Time for Jewish Students to Grow Up?

I don’t know many Jewish students but have always assumed they are, like the general population, a rag tag mixed bunch.

There are those that tell us,ad nauseam, otherwise. They do, apparently, all get offended by the same things at the same time. Which is a very antisemitic attitude. This being the case therefore, they can be spoken for, by any organisation that pushes itself forward with ” Jewish” in its name. The brand leader here is Union of Jewish Students.

The current UJS  President is Josh Seitler. If Josh is as representative of Jewish students as he would have us believe, it must be said that, on the strength of his recent article in Huff Post,  it is high time Jewish students did some growing up.

The article, brimful of narcissism and whining self pity, was a hopelessly transparent and inept attempt to blackmail the NUS and bully its President, Malia Bouattia. Part of, it must be said, a coordinated campaign. Witness Izzy Lenga’s latest histrionics.

The UJS is not a fan of Malia. There is a motion before the upcoming UJS  conference to the effect that UJS should cut ties with the NUS. Josh tells us that if Malia does not do this, that, and the other, he wouldn’t be surprised if the motion was carried.

What he requires is a series of ” proper” apologies from Malia, chiefly as follows……

Malia apparently referred to the University of Birmingham as ” a Zionist outpost”.  This is probably enough to establish that she is not a big fan of Zionism.

The Hasbara machine of course represents this as her saying that  there are too many Jews at Birmingham University. A representation that Josh seems to go along with. In any event , he wants a proper apology, or else.

Zionism, of course, is a basket of political ideologies, that have in common advocacy of the settlement of Jews in what we might call the Holy Land, and might just as easily call the Holey Land. In practice, the active ingredient here, is support for, and apology for, the modern State of Israel and all its numerous racist iniquities.

Malia clearly regards Zionists as political opponents, in much the same way as she probably regards Tories as political opponents. Lamenting the strength of political opponents in a particular location is surely perfectly legitimate. If she had said it was a Tory outpost or a Trot outpost nobody would be whining and crying.

Ah but Josh says, this is different. Disparaging Zionism is an assault on our very identity.  Most Jews are Zionist so attacking Zionism is an attack on this  identity. An affection for Israel is a kind of  protected characteristic . As such Zionism should be exempt from the rough and tumble of political debate and exchange. A political leaning that, uniquely, must not be opposed.

Err no.

As the Zionist barrister Jonathan Goldberg pointed out in the context of the FUCU case, “you might just as well say that supporting Tottenham Hotspur is a protected characteristic because a lot of Jews do.”

The claim is that ludicrous.

Josh presumably would have it that Malia couldn’t say anything pejorative about Spurs.

Bad news for Arsenal fans.

Nobody is born a Zionist, just as nobody is born a communist. Being a Zionist is a contingent state of affairs. But Jewish students are, as is everyone,  free to define themselves however they want. It is nobody’s business but theirs. There is no requirement for the rest of us to bother our heads with it. We can if we want, we can not if we don’t want.It is no business of mine, or of yours, or of the NUS  or of Malia Bouattia.

Let us make an important distinction that seems to me is rarely made. There is a difference between opposition to Zionism and the expression thereof, and abusive behaviour towards Jewish students that makes their participation difficult. There is no requirement for someone to tone down their anti Zionism because Jewish students might be offended by it. There  is a requirement to respect their right to be where they are and to speak as they may, without, with justification, feeling intimidated and bullied, on a personal level.

There is some of this bullying going on. Not nearly as much as the Zionist machine would have us believe. Israel apologists do have a great propensity for melodrama and exaggeration. Don’t they Ruth? Izzy ?  However much there is, is that much too much, and there must be an unequivocal attitude of no pasaran in respect of it.

The UJS tell us that…….

” Jewish Students should have the support and space to explore their connection to and relationship with Israel.”

I can’t quite understand what they mean by ” support”. I can’t see that there is a requirement that someone actively support someone else’s explorations. They can of course, do so if they wish.

Space ?

If they mean University political forums and Campus space, they hopefully understand that these will be shared spaces, not given over exclusively to their explorations. If anyone gets distressed having to share a space with political views different to their own, maybe a university is not the right place for them.

There is NOTHING you can say about the State of Israel that is antisemitic. Just as there is nothing you can say about The Russian Federation that is anti Slav racism.There may be a very few of you whose strident views on Israel are motivated by antisemitism. If you are one of those very few, please feel free to burn in hell. The rest of you must hold fast to your right to speak as you feel inclined to within the law. And to speak as vigorously as you want.

