of the EHRC in order to purge the Left by removing the presence of a former leader. The question is whether or not the Left responds by declaring war on Sturmer or, like Momentum makes a pathetic plea for unity with those trying to destroy it. Some of thought that when Lansman’s cronies were defeated earlier this year by Momentum Forward that its politics might change.
Unfortunately Momentum Forward has continued where Lansman left off. Yesterday they put out an appalling statement in reaction to Corbyn’s suspension in which they protested that “This suspension risks politicising Labour’s response to antisemitism.” Perhaps someone should tell Scatterbrain that anti-Semitism has been weaponised for over 5 years now. Sturmer wants to destroy the left not unite with it!
Who do Momentum think Margaret Hodge, Tom Watson, Lucian Berger et al represent? The anti-racist left? Momentum pathetically plead that the suspension ‘should be immediately lifted in the interests of party unity.’
Where have these dunderheads been living? Starmer isn’t interested in party unity. He’s interested in driving out the left from the Labour Party. If Momentum don’t recognise this it’s because they are wedded to the same reformist illusions as Lansman.
Momentum’s co-chairs then go on to describe the EHRC Report in completely uncritical terms. Scatterbrain says that:
for many it will make for difficult reading. It concludes that the Labour Party complaints process for antisemitism is inadequate, and expresses concern that the current process does not ensure fair and transparent sanctioning of antisemitism complaints. It also finds unlawful acts to have been committed by former Labour Party agents.
It is clear that whatever this year’s Momentum elections were about they were not about politics. The EHRC is not an anti-racist body. Its Commissioners are taken from the corporate and banking world with the odd lawyer thrown in. It is an organisation of the liberal Establishment that has been mobilised to drive a wedge into the Labour Party using identity politics to disguise its purpose.
It is a body that has said next to nothing about the Windrush scandal, done nothing about the ‘hostile environment’ policy of the Tories, it has said nothing about stop and search, refugees or institutional racism. Why? Because it is itself an institutionally racist body.
As Simon Woolley, a former Commissioner wrote the EHRC doesn’t have one single Black or Muslim Commissioner. It is stuffed with liberal and corporate do gooders. Woolley wrote
‘I’ve been particularly stuck by the huge gulf between the EHRC and the new generation of young Black Lives Matter activists’.
The EHRC is utterly irrelevant to the victims of racism in Britain today. It is a body whose sole purpose is in incorporating and blunting the anti-racist message. It is as much our enemy as Boris Johnson.
Whilst we must oppose Corbyn’s suspension he is the author of his own misfortune. When the EHRC first proposed its investigation it should have been vigorously opposed as an intrusion by a State body into a democratic political party. What has happened is the kind of tactic used in police states. The State has effectively sought to neutralise a radical political party.
According to a Yougov poll for Hope not Hate, nearly half of Tory Party members oppose having a Muslim Prime Minister and more than two-thirds of Tory members believe the myth that parts of the UK are under Sharia law. 45% think some areas are not safe for non-Muslims. And if that is not enough nearly two-thirds of Tory members believe that Islam is a threat to western civilisation. Yet the EHRC has fought shy of doing anything about an openly racist party led by someone who believes that Black people are ‘picanninies’ with ‘water melon smiles.’
Unlike ‘anti-Semitism’ in the Labour Party Islamaphobia in the Tory Party is part of its DNA. Yet this useless body has kept its mouth shut for fear of losing what’s left of its grant. Corbyn, whose stupidity is beyond doubt, said nothing when what he should have done was to refuse all co-operation.
When 2 openly Zionist organisations, both of which are effectively extensions of the Israeli state – the Jewish Labour Movement and the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism – made their complaints to the EHRC, Corbyn should have launched legal action to stop it in its tracks. This is state interference in a legal party and a breach of Article 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights on freedom of association.
Realising that its previous statement was hopelessly inadequate Momentum issued another statement after a meeting tonight. The statement was equally useless. It read:
‘The suspension of Jeremy Corbyn by the Labour Party leadership is a factional attack on the left that inevitably undermines the fight against anti-semitism and makes a mockery of Keir Starmer’s pledge to unite the Party. Tonight our Party is more divided than ever.’
When will the Scatterbrain and Sriskanthan get it into their heads that there has never been a fight against ‘anti-Semitism’ in the Labour Party? It has always been an attack on anti-Zionism and the Palestinians. Every Letter of Investigation I have seen accuses people of anti-Semitism based on their comments about Israel, the world’s only apartheid state.
