Hamas And A Hook Nose Dummy by Les May

AS soon as the first rocket was fired into Israel by Hamas it handed Netanyahu his ‘get out of jail card’. ‘Honest Joe’ could say ‘Israel has a right to defend itself’, talk grandly about a ‘negotiated settlement’ and then when the carnage stops declare the US is back in the Middle East showing how different he is from Trump. Though not different enough to think twice about continuing the ten year long agreement signed in 2016 which sends Israel $3.3 billion in military aid and $500 million for missile defence systems each year.

Meanwhile his Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, can mouth his platitudes, preceded by the obligatory ‘Israel has a right to defend itself’, while Israel calmly announces to the world it is going to bomb two schools and justifies its bombing campaign against civilian targets by claiming the buildings stand above a tunnel system used by Hamas. A claim that no-one can verify and if untrue would mean the bombing is a war crime.

And then some genius in the UK decided what a good idea it would be to hand out yet another ‘get out of jail card’. This time it was to our home grown apologists who respond to every denunciation of Israel’s attacks on Palestinians and the theft of their land, by claiming it is just another example of anti-semitism. Quite why anyone would think that a huge dummy seemingly depicting Israel as a hook nosed Jew, with sinister features and horns, had any place at a demonstration supporting the Palestinians, is beyond me. It comes as no surprise to read an attempt being made to link Jeremy Corbyn with this, though the only placards visible carry the imprint of Socialist Worker. With people like this as ‘friends’ the Palestinians will never have a shortage of enemies.

You can find the image of the ‘demo’ at:

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/05/16/the-lefts-shameful-silence-on-anti-semitism/

NV can no longer embed links in the text of articles. To use this link copy the full text of the link into your browser (Startpage, DuckDuckGo or Google) and search in the usual way.

Meet The Wrong Type of Jew, The Media Doesn't Want You To Know Exists | ...

Nothing To Gain, Everything To Lose by Les May

A JEWISH lady by the name of Jenny Manson had an interesting message left on her answerphone which went as follows, "You fucking Nazi bitch… You should burn in the gas oven. You dirty fucking bitch… Stinking, stinking swine… You deserve … to burn in acid." Even more interesting is that the police tracked down the caller and found him to be a middle-aged Jewish man. He was formally cautioned for the offence of malicious communications in May 2019.

Manson it seems is ‘the wrong sort of Jew’. Her crime is that as a co-chair of Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL) she draws attention to the fact that there is a diversity of opinion amongst British Jews both about the level of anti-semitism in the Labour party and about the behaviour of the government of Israel towards Palestinians.

In November she was interviewed by Kirsty Wark about the decision to readmit Jeremy Corbyn to the Labour Party. According the Jewish Chronicle there were ‘complaints logged with the BBC by Jewish campaigners angry at Newsnight’s decision to invite Ms Manson onto the show only a few weeks after the appearance of another leading figure in JVL Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi.’

Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi was suspended from the Labour party a few days ago. Her crime? There were complaints that she had made some members ‘uncomfortable’ perhaps because she had said, ‘The idea that Jewish people require for their comfort that whole swathes of subjects should not be debated by the membership of this party is insulting to Jewish people.’

The Labour party bars everyone suspended or investigated from sharing any details of their cases. But we do know that Wimborne-Idrissi is not the only Jewish member of the party to have been suspended or investigated on accusations of anti-semitism. The figure now seems to be more than twenty, and includes a significant proportion of the members of the JVL committee. Commenting on the psychological impact on Labour party members who have received Notices of Investigation. She has said: ‘It is Kafkaesque, You are not told who is accusing you. And you are not allowed to discuss it with anyone. So you receive this devastating letter – and are immediately isolated.’

We can gain some insight into what is going on from a comment made about her; ‘She can marry whomever she pleases and hold whatever ideological stance she finds attractive. Naomi Wimborne was free to marry a Muslim, and become Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi... But, given her life choices, is Naomi really in a position to talk publicly as if she is representative of British Jewish identity?’

Some people might find the comment implicitly offensive or suggest it verges on ‘racism’. But the real import of it, as with the complaints to the BBC about interviewing two members of Jewish Voice for Labour on Newsnight, is that it is an attempt to silence people who will not accept that the views presented in Jewish Chronicle and by the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM), are representative of those of all British Jews.

In addition to Jewish Voices for Labour there are a number of other organisations, Independent Jewish Voices, Jewish Socialists’ Group, Jews for Justice for Palestinians, Manchester Jewish Action for Palestine, Free Speech on Israel, which are equally representative of the views of British Jews. The JLM organisation differs from these other Jewish organisations because it has what Jewish Voices for Labour has called a ‘profoundly Zionist orientation’ and seems to be unwilling to be in any way critical of the treatment of Palestinians by the state of Israel.

So anxious is JLM to control the narrative around accusations and definition of anti-semitism, and by inference around Labour’s attitude to the treatment of Palestinians by the state of Israel, that in April 2018 it asked for, and received, a guarantee that JLM would remain Labour's only Jewish affiliate, after suggestions that Jewish Voices for Labour might be allowed to affiliate.

The Jewish Chronicle has described JLM as a 'gathering-place for moderates concerned about the direction the party is taking under Mr Corbyn' and JLM has changed its rules to facilitate this by allowing non-Jews to have affiliate membership so providing a base for attacking him. But the fact that so many Jewish members of the Labour party have been accused of anti-semitism suggests to me that what we are seeing is Labour being the battleground chosen by the Zionist oriented JLM to drown out the voices of protest from other non-Zionist oriented Jews. Corbyn was a reluctant accessory to this; Starmer, Nandy, Long-Bailey and Rayner have jumped in with both feet and embraced it by signing up to the ‘Ten Pledges’ I have written about previously.

