Sunday, 20 October 2019

Lib Dems for Free Speech Demand Free Speech on Palestine Inside the Lib-Dems

Asking for democratic rights in the Lib-Dems is like asking Donald Trump to speak the truth

I have to confess that I’ve told Jonathan Coulter, who is a good comrade and one of the signatories to the leaflet below that was distributed at the big anti-Brexit march at the weekend, that trying to obtain justice or freedom of speech in the Lib Dems is like climbing Mount Everest on your hands.
The leaflet says that ‘It is time our party returned to our core values and policies’ but in fact it never had any core principles or values that it wouldn’t sell out at the earliest opportunity. It is a free market party that jumped into bed with David Cameron and passed the Health and Social Care Act 2012 which began the privatisation of the NHS in earnest.
The Lib Dems were born of a shotgun wedding between the old Liberal party and the Social Democratic Party, who were the equivalent of Tom Watson and co. today (though not quite as right-wing).
The Liberal Party itself was not a radical party and it barely tolerated the Young Liberals ‘Red Guard’ such as Peter Hain and Louis Eaks who led the campaign against the South African Springboks in 1970.  The late Louis Eakes went on to edit Free Palestine and was one of the forerunners of the Palestine Solidarity Movement.
However if the Liberals were never a party of principle the Lib Dems were even less so.  The Liberals were more typified by Jeremy Thorpe, who was acquitted of trying to murder Norman Scott after a blatantly biased judge summed up in his favour. It was a Liberal Party that was typified by David Steel’s cover up of the child abuse and paedophilia of Cyril Smith.
But if the Liberals could at least claim to have a radical fringe, the Lib Dems has never had anything.  Hence my advice that trying to reclaim a tradition that never existed is a task worthy of Hercules!  It is a party that all but expelled Jenny Tonge and did expel David Ward. The latter was carried out by homophobe Tim Farron, who was leader of the Lib Dems.
Nonetheless, despite the impossibility of their task, one cannot but admire the tenacity and determination of those behind this leaflet. This despite the impossible odds of succeeding in getting justice and fairness from a party that is wedded to the worst aspects of British capitalism.
This is a party which had no hesitation in getting into bed with David Cameron and George Osborne whilst placing Jeremy Corbyn beyond the pale. It is a party that has taken to its bosom the execrable Luciana Berger, the Zionist bigot and former Director of Labour Friends of Israel who has spent a lifetime accusing anti-racists of anti-Semitism.
Jonathan Coulter (on right)
I found the debate on the welcome of the Lib Dems for Luciana Berger most interesting, not least for the way even former radicals like Lord Tony Greaves have queued up to welcome this opportunist.
I can only wish them good luck as the signatories to this leaflet will need it!
Tony Greenstein
Britain’s unaccountable press and broadcasting media are at the root of both Brexit, and “antisemitism” smears
We are a group of 13 Lib Dems, some of who are here to demonstrate against Boris Johnson’s Brexit, an absurd and damaging proposition, largely rooted in press misreporting in the early 90s, when the self-same Boris was The Telegraph’s correspondent in Brussels and using his position to propagate a series of Euromyths[i].
At the same time, we are concerned that many politicians, including our own Lib Dem leaders, have embraced an unfounded proposition that there is rampant antisemitism in the Labour Party.
A very obvious smear campaign that involves media collusion