Does Scatterbrain really think that Tom Watson, Hodge and co. were really interested in fighting anti-Semitism? The same Hodge who was praised by the BNP for her housing policies? Or the same Tom Watson who ‘lost sleep’ thinking about the injustice of the High Court removing racist Labour MP Phil Woolas from the Parliament after running a campaign that aimed to ‘make the White folk angry’?
The ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign waged for the past 5 years was not about anti-Semitism. If it was then isn’t it strange that so many Jewish members have been expelled or suspended. And why should Labour MPs who voted to legalise torture be concerned about anti-Semitism anyway?
We know Starmer’s attitude to racism. Black Lives Matter is just a moment whose time has gone. He believes in more funding for the racist Metropolitan Police. At a time of Black Lives Matter, stop and search, Windrush etc. the only form of racism that matters is ‘antisemitism’. Jews in Britain are a privileged White community. To prioritise ‘anti-Semitism’ over racism against Black and Muslim people is itself racist.
Sure there is some antisemitic prejudice if you look hard enough but as the EHRC Report concedes most of it is in social media. No one has ever died from a tweet but plenty of Black youth have died in Police custody yet Starmer has nothing but praise for the Police.
Growing up as a Jewish person in non-Jewish communities I never had to fear being attacked in the street. I didn’t have to hide from the deportation squads. My father wasn’t stopped when driving for being Jewish and handcuffed. Jews in Britain are not oppressed. They are, for the most part, a prosperous middle class community. The days of working class Jewish communities are gone. The Jews of the East End have moved to London’s suburbs. My favourite restaurant, Blooms in Whitechapel closed years ago. In short Jews do not experience state racism. They are the kept pets of Britain’s ruling class for whom it is a safe form of anti-racism.
The ‘antisemitism’ campaign was always about attacking Corbyn. Yet Momentum’s Scattergood/Sriskanthan believes that a campaign which only arose when Corbyn became leader is somehow being jeopardized by Corbyn’s suspension! Momentum Forward and Lansman’s Momentum Renewal are peas in a pod.
If you want to read a decent statement on the suspension of Jeremy Corbyn then you can do worse than read the Morning Star’s Jeremy Corbyn’s suspension is a declaration of war. And you don’t win a war by asking someone trying to kill you to hold your hand!
What Can We Do?
This Saturday Labour Against the Witchhunt is organising a public meeting with Ken Livingstone, Chris Williamson, Jackie Walker, Marc Wadsworth and Tony Greenstein speaking.
The following Saturday there is a similar line-up being organised with Asa Winstanley, Chris Williamson and Tony Greenstein speaking, chaired by Miko Peled, the ‘wrong sort of Israeli Jew’ chairing.
On Friday Brighton & Hove LLA will be organising a local anti-witchhunt meeting. Starmer’s suspension of his predecessor is unprecedented. We should be clear about why we oppose it and where it came from.
Corbyn himself laid the basis for what has happened. His opposition to Open Selection at the 2018 Labour Party Conference and then his decision at the 2019 Party Conference to support ‘fast track’ expulsions which we were assured were only for ‘egregious’ cases but which have since been used in EVERY ‘anti-Semitism’ case laid the basis for his own suspension. Corbyn has literally fashioned his own noose. However just because someone is an idiot or a coward doesn’t mean one should not support them!
The gloves are off and anyone who thinks that by conceding to the lie that there was an ‘anti-Semitism’ problem in Labour that they are then going to gain a tactical advantage is seriously mistaken. ‘Anti-Semitism’ was the Right’s chosen weapon. It was never about anti-Jewish racism, hence why the IHRA misdefinition of anti-Semitism was foisted upon the Labour Party.
In fact I am incorrect. It was Corbyn himself at the end of 2016 who unilaterally adopted the 38 word IHRA. Having spent his whole political life supporting the Palestinians, having been called an ‘antisemite’ countless times, he voluntarily adopted a definition whose only purpose was to conflate anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism and define him as an anti-Semite.
Anti-Semitism was chosen as the method of attack precisely because it was not a form of racism but a means of denigrating opposition to the Israeli state and giving the Right some moral stature. It fitted in well to the Left’s addiction to Identity Politics rather than Class Politics. Those like Momentum’s Scatterbrain and the rest of the NCG who think they can gain Corbyn’s reinstatement on the basis of adhering to the EHRC Report are fooling themselves and no one else.