Is it not absurd that a definition of anti-semitism is being adopted by the Labour party which can be used against Jewish members on the basis of complaints made by other Jewish members and organisations, some of which like CAA, (Campaign Against Antisemitism) are utterly pernicious and adopt dubious tactics to discredit their opponents? Labour has nothing to gain and everything to lose by allowing this battle to be fought on its territory. Blackmailers always come back for more.

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

Pledges, Demands and Blackmail by Les May

I WAS recently chatting to an older lady who has actively supported Labour for the forty plus years I have known her. She tried to persuade me that the suspension of Jeremy Corbyn was a ‘right wing’ plot to remove someone who is widely considered to be on the ‘left’ of the Labour party, though as the economics journalist William Keagan pointed out some years ago the policies of Clement Atlee government in 1945 were more radical. I disagreed with her; so far as I am concerned the accusations of ‘anti-semitism’ which led to Corbyn’s downfall are a systematic attempt by a small number of Jewish people and organisations to ensure that Labour party policies are not critical of the actions of the state of Israel towards Palestinians.

Overt scepticism amongst Jewish people about Labour party policies towards Israel predate Corbyn’s election to the leadership in September 2015. In April 2015 the Jewish Chronicle (J.C.) published an article by Marcus Dysch when the Labour leader was Ed Miliband which said:

‘Around 73 per cent of Jews said the political parties’ attitudes to Israel were 'very' or 'quite important' in influencing how they would vote.

'The polling revealed that Mr Miliband’s approach to Israel and the Middle East is seen as toxic within the Jewish community. Just 10 per cent of people said he had the best approach, compared to 65 per cent who favoured Mr Cameron’s stance.

'The Labour party itself fared worse than its leader, with its Israel policy attracting only eight per cent of Jewish voters. The Tory approach was preferred by 61 per cent.’

I should however caution that the survey from which the above was derived questioned only 580 Jewish people and we do not know how this sample was obtained.

The day after, 8 April 2015, the website Forward carried an article Liam Hoare with the title ‘How Ed Miliband Lost Britain's Jewish Voters’.

Hoare tells us: ‘Having spent almost four years courting Jewish communal institutions, going so far as to declare in Jerusalem last April that “Israel is the homeland for the Jewish people,” Miliband destroyed his standing on Israel during last summer’s war with Hamas when he came out in strong opposition to Operation Protective Edge. ‘The British Jewish community is a middle class community and the Conservatives are the traditional home of the middle class...’

‘Having spent almost four years courting Jewish communal institutions, going so far as to declare in Jerusalem last April that “Israel is the homeland for the Jewish people,” Miliband destroyed his standing on Israel during last summer’s war with Hamas when he came out in strong opposition to Operation Protective Edge’ and .The nadir of Miliband’s relationship with the Jewish community then came in October when Labour backed recognition of Palestinian statehood during a symbolic vote in Parliament. Miliband thought it good politics, but the fact that attitudes toward Israel influence the vote of 73% of British Jews apparently wasn’t taken into account.’

I have no doubt that Ed Miliband’s critical stance was a response to the scale of the casualties inflicted by Operation Protective Edge.

Wikipedia says this: 'Between 2,125 and 2,310 Gazans were killed and between 10,626 and 10,895 were wounded (including 3,374 children, of whom over 1,000 were left permanently disabled). Gazan civilian casualty rates estimates range between 70% by the Gaza Health Ministry, 65% by United Nations Protection Cluster by OCHA (based in part Gaza Health Ministry reports), and 36% by Israeli officials, The UN estimated that more than 7,000 homes for 10,000 families were razed, together with an additional 89,000 homes damaged, of which roughly 10,000 were severely affected by the bombing.'

Now whilst I disagree with the seemingly uncritical support for Israel which seems to be offered by many Jewish people in Britain I believe they are entitled to hold such views and if they so wish vote accordingly at the ballot box. Although it would be quite untrue to say that the late Jim Dobbin courted Catholic voters, I doubt that his public stance against abortion did him any harm with them. Voting for an MP whose views you share is what parliamentary democracy is about.

But this is very different from the attempts being made by a small number of Jewish people to manipulate Labour into being a party which will never be critical of Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians. And if you think my choice of the word ‘manipulate’ is too strong or ‘cue anti-semitic trope here’, then consider this.

In January of this year the Board of Deputies of British Jews published ‘Ten pledges to end the antisemitism crisis’ directed at the Labour party. Though I think that all the ‘pledges’, which are in reality demands, are attempts to circumscribe the freedom of action of the Labour party and the freedom of expression of its members, I will highlight two of these which I think are particularly pernicious.

Number Seven reads: ‘Deliver an anti-racism education programme that has the buy-in of the Jewish community. The Jewish Labour Movement should be engaged by the Party to lead on training about antisemitism.’

Number eight reads: ‘Engagement with the Jewish community to be made via its main representative groups Labour must engage with the Jewish community via its main representative groups, and not through fringe organisations and individuals.'

The first thing to note here is that these two are inter-related. Both seek to define the ‘Jewish Community’ by excluding many Jews – evidently the wrong sort. We are left to assume that the right sort include those who run the Board of Deputies, which does not speak for the 70% British Jews who are either secular or Charedi, and those who control the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM). Organisations like the Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL) and individuals who do not align themselves with the Board of Deputies, are to be ignored. Just to make the meaning of this ‘pledge’ absolutely clear the Jewish Chronicle of 12 January described JVL as a ‘fringe’ organisation.