and false personal attacks
British politicians, including many leading Remainers, have repeatedly ignored hard statistical and other evidence showing the antisemitism proposition to be wildly exaggerated and based on misinformation[ii], and in so doing, have aligned themselves with an even more tendentious media-orchestrated campaign than the one behind Brexit. It diverts attention from Israel’s indefensible settler-colonial project which involves, inter alia:
1.      Depriving 200,000 Bedouin citizens of Israel living in the Negev desert of fundamental rights (electricity, water, medical care, roads, education).
2.      Subjecting West Bank Palestinians to military law, while stealing land and moving in illegal settlers subject to Israeli civil law, contravening the Geneva Convention.
3.      Turning Gaza into a vast open-air prison for 2.2 million Palestinians, without access to clean water, proper nutrition, medical care, travel and other rights
4.      Controlling the supply of Palestinian water resources, with the Palestinians getting 13% of the total mountain aquifer water[iii].
5.      Controlling the lives of 5 million Palestinians who have absolutely no say in the affairs of the Israel, and risk losing their right to return if they go overseas
6.      The recent Nation State Law (2018) which further entrenches the supremacy of Jewish citizens; 50 discriminatory laws already grant superior rights to Jewish population.
At the same time pro-Israel lobbyists meddle in our internal affairs[iv], with a view to manipulating public perceptions about the situation in Israel and Palestine.
In March, the Party wrongfully suspended Liberal Democrat Friends of Palestine (LDFP), and only ended this in June under conditions that cripple this body’s ability to speak truth to power.  The Party has moreover unwisely adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism (along with its 11 “examples”), which Israel and its advocates use to conflate legitimate criticism of Israel with genuine antisemitism.  
We have repeatedly sought to draw our party’s attention to the issue, but the response is totally unsatisfactory
On 31st May, we raised it with party leaders in an “open letter”, but got no response[v].  We then tried to have it discussed with ordinary members, but much to our disappointment, found ourselves shut out of one internal policy forum after another, as if the topic were taboo.  In cases where we have managed to post something, we have at best been dogged by unwarranted censorship, and at worst subjected to vile troll-like abuse from party activists. 
We formally complained about this situation, only to find that our complaints remained unanswered for months, raising serious questions about the efficacy of the complaints process, even after July 1st when we were told it had inaugurated a new improved system.
It is time our party returned to our core values and policies, which involve:
1.      telling the truth, and checking our arguments against objective evidence;
2.      ensuring that party members have space for unfettered debate on Israel, Palestine and alleged antisemitism in internal discussion forums;
3.      ensuring the complaints process is fit for purpose, and;
4.      refocusing on our policy of reforming the British media landscape, much evident when, in 2018, we joined the Labour Party and some dissident Tories in demanding full implementation of Leveson II and associated reforms.
If you require further information, please write to:
Peter Downey                         peterofbath@gmail.com
Jonathan Coulter                     jcoulter287@gmail.com
Pamela and Hugh Manning    pamjomanning@gmail.com

