Wednesday, 21 February 2018
Reflections on my Expulsion from the Labour Party
|The Morning Star 20.2.18. Editorial|
|George Galloway making the most obvious of points|
|Chris Williamson MP speaking|
The speakers were all excellent from the newly elected councillor, Nancy Platts to Bob from the anti-HDV campaign in Haringey to Paul of Acorn Renters Group. There were a number of speakers from the floor starting with Riad who had been ‘auto excluded’ from the Labour Party quite outrageously owing to a minor criminal conviction. I spoke last of all from the floor about my recent expulsion to thunderous applause. Whatever the right-wing cranks and misfits of the Right may spin, most people understand very well that if there were a real problem of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party then you don’t solve it by expelling Jewish anti-Zionists! That was why last night Kemptown CLP passed overwhelmingly a motion supporting Greg Hadfield against his suspension.
|Tonight's packed Brighton & Hove Momentum meeting at which Chris Williamson MP spoke - I was given a rapturous reception by those present|
I’m overwhelmed with peoples' kindness whether it is wanting to take me out for meals or just sending good wishes. People seem to feel I deserve some compensation for my expulsion and the Labour Party’s anti-Semitic treatment of me. Most decent people feel anger that the racists and hacks of Labour's officialdom, combined with the Zionists who dominate the hierarchy of the Labour Party have expelled a Jewish anti-fascist and anti-racist. Even worse Jackie Walker, a Black-Jewish anti-racist and Marc Wadsworth, another Black anti-racist and anti-fascist are up for the chop.
|Brighton Argus 20.2.18.|
People also feel disgust with @EminaIbrahim who is supposed to be on the left who voted with the Right on the NCC to expel me. She seemed to be absorbed by the Right without displaying any independence.
|Asking the most obvious of questions - who leaked the expulsion verdict before it had been announced - the answer is Sam Matthews, the scumbag who heads Labour's Disputes Department|
It is very kind but I need to get back into a routine! However it was good to take time out after the ordeal of my expulsion meeting, which was tedious in the extreme, not least because it is difficult getting across political concepts to people who seem to take pride in being thick. The amount of support I have received has been extremely gratifying even if sections of the press [Huff Post/Breitbart] have of course distorted what has happened. The Morning Star had an excellent editorial today making the obvious point that it was inevitable that the false ‘anti-Semitism’ witch hunt would begin by expelling a Jew.
Of course there have been the usual malcontents and what John Prescott calls the bitterites on social media - the sinister Euan Philipps and Emma Picken of @labourAgainstAS who take pride in their attacks on anti-racists as 'anti-semites'. LAS has all the hallmarks of a state driven operation intent on political destabilisation. Not leaving out the super narcissist himself Gary Spedding who confesses to having broken down in tears at my expulsion (of joy poor thing). See Greg Hadfield’s excellent article The Labour Party outsources its duty of care to betting billionaires — with help from Capita!
|Despite a few racist trolls around @LabourAgainstAS most people recognise that the 'anti-semitism' witch-hunt is a racist witch-hunt|
There has been a Twitter blizzard. Fortunately, apart from the few sad cases like @Euan Philipps the non-Jewish head of the troll group Labour Against AntiSemitism, most people have got the message, which is:
1. If you want to oppose anti-Semitism then expelling Jews isn’t a good way to go about it
2. That the false ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign in the Labour Party is about Israel not Jews.
3. That the pretext for my expulsion, abuse of Zios, is a one way street since the activities of Philipps and his trolls and the abuse they regularly engage in never merit the attention of McNicol. Indeed there must be a strong suspicion that McNicol’s henchmen, Sam Matthews in particular, are up to their eyes in Labour’s dirty tricks.
4. The nature of the disciplinary process itself
|Zionist trolls thought they'd back up their usual accusations of 'anti-semitism' by forging the 'evidence' by engaging in artistic creativity and photoshopping my name onto an anti-semitic tweet|
Zionism, Jews and Anti-Semitism
It is no accident that Jews have been one of the major targets of the ‘anti-Semitism campaign because it is integral to Zionism’s claim to be a national movement that it represents all Jews. Those who don’t are called ‘self-haters’ the same term that the Nazis used against anti-fascist Germans, who literally hated their race and nation.