I understand that the Jewish Labour Movement refused to campaign for a majority of Labour MPs at the 2019 general election and that it does not require its members to be either Jewish or in the Labour Party!

I find it difficult not to believe that both the so called pledges, which are in fact a thinly disguised attempt at blackmailing the Labour leadership, and the constant attacks on Corbyn using accusations of anti-semitism, are anything other than attempts to shift Labour policies to a position favourable to a foreign power, in this case the state of Israel. This is not new; I am old enough to remember and have known people who wanted to shift Labour to a line more favourable to the foreign policies of the USSR. They were recognised for what they were and called ‘fellow travellers’.

Let’s recognise the problem for what it is and not make the lazy mistake of turning Corbyn’s suspension into yet another left/right battle. The blackmail seems to be working.

The many articles on the website of the Jewish Voice for Labour are well worth reading. Attitudes to Labour are more diverse amongst Jewish people than you may have been led to believe. Remember the Board of Deputies does not speak for all British Jews.

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

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.

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

'Muslimness': What's it all in aid of?

by Brian Bamford

BRING ON the Bandwaggon of Muslim Awareness!

AFZAL KHAN MP for Manchester Gorton, wrote to Rochdale Council:

'I am writing to you in my capacity as vice-chair of the All Parliamentary Group on British Muslims. As you may be aware, in 2018 we published our report on 'Islamophobia Defined: the inquiry into a working definition of islamophobia'. The definition is 'Islamophobia is rooted in racism and a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or a perceived of Muslimness', and includes an inexhaustive number of contemporary examples of Islamophobia. It has now been adopted by over eight hundred organisations, such as Manchester and Salford City Councils, Bury MBC, and the Greater Manchester Combined Authority.

'Islamophobia is sadly rife across Britain - including the media and public life - and can have distressing real life implications for our Muslim community, including the threat of violence. We have seen during this Covid-19 pandemic that people of Muslim heritage have been dispropotionately affected. This Muslim Awareness Month, is the responsibility of everyone, including all levels of government, to tackle this insidious hatred.'

Yesterday, a concerned Carl Faulkner wrote in response to this that: 'Rochdale Labour and Rochdale Council have adopted a definition of Islamophobia that actually has no legal standing, but is simply something that has been pushed upon them by Afzal Khan MP.'

A CAREER BUILT on being MUSLIM

Afzal Khan was born in Pakistan and came to the UK aged 11. After leaving school without qualifications, he had a number of jobs, including as a Greater Manchester Police constable, before returning to education and qualifying as a solicitor:[1] He is now a partner of solicitors Mellor & Jackson in Oldham.

Khan was first elected a Labour Councillor in 2000, being re-elected in 2004, 2007 and 2011, representing Cheetham Ward. He served as Executive Member for Children's Services. Khan became the first Muslim Lord Mayor of Manchester, taking the position for 2005–2006.

In 2010, Khan was appointed CBE for his race relations work.

In March 2017, he applied to be Labour's candidate in the 2017 Manchester Gorton by-election and was officially selected on 22 March.[14] During the by-election, he said "I condemn the statements made by Ken Livingstone and I believe there is no place for anti-Semitism in the Labour Party." He added, "I have been a lifelong campaigner against racism and anti-Semitism. In 2008, I was awarded a CBE in part for my work encouraging greater understanding between Muslims and Jews."

GORTON's FASHION for 'FOOT in the MOUTH' MPs

Khan was again selected for as the Labour candidate for Gorton in the general election and was elected, becoming Manchester's first Muslim MP.[17] In July 2017, Khan was appointed Shadow Immigration Minister.

However, in July 2019, Khan had to humbly apologised when he shared on Facebook two years earlier a video of American comedian Jon Stewart talking about Benjamin Netanyahu. The text under the video referred to an "Israel-British-Swiss-Rothschilds crime syndicate" and "mass murdering Rothschilds Israeli mafia criminal liars". Khan said he was "mortified", claiming "I didn't read the text below, which contained an anti-Semitic conspiracy about the Rothschilds. I would never have shared it if I had seen that".

It may be worth mentioning that from 1983-2017, Sir Gerald Kaufman, Father of the House of Commons, represented the same Manchester Gorton constituency. And should I say funnily enough in November 2015, he too was castigated by none other than Jeremy Corbyn for claiming: “It’s Jewish money, Jewish donations to the Conservative party – as in the general election in May – support from the Jewish Chronicle, all of those things, bias the Conservatives,” Kaufman said. “There is now a big group of Conservative members of parliament who are pro-Israel whatever government does and they are not interested in what Israel, in what the Israeli government does.

“They’re not interested in the fact that Palestinians are living a repressed life, and are liable to be shot at any time. In the last few days alone the Israelis have murdered 52 Palestinians and nobody pays attention and this government doesn’t care.”

At that time predictable Jeremy Corbyn released a statement saying that Kaufman’s remarks were 'completely unacceptable and deeply regrettable'. He added 'Such remarks are damaging to community relations, and also do nothing to benefit the Palestinian cause,' he said. 'I have always implacably opposed all forms of racism, antisemitism and Islamophobia and will continue to do so. At my request, the chief whip has met Sir Gerald and expressed my deep concern.'

