The Triumph of the Big Lie – The Campaign Against Antisemitism’s Joe Glasman Claims Credit for the Defeat of Jeremy Corbyn

The Charity Commission Refused to Deregister the CAA in 2017 for Political Campaigning – I Have Resubmitted My Complaint Before Going to the Charity Tribunal

I first put a link to the Glasman Video on my Youtube Channel – Glasman registered a copyright objection – a strange thing to do for what is a political video which has no commercial value. Clearly Glasman knows that his hubristic video is embarrassing. Fortunately I saved a version on my hard disk – click the link here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXXMz5dvsYw

I have just submitted a renewed complaint to the Charity Commission against the Campaign AgainstAnti-Semitism who, as people know, I have also sued for libel. The outcome of the interim hearing to determine the meaning of anti-Semitism (it didn’t determine any meaning!) is here.

I have also had a longstanding petition against the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism which has nearly 8,000 signatures.  If you haven’t already sign please do.

I have submitted my complaint in the wake of Joe Glasman,  Head of Political and Goverment Investigations at the so-called Campaign Against Antisemitism taking credit for the defeat of Jeremy Corbyn at the hands of his ‘Macabees’

Glasman believes that his vile gang of racists has something in common with Hebrew tribesmen fighting their battles against the Assyrians 2,000+ year ago. The reality is that if the Zionists came across these Hebrews toay they and their Israeli friends would be the first to shoot them as ‘terrorists’ and ‘infiltrators’.  Their claim to a direct biological lineage is the stuff of which racial myths are made.

In February 2017 I submitted a complaint to the Charity Commission, which was then chaired by the racist and Islamaphobic bigot, William Shawcross.  Unsurprisingly the complaint did not get very far

In the light of the CAA’s unremitting campaign against Corbyn since then, a campaign about which they have boasted, I have submitted a second complaint and if (when) it is rejected I will take it to the First Tier Charity Tribunal.

Rather than rehearse the evidence against the CAA please read my complaint and also previous blog posts, here and here as well as a report on my libel actionThe one thing that the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism doesn’t do is to campaign against anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism of the traditional kind is all but ignored by it but ‘anti-Semitism’ of the anti-Zionist or  pro-Palestinian variety is very much its concern.

The CAA’s pamphlet

The CAA says in its charitable objectives that its purpose is to create racial harmony yet in its pamphlet British Muslims and Antisemitism it accuses British Muslims of being ‘more likely by far than the general British population to hold deeply anti-Semitic views. It is clear that many British Muslims reserve a special hatred for British Jews…’ 

The photograph above, the cover of a CAA Report on Muslims and ‘antisemitism’ implies that Muslim supporters of the Palestinians are Hitler supporters on the basis of the actions of one idiot.  It is an example of their idiot.  Was the paedophile abuse of former President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Lord Janner, typical of Jews?  Would that be antisemitic

The full report which included a racist full colour profile of the ‘typical’ Muslim was taken down after protests. It was replaced by a black and white version. [1] The image of a Muslim was accompanied by a strap line ‘More likely to be’ and then there were a series of bubbles:

Male,
In Social Housing,
Older than 35,
Working,Living in Scotland
or in England South of the Midlands,
Sympathetic to Terrorism,
Extremism or violence,
First Generation Immigrant

It should not be necessary to point out how racist and offensive this description of Muslims by a ‘charity’ is. Just imagine that a Muslim charity posted a similar image of the ‘typical Jew’. One suspects the Charity Commission would not take more than 3 years to move into action given its previous record of action in respect of Muslim charities.