LibDems4freespeechgroup, 19 October 2019


The Cynicism of Twitter Who Are REFUSING to Process My Appeal

It’s Fine to Call Someone an Anti-Semite in Twitter’s Eyes But Wrong To Make Fun of These Trolls
UPDATE - VICTORY BUT...
Well today Twitter finally got back to me today, 8 days after being locked out of my account, to concede that 'We’ve reviewed again, but we couldn’t find a violation of our rules. 

But here's the strange thing.  I still can't get back into my account!  I have therefore contacted Twitter Europe to see if this pantomime is going to end.


The offending tweet





Two weeks ago Chris Williamson tweeted a picture of him giving a lecture at Nottingham University on neoliberalism, despite the attempts of the  Zionists to prevent him speaking.
The Zionist movement, aided by a Press and Establishment that waxed lyrical on freedom of speech when it came to Charlie Hebdo, the right of Salman Rushdie to write and publicise The Satanic Verses and the right of the Danish cartoonists of Mohammed to draw what they want, believes that criticism of Zionism and its adherents crosses all ethical boundaries. In the current parlance it is 'hate speech'.
In essence the defenders of Israeli apartheid and its military occupation believe they have the right to suppress freedom of speech in just the same way as they do on the West Bank.
I posted:
well done. It's good that the racist Zios and their fellow travellers on Labour's Right learnt a lesson that we won't allow freedom of speech to be shut down

Clearly the fragile flower that is Noah Cantor, having failed to stop Chris Williamson speaking decided he’d try to stop me speaking instead. Twitter however proved somewhat less robust guardians of free speech than the authorities of Nottingham University.
On the same day as my post I received a notice in my inbox:
You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.

