Blackmailers Always Want More Revisited

by Les May

SEVERAL days ago the High Court struck out a claim for libel against the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) made by Tony Greenstein. The organisation now boasts that the ruling made it permissible for it to call him, and presumably anyone else, a “notorious antisemite” in articles on the CAA website.

The problem for anyone challenging the CAA over such personal attacks is that whilst they are made with all the certainty of them being objectively true, the law treats them merely as opinions, and as the saying goes ‘Comment is free, but facts are sacred’.

The finding makes Mr Greenstein liable for costs of nearly £68,000, something else the CAA is eager to crow about.

Having seen off Greenstein the CAA is now renewing its attacks on the Labour party claiming that Starmer has ‘conned’ them and offered them ‘crumbs’ by allowing the Jeremy Corbyn’s suspension to be dealt with by the Labour Party’s existing disciplinary procedures which resulted in the lifting of the suspension. If Starmer thought that his removing the Labour whip would result in him being allowed to deal with complaints of anti-semitism in his own way, he was mistaken. The response from the CAA has been to claim ‘New evidence emerges showing that incompetence, factionalism and politicisation remain the hallmarks of Labour’s disciplinary process under Sir Keir Starmer’s leadership’. Blackmailers always want more.

Not content with that, at the end of October the CAA submitted a short letter and almost 70 pages of allegations against a number of former and sitting Labour MPs who it referred to as ‘Respondents’ as if it had some legal authority . If Starmer actually read these he must have wondered who is in charge of the Labour party, himself or the unelected Gideon Falter and Joe Glasman of the CAA.

It should also be said that Starmer’s action in removing the Labour whip from Corbyn may be the start of an attempt to reverse the democratisation of the party which placed the decision about who should by Leader in the hands of the membership, and not in the hands of the parliamentary party.

The ruling against Greenstein is a warning that it is not possible to challenge the tactics of the CAA head on, pernicious though they are. But it is possible to point out some of the shortcomings of this organisation.

The CAA likes to present itself as a ‘non-governmental organisation’ and a ‘charity’. In 2019 its income was almost £900,000, almost all from legacies and donations. But when the Charity Commission investigated complaints against the CAA’s Gideon Falter said, ‘There are many people who oppose our mission and complain to the Charity Commission at every opportunity’ and described it as an ‘orchestrated campaign’. In October 2018 the report in the Jewish Chronicle showed how the CAA had broken charity law;

The Charity Commission told the JC its investigation was launched "following concerns raised about a petition launched by the charity which called for the resignation of the leader of the Opposition".

A spokesperson said: “Charities are free to campaign and engage in political activity in furthering their purposes...

"But there are rules that charities must follow. One of the most important of these rules is that charities must stress their independence from party politics and demonstrate party political balance.

"This is a cornerstone of charity law and the public rightly expect us to uphold it robustly."

The commission instructed CAA to change the petition's wording "to ensure it complied with our guidance on campaigning and political activity".

Reading the CAA’s most recent complaints against named individuals in the Labour party, which quote exactly which of the Labour party’s rules have been broken, it is difficult to see how the organisation can be said to complying with rules set out for charities.

The CAA makes much of its ‘methodology’ in its investigations into anti-semitism. But this is what the Institute from Jewish Policy Research had to say about its methods in January 2015;

However, unfortunately, the organisation’s survey about antisemitism is littered with flaws, and in the context of a clear need for accurate data on this topic, its work may even be rather irresponsible.

Its report is based on two surveys – one of Jews living in the UK, exploring their perceptions and experiences of antisemitism, and one of the general population of the UK, exploring its attitudes towards Jews.

In the first one, the data about Jewish attitudes are based on an open web survey that had very limited capacity to assess whether respondents were in any way representative of the British Jewish population. So the percentages quoted are of survey respondents, not of Jews in the UK. The findings might be representative of the Jewish community in some way, but it is at least equally likely that they are not. Unfortunately, due to quite basic methodological flaws and weaknesses, there is absolutely no way the researchers or any readers of the report can really know

.

Because of this, the claim in the report, for example, that “more than half of all British Jews feel that antisemitism now echoes the 1930s” verges into irresponsible territory – it is an incendiary finding, and there is simply no way to ascertain whether or not it is accurate. Moreover, the very inclusion of such a question in the survey, which most credible scholars of the Holocaust utterly refute, was a dubious decision in and of itself, and raises issues about the organisers’ pre-existing hypotheses and assumptions. Professional social researchers build credible surveys and analyse the data with an open mind; the CAA survey falls short both in terms of its methodology and its analysis.