In such a climate of clumsy bumbling blundering politicians, can we be sure that the smart suited former solicitor Afzal Khan MP for Gorton, will not fall foul again of the standards and the taboos of the Muslimness criterior, which he and others are recomending? Or is it just another opportunity for virtue signaliing

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

A Nasty Smell from the Pork Barrel by Les May

ONE might have hoped that now that the anti-semitism witch hunt has begun to subside in the Labour party we might see a period of relative calm punctuated only by the ‘left wing’ and ‘right wing’ knocking eight bells out of each other and in between these bouts there might have been a focus on the things that Labour needs to put right in this country. Things like the gross inequalities in income and wealth, which are linked to both differences in total life expectancy and length of life without disability, and the lack of social housing forcing people into the hands of a new ‘rentier class’ of private landlords.

Seemingly not, judging by a tweet from Rochdale Labour Group which seems eager to sow the seeds of yet another witch hunt, this time in the name of ‘Islamophobia’.

The definition they propose to accept runs as follows; ‘Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type or racism that targets Muslimness or perceived Muslimness’. Quite how anyone got from a religious belief, which is open to anyone to adopt, or not, as they so wish, to being a form of ‘racism’ is anyone’s guess. But then again logic does not seem to be a strong point for those who like to dabble in identity politics.

Nor are we offered a working definition of ‘Muslimness’, which seems like a convenient oversight. Is it for example adherence to fasting between dawn and sunset during Ramadan so that believers can experience what it is like to be someone who is so poor that they have to go without food? Or is it cutting someone’s throat because they have been perceived as causing offence? Is it risking your life in a Red Crescent team trying to rescue someone from a collapsed building? Or is it detonating a bomb in a crowded building? As with every other religious faith some of its adherents are good and some are evil. Or as the line from the film ‘The Dynamite Man from Glory jail’ runs, ‘God uses some people, and some people use God’.

This definition has no legal status and to the extent that it can be seen as an attack on our freedom of expression, including the freedom to offend, it is unlikely that any court would offer support to any council, public body or company attempting to using it as a criterion for determining someone’s suitability for continued employment.

Rochdale Labour Group’s decision to announce this looks rather like an exercise in what our American friends call ‘Pork Barrel Politics’, intended to secure the loyalty at the ballot box of a particular group of voters. I look forward to Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews and Pagans lining up to demand similar protection from criticism. And don’t forget the Vegan who wants his dietary choices classed as stemming from a religious belief!

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

Blackmailers Always Want More by Les May

AFTER Jeremy Corbyn was suspended from the Labour party the Guardian newspaper opened its comment column to Margaret Hodge. Her article is high on opinions, hers, resorts to generalisations, ‘the hard left’, complains about online conspiracy theories, which originate abroad and have nothing whatsoever to do with the Labour party, and dismisses as ‘fantastical’ the notion that she and her acolytes sought to ‘weaponise anti-semitism’, a view that is shared by many Labour supporting people I know.

Here’s an example.

In the article she claimed; ‘Only last week, the trade union leader Len McCluskey repeated a common antisemitic trope on television when attacking Peter Mandelson.’ But a more detailed account in the Jewish News, an online publication of the Times of Israel, which I quote verbatim, suggests a very different interpretation.

The Unite union’s general secretary, a leading ally of Jeremy Corbyn, made his comments on BBC Newsnight after reporter Lewis Goodall told him that former cabinet minister Lord Mandelson had been 'nothing but full of praise for Keir Starmer' in an interview.

Len McCluskey responded: 'I stopped listening to what Peter Mandelson said many, many years ago. I would suggest Peter just goes into a room and counts his gold. Not worrying about what’s happening in the Labour Party – leave that to those of us who are interested in ordinary working class people.'

Mr Goodall had said earlier in his report that 'When Mr McCluskey sat down with me, he used language that could be considered an antisemitic trope.'

After the Newsnight report looking into Sir Keir Starmer’s leadership and the future of the Labour party was aired, a clarification of Len McCluskey’s comments was read out.

The statement by Unite the union said:

'Mr Mandelson’s religion was not relevant to the comments made by Mr McCluskey. Indeed to the best of our knowledge Mr Mandelson is not Jewish.

'The ordinary meaning of the statement made by Mr McCluskey is one of his belief that in recent years Mr Mandelson has had more interest in increasing his own wealth than fighting for justice for working class people. The suggestion of any antisemitic meaning to the commentary would be ludicrous.'

Lord Mandelson is not religiously observant but his grandfather founded the Harrow United Synagogue.’

At this point you might ask yourself if you knew that Mandelson had Jewish ancestry and whether knowing it now makes any difference to your opinion of him. As for ‘counting his gold’; in August 2011 the media showed considerable interest in how he could afford an £8 million pound house and in January 2009 the Evening Standard published the results of its detailed investigation into how he could afford to buy his £2.5 million pound Regency Villa.

Hodge shows far more interest in the Jewish ancestry of herself and others than I can muster. And, as in this case, she’s always ready to ‘play the race card’ when it suits her, though she is hardly the first politician to do this.

In July 2018 she called Corbyn a ‘fucking racist and antisemite’ in the chamber of the House of Commons. Her response to hints that she might face being reported to the Whips, and face a disciplinary inquiry was to give an interview to Sky News and say: 'On the day that I heard that they were going to discipline me and possibly suspend me, it felt almost like, I kept thinking what did it feel like to be a Jew in Germany in the Thirties?' For ITV News this was: 'Because it felt almost as if they were coming for me. It’s rather difficult to define, but there’s that fear… '

This must surely be one of the most preposterous exaggerations that any politician has ever uttered. To try to draw a comparison with what happened to many Jewish people and many others in Nazi Germany in the 1930s beggars belief. And then she has the gall to use the word ‘fanatastical’ about other people!