Note the blackmail - you can wait for your appeal to be processed or get it over with and just delete the tweet
I agree.  One shouldn’t do any of the above.  However I defy anyone to explain how my Tweet promoted violence or threatened or harassed anyone on the basis of the various protected characteristics of race, ethnicity etc. I referred to ‘racist Zios’ ie Zionists and the Labour Right. As far as I’m aware being a Zionist is a political category (there are millions of Christian Zionists like  Donald Trump). A Zionist is someone who believes in a racist ethno-nationalist Jewish Supremacist state.
After 8 days Twitter is still refusing to process the appeal
Is it now an offence under Twitter’s corporate speak to criticise Zionism or its adherents? Presumably it offends their ‘Community Standards’ which is a euphemism for anything that the apparatchiks of multi-nationals take offence to.  Twitter is hardly a community despite their laughable pretensions to that effect.
This is the Twitter that gives Donald Trump a platform for his hate speech.

It is also the Twitter that refused to uphold a complaint I made against another Zio who wished that my family and I had perished in the Holocaust.
However Twitter did give me a right of appeal and acknowledged it as such on October 12th. However despite various reminders over one week later they are refusing to process that appeal.  Maybe it’s too difficult for the corporate mind to get its head around the fact that opposition to Zionists is not anti-Semitic and that defence of free speech is fundamental to a free society? Or that those who accuse people, including Jewish people, of antisemitism without just cause are the ones who should be suspended.
Protecting holocaust abuse is fine by Twitter and not against any rules
So Twitter are in default of even the pathetic rules by which they purportedly operate. Being a corporation of course they don’t have to adhere to their own rules or answer to anyone since they are a law unto themselves.
However if they had any honesty they would admit there are no rules and everything is decided on the subjective whim of whoever makes these decisions.
Which is why I’m presently locked out of an account with nearly 4,000 followers. Of course I could take the easy route that has been offered and delete the tweet.  But in that case I would lose my right of appeal.  Except that there is no right of appeal.  Catch 22.  So please follow me at tonygreenstein1 and RETWEET THIS and post on social media.

Saturday, 19 October 2019

Chris Williamson's Suspension - Please Share Widely

Why is Chris Williamson Suspended When Peter Mandelson is Still at Liberty?

It is difficult to understand the logic, because there is no logic, behind the suspension of Chris Williamson. It is difficult to avoid the fact that he was suspended for calling out the fake 'antisemitism' witchhunt and for organising the Democracy Roadshow which called for Open Selection for MPs.




When racist Labour MP Phil Woolas ran an election campaign in 2010 he did it with the aim of 'making the white folk angry'.  Could there be a clearer example of racism?  Tom Watson in the above article in Labour Uncut confessed to having 'lost sleep thinking about poor Phil.'  

In the 2004 Birmingham Hodge Hill byelection he ran a nakedly racist campaign demonising asylum seekers yet this racist is the one who called for Chris Williamson's suspension on the grounds of 'antisemitism'.


Chris is convinced that the real reason why MPs signed the letter in June calling for  his suspension is because he had organised the Democracy Roadshow which would have led to their deselection. It is therefore shameful that Jennie Formby, with the silent support of Jeremy Corbyn, has endorsed this suspension.  What Corbyn is doing is endorsing his own removal from office. 

If anyone deserves to be suspended it is Tom Watson. 

Phil Woolas's racist leaflet that Tom Watson endorsed

Friday, 18 October 2019

Rejoice, Rejoice, The Witch is Gone!! - Louise Ellman, Racist MP for Liverpool Riverside Finally Gets the Hint


Parachuted in by Blair, Louise Ellman, a dedicated supporter of Israeli child abuse finally gets the message that she isn’t wanted

Speaking to the Jewish Chronicle  after finally resigning from the Labour Party, Louise Ellman said it "sounded very credible" that Jeremy Corbyn had once dubbed her "the Honourable Member for Tel Aviv".
Jewish Chronicle article on my attack on Ellman 