The second survey, conducted by YouGov, is much better – the results are certainly broadly representative of the UK population. The findings would have benefited significantly from greater contextualisation, both in terms of attitudes towards other minorities, and the inclusion of some positive statements about Jews rather than just negative ones, which would have helped to provide some balance and nuance. But the research makes a valuable contribution to knowledge. The inclusion of some context might also have altered the way in which the results were presented in the CAA report and press release, which included the rather sensationalist claim that almost half of British adults harbour some kind of antisemitic view.

A far more accurate and honest read of the YouGov data would highlight the fact that between 75% and 90% of people in Britain either do not hold antisemitic views or have no particular view of Jews either way, and only about 4% to 5% of people can be characterised as clearly antisemitic when looking at individual measures of antisemitism. This figure is similar to Pew data gathered in 2009 and 2014 which estimated the level of antisemitic attitudes at somewhere between 2% and 7%, and Anti-Defamation League data gathered in 2014 which, while also flawed, put it at 8%, and, more robustly, identified the UK as among the least antisemitic countries in the world. It is possible that the proportion has risen in light of the summer’s events in Gaza (and those interested should look out for the next results from the Pew Global Attitudes Survey), but the notion that it has risen to such a significant degree seems to be highly implausible.

So much for the Campaign Against Antisemitism's‘methodology’.

In what I write and say I try to avoid using words like ‘racist’, ‘islamo-phobic’, ‘anti-semitic’, ‘fascist’, ‘nazi’ etc, largely because the way they are sometimes used against individuals is difficult to distinguish from what has been called ‘hate speech’. Nor do I find it easy to distinguish the repeated attacks by organisations like the CAA on Corbyn and other individuals, easy to distinguish from what is called in social media circles ‘trolling’.

The Labour party and those of us who support it have a choice to make. We can go on trying to appease organisations like the CAA or we can insist that if it feels it has the right to call people anti-semites, we have the right to defend ourselves against such charges and to criticise the policies of the state of Israel and those who act as apologists for it. To paraphrase Shakespeare: 'Caesar would not be wolf, if the Romans were not sheep'.

The Charity Commission website carries details of the CAA. The page headed ‘What, who, how, where’ is revealing, and rather difficult to equate with it’s recent activities with regard to the Labour party and its supporters.

*******************************************************

Blessed Be the Bigots!

How Northern Voices gives space to opposing views

by Brian Bamford (Joint Editor)

IN a recent critical comment on this Blogg Tony Greenstein, a blogger who is a descendant of Jewish immigrants, proclaims that 'it is a pity that the Northern Voices Blog does not have an anti-racist or anti-fascist politics.'

Let's be clear, Northern Voices doesn't have a party-line or what might be called a politically correct platform

Let me offer some personal history; in February 1963, I met with members of the FIJL (Iberian Federation of Young Libertarians) in the Belleville working-class area of Paris: the refugees from the Spanish Civil War had begun arriving there in 1938.  In 1963, we were keen to involve ourselves in the struggle against the dictatorship of General Franco and were about to be dispatched for the shanty towns of Barcelona.  So if we consider Franco to be a 'Fascist', I suppose I was an anti-Fsscist over 50-years ago.  But what does Mr. Greenstein really mean when he accuses Northern Voices not having 'anti-racist or anti-fascist politics'?

It is not so easy to answer this question because even in 1944, in the journal Tribune, George Orwell struggled to tackle this puzzle in an essay 'What is Fascism' thus:

"Of all the unanswered questions of our time, perhaps the most important is: ‘What is Fascism?’

One of the social survey organizations in America recently asked this question of a hundred different people, and got answers ranging from ‘pure democracy’ to ‘pure diabolism’. In this country if you ask the average thinking person to define Fascism, he usually answers by pointing to the German and Italian régimes. But this is very unsatisfactory, because even the major Fascist states differ from one another a good deal in structure and ideology."

Finally Orwell concluded that:
 "Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’.  That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.  ....All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword."

Mr. Greenstein makes free use of the word 'fascist' describing Greenswiper thus:  "The little fascist Greenswipe tells us that Robinson or Yaxley-Lennon is ‘a beacon of light.'  And goes on to tell us:
'Here you see the bigot and racist in all his glory. It may be gloomy for this poundshop bigot but not for most people.  Whether it is food or music multi culturalism has triumphed over British marching bands!  Or maybe what he means is that he doesn’t like mixing with Black people but doesn’t like to put it in those words."