The irony of course is that it is Zionism, a vicious racial doctrine that had no problem in opposing the rescue of Jews in the War if their destination wasn’t Palestine, that has most in common with anti-Semitism.
|How most people see my expulsion|
As the Chairman of the Jewish Agency and the first Prime Minister of Israel, David Ben Gurion said just after Krystalnacht when the British Kindertransport program was being arranged and which would eventually save 10,000 German Jewish children:
If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them over to England, and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Yisrael, then I would opt for the second alternative. For we must weigh not only the life of these children, but also the history of the People of Israel.’ [Ben Gurion at the Mapai Central Committee 7.12.38]
Zionism starts from the basis that Jews do not belong in the diaspora. That their home is Israel. Although most people are unaware of this Israel claims to be a state, not of its own citizens but of all Jews, its Jewish citizens included. Its non-Jewish citizens are mere guests in someone else’s countries.
|This is what Blairite MP Joan Ellman supports - apparently it is an offence to say that Ellman supports child abuse|
It is this belief that Jews outside Israel are aliens in other peoples’ lands which is responsible for the alliance between Israel, Zionism and the anti-Semitic Right. In the USA it is the magazine Breitbart, under its former CEO Steve Bannon which has distinguished itself by a mixture of White Supremacy, overt support for Zionism and vicious anti-feminism.
If Breitbart is the magazine of the alt-Right then the founder of this movement is Richard Spencer, an open neo-Nazi who has declared that he wants nothing more than to create in the USA a mirror image of Israel as an ethno nationalist state. Just as Israel is based on one single ethnic group, the Jews, so Spencer wants to do the same in the USA with Whites. Hence why Spencer calls himself a White Zionist.
The love affair in American between the far-Right and the Zionist movement led to Steve Bannon, Trump’s former Strategic Advisor, being a guest of honour at the Zionist Organisation of America’s annual dinner. See Bannon Addresses ZOA, Urges Jews to Join 'Insurgency' Against anti-Trump Republicans. So alarming was this to many Jews that articles such as Naomi Zeveloff’s How Steve Bannon and Breitbart News Can Be Pro-Israel — and Anti-Semitic at the Same Time began appearing. Liberal Zionists who had been fed the nonsense about how it was opponents of Zionism who were anti-Semitic were wide eyed as the scales fell from their eyes.
|Admiral Horthy Hungary's pro-Nazi wartime leader who Prime Minister Viktor Orban is now rehabilitating - Netanyahu's closest friend in Europe is the antisemitic leader of Hungary|
In Europe Israel’s closes allies are the most anti-Semitic regimes such as Hungary and Poland. A particularly awful example was when Netanyahu instructed the Israeli Ambassador in Hungary, shortly before his visit last July, to retract mild criticisms of the Prime Minister’s anti-Semitic campaign against George Soros. Netanyahu also didn’t like Soros because he has funded Israeli human rights groups. Orban portrayed Soros as the archetypal Jewish financier. What makes this even worse is that Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban was also in the middle of a campaign to rehabilitate Hungary’s pro-Nazi war-time leader Admiral Horthy, who had deported nearly ½m Hungary Jews to Auschwitz.
Yet no one who understands anything about Zionist relations with anti-Semitism should be at all surprised. Historically Zionism has always welcomed anti-Semitism as a method of ‘helping’ Jews to emigrate to Palestine.
As the founder of Political Zionism, Theodor Herzl wrote in his Diaries, at the time of the Dreyfuss Affair:
‘In Paris... I achieved a freer attitude towards anti-Semitism, which I now began to understand historically and to pardon. Above all, I recognise the emptiness and futility of trying to 'combat' anti-Semitism. [Diaries of Theodore Herzl, Gollancz, London 1958 p.6, May 1895]
That is why I have always emphasised that the ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign in the Labour Party has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is marginal in the Labour Party. In so far as a few people have made anti-Semitic comments, it is almost entirely a reaction to the claim that Israel’s war crimes are committed in the name of Jewish people.
Why the False ‘Anti-Semitism’ Campaign?
This is probably the easiest question to answer. Why is there such a campaign? Is there really anti-Semitism in the Labour Party? The best answer is by Avi Shlaim, Professor of International Relations at St. Anthony’s College, Oxford:
‘Anti-Semitism is not a real phenomenon within the Labour Party or any of the other major political parties. There are anti-Semitic incidents but they are usually related to Israel’s behaviour, Israeli brutality. So every time there is an Israeli attack on Gaza and there have been 3 in the last 7 years there is a rise in anti-Semitic episodes and incidents in Britain. Fundamentally Israel and the Israeli propaganda machine and Israel’s friends in England and the Israel lobby in Britain deliberately confuse or conflate, and I stress they do it deliberately, anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism. Anti-Semitism is hatred of the Jews as Jews. Anti-Zionism is opposition to Israel as a colonial power and as an exclusive Jewish state.’
