by Martin Odoni

Jacqueline Walker, a black Jewish activist and long-time Labour Party anti-racism campaigner, was expelled from the party today. The story of her, somewhat-carelessly-worded-but-accurate, remarks about Jews being leading financiers of the slave trade in past centuries, is well-enough recorded that I doubt I need to go over it. If you need to refresh your memory, see here.

Jackie Walker stitched up

Jackie Walker has been expelled from the Labour Party for stating historical facts.

However, the reason why this is as much a stitch-up as the expulsion of Marc Wadsworth last year bears mentioning. As with the Wadsworth hearing, the disciplinary process was clearly corrupted.

The pretext for Walker being suspended was supposed ‘anti-Semitic’ behaviour. There is a reluctance on the part of many in the media to mention that the accused is herself Jewish. (As indeed there has been with the accusations against the likes of Tony Greenstein, Cyril Chilson, Jo Bird, myself, and others. As Alexei Sayle has pointed out, those suspended or expelled from Labour for anti-Semitism are frequently Jewish.)

Walker was not allowed to speak in her own defence at her hearing, although as she had chosen to have a legal counsel present, that is not an irregularity in itself; the party rules are quite explicit that any defendant who accepts legal counsel must leave all the talking to him/her.

The critical matter, which media reports of the expulsion are not making much effort to mention is that Walker, just like Wadsworth last year, was not charged with anti-Semitism. The charge that the Labour National Constitutional Committee levelled against her was Prejudicial and grossly detrimental behaviour against the party. This is taken from part of the text of Clause 2.I.8 of the Party rulebook.

This charge is problematic in itself –  see below – but more concerning yet is that Walker was not made aware until a few days ago exactly to which of her actions/words the charge applied. She and her legal counsel had insufficient time to prepare a full defence against some of the accusations therefore, and Walker’s wish to make an opening statement was in response to this serious irregularity.

The main reason the charge is problematic is similar to the one with the charge levelled against Wadsworth last year. At his tribunal, Wadsworth was charged with Bringing the party into disrepute, a lazy, catch-all term that effectively amounts to, “The NCC can throw you out just because its members don’t like something you said or did”. While being slightly more specific, the charge Prejudicial and grossly detrimental behaviour against the party, in the cold light of day, does not appear to mean anything greatly different. It is useful as it matches words in the clause of the rulebook, so it sounds legitimate, but does so without having to give the ‘transgression’ any precise definition or clarity.

Both Wadsworth’s and Walker’s charges amount to extremely blunt legal instruments. They hand an excessive amount of power to the party right-wingers who dominate the NCC, and make it much too easy for them to get rid of any member for whom they just have a political, or even personal, antipathy, on the shakiest of pretexts.

Zionist organisations like The Jewish Labour Movement, The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism and The Jewish Chronicle are trying to insinuate that Walker has been thrown out precisely for being an anti-Semite, and no other reason. What they fail to explain is why the NCC needed to press such a vague and subjective charge as prejudicial and grossly detrimental behaviour in order to ‘convict’ her? Surely if they really had sufficient grounds to convict her of ‘anti-Semitic behaviour’, they could have made it more explicitly clear?

The ruling given by the judgement panel on the NCC was worded,

“The National Constitutional Committee has found that the charges of breaches of party rules by Jackie Walker have been proven. The National Constitutional Committee consequently determined that the sanction for this breach of the rules is expulsion from Labour Party membership.”

They did not mention anti-Semitism, or racism, as being the reason for the expulsion. Given Walker’s long history of fighting racism – just like Wadsworth’s – that should go without saying really. And yet – just like Wadsworth – it did not

This imprecise announcement fits a pattern that occurs a lot when Labour members are expelled for alleged anti-Semitism. See the ruling when Tony Greenstein was given his marching orders last year; –

“The NCC of the Labour Party has today found that all three charges of a breach of the Labour Party’s rule 2.1.8 by Tony Greenstein have been found proved. The NCC consequently determined that the sanction for the breach of Labour Party rules will be expelled from membership.”