As part of the new democratic order David Evans, Labour’s General Secretary has issued another warning to local parties not to discuss the EHRC Report. It is clear that far from being a democratic party, the Labour Party has now become a tyranny. It is of prime importance to democrats in the party that Evans is defied and told where to go.
It is crucial that local parties defy Evans and go ahead and condemn the report and Sturmer with it. That is what Momentum should be calling for not unity with the evil.
I spent two weeks compiling a 2 part summary of the 851 page Leaked Labour Report. The EHRC Report is an insubstantial tract. At 130 pages is remarkable for the fact that it is shallow and superficial, lacking in substance. Its main focus is the alleged failure of Labour’s disciplinary and complaints processes. Whereas it took me 3 days to read Labour’s Leaked Report on Anti-Semitism the EHRC Report was a breeze. There is nothing in it apart from procedure. The EHRC has produced a mouse and yet Starmer willed it on as a means of attacking the Left. Its failures are manifest to anyone who isn’t cerebrally challenged. Below are some points:
1. Quite amazingly for a report on anti-Semitism it doesn’t once try to define what it means by anti-Semitism. The EHRC know better than to define anti-Semitism concretely as hostility to or prejudice or discrimination against Jews. Instead they rely on things that are ‘offensive’ to Jews, regardless of whether they are true. It is an old trick.
2. There is no attempt to ask who the 2 complainants, the Jewish Labour Movement and the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism actually are. The fact that the JLM describes itself as the ‘sister party’ of the almost extinct Israeli Labour Party is not even mentioned. Ha’aretz, Israel’s liberal daily describes its former leader Avi Gabbay as a Likudnik. It is a party that supported Netanyahu’s attempt to deport Israel’s 40,000 Black African refugees because, in Netanyahu’s words, they threatened Israel’s racial ‘Jewish identity.’
3. The CAA is a virulently Islamaphobic organisation, racist to its root, which works with Zionist supporters of Tommy Robinson. In other words the complainants to the EHRC are themselves deeply racist. It published a coloured graphic of the typical Muslim male as part of an attack on Muslims. If a similar graphic on Jews had been produced we would have never heard the end of it.
4. Not once did the EHRC entertain the idea that accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’ have been the staple of Zionist attacks on critics of Israel for decades. No less than the French President Macron has declared that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are one and the same. So if one opposes the Jewish nature of the Israeli state then that is anti-Semitic. Today Ha’aretz published an article about how Israel is seeking to expand the boundaries of the Jewish town of Harish because Arabs, at 44% are already nearly a majority. It wants to expand it to dilute the Arab presence. Yet to call this what it is is ‘anti-Semitism’. Since when was it anti-Semitic to oppose racism?
5. The Report singles out two people in particular, Ken Livingstone, who pioneered anti-racism in local government and Pam Bromley, a councillor in Rossendale. The attack on Livingstone is particularly egregious but what the Report doesn’t mention is that it also singled out Chris Williamson. However Chris immediately instructed solicitors and the EHRC backed off. You won’t read that in the Report!
6. There was no mention of the fact, and it is a fact, that the anti-Semitism campaign began as a completely confected campaign led by that well known opponent of racism, the Daily Mail, which alleged that Corbyn had links with Holocaust deniers Paul Eisen. Not once does it ask why the racist tabloids suddenly became so concerned with ‘anti-Semitism’. In short the Report completely decontextualises the allegations whilst insinuating that anyone denying that there was an anti-Semitism problem was themselves anti-Semitic! This is called ‘denialism’ which is the logic of the Salem Witchhunt when women and men were hanged for witchcraft in Massachusetts. As Elizabeth Purdy wrote:
Those who publicly questioned the guilt of a defendant were likely to be accused of witchcraft themselves.
7. The logic of ‘denialism’ is the ‘logic’ of the 17th Century witch-hunters yet Corbyn in his idiocy gave his backing to this nonsense. The idea that denying a crime is to admit it is the stuff of Kafka.
8. The Report talks of ‘zero tolerance’ of anti-Semitism yet the EHRC has indulged the racism of the Tory Party without even the slightest comment. It has done nothing about the hostile environment policy or Windrush where Black British citizens were illegally deported. The idea that the EHRC is an anti-racist body is for the birds.
9. Strangely enough for a report concerned with procedural irregularities it has nothing to say about Labour’s fast track expulsions where the accused are denied a hearing.