As long as Israel perpetrates war crimes against the Palestinians and as long as it claims to do this in the name of all Jewish people, so long will there be, low level anti-Semitism. The irony is that anti-Semitism today, except for the neo-Nazi variety which Zionism has no problem with, as in the USA, is a product of Israel and Zionism. That is the irony. The Jewish state is responsible for most of today’s anti-Semitism.
|McNicol ignored this abuse by former councillor Craig Turton and the support for Turton by the present head of Brighton Council, Warren Morgan|
One of the key charges against me is of personal abuse of Zionists. I pointed out to the Panel that no less than 4 times I had complained to Iain McNicol, Labour’s crooked General Secretary, about a post from the Leader of Brighton and Hove Council, Warren Morgan, in which another, former Labour councillor, Craig Turton, had called me a ‘poisonous piece of shit’ only to be told ‘’Thanks Craig, appreciate that. Hope you are well.’ by Morgan. All my complaints were ignored because only abuse by the Left is an offence in the Labour Party. Abuse by the Right is tolerated if not encouraged and there is good reason to believe that senior Labour Party employees such as Sam Matthews are working hand-in-glove with the trolls of Labour Against Anti-Semitism.
|Caroline 'Poison' Penn was waged a vendetta against the elected Secretary of Brighton & District Labour Party, Greg Hadfield, before Penn and Warren Morgan's lies got Greg suspended|
Another local councillor who is to the forefront of the anti-Semitic witchhunt in Brighton is one Councillor ‘Poison’ Penn who launched a series of vicious tweets attacking Greg Hadfield, who was elected Secretary of Brighton and Hove District Labour Party. Greg was and has been suspended for about 18 months as a result of the allegations of those like Penn and Morgan whose lies about spitting got the party suspended in the first place. Hadfield's reward for having exposed the lies of the Right was to become suspended
Ms Penn who has close links to the troll group, Labour Against Anti-Semitism, also submitted during my legal battle with the Labour Party over Data Protection a false and dishonest statement suggesting I had harassed her. Twice Penn complained to the Police and twice her complaints were rejected. Her allegations that I had publicised personal information about her is a simple lie but of course impressed the Judge.
|Penn's perjured email to the County Court, secured by the Labour Party, in order to provide false evidence that she was at risk if her identity was revealed.|
The inherent unfairness of the disciplinary process
There is really no pretence that the disciplinary process in the Labour Party is fair and above board. It is a weapon in the hands of the Right. If anyone was in any doubt then the refusal of Iain McNicol to suspend Jeremy Newmark, the Chair of the Jewish Labour Movement who was alleged to have defrauded a Jewish charity out of tens of thousands of pounds proves this beyond doubt. McNicol’s response was to call this a ‘private’ matter, ‘historic’ even. Nothing about bringing the party into disrepute because that allegation so solely reserved for the Left.
As the Labour Party barrister Ogg accepted in his skeleton argument argument, all the charges related to after my suspension. It therefore follows that my suspension was, in terms of Labour’s own constitution, unlawful. It has no rational basis. I was targeted by the Jewish Labour Movement and other Zionist groups in the Labour Party and suspended for absolutely no reason. Having been targeted they then went about finding evidence. That is why it took them 20 months before they had assembled a case.
Any party that claimed to be a democratic socialist one would have reinstated me automatically. But in the Labour Party the disciplinary process is in the hands of the Right and in particular the Crooked General Secretary Iain McNicol and his equally crooked subaltern Sam Matthews. For them the disciplinary process is nothing but a means with which to ensure that the Right holds on to control of the levers of power. Disciplinary procedures, investigations etc. have been used as a factional instrument.
But that is why the Left should have no truck with the witch hunt. It is a weapon against not for Corbyn. He won’t buy time by playing along with the anti-Semitism witch hunt because its purpose is to be rid of him. That is why the Zionist lobby can never be satisfied. However many victims are served up to them, they will always demand more.
It is in this context that the behaviour of the so-called ‘left’ representative, Emena Ibrahim, who is Vice-Chair of Momentum, on Labour’s National Constitutional Committee needs to be examined. It is outrageous that a senior officer of Momentum has gone along with this racist witch-hunt.
Monday, 19 February 2018
Racists Celebrate as the Labour Right and the Zionists Gets Their First Victim
The day began brightly enough with a lively picket of the Metropole Hotel in Brighton as Labour’s National Constitutional Committee met to decide whether to expel me for my support of the Palestinians and opposition to Zionism. It is of course appropriate that as someone who is Jewish that I should be one of the major casualties of the false anti-Semitism witchhunt. The allegations of ‘anti-Semitism’ in the Labour Party have nothing to do with anti-Semitism and everything to do with opposition to the racist creed of Zionism and support for the Palestinians.
My thanks to Debbie Hobson from Grassroots Black Left for being my silent witness. Thanks also to Marc Wadsworth, another of those victimised and suspended by the Labour Party for opposing racism and to all those in Brighton and Hove Momentum and comrades for turning out. Even Simon Cobbs of Sussex Friends of Israel, in a unique and comradely gesture, turned out to give his support, however fleetingly, to me.