And the ruling at the end of the aforementioned Wadsworth expulsion; –

“The National Constitutional Committee of the Labour Party has found that two charges of a breach of the Labour Party’s rule 2.1.8 by Marc Wadsworth have been proven. The NCC consequently determined that the sanction for this breach of Labour Party rules will be expulsion from membership.”

All sounds very similar does it not? And all very obscure.

What do all the accused mentioned on this page have in common?

Well of course; they are all pro-Palestine supporters of Jeremy Corbyn.

Thus it is quite impossible not to suspect that Walker’s guilt and expulsion – just like all the others’ – were premeditated conclusions. My own, much lower-profile suspension will doubtless lead to the same place in whichever century the NCC finally get around to assessing my case of implied ‘self-hating-Jewry’. But in Walker’s case, all that was in doubt was not her expulsion, but how the NCC chose to word the verdict. In the event, they took the tried-and-tested route, making it as obscure and legal-ese-precise as possible.

What happened to Jackie Walker today was just history ‘rhyming’. As Wadsworth was stitched up a year ago, so Walker has been stitched up now, demonstrating just how much right-wing corruption remains in the innermost mechanisms of the Labour Party.

Advertisements

by Martin Odoni

The endless narrative of ‘bullying’ and ‘aggression’ by the Left in this country almost invariably goes unquestioned in the media. Abusive terminology such as ‘Trots-rabble-dogs‘, alongside long lists of (rather soft) complaints about being bullied over social media from Labour Members of Parliament on the party’s right wing, have given an ugly impression of the modern Left. The fact that calling an entire political movement a name like ‘Trots-rabble-dogs’ is itself a form of bullying should raise doubts about how fair the narrative really is. But there are more severe reasons for a pushback against it.

As I reported on Tuesday, a fringe event at the Labour Party Conference was abandoned due to a bomb threat. Thankfully it proved to be a malicious hoax rather than a real attack, and no one was hurt. But the event was still derailed, and the way the threat has been reported subsequently – where it has been at all – has been noticeably vague and misleading.

The main issue has been that headlines have been, I suspect deliberately, worded to imply that the incident was part of the now-tedious ‘anti-Semitism-in-the-Labour-Party’ furore of the summer, which has been presented consistently (and falsely) as a problem with left wing members. In fact, the bomb threat was against the screening of a film about Jackie Walker, a Jewish, pro-Palestine, veteran Labour activist, who is herself substantially of the left. She is also a Jeremy Corbyn supporter, and therefore hardly a likely target for the ‘army of left wing anti-Semitic bullies’ that Luciana Berger swears blind dominates the Labour Party, and yet for whose existence she can mysteriously offer no real evidence. From headlines and posts shared on social media, you would be forgiven for imagining the black-shirts had been after Walker for conducting a public Seder instead.

Take this bizarre declaration on Twitter from the (self-appointed and largely non-representative) Board of Jewish Deputies; –

BoD lies about bomb threat

The Board of Jewish Deputies offers a thoroughly absurd interpretation of the bomb threat against Jackie Walker’s film-screening in Liverpool.

Why would they assume that the bomb threat was anti-Semitic, when it was made against a film about a woman the Board themselves have repeatedly condemned as, among other slurs, an ‘unapologetic Jew-baiter’? Unless they were trying to exploit what happened Tuesday night for their own propaganda purposes?

Maria van der Zyl smears JW

The new chair of the Board of Jewish Deputies called Jackie Walker a ‘Jew-baiter’ less than two years ago.

And look how The Guardian headlined it; –

Guardian bomb scare headline

Subtle but clear misleading implication in the Guardian’s headline about the bomb threat.

This is certainly less crude than the Board of Deputies’ shenanigans. But the use of the term ‘Jewish event’, rather than ‘Fringe event’, and the failure to mention that it was hosted by a Corbyn supporter, means that anyone who only spots the headline but does not have time to read the article, is going to get a very wrong idea of what happened. Especially so in the context of the recent, semi-fictitious ‘anti-Semitism’ hysteria.