Hodge’s response to the Unite statement was to say: ‘Regardless, he doesn’t get to obfuscate and dictate to us what is and is not anti-Semitic when called out. The ignorance with which these tropes are used by McCluskey and others shows just how pervasive and unchallenged antisemitism is on the Hard Left.’

Aside from the fact that comments in a similar vein about Mandelson are unlikely to be confined to what she calls the Hard Left, it seems clear that the intention of Hodge and those who think like her is to insist that they, and they alone, have the right to decide what is, and what is not, anti-semitic.

We have already seen this used to attack Livingstone, Corbyn and McCluskey, allowing her view to prevail would have implications, not just for the Labour party, but for the whole of civil society. In February of this year Lisa Nandy said that if she became leader she would try to go further than accepting the IHRA definition of anti-Jewish hatred. This is some of what the Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) has to say about that definition.

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which is increasingly being adopted or considered by western governments, is worded in such a way as to be easily adopted or considered by western governments to intentionally equate legitimate criticisms of Israel and advocacy for Palestinian rights with antisemitism, as a means to suppress the former. This conflation undermines both the Palestinian struggle for freedom, justice and equality and the global struggle against antisemitism. It also serves to shield Israel from being held accountable to universal standards of human rights and international law.

In September 2018 Hodge excused her calling Corbyn a ‘fucking racist and antisemite’ on the grounds that she had just learned that Labour’s NEC had declined to adopt the IHRA definition.

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

Mea Culpa. by Les May

WHEN I wrote the recent piece ‘Blackmailers Always Want More’ I described Margaret Hodge’s attempts to avoid the potential consequences, for her, of calling Jeremy Corbyn a ‘fucking racist and antisemite’ I wrote; ‘This must surely be one of the most preposterous exaggerations that any politician has ever uttered’.

I failed to recognise that not all Jewish people would automatically accept her comments at face value. This was a mistake on my part. Below I give the transcript of a response by the historian Michael Finkelstein.

“Dame Hodge hasn’t a clue what it means to talk about deportations, having a suitcase and being prepared to flee. My parents, both of them, were in the Warsaw Ghetto from 1940s until the repression by the Nazis of the uprising in 1943. They were deported at the Umschlagplatz. If you go there now there’s a monument to the deportees, and my mother’s name Maryla and my father’s name Zacharias; they’re on that monument.

“You haven’t a clue, Ms Hodge, Dame Hodge, you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about. You know the suffering? You know the death? My mother used to talk about how she walked the streets of the ghetto and there were dead bodies all around her. She lost both of her parents, all of her family: her sisters, her brother were deported. But unlike you Dame Hodge they weren’t deported to a summer home, they were deported to a death camp. My parents ended up in Auschwitz and Majdenek, and slave labour camps. Where are you going Ms Hodge? To Switzerland? To your chalet? And you have the gall, the brass, the audacity to compare your life with what my parents endured.

“You felt it was like 1930s, when you got a letter from the disciplinary committee. I wonder Dame Hodge when you were in sixth grade and your principal called you down to his office, did it bring back memories of the Holocaust? Or maybe you got a letter from the tax office, and they called you down, did that remind you of the Holocaust? What’s the point… What’s the relevance… What’s the pertinence of dragging in the suffering, the death, the martyrdom of what Jews endured during World War II in this context, except to cheapen and exploit the memory of Jewish suffering, as you carry on a blackmail and extortion racket against Jeremy Corbyn.

“It’s disgusting, it’s revolting, and if any of the rules that are now being implemented in the Labour Party have any meaning whatsoever, if they have any content whatsoever, the first person who should be booted out of the Labour Party is Dame Hodge, for trivialising the memory the Nazi Holocaust and for making wretched, disgusting, repulsive comparisons between herself and what Jews endured during World War II.

“Speaking of bags and suitcases, Dame Hodge, it’s time now to pack your bags, pack your suitcase, and get the hell out of the Labour Party.”

The transcript is taken from; https://wallofcontroversy.wordpress.com/2018/08/23/norman-finkelstein-calls-out-dame-hodge-and-speaks-to-the-crucifixion-of-corbyn/

The original video can be found on YouTube and at; http://normanfinkelstein.com/2018/08/16/norman-finkelstein-to-dame-margaret-hodge-you-havent-a-clue-what-youre-talking-about/

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

Margaret Hodge's ‘Irrelevant Man’ by Les May

IN an article I wrote for NV in February of this year I said:

‘Last year I attended a Labour party supporting discussion group. Everyone who attended was aware that the constant barrage of articles in the press on the squabbling within the Labour party about anti-semitism, was simply serving to distract attention from Labour’s policy proposals. One of the people who attended had first hand experience of the disciplinary procedures within the party because they had been subjected to an investigation. One outcome of this was that they had been told they must not discuss any aspect of the investigation or procedures with third parties. Secret procedures like this seem to me to have all the hallmarks of a ‘Star Chamber’, so after the discussion group wound up I approached the person involved, told them I wrote for NV and asked if they would speak to me if I gave them an assurance that I would ensure that they could not be identified, and a veto on the use any articles I wrote about their experiences.

'We agreed to exchange telephone numbers and e-mail addresses as we lived some distance apart. I said I would contact the person after they returned from holiday. When I did the person said they had had second thoughts because even with my assurances of anonymity and a final veto, they were still scared that they would be ejected from the Labour party if it came to light that they had talked to anyone about what their experiences. It does not seem an exaggeration to say they had been traumatised by their experience.’