I was suspended nearly 2 years ago for comments I was alleged to make. The Skeleton argument argument of the NEC’s barrister, one Mr Ogg, admitted that all the charges related to events that took place after I had been suspended. In other words I was originally suspended without just cause yet despite this the NCC saw no problem in continuing. Why? Because as part of its Guidelines, Appendix 6D to the Rules of the Labour Party (which are actually not part of the rules!) stipulates that the NCC must ignore everything that happens prior to the issuing of charges. This is the ‘turning a blind eye’ clause. It states that:
The NCC is entitled to (and will) act on the basis that the charges are properly brought before them and cannot become embroiled in dealing with complaints about the administration of any investigation leading to the charges. Any such complaint will therefore not be entertained by the NCC or panel thereof unless it is material or relevant to the consideration of the evidence to be used by the presenter in support of the charges.
This enables the NCC to ignore any injustice, breach of the rules, leaking to the press etc. that occurs. Of course the NCC is also bound to act fairly under Chapter 1, Clause IX (4) of the Rules, which are part of the Labour Party constitution and also to modify the Guidelines as it sees fit but the NCC chooses to interpret its remit narrowly and against the interests of natural justice. That was why I was forced to obtain an injunction against the Labour Party on December 7th preventing them from holding a rushed hearing.
The charges which were brought, as the barrister for the Labour Party was at pains to point out, were not that I was anti-Semitic although of course the Zionists will pretend otherwise. My ‘crime’ in essence was the abuse of racists and Zionists (or Zios) in the Labour Party including that detestable supporter of Palestinian child abuse, Louise Ellman.
|Ivor Caplin - war criminal and former Junior Defence Minister|
A Mr Ogg, the Labour Party barrister gave a long 2 hour + speech which was the equivalent of watching paint dry. My own speech was much shorter and to the point. I made it clear that I regretted nothing. I was accused of insinuating, when accusing the execrable MP for Liverpool Riverside, Louise Ellman of supporting the abuse of Palestinian children, that she therefore supported sexual abuse of those children. Although this wasn’t directly true I made it clear in my submission that the abuse of Palestinian children was often sexual in nature and that Ellman had never spoken out against this treatment. On the contrary she supported everything Israel did in the name of ‘security’.
The NCC under Maggie Cosins who chaired the hearing has repeatedly ignored the question of fairness, in my case trying to rush a hearing after a 20 month suspension. The other 2 wing members of the NCC included a Gordon (?) Fairbrother of the Community Union. As I pointed out this right-wing union was the only one to affiliate to Trades Union Friends of Israel. So the verdict was no surprise. Unfortunately Emina Ibrahim, who was elected as part of the Left, also supported the Right on the NCC and seems incapable of standing up to the Right by herself.
As I told the Committee when beginning my response, an old time friend, Graham Bash rang me this morning and said that he reckoned I had a 1% of chance of not being expelled to which I responded that the odds probably weren’t that high! Ogg argued that I was not being expelled for my views but for abusing racists and right-wingers online. However the bundle of papers prepared for the hearing demonstrated that this was a lie. Statements such as ‘Israel is a settler colonial state’ were highlighted in an article dealing with the eviction of a Bedouin village Umm al-Hiran in Israel’s Negev. Although dressed up in procedural terms, my expulsion was for my anti-Zionist politics.
That is why the Southern organiser for the Jewish Labour Movement, junior war criminal and former Defence Minister Ivor Caplin welcomed my expulsion. My expulsion and the proposed expulsion of Marc Wadsworth and Jackie Walker are nothing less than an attempt by the Right and the Zionists in the Party to purge the party of socialists and anti-imperialists. The fight will go on for my reinstatement and the acquittal of both Mark and Jackie. It is not we but the Jewish Labour Movement, the apologists for the deportation of African refugees from Israel for the ‘crime of being Black and not Jewish, who deserve to be expelled.
It is ironic that at the same time as I am expelled for anti-Zionism and anti-racism, Labour’s Crooked General Secretary McNicol has declared that the charges against the JLM’s former Chair Jeremy Newmark of having defrauded a Jewish charity of thousands of pounds are a ‘private’ matter.
The right-wing Huff Post, the Jewish Chronicle, Jewish News and no doubt others will be celebrating as Labour’s witch-hunt continues even whilst they keep quiet about the Jeremy Newmark scandal. The Daily Mirror has managed to outdo even Marcus Dysch of the Jewish Chronicle in the number of mistakes it has made.
Saturday, 17 February 2018
Why Dishonesty and Deceit are Hardwired into Labour’s Disciplinary Procedures
|'MrGreenstein's lurid allegations about the torture and beating of children',|
Late Friday afternoon, barely 36 hours away from my Expulsion Hearing I got an innocent request from Jane Shaw, Secretary to the National Constitutional Committee. Labour’s National Executive Committee (in reality Crooked McNicol) wanted to introduce 4 new documents at the last minute.
‘You will be familiar with all of the documents’ Jane told me – and indeed I am familiar with them.
|The fragrant Ella Rose in attack|
Also attached was what is called a Skeleton Argument, which lawyers usually provide before a court hearing in order to summarise their arguments. This Skeleton however was somewhat fat, taking up no less than 22 pages.