If,  like me, you think The State of Israel is a crappy , racist, kleptomaniacal basket case, then there is no requirement on you not to say so. You will get the antisemitism charge hurled at you but, that, I am afraid, is a little shiralee you will have to bear. Civil liberties, including freedom of expression within the law , were hard won but can be very easily lost. Its very much a case of use it or lose it. Understand that the present tsunami of Zionist McCarthyism is the most intense and coordinated assault on civil liberties in this country that we have witnessed in modern ” normal” times. The universities are very much on the front line.

If you are feeling generous and accused of antisemitism, you could ask for evidence of any hatred of Jews or a wish to discriminate against Jews or a wish to persecute  Jews. You could but it will be a waste of time.

Personally I have always found a simple  ” fuck off ”  works best. But that is just me.

I have one advisory. Do you really want to use Nazi analogies in discourse about Israel ? It doesn’t make you antisemitic, but it makes you silly and highly counterproductive. What is the point in saying things that the least informed Jack and Jill on the street intuitively knows not to be true ? Just an advisory. Its your call.

MALIA HAS NOTHING TO APOLOGISE FOR HERE.

The hapless Josh goes on to demand Malia apologise for “ not acknowledging that only Jewish students can define antisemitism”.

I really ought not to have to say anything more about this  absurdity. You all should be laughing your heads off as you read it. I fear that is not the case. So………

Antisemitism is an established expression in the English language that has a perfectly well understood meaning. It means hatred of Jews, discrimination against Jews, persecution of Jews or some combination thereof.

The meanings of words and expressions are not established by stipulation,  They are not established by bums on chairs around a table. A parliamentary Committee table, say, or a table at UJS HQ.

Jewish students  have no more status than anyone else when it comes to the meanings of words and expressions in the English language. Meanings are established by observation of the sum force of the uses of the expression, by the speakers of the language. In the case of English 1.5 billion of them.These meanings can be found in any good dictionary.

Not only is this a ludicrous and narcissistic attempt at linguistic fascism, an attempt to disenfranchise the English speaking world, but is also indicative of a certain kind of megalomania.

Further ” a word means what I mean by it ” was one of the surer signs that Humpty Dumpty was nuts.

The UJS  risk landing themselves with one hell of a logistical problem.  Having stipulated a change in the meaning of “antisemitism,” how do they propose informing the 1.5 billion speakers of the language that it no longer means what they thought it meant. The biggest mass mail out in the history of the world ? Or do they plan not to bother and just leave the rest of us in ignorance?

However if Jewish students want to be the sole arbiters of the meaning of antisemitism because they are the potential victims , then they would presumably accept that only the Palestinians can define Zionism.

NOTHING FOR MALIA TO APOLOGISE FOR HERE

An increasingly over excited Josh then demands Malia apologise for her non acceptance of the mythical EUMC working definition of antisemitism.

Well he seems to be getting himself in a bit of a tizz here. Having told us that only Jewish students can define antisemitism, he now tells us that agencies of the European Union can define antisemitism. It is unlikely that all the members of EU agencies are Jewish students at UK universities.

The unkind ones among you might say Josh seems a bit dim. I couldn’t possibly comment.

But anyway, since there is no such thing as a EUMC definition of antisemitism and there never has been such a thing as a EUMC definition of antisemitism, it seems a bit cruel of Josh to require that Malia accept such a non thing.

For how this EUMC myth came to be see here

http://wp.me/p5W2a1-Cw

If you can’t be bothered, the active ingredient is …..

From the FRA, the new name of the EUMC

” We are not aware of any official definition of antisemitism.”

” We have never viewed the document as a valid definition of antisemitism”.

” The document has been pulled along with other NON OFFICIAL documents”.

” The Agency does not need to develop its own definition of antisemitism in order to research these issues” .

” The Agency has no mandate to develop its own definitions.”.

An FRA press officer went on to explain to the BBC Trust that the definition was ” never adopted by the European Union.”

The European Commission Directorate emphasised ” Neither the Commission nor the European Union have an established definition of antisemitism and there is no policy to create one.”