But perhaps Greenstein forgets that we had our own 'Bigotgate' in Rochdale in the General Election campaign in 2010.  The then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, on the election campaign trail, was faced with a disastrous turn of events after a Labour supporter, Gillian Duffy, confronted him about his party’s plans to cut the deficit and its stance on immigration as he was interviewed live on TV in Rochdale. 

Later Gordon Brown went on to regret calling Mrs. Gillian Duffy a 'bigoted woman' when he was recorded calling her in such disparaging tones.  To a Northerner this language all comes over as being a bit snobbish about people who take a different view like Tommy Robinson and Greenswiper himself.  Greenswiper is clearly wrong when he claims 'Tommy Robinson represents about 90% of people', but the instincts of Greenswiper and Mrs. Duffy can't be ignored because they do represent a certain tendency, call it an impatience, among white working people.  Some are arguing that the phenomena of political correctness and identity politics is fueling the rise of people like Trump, Tommy Robinson and the Brexit Party.

No amount of smug sneers about 'racism' and 'fascism' from Tony Greenstein will change what is the deeply embeded xenophobia in our culture.  Nor will implying that because English people like to eat Indian food or aren't still fond of brass bands must therefore mean that they have accepted the triumph of multi-culturalism as a political entity.

One can still enjoy a jitterbug dance, and the same person could delight in 'traditions' on a local scale, like the annual Festival of Nine Lessons and Carols at the chapel of King's College, Cambridge on Christmas eve.    

Fascism is often identified with nationalism and tradition, but this is not always the case.  In the book 'The Inventon of Tradition',  edited by the Marxist Eric Hobsbawn and Terence Ranger, HUGH TREVOR-ROPER wrote:

"It is ironical that if the Highland dress had been banned after 'the Fifteen' instead of after 'the Forty Five', the kilt, which is now regarded as one of the ancient traditions of Scotland, would probably never have come into existence. It came into existence a few years after Burt wrote, and very close to the area in which he wrote. Unknown in 1726, it suddenly appeared a few years later; and by 1746 it was sufficiently well established to be explicitly named in the act of parliament which then forbade the Highland dress. The actual inventor, I understand was an English Quaker from Lancashire, Thomas Rawlinson. The Rawlinsons were a long-established family of Quaker iron-masters in Furness."

So even the iconic Highland kilt so central to the Scottish nationalists was originally made in Lancashire by an English Quaker?
 
Meanwhile, Mr. Greenstein rages on about Greenswiper's complaints of an England in the 21st century shrouded in an ‘Alien multicultural gloom’; to whichTony Greenstein is nothing if not pompous:   'Here you see the bigot and racist in all his glory. It may be gloomy for this poundshop bigot but not for most people. Whether it is food or music multi culturalism has triumphed over British marching bands! Or maybe what he means is that he doesn’t like mixing with Black people but doesn’t like to put it in those words.'

Here we may be experiencing bigotry from both Greenstein and Greenswiper, yet in some ways it  is the canary in the coal mine that warns us of approaching disaster. 

*************

Angela Rayner prostrates herself before Board of Jewish Deputies!

Angela Rayner MP at the Board of Deputies Chanukah Party

The MP for Ashton-under-Lyne, Angela Rayner, who is a member of Labour Friends of Palestine, recently addressed a meeting of the 'Board of Deputies of British Jews'. The meeting attended by 150 guests, took place in the Cholmondeley Room in the House of Lords. Ms Rayner's invitation was controversial and did cause disquiet among some members of the Jewish Community. Stephen Pollard, the editor of the Jewish Chronicle, called the invitation an "idiotic, craven and deeply counter productive decision." 

A number of years ago after visiting Auschwitz, the Nazi death camp, Ms Rayner had referred to a quote from the book called the 'The Holocaust Industry' by anti-Israel activist Norman Finkelstein, who had claimed that US Jews had exploited the 'Shoah' for political gain. Rather than defend the quote, Ms Rayner expressed remorse and said she deeply regretted saying this and was certain that she would not use it again. She also told the meeting that those who distorted history by likening Hitler to Zionism, would no longer be welcome in the Labour Party and that Labour would kick racists out of the party. Ms Rayner said she particularly welcomed the expulsion of Jewish anti-Zionist activist, Tony Greenstein, from the Labour Party. Mr Greenstein was expelled from the Labour Party in 2018 for expressing views, that the Labour top brass considered abusive and beyond the pale.

We contacted Mr Greenstein for a response to Ms Rayner's comments at the Board of Deputies meeting and he sent us the following article from his own website.