Jane, mindful of the fact that I do not have legal representation at the hearing, reassured me that the skeleton argument ‘includes nothing new, but merely sets out the case that the NEC barrister intends to make, which you could find helpful.’ How you might ask could I resist such blandishments. In case I was sceptical, Jane reassured me that I would have a chance to object on Sunday to the introduction of more than 150 pages of new documents.
|I am criticised for calling the Director of the Jewish Labour Movement 'pathetic'|
What you might ask were these documents? Well the first one was the Chakrabarti Report. Jane must have known I’d find it difficult to resist this particular document. After all it is a guide to how the Labour Party should conduct its disciplinary process on the basis of natural justice, fairness, due process and transparency. Perhaps McNicol has turned over a new leaf and recognises that things must now change for the better?
The next document seemed a bit more suspect. It was the Home Affairs Select Committee Report on Anti-Semitism in the UK, which introduced the fake IHRA definition of anti-Semitism that conflates anti-Zionist and anti-Semitism.
Even more strangely the next document was the Judgment in the case I brought under the Data Protection Act against the Labour Party to unredact various documents which the Labour Party had sent me. This application failed but it had nothing to do with anti-Semitism. So I was puzzled why McNicol wanted to introduce it.
The fourth document was a blog article of mine on how the Chakrabarti Report was a missed opportunity which balanced support for and criticism of specific aspects of the Report. No harm surely in having yet one more of my own articles?
|It is 'offensive' to accuse this woman of supporting Palestinian child abuse despite her steadfast defence of the Israeli military's treatment of Palestinian children|
Yet still I suspected a rat by the name of Iain McNicol but since I was at a friends’ graduation ceremony at the Brighton Centre I wasn’t able to look at the skeleton argument at the time. I said it was highly unusual to introduce documents at the last minute when I had been told it was not possible and I particular objected to Document No. 3. I suggested instead that they obtain the transcript of the Injunction Hearing at the High Court as that had quite a lot to say about fairness in Labour Party disciplinary matters!
I therefore sent a short email on my mobile:
‘As DJ Brown stated in her introduction to her judgment (page 2): ‘This Court is not and cannot be concerned with the disciplinary processes of the Party and this Application will not be allowed by this Court to lead it into making any findings as to the substantive matter of the complaints against the Applicant and the handling of those complaints.’
I therefore wrote that ‘I cannot imagine what possible purpose could be served by the introduction of the latter’ I therefore opposed the introduction of this document.
I also suggested that if they wished to introduce these documents then they should adjourn the hearing and also include several articles of my own critical of the Home Affairs Select Committee Report. In particular one by David Plank a former Government Special Advisor to the Social Services Select Committee which was damning of the Home Affairs Committee Report, stating that it was not worth the paper it was written on.
My correspondence with Jane Shaw can be viewed here. The Skeleton Argument can be seen here. It is a model of deception and tautology. Time permits me only a few comments.
1. After all the nonsense about ‘anti-Semitism’ it turns out that apart from the use of the term ‘Zio’ ‘the NEC does not otherwise allege that Mr Greenstein’s conduct was anti-Semitic.’ Strange that, because what then was I suspended for? All that stuff in The Telegraph and Times about comparisons between Israeli marriage laws and the Nuremburg Laws has vanished into thin space. Comments about how Israel is waiting for its Holocaust survivors to die so that it has more money to spend on weaponry? No mention either. Throughout my 22 months suspension the goal posts have been continually changed. The charges are now:
4.1. Offensive comments online, including the word "Zio";
4.2. Offensive posts and comments on Mr Greenstein's blog;
4.3. Email in which he mocked the phrase "final solution".
|Lacking all procedure, McNicol wants to slip in a few more documents at the last minute|
Most of these for example 4.3 where I sent a satirical post to McNicol are covered in my 2 previous submissions to the Labour Party.
I responded robustly to abusive posts and I stand by them. What is noticeable is that those on the Right who are abusive have a get out of jail free card, such as Deborah Lowe and Warren Morgan, Leader of Brighton and Hove Council – both nasty Blairites.
Chakrabarti Report & Zios
Contrary to what I expected the Chakrabarti Report (which has still not been discussed or approved of by Labour’s NEC) is not being introduced because of its recommendations of a fair process. Good gracious no. The only reason is because it quotes Chakrabarti’s mistaken view that ‘Zio’ is a racist epithet.
The Labour Party’s barrister, one Thomas Ogg, takes exception to the use of ‘Zio’ as a term of abuse. I freely confess that I use the term ‘Zio’ in a pejorative manner. If I call someone a racist I don’t use it as a term of flattery. Their idiot of a barrister argues that:
‘Mr Greenstein has even used the term in his response to the Opening Submissions of the NEC. Page 49 of the most recent set of submissions (internal page 12 of J’Accuse ') states: "On my blog one day I got 2 posts - one from a Zio and another from a Neo-Nazi. I found the post from the Zio more disturbing than the holocaust denier. Strange that. Why do you think that was?"