NOTHING FOR MALIA TO APOLOGISE FOR HERE

If the UJS  does vote to bite off its nose to spite its face, take its bat home, lower lips a trembling,it is hard to see how it hurts NUS. The only sane response would be to wish them luck as you wave them goodbye.

Advertisements

The Methodist Church. Surprised? You shouldn’t be.

The only surprise about the racist behaviour of the Methodist Church in Norwich is that anyone is surprised. It is a Church that has, in recent years, foregone any pretence of self respect.

The  Church is wholly owned by the Board of Deputies of British Jews in tandem with its extension, the Council of ( alleged ) Christians and Jews. To understand how this control was achieved it is necessary to understand the role of the CCJ.

The BoD is nothing other than an extension of the Israeli Embassy, as its erstwhile treasurer, Lawrence Brass, ruefully acknowledged, and the CCJ  functions as its attack dog in its dealings with the Churches.It  is an unholy alliance of Jewish ultra Zionist Zealots and Christian Zionist rabids. Among the local branches you will find plenty of people of goodwill and integrity that genuinely work at maintaining good relations between Christians and Jews in the localities. This is not an onerous task. Relations are unproblematical in any event.

At the top, however, it is rotten to the core and has been for a good while.

Jane Clements, who became CCJ director in 2014, has made a valiant effort to clean it up, with a little success, but not a lot. She has had to admit defeat , however, and is moving on. She has been  replaced by Elizabeth Harris – Sawczenko. Elizabeth, came to the CCJ   effectively on secondment from the Board of Deputies.

So the  CCJ is back firmly in the control of its dominant Trustee, Michael ” something of the night ” Howard and his nut job messianic son, Nick

CCJ’S Programme manager is Rob Thompson. Along with his dad, Bruce, Rob was largely responsible for stitching up the 2013 annual Methodist conference in the service of the Board of Deputies and the 2014 resolution imposing a ban on any mention of Israel at conference.

The CCJ  Branch Liason officer is Joy Barrow, another Methodist ultra Christian Zionist.

Given this state of affairs, the denial of the presence of Jackie Walker on the premises of an allegedly Christian Church, was entirely predictable.

In its web site gloat the BoD  thanks ” everyone involved for their help and cooperation “. They mean the CCJ and what we might call, ” Methodist Central.”

Jackie Walker never had a snowball in hell’s chance of speaking in a Methodist Church.

The hounding and persecution of Jackie Walker, which is far more virulent than in the cases of others they have identified as ” miscreants “, has clear and unmistakeable racist undercurrents. The BoD, CST , JLC, et al distinguish between good Jews and bad Jews. Jackie Walker is very much the wrong kind of Jew, on at least two major counts. She is non Zionist and she is black.

That the Methodist Church would stoop to indulging and participating in this kind of racism, is, as I have said, no surprise to me. It is nonetheless very, very sad.

Now many people are going to be saying that my claim that the BoD/CCJ own the Methodist Church is a hyperbolic, antisemitic conspiracy theory. Not that I care. I just consider the source.

The  detailed account of how this owning came to be can be seen here……

https://hurryupharriet.wordpress.com/howtheboardofdeputiessecuriedavetoontheologicaldebateinthemethodistchurch/

And here…….

https://hurryupharriet.wordpress.com/how-the-2013-methodist-conference-was-ambushed/

The process was completed at the 2014 conference . Here the Methodist leadership, now completely in the pocket of Jonathan Arkush, managed to get a resolution passed that put a three year moratorium on any resolution being presented that mentioned Israel. One veteran commented that he had been coming to conference for many years and this was the first time he had known conference forbid itself from discussing a particular subject.

You can be certain this moratorium will be extended in 2017.

The Board made great use of the facts that Jackie has been suspended by the Labour Party   and  removed as vice chair of the Momentum steering committee. To a hopelessly uninformed Norwich Pastor all this must have seemed very damning, and as a free pass for them to exclude her too. So those that facilitated those moves bear a big responsibility. I am not talking about McNicol, Angell and such. They are beyond the pale.

I have in mind those on the ” left ” that facilitated these moves and those, like the narcissistic young fogey an, ego leftist and video star, Owen Jones, that remained silent in the face of them. Jones, Lansman, the AWL faux socialists on the Momentum steering committee, Christine Shawcroft, and others, would do well to sit down and have a good think about what they have done.