You just know that if this had been an event discussing Jews being victimised by Labour leftists, the editor at The Guardian would have found a way to squeeze a term like ‘by bullying Corbynistas’ into the headline.

Moving on to Wednesday night, I myself was at another meeting in Liverpool where Israel/Palestine and the Labour Party were under discussion, at a pub called The Caledonia. Now, that meeting was also the subject of a bomb threat! The police sent a car around to keep watch, but in truth, none of us took it seriously this time and the discussion went ahead in full. (We were following the logic that, if the ‘bombers’ would not blow up a meeting the previous night when someone as high-profile as Jackie Walker had arranged it, why would they bother blowing us up?) Sure enough, nothing happened. But even so, it was another act of anti-Leftist intimidation. And you can be sure there will be little attention given to it in the mainstream.

The overwhelming impression one gets of the current narrative of the Overton Window is that the Left must not be allowed to be seen as victims. This is brought into even more disturbing focus by another very ugly incident that happened in the last week. Not at the Conference, but in Wakefield, West Yorkshire.

Jade Unal is an activist and local campaigns manager for Young Labour. On Friday 21st September, she and her mother were having a quiet drink in a local pub, when, without warning, several people came up to them and physically assaulted them both. They snarled at Jade that she was,

“a posh c*nt in politics, that’s stuck up your own a*se”.

They also accused her for no apparent reason of being ‘a paedophile’.

Both Jade and her mother were badly beaten. Jade’s head was smacked against the bar so hard that it came out in a giant lump, with a severe gash in her scalp. The assailants then followed them back to their home, where they threatened to set the building on fire.

Unsurprisingly, Jade had to go to hospital to get her injuries seen to. With her permission, I will now share pictures of the injuries. Please note before you scroll down that they are quite disturbing.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

 

JU side

Just to underline how badly she was beaten, here is a photo of her without injuries to compare; –

JU uninjured

Jade Unal, prior to injuries suffered in an attack.

Now, there is no doubt, from what her assailants told her, that Jade was attacked for political reasons. Who precisely the assailants were, and what exact political orientation they have, is not clear, but Jade is a Labour leftist, and she was quite explicitly attacked for her politics. It is doubly disturbing that her mother was also attacked, and that the assailants then threatened to torch their home. Jade, it must be emphasised, is herself a mother, and so her daughter has effectively been threatened at the same time.

Jade has received precious little help from the authorities. The local police force, the West Yorkshire Police (former stamping ground of Sir Norman Bettison – no surprise then), have taken her complaint, but done nothing subsequently to help her or to find her assailants. Jade also tried to get the Social Services involved, as her attackers had children with them at the time. But again, a meaningful response has been unforthcoming. The Labour Party itself has offered precious little reaction. Jade is getting a lot of support from those who know her, but on an official level, she is largely ignored by anyone outside of her network of friends.

This was an actual and very vicious act of real violence. And nobody who can do anything about it seems to care, and nobody who should at least be drawing public attention to it seems enthusiastic about doing so.

In short, while I do not wish to sound over-dramatic, the British Left is currently facing growing aggression and threatening behaviour from other parts of the political spectrum. That aggression is largely being overlooked or misrepresented. When Labour centrists complain about ‘bullying’ and ‘victimisation’, as I have pointed out before, they seem highly selective over which victims they care about. Hence, an almighty ker-fuffle is made over the very obviously faked and theatrical ‘bodyguard’ requirements of Luciana Berger this week. But there is a muted reaction, or no reaction at all, when a young woman in the party is actually beaten up for her political persuasion, and when party meetings are threatened with bomb attacks.

I am not in any doubt that there are some violent, over-aggressive leftists out there. But the Left is not the aggressor here. It is the target. And it is time that it was made clear to the public at large just how dangerous the aggression is getting.