"Before reading in last week’s Zionist press about Angela Rayner’s attack on me, I had barely heard of the woman. She is not exactly a household name. Nor is she known for her wit and charm.  In an interview just over a year ago she demonstrated her mettle:

“I see myself as soft left. I’m very pragmatic. I’m interested in how we can change lives for the better; how we can we put socialism into practice. Every time we expend energy on fighting each other, we’re letting down the people that need us the most.” READ MORE:

Politics of prediction: The EU & Brexit

 by Brian Bamford

TONY GREENSTEIN on his Blog last Saturday asked  'The Real Question is Why has Corbyn not Benefited from the Tory Crisis?  Commenting on the poll predictions for EU elections the writes:  

'The victors are, it is predicted the Brexit Party.  The second party is forecast to be the Liberal Democrats. Labour is forecast to be in third place. These are, of course predictions but if they are correct then a number of things need to be spelt out.'

He naturally issued his warning about these results being based on predictions, but now we know that the forcasts were largely spot on in terms of outcomes.  And as I write this, based on these outcomes people like both Nigel Farage and even Joanne Swinson of the Liberal Democrats, have made further predictions which are becoming more like what Karl Popper has called 'unconditional historical prophecies'.*

Tony Greenstein is clearly what is called a 'Remainer'  and on his Blogg he argues:
'Brexit, the desire to withdraw from Europe is not an anti-capitalist project.  People didn’t vote leave because they desired an independent socialist Britain. The primary force behind leave was the Right and far-Right. Euro scepticism of one variety or another is a Europe wide phenomenon.'

Mr. Greenstein warns that 'Corbyn has prevaricated and dodged for far too long' and he suggests on his Blogg is influenced by the old left-wing idea of the  'British Road to Socialism', or as he suggests is rooted in the concept that Tony Benn used to claim when he says Benn had said that 'the Common Market took away British sovereignty, as if workers and the poor had ever had control over their lives'.

I don't believe we can make unconditional historical prophecies about BREXIT or what will follow a 'No Deal Brexit'.  That kind of historism falls into the trap of vulgar Marxism.  Yet I believe we can make negative predictions like for example as when George Orwell suggested that the consequences of the 'Treaty of Versailles' would be bad but we couldn't predict that it would lead to the Third Reich and Adolf Hitler.  I would suggest that while I can't predict in detail what will happen with Brexit but I do believe that it will be bad for most of us.

* Conjectures and Refutations by Karl Popper (1963)

*********

Speaking your mind carries dangers in Corbyn's Labour Party!

Anti-Zionist Activist -Tony Greenstein

Speaking your mind has become a perilous activity in Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party. This month, Tony Greenstein a Jewish anti-Zionist activist, was expelled from the Labour Party after its national constitution committee (NCC), found that he'd broken the party's rules and was guilty of abusive behaviour.

The son of a Rabbi, Greenstein, regularly posts blogs on social media which are critical of Zionists and pro-Israeli Members of Parliament. He says that antisemitism is being used to silence people in the Labour Party who criticise the state of Israel over its policies towards the Palestinians and is a sham.

Greenstein's expulsion has been welcomed by Jewish Labour Movement and the Jewish Board of Deputies.  Ivor Caplin, south east chairman of the Jewish Labour Movement said:

"Deliberately harassing, intimidatory and hateful language of the kind Tony Greenstein has continually used has no place inside inside the Labour Movement."

Greenstein told the press that "Despite being Jewish, I was suspended as part of the false antisemitism witch-hunt in March 2016."

A row has broken out after it was announced that Ken Livingstone's two-year suspension is due to end on 27 April and that he's likely to be readmitted to the Labour Party within weeks. Livingstone was suspended when he was found to have brought the Labour Party into disrepute after stating that Adolf Hitler had supported Zionism in the 1930's. He says he was referring to the so-called Haavara agreement of 1933 between German Zionists and the Nazi government. Despite this being an historical fact, Labour's NEC is now planning to launch a new inquiry into allegations of antisemitism against him. Livingstone is threatening to take legal action if the party takes disciplinary action against him.

Over in Rochdale, Lancashire, Labour activist Mark Birkett, has been suspended by the Labour Party after raising issues about the election of Tony Lloyd in 2017 and his effectiveness as the Labour MP for Rochdale. Having claimed in emails that Lloyd was a 'shoe-in' MP, placed by Labour's NEC as the Labour candidate for Rochdale in order to find him a job, he also claims that Lloyd doesn't answer constituents letters or their queries. Labour refused to investigate his allegations and he was accused of threatening and intimidating Labour members. He now faces expulsion from the party.