That twin pillar of the Jewish gutter press, the Jewish Chronicle, thinks all of this is a great wheeze.The  little Pollard clone, Marcus Dysch, congratulated the Methodists for ” heaving”  Jackie out of their church. Obviously Marcus has no concept of what a church is  ( or is meant to be) and what a church is for. I don’t know enough about Jewish practice and religious organisation to know if heaving people out is what happens at synagogues. But a Church of Jesus Christ is meant to be universally inclusive and is meant to be dragging people in, not heaving them out.

The JC then gleefully headlined that the ” Methodists had closed their Church door on Jackie Walker”.

This kind of sickening ungodly  behaviour from the JC is par for the particular course and is no tragedy. The tragedy is that the Methodists themselves share the attitude.

The heading on the Chapel Field Road  Methodist Church website……

Everyone is welcome here”.

If only.

The great purge of 2016

Image result for tom watson

 

Image result for Iain McNicol

If the whole Corbyn thing ended tomorrow, we have at least learned the full scale and extent of the corruption in the governance and administration of the Labour Party. It is always good to have no illusions about what you are dealing with. It has been laid out before us with unambiguous clarity.

The NEC, in the iron grip of the appalling Tom Watson, and his no less appalling side kick Ian McNicol, reveals itself as a kind of Stalinist Politburo with not even a passing interest in  notions such as democracy, or natural justice. In McNicol, it has to be said, there is something of the night. For his part Watson is not a fan of LP members. He regards them as nothing more than a fucking nuisance. He regards the Party as a sheltered workplace where he can live out the lucrative managerial lifestyle he loves.

Expense fiddler extraordinaire  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5429883/MPs-expenses-Tom-Watson-to-resign-from-Government.html

And where he can get his mammoth ego perennially stroked. He is terrified of transformative change.

I have no intention of attempting a detailed account of what is currently happening. This will be done by others, better equipped and better placed than me. I merely seek here to give my impressions of the principles that seem to be the framework of  the present Stalin style purges. The full story will eventually be told and it will be gruesome.

 What astonishes me is not the level of the corruption but the cheerful brazenness of it. All pretence has been dropped. There is no attempt at fobbing us off with plausible lies. No longer any pretence that what is happening is anything other than a purge of as many people as possible that they have reason to think might be tempted to vote for Jeremy Corbyn. They know that it is widely understood that Corbyn would romp home in anything remotely resembling a properly run election. They equally well know that if Smith were to win, or even get close, the whole world will be fully aware of why and how.

They don’t care.

They know there will be consequences but are embarked on a zero sum game. All that is important is that as many people as possible are prevented from voting for Corbyn. Any back lash is something to worry about afterwards. Doubtless, in their arrogance, they are confident that they can handle it. Watson, in particular, seems to think he is untouchable and unimpeachable. He could be right and he could be wrong. Suffice it to say, mightier than he have been known to fall..

Thanks to the execrable Johanna Baxter we know the outline of how the purge has been organised. Two groups of three NEC members have been established. They have been charged with trawling social media accounts and with being the gathering points for ” information”. Upon encountering, or being presented with information, the groups of three, ” democratically” decide whether it would be helpful to purge the person in question.

Relevant information, remember, is anything that suggests  you might vote for Corbyn. They are uninterested in you being an already proven crook, that has now been buying Romanian rent boys, procuring illegal drugs, and  then demonstrably been  more interested in the impact on your political neck than the effect on your wife and family. They are more interested in you having expressed pro Corbyn sentiments at a meeting or you having retweeted a tweet by Caroline Lucas several years ago.

Its all about Labour Party Values you see.

Following the discovery or receipt of the right kind of information, one of these twin Committees of Public Safety, sends McNicol a name along with a drawing of a down turned thumb. Murky McNicol then gleefully sends out the now infamous letter.

We aren’t , of course, told who these six are, how they were appointed and by whom. But then you knew this already. We can only assume that they are members of the secretive Stasi like Compliance unit. Except we do know one of them is Johanna Baxter. We know this because she tells us so.

 Saturday night. A big spreadsheet of member/supporter applications for vetting. The glamorous life of an NEC member…

She seems to have had her knuckles rapped over this because she has made no subsequent mention of it. This must have been difficult for someone as narcissistic as Baxter. In any event she seems to be revelling in the ” power “.