I don’t know whether Jeremy Corbyn has ever called her the Member for Tel Aviv but there is certainly nothing honourable about this wretch. As the Jewish Chronicle’s Daniel Sugarman noted:
Mr Greenstein was expelled from Labour in February over abusive behaviour that included writing blog posts about veteran Jewish Labour MP Louise Ellman as the MP for “Tel Aviv South” and a “racist supporter of the child abuse of Palestinian children”.
When Apartheid in South Africa existed we used to call the Tory MP for Luton North, John Carlisle, a supporter of the Apartheid regime who died earlier this year, ‘the member for Bloemfontein West’. He was also called the MP for Johanneburg! 
These are some of the techniques used on children and adults - they are legal in Israel and the Dame approves
I doubt that that was racist.  So why should it be racist or anti-Semitic to describe Louise Ellman as the MP for Tel Aviv?
Louise Ellman is however a despicable supporter of Israel’s abuse of Palestinian children.
On 6th January 2016 there was a Parliamentary Debate Child Prisoners and Detainees: Occupied Palestinian Territories’
It was introduced by Sarah Champion MP who cited a report from British lawyers in June 2012 concerning Palestinian children held in Israeli military custody. Facilitated and funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office the Report found that Israel was in breach of six of its legal obligations under the UN convention on the rights of the child and two obligations under the fourth Geneva convention.
Ellman consistently defended Israel's treatment of Palestinian children, including torture
The report concluded that if the allegations of abuse were true, Israel would also be in breach of the absolute prohibition against cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In other words Israel tortures children and Ellman defends it. Indeed Israel barely denies it since it is legal under Israeli law.
Eight months after the UK report was published, UNICEF released its own assessment of the military detention system for children. Based on over 400 sworn affidavits from children as young as 12 who were detained by military courts, UNICEF concluded that,
One of the reasons for my expulsion was calling Dame Ellman a supporter of Israeli child abuse
“the ill-treatment of children who come in contact with the military detention system appears to be widespread, systematic and institutionalized throughout the process, from the moment of arrest until the child’s prosecution and eventual conviction and sentencing”.
None of this stopped Dame Ellman intervening 3 times during the debate to defend the Israeli military’s treatment of children:
does she accept that the context in which these situations occur is an organised campaign conducted by the Palestinian authorities of incitement, to try to provoke young Palestinians to carry out acts of violence towards other civilians, some of which result in death, including the death of young children?’
The idea that Palestinian children have to be incited to attack the military occupation, because otherwise they would fall in love with soldiers who tear gas them is one of Ellman’s pet themes.
Ms Champion responded that:
‘this debate is about the different treatment of Palestinian and Israeli children, and the breach of human rights and international law.’
The late Jo Cox MP also intervened:
‘evidence from Military Court Watch suggests that 65% of children continue to report being arrested at night in what are described as terrifying raids by the military.’
This did not deter Ellman who intervened again:
‘Does my hon. Friend really believe that the solution to this horrendous conflict between two peoples—the Israeli and the Palestinian people—can be found by encouraging individual child Palestinians to commit acts of violence against other human beings?’
And then this despicable MP intervened a 3rd time:
‘I note my hon. Friend’s comments that a child should not be detained, and I assume that she means in any circumstances. Suppose a child was involved in an act of violence that resulted in the deaths of other human beings. That is what has happened with young Palestinians throwing stones—people have been killed. In those circumstances, surely she thinks that there should be detention.’
Military arrests of children of which there are hundreds each year are a method of coercing and intimidating Palestinian communities.
Two years later, on 7th February 2018, there was another debate on Palestinian Children and Israeli Military Detention. Ellman made a speech supporting the Israeli military. She spoke of
‘the Palestinian Authority’s incitement of young people to hate and kill, as is happening on the west bank today. Such incitement is specifically in breach of the Geneva conventions.’
In fact the Palestinian Authority is a Quisling Authority which works with the Israeli military to prevent acts of resistance. Ellman went on:
‘We must remember that 75% of the offences committed by Palestinian minors are violent crimes, including murder, attempted murder, shooting, making and throwing Molotov cocktails, and attacking soldiers. Thirty per cent. of assailants in the terror attacks of 2016 were under 18 years old. The youngest was 11. For example, in June 2016, 13-year-old Hallel Ariel was stabbed to death by Nasser Tarayrah, a 17-year-old Palestinian, who climbed into her home and stabbed her repeatedly in a frenzied attack in front of her younger siblings.’
Ellman was referring to the death of an Israeli settler child. She ‘forgot’ to mention the 32 Palestinian children killed in 2016.  A further 14 were killed in 2017 and in 2018 56 were killed, the highest for four years. However as these were Palestinian children who had died they were of no account to this racist.
Ellman did however mention the death of one settler baby ‘Yehuda Haim Shoham, aged five months.’ Jewish children are mentioned by name.  Palestinian children aren’t mentioned at all. 
The reason Ellman has been forced to resign is not that she is Jewish.  Some of her major critics in Liverpool Riverside CLP have been Jewish.  It’s because she is a racist and a Zionist. See The Riverside scandal: Louise Ellman and the war on Riverside Labour Party
It is difficult for the yellow press and the BBC to get their heads round that Ellman is hated because of who she is not because she is Jewish..
The BBC tonight carried another lying report about Ellman’s resignation.  Once again it carried nothing from her critics. No doubt the BBC will claim that this like all other reports are within BBC Guidelines.
It is a great pity that Jeremy Corbyn thanked Ellman for her services to the Labour Party, since no one can remember any. Given she blamed Corbyn for her resignation it is a pity he even mentioned this execrable woman. The only service she has done the Labour Party is her resignation from it.
Tony Greenstein