_____

EDIT 11:15am 27-9-2018: I have received a number of slightly odd complaints on social media about the ‘cover photo’ for this article. It does not actually appear in the article itself, but appears in links to it on sites like Twitter and Facebook. This is the image in dispute; –

Far-right violence

The far right is on the rise across Europe, but the British media and political class waste so much time worrying about the far less violent resurgence of the left.

The image is of protesters at a far-right demo in Germany from earlier this year that turned violent. The objection seems to be that the readers do not think it is relevant to the (comparatively) low-key events discussed in the article itself.

Well, allow me to retort; it is very much relevant. The point is to do with the aforementioned fuss being made over ‘left-wing bullying’ that currently dominates media interest in the UK (mainly because of occasional nasty tweets being sent in the heat-of-the-moment). This fuss is being made while far-right violence is on the increase. This very much includes here in the UK, with the very aggressive support for Stephen ‘Tommy Robinson’ Yaxley-Lennon. A couple of months ago, I was literally threatened with murder by a ‘Free Tommy’ yob over social media.

Okay, maybe I should have been more explicit, but my point was, if people are bothered about political violence, why are so many of them looking for it on the left, when all of this is happening on the right?

Sounds perfectly consistent with what is in this article? I would say so.

_____

CORRECTION: This article previously indicated that Jackie Walker attended the screening of her film. In fact, she was not in attendance in person. Text amended accordingly.

by Martin Odoni

A fringe event at this week’s Labour Party Conference in Liverpool has been abandoned due to a bomb threat. The event was an early screening of The Public Lynching Of Jackie Walker, created by the eponymous Jacqueline Walker, and telling the story of how she was hounded out of the Labour Party on trumped-up charges of ‘anti-Semitism’. (Like myself, Jackie is a Jew, and also like myself, she is regarded as a ‘Wrong Kind Of Jew’ due to her opposition to Israel.)

Bomb threat & evacuation

A screening of Jackie Walker’s film in Liverpool is abandoned due to a bomb threat

The building hosting the event, Blackburne House, had to be evacuated, and the audience, after standing outside for some while, were instructed by the police to disperse a little after 8pm.

While not wishing to point fingers too soon, there have been numerous Zionist attempts to disrupt left-wing Jewish meetings over the last couple of years, including at a Jewish Voice for Labour fringe meeting this very week. In that light, a screening of a film in support of a Labour member expelled for supposed anti-Semitism is a prime target for violent threats.

Luciana theatrics

Luciana Berger only needs a bodyguard when the TV cameras are on her.

Perhaps Labour right-wingers like Margaret Hodge and Luciana Berger, with their ridiculous histrionics-for-the-cameras with needless bodyguards, and comparisons to the Holocaust, would like to consider that a real threat is being aimed at the very people by whom they claim to be threatened? There is every chance that this threat was made by one of Hodge’s/Berger’s allies. If that is the case, what will they have to say about that?

Anyway, Jackie has already responded with repeated declarations on social media that she will not be silenced. If you wish to help her in that endeavour, and in the interests of free speech, please consider donating to her GoFundMe campaign, so she can afford to hire the space to screen the film as widely as possible.

EDIT 21:55:

Happily, it does appear to have been a malicious hoax rather than the deployment of a real bomb. But the hoax has had the effect that was almost certainly desired of it, in that the screening of the film has been abandoned. This is intimidation and an affront to free speech.

Jackie has added the following information on her Facebook timeline about the threatening call that was received; –

The bomb-threat

The text of the threatening call.

by Martin Odoni

The largely-fictitious ‘anti-Semitism-in-Labour’ controversy is clearly never going to be allowed to die. I have no doubt more examples will be brought to public attention in the final days before the Local Elections in May, and most accusations will stem from heavily-distorted information, just as Mike Sivier can testify from what happened a year ago.

In case anyone is just back from a five-day holiday to Mars, the present storm of outrage is about a notorious mural on Brick Lane in London.