They seem to be using a bot software system that trawls social media accounts for key trigger words. Words they have designated as ” abusive.” These words seem to include ” traitor “,  “blairite “, Nazi ” and ” Zionist”. A quick check is made to satisfy the witch hunters that the perpetrator is likely to vote Corbyn and immediate suspension follows. This, of course, is pending an ” investigation”. An investigation that will not take place before the leadership. contest. Ken Livingstone’s investigation has now been pending for  a good while now.  An investigation that should have taken all of ten minutes has not been concluded in five months. Maybe John Chilcot has been put in charge of it. In this case it is more about keeping Livingstone off the NEC.  They are shameless. It is painful to point out that there has been significant complicity on the part of several influential figures on ” the left” in this case. Sit down Owen Jones and Jon Lansman. But that is a story for another day.

Many people have been naive enough to complain that they haven’t received a ballot. This is often because they have been purged and have not yet been told. But it can also trigger the purging. If you complain about not receiving a ballot it draws attention to you and guarantees that you will be checked out for Corbynist sympathies. In a growing number of cases the complainant gets a ballot, votes, and  then, within a very short time  gets a purge letter together with the news that their vote has been discounted. The time gap can be as short as two hours.

All members and supporters are not equal in this respect.  If you dont look like a Corbyn supporter on the available social media evidence, you will be ok. If you are an anti Corbyn MP  you are guaranteed immunity. If you or I called a comrade a Nazi apologist we would be gone in the fluttering of an eye lash.

If you are Rent A Mouth John Mann MP it is just fine.

If you or I gleefully announced that we  told a comrade to fuck off. then likewise ……….

If you are the appalling  gobshite  Jess Philips MP, and you gleefully announced that you told a comrade and fellow MP  to fuck off, it is just fine.

Clearly anti Corbyn MP’s are not expected to conduct themselves to the same high standards expected of mere ordinary members and supporters. Pro Corbyn ordinary members and supporters, that is.

Don’t worry if you have lied your butt off in a Court of Law in an attempt to get a Trade Union wrongly branded as antisemitic. They won’t be fussed about that. On the contrary it will be taken as welcome evidence that you will not be voting for Corbyn. # Jeremy Newmark # notorious perjurer.

Watson and McNicol are not remotely interested in the human impact of their behaviour. It is all just a political game to them and their acolytes. They sell the purge as a legitimate exercise in protecting the Party against infiltration by entryist Trots. Yet a miniscule number, if any at all, of those purged could be described as such. Many are long time members that have given outstanding service to the party, sometimes over decades. Others are excited recent members enthused by Jeremy Corbyn and the prospect of the Party developing a transformative edge. What they invariably have in common is that they represent a vote for Corbyn.

Watson and Murky Mc have  no sense of how their behaviour might impact on their victims lives and those of their families. They don’t care. These people are sick, sick, sick. The people they are despatching are not really people at all. They don’t have feelings and therefore cannot be hurt.

To that extent it is not personal, though to those affected it must feel like it is. The victims are not people they are potential Corbyn votes that have to be eliminated..

Pamela Fitzpatrick  is a Labour councillor in Harrow. In late August she wrote to McNicol asking some questions about the high volume of suspensions that were taking place. On the Sunday of the August bank holiday she noticed an email marked ” supporter applications “. She assumed, perhaps naively, that this was a response from McNicol to her questions. McNicol does not do question answering, he issues edicts. Instead she found that it was a letter announcing her own suspension.

She had, the letter stated, broken a Labour Party rule. This rule related to “ conduct towards other members and at meetings”.

There was, of course no further details. The rule she had in fact broken is the unwritten rule that McNicol is above being questioned.

She is obviously devastated by this treatment. In her own words……

The bank holiday weekend was intended to be one of relaxation with my family and friends. Instead I spent the whole weekend in a state of shock and upset. Not knowing what you are accused of and therefore not being able to defend yourself is something I would not wish on anyone. I have spent most of my whole working life representing clients in what is often described as the Kafkaesque world of social security. Nothing however has been quite as Kafkaesque, as the labour party purge of its own members. The suspension letter gives virtually no detail of the allegation. It also does not give clear information about how to appeal or whether there are any time limits……”

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/pamela-fitzpatrick/labour-party-suspensions_b_11855966.html?

Pamela subsequently had her suspension lifted. As did the prominent Trade Union official Ronnie Draper. What these two have in common is that they each were becoming a cause celebre, and potential rallying points. They do seem to be sensitive to this,  as they demonstrated in the case of Jackie Walker. The cost of lifting the suspensions was two more Corbyn votes and they doubtless felt this was not too bad a price.