As I have no reason to doubt the veracity of what I was told I find it difficult to understand how anyone can claim that allegations of anti-semitism were not taken seriously by the Labour party.

Taken at its face value, the suspension of Jeremy Corbyn suggests that the findings of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) are being treated by the Labour party as something which cannot be questioned.

This is a dangerous road to travel. The EHRC is not a court. Its findings apply to bodies, not individuals, something which is much easier to ‘prove’ because individuals are protected by the rules of evidence whereby those accused can cross-examine the witness.

By definition ‘unlawful acts of discrimination and harassment’ are against individuals and as the adage goes “where there’s blame, there’s a claim”. In coming months are we going to be treated to the spectacle of Jeremy Corbyn fighting for his political reputation, and in many ways his political legacy, alongside the unedifying sight of individuals suing the Labour party for compensation and citing the EHRC report as evidence?

Figuring out whether Corbyn’s suspension and potential expulsion from the Labour party has an impact on membership won’t be easy due to its complicated support structure of ‘full members’, ‘affiliated supporters’ and ‘registered supporters’. In August 2015, prior to Corbyn’s election to the leadership the Labour Party reported 292,505 full members. In December 2017 this figure had risen to about 552,000 full members making it Britain’s most financially well party at the time. Perhaps Margaret Hodge’s ‘irrelevant man’ won’t prove to be so irrelevant after all.

Today, Saturday, speaking on the BBC News programme ‘Dateline London’ the political presenter Jo Coburn raised the question of whether if, in response to the suspension of Jeremy Corbyn from the Labour party, some unions reduced their financial support, Keir Starmer might be quite happy to see their influence wane. Coburn is asking the wrong question. As I point out in the last paragraph, the number of full members of the Labour party almost doubled in the two years after Corbyn’s election to the leadership. The right question is whether Labour can afford to dispense with the unions and Corbyn at the same time. Corbyn has asked his supporters to stay in the party; they may not feel they any longer have a home there.

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

Labour Party suspends Jeremy Corbyn!

WHIP REMOVED FROM FORMER LABOUR LEADER

MARGARET HODGE said on Radio Four today at 1pm that 'I don't want to hear about that irrelevant man' and 'I think there is still a culture of anti-semitism' in the Labour Party. Meanwhile, Angela Rayner, the Deputy leader of the Labour Party also told us: 'Jeremy Corbyn has a blind spot'.

While later on the The Canary, a leftist website, Sophia Purdy-Moore wrote as follows:

'Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been suspended, “in light of his comments” in response to an investigation into antisemitism in the Labour Party. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC)’s investigation, published on 29 October, found Labour responsible for “unlawful acts of discrimination and harassment” in its handling of allegations of antisemitism.'

In his statement following the release of the report, Corbyn said he regrets it took “longer to deliver that change than it should,” but that:

"the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated."

This comment led to his suspension from the party. Corbyn told followers that he will “strongly contest” Labour’s decision to suspend him.

One Labour party member described what has happened to Jeremy Corbyn with the withdawal of the Labour whip and his suspension amounted to a 'witch-hunt' and a 'political assasination'.

Len McCluskey, the leader of the Unite union, has said this will lead to 'chaos' in the party.

Looks like more fun to come from the people's party! Watch this space!

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

Will They Never Learn?

by Les May

SPEAKING at the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM) hustings last Thursday Lisa Nandy is reported as describing anti-semitism as ‘a particular sort of racism’ and went on to say, ‘It’s a sort of racism that punches up not down, that argues that Jewish people are privileged and powerful, and because there are people on the left who believe that their job is to challenge privilege and power, therefore wrongly and disgracefully they argue that Jewish people are a legitimate target for racism’.

I doubt that Nandy can provide a single instance of what she claims. Is she saying that Labour supporter should not challenge privilege and power when it is exercised by people who happen to be Jewish?

She went on to say that if she became leader she would try to go further than accepting the IHRA definition of anti-Jewish hatred. This is some of what the Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) has to say about that definition;

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which is increasingly being adopted or considered by western governments, is worded in such a way as to be easily adopted or considered by western governments to intentionally equate legitimate criticisms of Israel and advocacy for Palestinian rights with antisemitism, as a means to suppress the former.

This conflation undermines both the Palestinian struggle for freedom, justice and equality and the global struggle against antisemitism. It also serves to shield Israel from being held accountable to universal standards of human rights and international law.

You can find the full text at the link below.

https://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/first-ever-40-jewish-groups-worldwide-oppose-equating-antisemitism-with-criticism-of-israel/#english

In fairness to Nandy it seems that, just as she did, Rebecca Long-Bailey and Emily Thornberry also declared themselves to be Zionists, and Keir Starmer’s comments could be so construed. What is clear is that they meant that they believe that the state of Israel has a right to exist and I don’t think many Labour supporters would disagree. But whether Nandy’s pledge to go further than the IHRA definition of anti-Jewish hatred was altogether wise remains to be seen.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/jun/15/we-must-define-antisemitism-to-fight-it-effectively

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/mar/07/debunking-myth-that-anti-zionism-is-antisemitic

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

Tail Succeeds in Wagging Dog!

by Les May

Angela Rayner aka Cinderella

LAST year I attended a Labour party supporting discussion group.  Everyone who attended was aware that the constant barrage of articles in the press on the squabbling within the Labour party about anti-semitism, was simply serving to distract attention from Labour’s policy proposals.  One of the people who attended had first hand experience of the disciplinary procedures within the party because they had been subjected to an investigation.  One outcome of this was that they had been told they must not discuss any aspect of the investigation or procedures with third parties.  Secret procedures like this seem to me to have all the hallmarks of a ‘Star Chamber’, so after the discussion group wound up I approached the person involved, told them I wrote for NV and asked if they would speak to me if I gave them an assurance that I would ensure that they could not be identified, and a veto on the use any articles I wrote about their experiences.