Mural

The artist who painted the mural is an American called Kalen Ockerman – alias ‘Mear One’. The mural is widely-held to be anti-Semitic in intent.

Back in 2012, there was a discussion on social media about having the mural removed. Jeremy Corbyn left a comment on the discussion thread defending its presence on freedom-of-speech grounds. This comment has ‘mysteriously’ been dragged into the cross-examination of the public domain just as the Local Elections campaign is getting under way.

Now, I really was not planning to comment on this, because frankly it was embarrassing that anyone thought it worth the nation’s time or attention. What Corbyn said six years ago about someone’s right to produce a slightly paranoid bit of artwork is not important. No, sorry, it really is not. James O’Brien (oh good grief, him again?) and Shelagh Fogarty may have thought that this business was worth top billing on their LBC shows today, but they are wrong. They should not have dignified it with their time, nor should the other hysterics across the media. The only reason I am even bothering to write about it is because individuals on social media – including the aforementioned O’Brien – have been complaining that Corbyn sympathisers are ‘more outraged’ by Owen Smith’s rebelliousness on Brexit than they are about anti-Semitism.

That accusation is rubbish, but okay, I will talk about the mural. And I will not just focus on how minor or old Corbyn’s ‘transgression’ is. I will also point out a detail that the critics refuse to acknowledge about the mural; –

It is not anti-Semitic.

No, I am perfectly serious, it really is not. Now, if a Jew wishes to argue with me about that, they are welcome to bring it on – the comments section is below. But I will not have the likes of O’Brien, or Fogarty, or any of a million other outrage-foam-at-the-mouths who are not Jewish telling me what is anti-Semitic or what is not. I am a Jew, and I have experienced the sharp end of real anti-Semitism first hand. I know the genuine article when I see it, and I also know a false alarm about anti-Semitism when I see it too. So you can stuff it if you are non-Jewish and you try to tell me which is which. The mural is not anti-Semitic, and this is why.

The rich men portrayed in the mural sitting around the Monopoly gameboard include the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, the Warburgs and the Morgans. The Rothschilds and the Warburgs are indeed Jews. But the others are not. They are portrayed in exactly the same light as the Warburgs and the Rothschilds, but this is not because of their ethnicity, but because they are all banking magnates. Their portrayal is not anti-Semitic, it is anti-plutocratic.

The pyramid in the background is often assumed to embody the legendary ‘Illuminati’, which is often thought to be an undercover world-controlling movement dominated by Jews. But again, this is not correct. The pyramid actually symbolises Freemasonry, and the widely-held (and possibly correct) suspicion that Freemasons often give each other un-earned ‘foot-ups’ up the hierarchy.

Freemasonry is not a Jewish movement.

How do I know that all of this applies to the mural? The explanation for that is shockingly simple; unlike the majority of pompous outraged attack dogs snapping at Corbyn’s heels, I bothered to read up on the history of the mural before passing judgement on it. One of the details I checked was what the artist had to say about it. Sure enough, Ockerman responded to the accusations of anti-Semitism back in 2012, and explained all of the above.

You might argue, “Why should we believe what Ockerman says?” but if you think about it, that really is a stupid question; if Ockerman had intended to stir up anti-Semitic paranoia by painting the mural in the first place, surely he would be defeating the object of his own exercise by then denying that the rich men in the picture are Jewish? (And be careful – if you see a picture of rich men with large noses and your immediate assumption is “Jews!!!!” that may say more about your own prejudices than it says about the artist’s.)

What astounds me is that the people who are steadfast in their certainty that the mural is anti-Semitic seem so confident that they know more about it than the person who bloody painted it in the first place! So much so, they never even thought to find out what the artist had to say. And James O’Brien has the nerve to lecture his listeners on being ‘rational’ when he makes an absurd leap-to-conclusions, probably a bandwagon fallacy too, on this scale? Not for the first time recently, I find myself saying, “Pull yourself together, O’Brien!