Why does Ogg think I abused the Zio? Perhaps because the vile twerp wished that my family and me should have ended our days in Auschwitz. Of course Ogg doesn’t mention that. This is a good example of the dishonesty of the legal profession. Ogg goes on to argue that:
‘Even if Mr Greenstein honestly did not intend to be antisemitic, he knowingly used a term that is both perceived and publicly stated by the Labour Party in the Chakrabarti Report to be antisemitic, and deliberately used the word as a term of abuse. That is Mr Greenstein's offence, which is both prejudicial to the Labour Party and grossly detrimental to it.’
Yes I know it’s difficult to make head or tale of this farrago of nonsense. It seems Ogg is incapable of making a clear and lucid argument in plain English.
If I didn’t intend something to be anti-Semitic then it is unlike to be anti-Semitic. The fact that it is perceived by racists to be anti-Semitic is irrelevant. If the Labour Party thinks it is then it’s wrong. The Labour Party has a legacy of support for Israel and Zionism i.e. racism so its views on the matter are not the final word.
Apparently it is ‘prejudicial to the Labour Party and grossly detrimental to it’. This catch-all McCarthyist nonsense means nothing. How the hell can the term ‘Zio’ be detrimental to the Labour Party yet the theft of thousands of pounds by the former Chair of the Jewish Labour Movement from a Jewish charity not be detrimental? These bastards literally make it up.
The idiot, because clear this Ogg is either stupid or dishonest or both, goes on to make the most offensive of comparisons. He argues that
‘Mr Greenstein stands in the same position as someone who is aware that society considers terms such as "Paki" and "Nigger" to be racially offensive, but on the basis of a belief that the words 'in fact' mean something else, nevertheless deliberately use the words "Paki" and "Nigger" as terms of abuse whilst denying their racial connotations.’
I describe him as an idiot because ‘Paki’ ‘Nigger’ etc. are terms that are historically and politically located as terms of abuse. They are widely indeed universally accepted as deeply offensive racist terms. They are based on a person’s ethnicity. Zio, short for Zionist is based on someone’s political allegiance. Zio is not related to someone’s ethnicity.
In a discussion about the merits of lazy or racist MPs I tweeted that "at least your MP doesn't do as much damage - better a lazy or corrupt MP than @JohnMannMP addicted 2 murder & racism". Ogg then states ‘Mr Greenstein does not state who John Mann is addicted to murdering, or the kind of racism that is being referred to. It does not matter.’
Actually it does matter. John Mann, the rent a mouth from Bassetlaw has made it his business to run the false anti-Semitism campaign. He has abused for example a 90 year old Jewish Dr Glatt who called him out over his attacks on Jeremy Corbyn. See Open Letter to John Mann MP from a 90 Year Old Jewish Dr Glatt and A Desperate John Mann MP Tries to Undermine 90 year old Jewish Doctor's Letter by Falsely Alleging It was a Forgery
Mann is a deceptive and dishonest MP who during the first Corbyn election campaign wrote him an open letter accusing him of being soft on child abuse. If the Labour Party apparatchiks had any attachment to socialism then Mann would have been suspended if not expelled years ago. But of course Crooked McNicol and his henchmen approved of Mann’s attacks on Corbyn. Unfortunately Corbyn is incapable of realising that appeasement of these people will prove costly in the end.
Owen Jones – A Janus Faced Whore
Now I would have liked to take credit for the comment that Owen Jones is ‘is a Janus faced whore who bears the impression of the last person who sat on him.’ However I can’t. This classical witticism was thought up by someone else. I merely repeated it. However I agree with the sentiments but Ogg pompously declares that ‘It is not appropriate for Mr Greenstein to refer to Owen Jones, a prominent Guardian journalist, as a "whore", Janus faced or otherwise. It is personal abuse and there is no place for it in the Labour Party.’ Why not? It means he is a 2 faced git!
Despite Judge Brown saying earlier in her judgment that ‘This Court is not and cannot be concerned with the disciplinary processes of the Party and this Application will not be allowed by this Court to lead it into making any find ings as to the substantive matter of the complaints against the Applicant and the handling of those complaints.’ She later goes on to contradict herself when she says:
"(the Applicant) is demonstrably intelligent and has engaged in this process in an articulate and detailed way. He is also a highly controversial figure. It is the Court's view from seeing him within the Court process that he is intense and combative being highly emotional about the subjects of Israel and Palestine. He is someone whom the Party rightly or wrongly has suspended, about whom they have received a significant number of complaints and in respect of whom there are ongoing investigations. This background informs the decisions as to reasonableness of disclosure which might with information already known to or ascertainable by the Applicant might identify the third parties. He is within these proceedings prone to a very strong reaction to persons and submissions made. ... The Applicant quickly brands a query as to why a Claim form was not issued as being an allegation of fraud which viewed reasonably it was not. He alleges that only a "fool or a Knave" would interpret one of his comments in the way the Respondent submits which is an emotive comment. Whilst he claims to be viewed out of context he has within document[s] repeatedly used language which is offensive in any context - "racist Zios" "facist scum]"] to give just two small examples. I do not underestimate the complexity of the Applicant's views but his views and the strength with which he expresses them is something the Respondent....’