We agreed to exchange telephone numbers and e-mail addresses as we lived some distance apart.  I said I would contact the person after they returned from holiday. When I did the person said they had had second thoughts because even with my assurances of anonymity and a final veto, they were still scared that they would be ejected from the Labour party if it came to light that they had talked to anyone about what their experiences.  It does not seem an exaggeration to say they had been traumatised by their experience.

Given the apparent failure of Labour to get its policy message over to the electorate, which in no small measure was a result of the constant distraction of trying to deal with the anti-semitism row, one might have thought that anyone hoping to lead the party would avoid taking sides about anything which might cause a rift within the party.  Seemingly not!

Rebecca Long-Bailey, Lisa Nandy, Angela Rayner and Emily Thornberry have all pledged support to the 12 demands of the Labour Campaign for Trans Rights. Keir Starmer is reported as having said ‘trans rights are human rights, that the issue shouldn’t become a political football, and that the we need to dial this down’.  (I’m not surprised at the first three, but I thought Thornberry had ‘more oil in her can’, as we say in Rochdale.

Yesterday the ‘i’ reported that a senior Shadow Cabinet member representing a northern constituency had called it a distraction and said ‘My constituents don’t give a flying fuck about transsexual issues’.  Debbie Hayton, who refers to herself as ‘trans’, wrote in The Spectator, ‘they seem oblivious that the public has little time for extreme transgender ideology’ and that ‘Labour is lurching towards a crisis brought on by transgender campaigners whose demand for compliance is total’.

It would appear that Labour has learned nothing from what many people still see as a witch hunt those who refused to buy into the demands of the Zionist lobby disguised as an attack on anti-semitism.  It is too late to put the ‘trans’ genie back in the bottle; the damage is already done.  Labour cannot afford to expel members for thinking differently.  Tolerance means accepting that others have a different view to you.  It does not mean that you have to accept that someone else is right and you are wrong, just because they say so.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2020/02/do-rebecca-long-bailey-and-angela-rayner-have-a-problem-with-trans-people-like-me/

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/rebecca-long-bailey-keir-starmer-trans-rights-pledges-womens-place-a9333376.html

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1241298/Rebecca-Long-Bailey-Labour-leadership-contest-Lloyd-Russell-Moyle-bbc-news-politics-live

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/02/13/veteran-left-wing-feminists-row-labour-leader-hopefuls-branding/

https://labourlist.org/2020/02/trans-rights-deputy-hustings-and-tv-debates-labours-leadership-latest/

https://twitter.com/Labour_Trans/status/1226939313264394241

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

Northern Zionists Score Spectacular Own Goal!

by Chris Draper

WHEN “North-West Friends of Israel” (NWFOI) and other assorted Zionists tried to provoke a city-wide boycott of an “Interfaith Conference for Palestine” they got more than they bargained for when their bigoted and abusive behaviour was exposed and denounced by Chester community leader Roderick Heather MBE.

The free entry, open-to-all conference was due to begin at St Columba’s Church, Chester on 1^st November 2019 but forty-eight hours before it convened a wolfpack spearheaded by NWFOI and led by Anthony Dennison and Raphi Bloom, bombarded Chester’s numerous church halls and community venues with telephone calls, emails and social media messaging all warning them not to host this conclave of “Anti-Semites, Holocaust Deniers and Hate-Speakers”.  Unfortunately for the bigots after they succeeded in bullying the Bishop of Shrewsbury into cancelling the church booking the Conference found an ideal alternative at Hoole Community Centre where the Chairman of the Trustees, Roderick Heather courageously withstood a barrage of intimidatory NWFOI communications.

Unlike the local Labour MP Chris Matheson who ignorantly obliged local reporters with prejudiced and ill-informed comments of the “We don’t want holocaust deniers in our town” type, Roderick Heather actually took the trouble to attend the conference as an observer and judge for himself whether this was indeed an anti-semitic event or rather, a free, open-minded conference which included criticism of Israeli State policy.

After spending a day at the Conference, Mr Heather informed those attending that he was very impressed by the content of speeches, quality of discussion and conduct of the meeting and assured everyone present that they would always be welcome to return to the Hoole Centre.  This contrasted with his conclusions about the behaviour of the NWFOI and to them he addressed the following message;

“Your intervention (and the various other coordinated extreme ones we received today) did nothing to help foster good community relations here in Chester or to improve the understanding and sympathy for the Jewish cause nationally in the UK.  The ill-informed and bigoted telephone and social media campaign that we have witnessed today is a disgrace.  It was unfounded and unnecessary and has done your cause much harm. Be aware that I am ensuring that as many people as possible (locally and nationally) are made aware of the vitriolic, verbal bullying we have been subjected to today.”