By way of a parting fuck you gesture, and to leave her in no doubt as to who is in charge, shortly after lifting her suspension, they suspended her son for expressing the blinding  bleeding obvious truth that the  chickencoup MP’s  were more concerned about themselves than the interests of the Party.

Anyone that doubts the impact of the behaviour of Watson and McNicol might take a look at some twitter accounts. If you care enough. e.g.

Claudine Lewis @QuietNotStupid

Catherine Higgins @justmebeingme4

Anna – Rose Phipps @lopcute

Maureen Royce @maureenroyce.

You might then compare these experiences with that of Cllr John Ferrett.

Ferrett is a serially abusive anti Corbyn councillor in Paulsgrove, Portsmouth. When asked why he hasn’t been suspended he is given to replying that he ” has friends in high places.”  Ferrett is a blow hard but there seems to be some truth in this claim. After numerous  complaints from constituents Ferrett was not immediately suspended like thousands of potential Corbyn supporters. Rather, he got invited to meet with the Compliance Unit and was found ” not guilty.”.

Perhaps the most jaw dropping bit of all this is McNicol’s recent letter to the NEC. In it he  gives examples of statements that have resulted in suspensions. Some of them are pretty gruesome, and you certainly wouldn’t want to be in the same party as some of the people concerned. He gives thirty six examples. Thirty six out of the thousands of Corbyn supporters he has purged. Does he think we are all stupid ?

Then there is Michael Foster

Michael Foster

Foster is a Labour Party member and former donor. He is also a simple, uncomplicated  thug. He has always been such and doubtless always will be. His long record of thuggish and abusive behaviour does, however,  seem to be perfectly consistent with the present Labour Party Values.

Foster is extremely rich. Maybe all Labour Party Values are not equal, but they constitute a weighted basket in which Foster’s ” values” carry an overwhelming and conclusive weight.

Foster first came to wider attention after yelling abuse at Jeremy Corbyn at an LFI event.

He then took the Party to court in an attempt to keep Corbyn off the ballot.

He subsequently went on to secure his place in infamy by writing an article for the Daily Mail , no less, explaining why he despised Jeremy Corbyn “and his Nazi stormtroopers”.

A whole book could be written on Foster’s toxic influence in the Labour Party. His main interest in the Party seems to be in its attitude to a foreign power. But the above mentioned article is more than enough for the present purpose.

Foster’s latest self indulgent melt down was big news and obviously came to the immediate notice of the purge team. For them this was awkward. Firstly Foster was obviously not going to vote for Corbyn and there therefore was no reason why his rantings should concern them. But there were also other complications.

Foster is much given to waving his money at the Party apparatchiks. He is forever telling us that his family have given over £400,000 to the Party over the years. He further claims that a third of of the personal donations in the run up to the last GE were from Jewish donors. That would be a figure in excess of £3m. This year they have not donated anything.

Now I don’t know if any of this is true, or if it is, what the implications are. Personally, if Foster told me night followed day I wouldn’t act on it without getting it independently checked out.

Make of it what you will.

Now he seems to be focussing his economic largesse, not on the Party as such, but on individuals he judges to be on the up in the influence stakes. For example, he funded Sadiq Khan’s mayoral campaign, presumably as a reward for Khan’s dramatic U-Turns on matters relating to The State of Israel.

Foster escaped any punitive action for weeks. In the end Foster was suspended.  On reflection, this is probably a smart move. So smart, it is an idea  worthy of Foster himself. It maybe was an idea of Foster himself. The problem was that people being suspended invariably compared their experience with that of Foster. This could be unhelpful in any post election investigation of what has being going on. So the suspending of Foster, was a deflection, a deflection in advance is it were.

Fosters response has been rather strange. There was the initial squeals of seeming outrage. But since then, nothing. Foster is not one to drop an issue. My guess is that before Foster was suspended, he ok’d it and the initial outrage was entirely faux.

After the election of course the Chakrabarti report will be actioned. It can’t be actioned now because the natural justice recommendations would put a brake on the purges. Foster will be back along with most others that continue to make a fuss. It won’t matter because the suspensions have served their purpose and the plan is to move on to disenfranchising the entire membership. Electoral colleges and similar bullshit.