Now one can argue as to the merits of the above but one thing is clear. It is what lawyers term ‘obiter dicta’ in other words it is a Judge’s opinion but forms no part of the Judgment. It is not part of the ratio. So the attempt to introduce the Judgment, which concerns other unrelated matters, is part of the dishonesty and deceptiveness of McNicol’s Barrister Ogg.
Ogg states that ‘The NEC does not have to prove actual prejudice to the Labour Party. All that is required is that the conduct is "prejudicial", that is, is liable to cause prejudice to the party in the sense of being capable of having that effect.’ So there is no need to prove any damage to the Labour Party Party was caused merely that it was capable of so doing. In other words a wholly subjective test that could be applied to virtually anything. Of course when it comes to Jeremy Newmark having defrauded a charity of thousands of pounds this is a ‘private’ matter not at all prejudicial. But a friend in Hove, Riad, who was convicted years ago of having broken the Oil for Food sanctions to Iraq for humanitarian reasons, because those sanctions were killing thousands of people (US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stated that killing half a million children was ‘a price worth paying) was ‘auto excluded’ from the Labour Party. That was not private.
Ogg rejects my argument that social media posts are "here today and gone tomorrow"I stating that ‘that is not the Labour Party's approach to abuse online.’ Except of course that the Labour Party approach to online abuse only applies to the Left not the Right. I gave the example of where I was called a ‘poisonous piece of shit’ by ex-Councillor Craig Turton, which Councillor Warren Morgan, leader of Brighton and Hove Council approved of and 4 times McNicol refused even to accept a complaint. And then Ogg complains that I call him Crooked McNicol!!
What is amazing is Ogg’s attempt to defend this execrable MP who justifies and defends Israel’s treatment of child prisoners on grounds of ‘security’. Ogg states that: ‘There are two aspects of Mr Greenstein's blog [77J which are objectionable and offensive.’
56. First, the use of the phrase "child abuse" is deliberate ly provocative. The phrase evokes sexual abuse, and therefore suggests that Louise Ellman MP, a prominent Jewish Labour MP, supports the same. The phrase "child abuse" appears nowhere else in the article, including the passages from the reports by UNICEF. Mr Greenstein's summary of the conduct Mr Greenstein complains of as "child abuse" is an attempt to shame Ms Ellman by the use of emotive language, which is contrary to the Labour Party's Social Media Policy.
57. Second, the passages from Ms Ellman's speech quoted by Mr Greenstein do not support the allegations he makes against Ms Ellman . Mr Greenstein writes: "The torture and beatings by the Israeli army, which refuses to record its interrogations, which refuses access to lawyers or even parents to accompany their children, is acceptable to Ellman". He also writes: "Every excuse for torture, the beating of children ... was made by Ellman". Neither of those allegations is supported by the passages from Ms Ellman's speech which he quotes in his blog. Ms Ellman supports detention, but makes no comment on "torture" and "beatings".
This is the most shameful part of Ogg’s submission. It is true. Ellman doesn’t comment on torture or beatings however others do in the debate. Instead she merely justifies the kidnapping of children in the middle of the night, their shackling and treatment on ‘security’ grounds. Her omitting to comment on the treatment of Palestinian children whilst defending the Israeli military’s behaviour should be the subject of disciplinary action.
This wretched woman should have been thrown out of the Labour Party years ago but of course, like war criminal Tony Blair she is an honoured member. In the debate Sara Chamption stated that ‘in February 2015, UNICEF issued an update to its original report and noted that allegations of “alleged ill-treatment of children during arrest, transfer, interrogation and detention have not significantly decreased in 2013 and 2014”.
Jo Cox highlighted the fact that ‘evidence from Military Court Watch suggests that 65% of children continue to report being arrested at night in what are described as terrifying raids by the military. Will she comment on that worrying fact?’
Sarah Champion went on to state that:
Some 93% of children continue to be restrained with plastic ties, many painfully so, and the standard operating procedures are frequently ignored. Around 80% of children continue to be blindfolded or hooded, a practice that the UK and UNICEF reports said should be absolutely prohibited. Audiovisual recording of interrogations has been mandated only in non-security-related offences, which means that nearly 90% of cases involving children, including those accused of attending a demonstration, continue to take place without this practical safeguard.