10. There is repeated talk of ‘Jewish community stakeholders’. It never once explains who these might be but we can assume it means the Trump Tory supporting Board of Deputies. A body which cheered on the Israeli army as they mowed down unarmed Palestinian protesters in Gaza. They blamed the death of medics and children on the victims and they then profess to be concerned about anti-Semitism.
11. Nearly all their examples of ‘anti-Semitism’ consist of social media posts. This simply trivializes anti-Semitism. Racism is about what people do not what they post on Twitter. Noone has ever died from a tweet but plenty have died from Israeli bullets.
12. Despite saying that they took evidence from Jewish Voices for Labour there is no evidence of this. The EHRC comprehensively disregarded the voice of anti-Zionist and non-Zionist Jews.
13. I wrote to the EHRC’s Investigation repeatedly offering to give evidence. They were not interested. When I pointed out their disinterest in Conservative Party racism they responded.
With reference to your submission of 13 July 2019 and your specific observation relating to the Conservative Party, we can confirm that we are actively considering what, if any, action we may take in relation to the handling of Islamophobia and other discrimination within the Conservative Party. Further, we have made the following statement in relation to Windrush and the Government’s hostile environment policies.
15. Clearly there were some Jews who were more important than others. I told them that as the first Jewish person to be expelled I might have a different perspective on the fake anti-Semitism affair. They made it clear that they weren’t interested.
15. The EHRC said they launched their ‘investigation’ because of ‘serious public concern about allegations of anti-Semitism’. It is strange that serious public concern about Police stop and search, the Windrush deportations and other acts of state racism merited no such concern. In fact there was no public concern about Labour anti-Semitism. It was a narrative of the Tory press and the Labour right-wing.
16. Its main obsession was ‘political interference in the handling of anti-Semitism complaints.’ (p.7) Perhaps that was because the complaints themselves were politically motivated.
17. It talks of ‘anti-Semitic conduct’ but never mentions what that conduct is. Everything is inferred.
18. It mentions (p.17) that ‘over 20 elected representatives (including MPs, peers and councillors) resigned from the Party in 2018 and 2019 citing a failure to tackle anti-Semitism in their reasons.’ It was of course no coincidence that these people were all on the anti-Corbyn wing of the Labour Party and people who had never objected to for example New Labour’s hostile environment policy towards ‘illegal’ immigrants i.e. refugees.
19. The Report quotes uncritically the Community Security Trust reports on anti-Semitic incidents but these are not value free. The CST is another pro-Zionist organisation.
20. The legal basis of its inquiry, that the Labour Party was an association under the Equality Act 2010 omits the fact that it is a political party and allegations of ‘anti-Semitism’ were weaponised, e.g. the allegations at Oxford University which had been made by Alex Chalmers, a former intern of the Israel Lobby organisation BICOM. See How Israel lobby manufactured UK Labour Party’s anti-Semitism crisis. By definition a political party is not a sports club or other voluntary association. The EHRC is an organ of the state. It had no right to interfere and in essence take sides in a political dispute inside the Labour Party. It was Corbyn and Formby’s stupidity which prevented them telling the EHRC to mind their own business. Corbyn has literally dug his own grave.
21. The Report suggests as an example of indirect discrimination that a party that holds its meetings on the Sabbath is discriminating against Jewish members. Bollocks. The Labour Party is a secular not a religious body. It is under no obligation to take into account superstitious religious beliefs. The only time that this could possibly be relevant is if the Labour Party held meetings on Saturday but had a rule stipulating that it should not hold meetings on Fridays or Sundays. Secularism is perfectly legal. (p.22)
22. The Report hangs its argument on the basis that councillors, MPs and NEC members are ‘agents’ of the party. This is extremely dubious. They are elected representatives not agents. A political party is a free association of its members based on shared beliefs. It is no business of the State to interfere in its running as long as it abides by its own constitution.
23. Quite outrageously the Report describes ‘allegations that complaints of anti-Semitism are fake or smears.’ as themselves anti-Semitic (p. 28) yet this is a regular practice of Zionists who even call Jews who are not Zionists ‘self haters’ ‘traitors’ ‘kapos’ etc. It is a fact that Zionists, Jewish or other do, as a regular practice allege anti-Semitism where there is none. The CAA, one of the complainants is a regular practitioner in making false allegations of anti-Semitism. It particularly targets Jews. Even the person who drafted the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, Kenneth Stern gave testimony to the US Congress about the ‘egregious’ behaviour of the CAA in targeting a University Professor Rachel Gould as anti-Semitic for having written an article on the use of the holocaust to protect Israel. He also wrote an article ‘I drafted the definition of antisemitism. Rightwing Jews are weaponizing it’. The Report deliberately ignored the context which is that racist regimes allege racism against their opponents as a matter of course.