NB: Worry not, James, I do like you really, and I agree with far more of what you say than I disagree with usually, but you really have been suckered on this. I cannot believe you wasted ninety minutes of your programme today on this. It is a complete non-story.

It has been pointed out that the mural bears a passing resemblance to Nazi propaganda. I do see that, and I agree that it is unfortunate. But again there is a deafeningly-loud fallacy in the argument. Just because the mural has a resemblance to Nazi propaganda, it does not follow that it has to have the same meaning as Nazi propaganda. As I say, it does not. I find the reference to the Freemasons in the mural a bit paranoid, but the fundamental meaning of the picture is visibly anti-elitism, and there is no reason to assume that the plutocrats therein are Jewish. I mean, why is there no Star of David in the image?

(Jonathan Cook makes some more useful points about how doubtful and obviously-orchestrated this flare-up about the mural has been.)

Now as I say, this whole business has been a nonsense. Even if there were genuine anti-Semitic content in the mural, so what? It was years ago, and it was very clear that Corbyn’s comment was not meant as a defence of anti-Semitism. Now, how is a passing comment that Corbyn made six years ago on a bit of bizarre artwork suddenly so important that it takes priority over the Local Elections, over Conservative laundering of Russian finance, over Tory and pro-Brexit groups getting potentially-illegal help from Cambridge Analytica, the fantastic fraudulence of Jeremy Hunt’s untrue ‘pay-rise’ for NHS workers, the suspicious-looking miracle of only three people getting exposed to a lethal nerve agent in Salisbury and all of them so slightly that somehow none of them are dead almost a month later, the never-ending Brexit chaos, rampant child poverty… ? Good grief, I reckon even the ball-tampering scandal by the Australian Test Cricket team should rate as more of a priority than this! I mean, at least that happened this week! (Darren Lehmann and Steve Smith should be sacked, for what my view on that is worth, by the way.)

Of course, the answer to my question lies with the alternative topics I have listed. A lot of the media would like to talk about ‘anti-Semitism-in-Labour’ right now precisely because it blots out all these other matters. And sadly, even usually fairly sensible broadcasters and journalists, including O’Brien and Fogarty, have allowed themselves to get caught up in the tidal wave of rage.

No, Corbyn is not ‘comfortable in the company of anti-Semites’. No, the majority of the Labour left are not anti-Semites, not even a large minority of the Labour left are anti-Semites. Rather than being taken in by the huge number of accusations, what is needed is actually to study a lot of the accusations. Do so and you soon notice how absurd some of them are. Ask Mike Sivier about his ‘anti-Semitic punctuation’. No, I kid ye not, he really was accused of ‘anti-Semitic punctuation’ last year!

'Anti-Semtic punctuation' is now a thing.

Zionists are becoming such uncompromising censorship-trolls, they have now invented ‘anti-Semitic punctuation’. (Click here for more info.)

Ask Tony Greenstein (who is himself Jewish, but an anti-Zionist).

Ask Alan Bull.

Ask Jacqueline Walker, of course.

This whole controversy about anti-Semitism only started up in the aftermath of Jeremy Corbyn standing for leader of Labour, and the reason for it should be obvious; Corbyn is pro-Palestinian, and a loud critic of the way Israel treats the Palestinian people. The Zionist-Israeli lobby is terrified of the prospect of a UK Prime Minister who is pro-Palestinian, and so they are trying to isolate him by getting some of his most articulate supporters removed from the party. The Zionists, especially in the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, are perfectly happy to use false accusations in order to do so, knowing that they are unlikely to be held to account for doing it, as authorities fear the same accusations being re-directed at them.

What the Zionists are doing is corrupt and illegal. Instead of exposing this corruption, the media are allowing themselves to be pushed into playing along with it.

Labour were seven points up in the polls sixteen days ago, and the Local Election campaign began last week. This non-story controversy from years ago suddenly flares up now.

How is it that no one in the media is able to join such giant dots?

_____

MORE ON THIS HERE.