Perhaps most disturbing is the fact that the reports of physical abuse—consisting mainly of punching, kicking, position abuse and slapping, but in some cases also including more serious allegations, such as of being mauled by dogs and receiving electric shocks—are now higher in number than they were in 2013.
What was Ellman’s response?
‘Does my hon. Friend really believe that the solution to this horrendous conflict between two peoples—the Israeli and the Palestinian people—can be found by encouraging individual child Palestinians to commit acts of violence against other human beings?’
Not only not one word, not one syllable of condemnation or even criticism of Israel. She accepts as given the guilt of the Palestinian children. Not a word about shackling, painful handcuffs, refusal to access lawyers or parents or indeed any of the safeguards that Jewish Israeli children have as of right. If anything my comments on this despicable woman were too mild.
The treatment of Palestinian children is justified because they were being ‘incited’ to violence against the Israeli military. Presumably if it weren’t for that incitement they would come to love living under a military dictatorship. The pathetic submission from Ogg is really nothing more than a defence of the indefensible.
Ogg even talks of ‘Mr Greenstein's lurid allegations about the torture and beating of children, which are not supported by what Ms Ellman actually said, is provocative, inaccurate and offensive.’ Well it might be provocative and offensive, to Ellman, but it’s not inaccurate.
What does that well known anti-Semitic newspaper Ha’aretz have to say? On 22nd February 2017 under the provocative headline ‘Israel Tortures Palestinian Children, Amnesty Report Says’ it reported that:
‘The report found that among those tortured and detained under administrative orders were also children. Methods of torture included beatings, painful shackling and sleep deprivation. Among 110 Palestinians killed last year by Israeli forces, the report charged, some posed no threat to life and thus were shot unlawfully.’ Lurid?
Ogg takes particular exception to my inference that ‘child abuse’ implies sexual abuse. What does the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel have to say on this subject? According to The Independent of 1.1.14.
‘The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI) published a report which claimed children suspected of minor crimes were subjected to “public caging”, threats and acts of sexual violence and military trials without representation.’
One wonders whether Ogg considers ‘acts of sexual violence’ as constituting sexual abuse or not or whether his definition is elastic enough to escape that ‘offensive’ description? According to a report on YNet, the online version of Israel’s largest circulation paper Yediot Aharanot:
‘ A CNN investigative report aired Thursday slammed the treatment of Palestinian children by IDF soldiers.
The report included uncorroborated charges of sexual abuse against Palestinian youngsters while in IDF custody.
The CNN report featured an unidentified Palestinian boy claiming that IDF forces attempted to insert an object into his rectum after he was arrested. The unidentified youngster said a dozen officers were standing around and laughing while he was being interrogated, stopping only when their commander stepped into the room.’
One wonders whether the Labour Party’s tame barrister finds that abusive enough to merit the caption ‘sexual abuse’? Mehdi Hassan in the New Statesman asked: ‘Did the Israeli army sexually abuse Palestinian children?
So idiotic does Ogg’s submission become that in paragraph 58 he refers to Ellman as ‘Ms Greenstein’!!
Ogg also takes exception to my comment re Ella Rose that her appointment as Director of the JLM deprived some village of their idiot! One thing these bureaucrats lack is a sense of humour. Ella Rose has previously distinguished herself as a little thuglet.
Crooked McNicol & Others
There is a whole section devoted to my favourite Labour Party General Secretary!!
We are told that ‘In this blog post, Mr Greenstein uses the word "crook" or "crooked" to describe
Mr lain McNicol no less than 17 times .’ and that ‘A crook is a dishonest or criminal person.’ Err yes. I would say that McNicol is dishonest. As to whether he is criminal I think the jury is still out.
Apparently by saying that John Mann is a ‘devious little opportunist’ I am mocking his height. Actually I’m not. Perhaps I should have said a big opportunist but my meaning was more subtle.
It is also an offence to describe Chuku Ummuna as ‘White politically’ and in para. 77 ‘The NCC will note that in that blog Mr Greenstein goes on at [161J to use racially charged language in respect of "White minorities like Jews".’ What utter rubbish. What utter tosh.
The final charge is that:
‘On 3rd May 2016, Mr Greenstein sent an email to the General Secretary of the Party, lain McNicol, in which he proposed a "rule change" which would require that "all membership applications and nominations for party office or for Labour candidacies should first be submitted for approval to the Israeli embassy." In that email he uses language reflecting the Nazi plan under Adolf Hitler to exterminate Jewish people: "If passed, it would provide a final, I mean complete, solution".
Unfortunately satire and parody completely escape the hacks and paid legal mouthpieces of the Labour Party. As I’ve already dealt with this nonsense already I won’t repeat my defence!
All in all a pretty sad and pathetic tome. Please read it, if only for pure amusement!!