Roderick Heather MBE

Chairman Hoole Community Trust

The North’s Zionist lobby is demonstrably determined to intimidate anyone who sticks their head above the parapet and criticises Israel.  The tactic is to conflate criticism of Israel with anti-semitism. Jews who criticise Israel (like those who attended the Chester conference) are branded “self-hating Jews” and dismissed. Archbishop Tutu describes Israel as an apartheid state but merely to agree with him is sufficient grounds for anyone to be expelled from the Labour Party.  Free speech is a precious commodity that’s found a friend in Mr Heather and sinister enemies in NWFOI.  Perhaps Mr Dennison, Mr Bloom,  Mr Matheson or the Bishop of Shrewsbury would care to reply and offer a justification for their appalling behaviour but I rather think not for they evidently fear quiet, honest, open, reasoned debate.

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

Careless Talk Costs Votes

by Les May

I RECENTLY described how Labour MP Chris Williamson had been given a platform for his ‘Democracy Roadshow’ and was given a standing ovation at the end of his talk.

My assumption was that an attempt had been made to deny him a platform at the recent event to remember those killed at St Peter’s Field in August 1819 for much the same reasons that are detailed in the Wikipedia entry at;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Williamson_(politician)

These boil down to the fact that some Jewish groups object to him speaking.

Having listened to him speak I am more inclined to accept that the only other reason mooted, that he is ‘divisive’, may have some merit. Although he made it clear that he is a supporter of Jeremy Corbyn and I accept he was ‘singing from the same hymn sheet’, I was not convinced he was singing quite the same tune.

I see Corbyn’s approach to domestic issues as being in the same mould as Clement Attlee, someone who was never mentioned by Tony Blair. Williamson’s concerns seemed more in the mould of Tony Benn with some vague ideas about worker’s co-operatives and some ideas about finance which did not seem to have been worked out. He also found time to criticise Denis Healey’s Chancellorship, Ed Millibrand and shadow Chancellor John McDonnell. (The Wikipedia entry on Healey’s stint as Chancellor is well worth reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Healey)

Many of the Fleet Street scribblers are old enough to remember Labour in the days of Tony Benn, but too young to remember what the Atlee government did for people like my parents, and hence for me and my siblings. So it’s easy, very easy, for them to frighten voters into accepting the story that Corbyn is part of the ‘extreme Left wing’ of the Labour party.

When I sat and reflected upon what he said I came to the conclusion that Chris Williamson was trying to convince his audience that the socialist millenium was just around the corner, if only we followed his nostrums. I don’t think it is. The pressing issues I want Labour to put right before we start thinking about anything else, including arguing over Trident, are the obscene inequalities in income and wealth in this country, the lack of council houses with affordable rents, the rise of the ‘rentier’ class, lack of job security, the no pay/low pay cycle which means the ‘poor’ stay poor. As Denis Healey pointed out in the 1970s these have to be paid for, and it’s the very rich who are going to have to do some of the paying. And they are not going to like it.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/30/wealth-banks-google-facebook-society-economy-parasites

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

The Open Society and its Enemies (Take 2)

by Les May

IN an earlier article I discussed the BBC2 film Conspiracy Files: The Billionaire Global Mastermind.  This film can now be viewed on iPlayer.

If, like me, you are puzzled by the constant claims that Labour and Jeremy Corbyn is anti-semitic, I urge you to view it.

It may cause you to ask why Labour is being targeted in this way when the vicious attacks on Jews and Jewishness in Hungary and Turkey receive no attention media.  The UK is, and I hope will remain, the safest country in Europe for Jewish people.

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

The Open Society and its Enemies

by Les May

I DID not see all of the BBC2 film Conspiracy Files: The Billionaire Global Mastermind shown at 9pm on Sunday evening.   I came in at the point where a phalanx of white men were shown in a torchlight process chanting what I thought was ‘You’ll never replace the white race’, but which the director, Mike Rudin, says was ‘Jews will not replace us’.

The ‘Global Mastermind’ of the title is George Soros.  His ‘crime’ has been to donate very large sums of money to fund thousands of education, health, human rights and democracy projects through the Open Society Foundations.   For his pains he has had Donald Trump retweet a video that claimed to show cash being handed out to people in Honduras to ‘storm the US border’, with a suggestion that the cash might have come from him, Soros. 

 

When Trump was asked whether Soros was funding the migrant caravan, he replied: ‘I wouldn't be surprised.  A lot of people say yes’.

Rudin claims that the Prime Minister of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has accused Soros of being at the heart of a Jewish conspiracy to ‘divide’ and ‘shatter’ Turkey and other nations.

Viktor Orban Prime Minister of Hungary is quoted as saying ‘We are fighting an enemy that is different from us.  Not open but hiding.  Not straightforward but crafty.  Not honest but unprincipled.  Not national but international.   Does not believe in working but speculates with money.  Does not have its own homeland but feels it owns the whole world’.  In just 8 weeks in 1944 about 400,000 Hungarian Jews were murdered by the Nazis. 
 
However you wrap this up it is anti-semitism; in the first case aimed at Soros because he is Jewish and in the second reviving the sort of thing Adolf Hitler said about Jewish people.

As a committed socialist I see the treatment meted out to Jewish people ‘the canary in the coal mine’.  If they attack them, then they will attack socialists, trade unionists and old fashioned liberals.  This is why I found this film so disturbing.

You can find what is substantially a transcript of the film at;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-49584157

You can find clips at;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0008c6g

You can see the whole film at midnight on BBC2 on Thursday 12 September.

What I find truly staggering is that with this going on in the USA, Hungary and in other places in Europe, British Jewish organisations are focusing their attention on attacking the Labour party, and Jeremy Corbyn in particular, as being anti-semitic.   I don’t believe it and I don’t know anyone who supports Labour who does.  And saying so does not make me a Jew hater.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Society_and_Its_Enemies

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