24. To give but one example in Israel there are hundreds of Jewish only communities. In one city Afula, when houses under construction were due to be sold to Arabs hundreds of Jews took to the streets in protest. But if you allege Israel is a racist state then this is anti-Semitic. This Report is a racist report and it is a disgrace that Momentum refuses to call it out for what it is.
25. The Report makes the insinuation that Ken Livingstone’s defence of Naz Shah MP’s meme about relocating Israel inside the United States was anti-Semitic and that his references to the Israel Lobby were anti-Semitic. Perhaps these dishonest scribes would care to look at Wikipedia’s entry Israel lobby in the United States. (p.29) AIPAC, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee openly proclaims it is a lobby group. What the EHRC is saying is that the truth is now anti-Semitic. This is anti-Semitic.
26. Absurdly it described Pam Bromley’s comment ‘looks like fake accusations of anti-Semitism to undermine Labour aren’t working, so let’s have Chris Williamson reinstated.’ That is a statement of fact but even facts can be anti-Semitic apparently!
27. Ken Livingstone’s comments about Nazi support for the Zionists in Germany, which is a fact documented by Zionist historians such as David Cesarani and Francis Nicosia ‘caused shock and anger among Jewish Labour Party members.’ Well it didn’t shock Steven Kapos, a survivor of the Hungarian holocaust who I met because he understood the treacherous role of the Zionist organisation in Hungary. Even the Jerusalem District Court in 1955 found that Kasztner had collaborated with the Nazis. No doubt this would cause great shock too for these naïve racist Zionists. So what? The truth often offends. (p.30)
28. Even more ludicrously ‘Pam Bromley’s conduct… contributed to a hostile environment in the Labour Party for Jewish and non Jewish members.’ Well in that case everyone on the Right was offended. How is that anti-Semitic? (p.30)
29. Among the examples of ‘anti-Semitism’ were people who:
* Compared Israelis to Hitler or the Nazis
* Described a ‘witchhunt’ in the Labour Party or said that complaints had been manufactured by the ‘Israel lobby’. (why the scare quotes?)
* Blamed Jewish people for the ‘anti-Semitism crisis in the Labour Party’ (clearly the Report couldn’t distinguish between Jews and Zionists, which is itself anti-Semitic)
· Blamed Jewish people generally for the actions of the State of Israel. (where could people have got this idea? Could it be that Israel describes itself as a Jewish state?)
· Used ‘zio’ as an anti-Semitic term. ‘zio’ is short for ‘Zionist’. If you think all Zionists are Jews then you are anti-Semitic.
· Accused British Jews of greater loyalty to Israel than Britain. I have been called a traitor many times by Zionists who demand that Jews are loyal to Israel first and foremost. The Israeli Absorption Ministry even conducted a poll in the United States to find out what Jews would do if there was a crisis in relations between the USA and Israel! Now why would that be?! (p.31)
30. The Report makes great play of ‘interference’ by the Leader of the Opposition’s office in disciplinary matters. Why should it not have interfered given the racist bias of the Disputes Team under John Stolliday and Sam Matthews? (p.45)
31. Because of legal action the Report was forced to concede that the only unlawful interference in disciplinary processes was Tom Watson’s petition calling for Chris Williamson’s resuspension. Jennie Formby and Corbyn disgracefully acceded to this pressure. Corbyn has been hoist by his own petard.
32. Even if LOTO should not have interfered in the disciplinary process what business is it of the EHRC?
33. A good example of the circular logic of the geniuses who wrote the report was the statement that ‘Jewish members are proportionately more likely than non-Jewish members to make a complaint about anti-Semitism.’ Err yes!! Consequently the practice of interference in anti-Semitism complaints put Jewish members at a particular disadvantage compared to non-Jewish members. This is absolute nonsense. Obviously more Jews than non-Jews make complaints about anti-Semitism. It is an absurd comparison. How can it put Jews at a particular disadvantage when non-Jews don’t complain of anti-Semitism? (p.55) There is no comparator. The authors of the report don’t even understand the concept of indirect discrimination!