Wednesday, 16 October 2019

My Response to the BBC’s 'Investigation' into Panorama’s ‘Is Labour Anti-Semitic?’ – Aunty doesn’t even bother to hide her bias


Ofcom said that it had 'serious concerns around the transparency of the BBC's complaints service'. – the reality is that it's embedded in racism

 On 10th July Panorama broadcast a programme, Is Labour anti-Semitic’. Although the BBC would not say, it is known that in the first week alone over 1,500 complaints had been received.
The BBC’s initial response of 5th August to mine and others’ complaints was contemptuous. They refused to answer. Instead they sent out the same non-response to all complainants. This was to:
ensure we use our licence fee resources as efficiently as possible, (so) we’re sending this response to everyone.’
On 15th August I sent a further letter to the Executive Complaints Unit, containing 106 Questions. After quibbling about the length of my complaint, they eventually sent me a response on 30th September.
This was just one of John Ware's successes - his attacks on 'political Islam' have been expensive but the BBC doesn't mind since it is the licence payer who really pays
At last there was a detailed response, but what a response! It is no surprise that even the Establishment Media Lapdog (sorry Watchdog) Ofcom had noted re the Naga Munchetty case, when a BBC presenter had been reprimanded for pointing out that Donald Trump might just be a racist, that it had ‘serious concerns around the transparency of the BBC’s complaints service’.
The BBC claims not to understand what is wrong with these special effects
I have compiled a 31 page response to Richard Hutt, the Director of the ECU, which includes 2 pages of graphics, rebutting every point. The reason for the graphics is that ECU pretended they didn’t understand my objection to their using a ‘grid’ effect when portraying their enemies – Corbyn, Milne etc. Their response was that
‘In documentary programmes of this nature programme-makers will use a wide range of techniques to ensure there is sufficient visual variety to keep an audience engaged’.
My complaint was not their artistic skills but that the people they targeted with this ‘grid’ effect were targets of their allegations of ‘anti-Semitism’. The grid made them look aliens, disembodied. To pretend they didn’t understand my complaint only emphasises the BBC’s utter dishonesty.
There are so many dishonest comments in the ECU’s response that it would make this blog excessively long if I attempted to elaborate on all of them. Please therefore go to this link to read my response.
The most egregious of their lies and distortions is when they defended calling a Palestinian preacher, Raed Salah, from Israel an anti-Semite. Salah came to Britain for a speaking tour in 2011. Theresa May had banned him from entering the country but no one had told Salah or the immigration authorities so he entered the UK and spoke at the House of Commons. He was arrested the next day. On appealing against his deportation the First Tier Immigration Tribunal concluded on 25th October 2011 that Theresa May was within her rights to deport him.
According to Richard Hutt's ECU it was wrong for Ms Munchetty to make personal comments about Trump - but about Raed Salah and Ken Livingstone it was fine
The BBC’s Richard Hutt therefore quoted this decision in his letter:
We are satisfied that the Appellant has engaged in the unacceptable behaviour of fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK. We are satisfied that the Appellant’s words and actions tend to be inflammatory, divisive, insulting, and likely to foment tension and radicalism.
That seemed pretty conclusive. Except it wasn’t. Theresa May had made her decision on the basis of a poem that was held to be anti-Semitic, which had been provided to the Home Office by the Community Security Trust. See the David Hearst’s Theresa May's haste to ban Raed Salah will be repented at leisure in the Guardian. It had appeared in the Jerusalem Post. There was just one problem. It had been doctored to include the words ‘You Jews’.
The fact that the Jewish Labour Movement, whose officers, who made the allegations of 'antisemitism', is affiliated to a the World Zionist Organisation, which steals Palestinian land, is of no consequence to the BBC
Not surprisingly the Upper Immigration Tribunal of 8  February 2012 overturned the decision of the lower court and substituted this finding:
In the present case it is clear that the facts upon which the Secretary of State made her decision are very different from the facts that she should have had in mind when making her decision. In particular, the text of the poem is not as she thought...
This is a case in which the error was such that it is not appropriate to seek to preserve the First-tier Tribunal’s decision. We therefore proceed to substitute our own decision.
What is staggering, even by the BBC’s biased standards, is that the BBC justified their abusive comments about Raed Salah on the basis of a court decision that was overturned!
Below is a short summary of the points in my Appeal:
i.              Noone who claimed that they were ‘victims’ of anti-Semitism was named.
ii.            No mention was made of the fact that Ella Rose, who opened the programme with an Oscar winning performance of how she had been the victim of ‘anti-Semitism’, was a former staffer at the Israeli Embassy and the first Director of the Jewish Labour Movement.
iii.         No mention was made of the fact that all of the ‘victims’ were officers of the Jewish Labour Movement.
iv.         ECU reprimanded  Naga Munchetty because BBC Guidelines ‘"do not allow for journalists to... give their opinions about the individual making the remarks or their motives for doing so - in this case President Trump".  But Hutt defended calling Ken Livingstone ‘cranky’.
v.            Perhaps most important of all the presenter of the programme, John Ware, is a racist and Islamaphobe. They simply told me that all presenters have views, which is true, but would they have employed Kate Hopkins?
So although Richard Hutt said that I should now appeal to Ofcom I have sent it back to him on the grounds that they are obliged to carry out an investigation first. What they have done so far is provide a Defence of Panorama’s crimes not an investigation.  I sent today the following email to Richard Hutt.
Dear Mr Hutt,

Thank your letter of 30th September in response to my 100+ question complaint regarding the Panorama programme 'Is Labour Antisemitic'.

It is clear that you conducted no investigation into my complaints or, I suspect, into anyone else's complaints. What you did was mount a defence of the indefensible.

Parts of your Defence are bizarre. For example you quote from a Judgment of the Lower Immigration Tribunal in respect of Raed Salah when the whole of that Judgment was overturned by the Upper Immigration Tribunal.

You advised me to go to Ofcom and in due time I will.

However first you need to conduct an investigation.

In order to help you in this task I have compiled a letter rebutting all the points you made.  I hope you find it useful.

Perhaps you would now investigate my complaint bearing in mind that Ofcom recently  said , in relation to the Naga Munchetty affair that it has 'serious concerns around the transparency of the BBC's complaints service'.

Tony Greenstein