The Party has reaffirmed that it takes  the issue of racism in its ranks very seriously. This is good. Or at least it would be if it meant all forms of racism.

A major clue for McNicol et al as to whether someone is a potential Corbyn voter is whether they have ever referred to the State of Israel in less than eulogistic terms. ” Zionist” is is one of the trigger words.

Given this anti racist resolve you might have wondered how the following remain members and get to vote.

Margaret Becket

Ben Bradshaw

Hazel Blears

Chris Bryant

Dai Havard

Meg Munn

Jim Murphy

John Spellar

Gisela Stuart

Derek Twigg

Lord Dibs

Lord Moonie

Lord Wiseman

Lord West

You will note MP’s , ex MP’s, Peers of the Realm and ex Ministers.

What do they all have in common ? They all sit on the Policy Council of the Muslim baiting/hating Henry Jackson Society. HJS boasts the incorrugible racist Douglas Murray as a director and  was named by Hope Not Hate as one of the organisations responsible for ” dragging Muslim hate into the mainstream”.

http://wp.me/p5W2a1-kf

A couple of recent developments.

First Kristina Veasy

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/kristina-veasey/labour-party-member-nec_b_11892426.html

Then the underwhelming ” condemnation” of the whole business from the young fogey Owen Jones who seems to have gone down the pan since he set out to be a video star. He finds it a teeny weeny bit inconsistent and unfair and undemocratic. Jeez Owen that really socked it to em. Talk about being savaged by a dying sheep.

Let’s get clear about JLM and the EUMC Definition nonsense

As expected, the Jewish Labour Movement has embarked on an all out drive to foist the so called EUMC Definition of antisemitism on the Labour Party.

Jackie Walker’s criticism of the proposed ” definition” is one of the reasons the JLM give in demanding Walker’s expulsion from the Party and her removal from her position as Vice Chair of Momentum.

Interestingly these demands followed straight on from the JLM  demanding, from the LP Conference stage, that the current purge of members and supporters, be continued.

In promoting the ” definition ” JLM tell us that it is the ” standard” definition. This is strange because one would have thought the standard definition was the one found in our dictionaries.The definition of antisemitism arrived at by observation of the sum force of uses of the expression by the billions of speakers of the language.

Or we are told that it is “THE widely accepted definition.” This is even stranger. If you were to stand on a random street in your town. and stopped a thousand people the odds are overwhelmingly on you not finding a single person that has heard of it. Further, if you asked these people what their understanding of antisemitism was the odds are equally overwhelming on Israel not getting a single mention.

What we are dealing with here is a kind of linguistic totalitarianisn. A claim to ownership of the English language.

Lets be perfectly clear. Talk of it being discredited is way too weak.

There is no such thing as an EUMC definition of antisemitism and there  NEVER has been such a thing.

Continue reading Let’s get clear about JLM and the EUMC Definition nonsense

The Israel Lobby that isn’t

The Israel Lobby doesn’t exist. If you are inclined to suggest otherwise, do not be surprised if you get arrested some time soon. As the non existent Lobby steadily accumulates more and more influence, the louder and more emphatically, does it declare that all references to what they call” Jewish Power”, are antisemitic incidents.  The perpetrators, be they Christians, Muslims, or Jews will get their just deserts, and their behaviour will swell the antisemitic incident figures in CST’s next apocalyptic report.

This is the anatomy of a non event. It was all a collective dream.

Continue reading The Israel Lobby that isn’t

RE STEPHEN SIZER: OPEN LETTER TO THE BISHOP OF GUILDFORD

Open letter to the Bishop of Guildford . ( sent by snail mail }

OPEN LETTER TO THE BISHOP OF GUILDFORD

Dear Bishop Watson

As a Christian and long standing member of The Religious Society of Friends ( Quakers ), I was horrified to see your latest press release on the subject of Rev Stephen Sizer. You might say that discipline in the Church of England is none of my business. My response would be that it is at least as much my business as it is the business of Jonathan Arkush.

The continued gagging of Rev Sizer represents the continuation of as appalling, and grotesque, a negation of basic human rights in this country, that I can recall. This negation would never be upheld by a court of law or quasi court of law, be it ecclesiastical or secular. It might profit you to reflect on why Jonathan Arkush hurriedly backed off from his CDM charge in 2013.

Continue reading RE STEPHEN SIZER: OPEN LETTER TO THE BISHOP OF GUILDFORD