34. The Report also mentions that I was suspended yet given no details of the allegations against me, despite requesting information on several occasions. It reports that I successfully obtained an injunction. However what the report does not do is mention that I am Jewish (it didn’t mention me by name).
35. Even more relevant is the fact that the Labour Party expelled and suspended Jewish members regularly. What has this to do with anti-Semitism? The Report doesn’t mention this because it would have been inconvenient to its narrative. (p.63)
36. Some of the Report’s observations such as that the NEC and NCC do not give reasons for their decisions are true, but what business is it of the EHRC?
37. The Report says that Jennie Formby suggests that ‘these systemic issues affected all complaints of all kinds, not just anti-Semitism complaints’ and it then comments that ‘If correct, this means that an even wider pool of members was treated very poorly by their political party.’ Possibly true but what business is it of the EHRC? Have they investigated how the Tories treat their members? (p. 73)
38. The Report notes that the Labour Party ‘has recently introduced reforms that improve the ability of the National Executive Committee (NEC) and the NCC to decide cases and to expel members when appropriate.’ What they fail to mention is the inherent unfairness of people being expelled on the whim of a staff member without even a hearing.
39. The Report refers to the ‘outcry from CAA, Board of Deputies and Labour MPs and peers’ when Chris Williamson was reinstated. Yet strangely there is no censure by the EHRC for this interference with the disciplinary process. Strange that!
40. Another example of ‘anti-Semitism’ was that ‘a member shared a meme in March 2018, which expressed that ‘an anti-Semite is now someone Jews hate.’ Here you have stupidity mixed with malevolence. The person who coined this meme was Hajo Meyer, an anti-Zionist survivor of the Auschwitz death camp. His actual quote was that ‘it used to be the case that an anti-Semite was someone who hated Jews, now it’s someone who the Jews hate’. An amusing observation. Jeremy Corbyn chaired a meeting at the House of Commons with Hajo in 2010 and when the Zionists publicised it the idiot apologised. Is it any wonder that Corbyn lost credibility? The more you apologise the more they go for you. Why the hell did Corbyn apologise for chairing a meeting addressed by a holocaust survivor? The BBC reported that Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn apologised for appearing on platforms with people whose views he “completely rejects“. (p.86)
41. There are repeated complaints that ‘anti-Semitism’ was not given the same priority that sexual harassment allegations were. (p.93) Perhaps that was because sexual harassment claims tend to be genuine!
42. Apparently the Labour Party committed unlawful harassment because its conduct ‘included suggesting that complaints of anti-Semitism were fake or smears’. But I was accused of anti-Semitism and I’m Jewish. Who am I harassing by denying this nonsense? Utterly absurd.
43. It was suggested that Ken Livingstone’s comments that Zionist Jews were acting on behalf of a foreign power were ‘clearly anti-Semitic’. But the definition of a Zionist is that their loyalty is to Israel. How is that anti-Semitic? (p. 106)
44. The moron(s) who wrote this Report therefore find ‘agent Ken Livingstone’ caused the Labour Party to indulge in harassment. It is no wonder that Keir Sturmer bought off Labour’s racist former staff.
45. The Report found that the comments by Naz Shah ‘went beyond legitimate criticism of the Israeli government’ and that Ken Livingstone’s support for these comments and his suggestion that scrutiny of them was part of a smear campaign are not protected by Article 10 of the ECHR. Absolute rubbish and unsurprisingly the Report doesn’t explain why this is so. ( p. 108) The EHRC is simply wrong on this. Of course Ken’s comments are protected, despite the Zionists wishing to clamp down on free speech as they do in Israel.
46. Likewise Pam Bromley’s comment that a ‘huge sigh of relief’ went up when an Israeli spacecraft crashed on the moon. This is garbage. If someone shouted ‘hurray’ when the Chinese spacecraft crashed would that also be racist?
47. The fools who wrote this hatchet job concluded that ‘Pam Bromley’s comments were unwanted conduct related to Jewish ethnicity.’ Except that she didn’t mention Jews! That was the anti-Semitic inference of the authors of this report. (110)
48. The Report finds that the unwanted conduct it identified was contrary to the Equality Act but equally breached the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. Again that proves that its conclusions are junk.
The only fitting place for this shoddy report is in a wastepaper basket. Indeed that would be a good place to deposit Labour’s racist leader, Sir Keir Sturmer.