---

On 20^th February 2017 there appeared an article CAA exposes lecturer as author of sickening Holocaust article but University of Bristol defends “academic freedom”.[1] Ms Gould’s offence had been to publish an article ‘Beyond Anti-Semitism’ several years before.[2] There was nothing in the article, concerning the use to which the Holocaust has been put, that Israeli historians have not said. For example Professor Ze’ev Sternhell, a child survivor of a Polish ghetto wrote In Israel, Growing Fascism and a Racism Akin to Early Nazism[3].The CAA called for the University to dismiss Dr Gould. As its scare quotes demonstrate, it has complete contempt for academic freedom. Perhaps this is in furtherance of their charitable objectives?Kenneth Stern, who drafted the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, in written testimony to the US House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary argued that “The definition was not drafted, and was never intended, as a tool to target or chill speech on a college campus.”[4]  Stern cited the case of Professor Gould:“Perhaps most egregious, an off-campus group [CAA] citing the definition called on a university to conduct an inquiry of a professor (who received her PhD from Columbia) for antisemitism, based on an article she had written years before.The university then conducted the inquiry.And while it ultimately found no basis to discipline the professor, the exercise itself was chilling and McCarthy-like.”Mr Gideon Falter, Chief Executive of the CAA called on the university to dismiss Dr Gould. The University concluded that “the article is not anti-Semitic and does not breach the proper bounds of freedom of speech and academic freedom.”Perhaps the Charity Commission would care to explain how targeting academics for McCarthyite witchhunts is compatible with the CAA’s charitable objectives.

The CAA called for the University to dismiss Dr Gould. As its scare quotes demonstrate, it has complete contempt for academic freedom. Perhaps this is in furtherance of their charitable objectives?

Kenneth Stern, who drafted the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, in written testimony to the US House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary argued that

“The definition was not drafted, and was never intended, as a tool to target or chill speech on a college campus.”[4]

  Stern cited the case of Professor Gould:

“Perhaps most egregious, an off-campus group [CAA] citing the definition called on a university to conduct an inquiry of a professor (who received her PhD from Columbia) for antisemitism, based on an article she had written years before.The university then conducted the inquiry.And while it ultimately found no basis to discipline the professor, the exercise itself was chilling and McCarthy-like.”

Mr Gideon Falter, Chief Executive of the CAA called on the university to dismiss Dr Gould. The University concluded that “the article is not anti-Semitic and does not breach the proper bounds of freedom of speech and academic freedom.”Perhaps the Charity Commission would care to explain how targeting academics for McCarthyite witchhunts is compatible with the CAA’s charitable objectives.

Jackie Walker – the CAA accuse the first Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion of Holocaust denial

Jackie was expelled from the Labour Party for ‘“prejudicial and grossly detrimental behaviour against the party” not anti-Semitism.  However the CAA has no less than 67 articles on its website attacking Jackie as an ‘anti-Semite’.

The most egregious example of the CAA’s dishonesty and systematic distortion occurred on 7^th February 2017. The CAA put up ‘Jackie Walker Posts Text Asking Whether Hitler Can Really Be Blamed for the Holocaust’.[3] What Jackie actually said was:

‘If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal. We have taken their country. It is true G-d promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our G-d is not theirs. There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?’

It is difficult to understand the psychopathology and mental gymnastics by which the above statement could be read as a denial of Hitler’s responsibility for the Holocaust. However the CAA managed it.

What the CAA did not realise that this quote was taken from The Jewish Paradox, a book by Nahum Goldmann, the first President of the World Jewish Congress and President of the World Zionist Organisation. The quotation came from David Ben Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel. Ben Gurion was responsible for the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians but even he was capable of reflecting reflecting on the situation of his victims. Ben Gurion understood that what Hitler had done was not the Palestinians’ fault even though they had paid the price. But to the CAA any attempt to understand the Palestinian point of view, especially when the Holocaust is mentioned, is tantamount to Holocaust denial.

When they realised their mistake the CAA quickly removed the article and pretended nothing had happened. No apology was ever offered for having all but accused Jackie Walker of being a holocaust denier. Before this post had been taken down it was widely publicised on social media and many people, including the idiot political correspondent of Jewish News, Jack Mendel, commented on it.

To date there have been 535 hostile articles attacking Jeremy Corbyn.  Given that charities are supposed to be non-party political this is outrageous and the fact that the Charity Commission has done nothing to date about it is symptomatic of how all wings of the State mobilised against a radical leader of the Labour Party.  It is confirmation of the Marxist belief that the bourgeois state is never neutral politically between capital and labour, left and right.

Tony Greenstein