Why Dishonesty and Deceit are Hardwired into Labour’s Disciplinary Procedures
|'MrGreenstein's lurid allegations about the torture and beating of children',|
Late Friday afternoon, barely 36 hours away from my Expulsion Hearing I got an innocent request from Jane Shaw, Secretary to the National Constitutional Committee. Labour’s National Executive Committee (in reality Crooked McNicol) wanted to introduce 4 new documents at the last minute.
‘You will be familiar with all of the documents’ Jane told me – and indeed I am familiar with them.
|The fragrant Ella Rose in attack|
Also attached was what is called a Skeleton Argument, which lawyers usually provide before a court hearing in order to summarise their arguments. This Skeleton however was somewhat fat, taking up no less than 22 pages.
Jane, mindful of the fact that I do not have legal representation at the hearing, reassured me that the skeleton argument ‘includes nothing new, but merely sets out the case that the NEC barrister intends to make, which you could find helpful.’ How you might ask could I resist such blandishments. In case I was sceptical, Jane reassured me that I would have a chance to object on Sunday to the introduction of more than 150 pages of new documents.
|I am criticised for calling the Director of the Jewish Labour Movement 'pathetic'|
What you might ask were these documents? Well the first one was the Chakrabarti Report. Jane must have known I’d find it difficult to resist this particular document. After all it is a guide to how the Labour Party should conduct its disciplinary process on the basis of natural justice, fairness, due process and transparency. Perhaps McNicol has turned over a new leaf and recognises that things must now change for the better?
The next document seemed a bit more suspect. It was the Home Affairs Select Committee Report on Anti-Semitism in the UK, which introduced the fake IHRA definition of anti-Semitism that conflates anti-Zionist and anti-Semitism.
Even more strangely the next document was the Judgment in the case I brought under the Data Protection Act against the Labour Party to unredact various documents which the Labour Party had sent me. This application failed but it had nothing to do with anti-Semitism. So I was puzzled why McNicol wanted to introduce it.
The fourth document was a blog article of mine on how the Chakrabarti Report was a missed opportunity which balanced support for and criticism of specific aspects of the Report. No harm surely in having yet one more of my own articles?
|It is 'offensive' to accuse this woman of supporting Palestinian child abuse despite her steadfast defence of the Israeli military's treatment of Palestinian children|
Yet still I suspected a rat by the name of Iain McNicol but since I was at a friends’ graduation ceremony at the Brighton Centre I wasn’t able to look at the skeleton argument at the time. I said it was highly unusual to introduce documents at the last minute when I had been told it was not possible and I particular objected to Document No. 3. I suggested instead that they obtain the transcript of the Injunction Hearing at the High Court as that had quite a lot to say about fairness in Labour Party disciplinary matters!
I therefore sent a short email on my mobile:
‘As DJ Brown stated in her introduction to her judgment (page 2): ‘This Court is not and cannot be concerned with the disciplinary processes of the Party and this Application will not be allowed by this Court to lead it into making any findings as to the substantive matter of the complaints against the Applicant and the handling of those complaints.’
I therefore wrote that ‘I cannot imagine what possible purpose could be served by the introduction of the latter’ I therefore opposed the introduction of this document.
I also suggested that if they wished to introduce these documents then they should adjourn the hearing and also include several articles of my own critical of the Home Affairs Select Committee Report. In particular one by David Plank a former Government Special Advisor to the Social Services Select Committee which was damning of the Home Affairs Committee Report, stating that it was not worth the paper it was written on.
My correspondence with Jane Shaw can be viewed here. The Skeleton Argument can be seen here. It is a model of deception and tautology. Time permits me only a few comments.
1. After all the nonsense about ‘anti-Semitism’ it turns out that apart from the use of the term ‘Zio’ ‘the NEC does not otherwise allege that Mr Greenstein’s conduct was anti-Semitic.’ Strange that, because what then was I suspended for? All that stuff in The Telegraph and Times about comparisons between Israeli marriage laws and the Nuremburg Laws has vanished into thin space. Comments about how Israel is waiting for its Holocaust survivors to die so that it has more money to spend on weaponry? No mention either. Throughout my 22 months suspension the goal posts have been continually changed. The charges are now:
4.1. Offensive comments online, including the word "Zio";
4.2. Offensive posts and comments on Mr Greenstein's blog;
4.3. Email in which he mocked the phrase "final solution".
|Lacking all procedure, McNicol wants to slip in a few more documents at the last minute|
Most of these for example 4.3 where I sent a satirical post to McNicol are covered in my 2 previous submissions to the Labour Party.
I responded robustly to abusive posts and I stand by them. What is noticeable is that those on the Right who are abusive have a get out of jail free card, such as Deborah Lowe and Warren Morgan, Leader of Brighton and Hove Council – both nasty Blairites.
Chakrabarti Report & Zios
Contrary to what I expected the Chakrabarti Report (which has still not been discussed or approved of by Labour’s NEC) is not being introduced because of its recommendations of a fair process. Good gracious no. The only reason is because it quotes Chakrabarti’s mistaken view that ‘Zio’ is a racist epithet.
The Labour Party’s barrister, one Thomas Ogg, takes exception to the use of ‘Zio’ as a term of abuse. I freely confess that I use the term ‘Zio’ in a pejorative manner. If I call someone a racist I don’t use it as a term of flattery. Their idiot of a barrister argues that:
‘Mr Greenstein has even used the term in his response to the Opening Submissions of the NEC. Page 49 of the most recent set of submissions (internal page 12 of J’Accuse ') states: "On my blog one day I got 2 posts - one from a Zio and another from a Neo-Nazi. I found the post from the Zio more disturbing than the holocaust denier. Strange that. Why do you think that was?"
Why does Ogg think I abused the Zio? Perhaps because the vile twerp wished that my family and me should have ended our days in Auschwitz. Of course Ogg doesn’t mention that. This is a good example of the dishonesty of the legal profession. Ogg goes on to argue that:
‘Even if Mr Greenstein honestly did not intend to be antisemitic, he knowingly used a term that is both perceived and publicly stated by the Labour Party in the Chakrabarti Report to be antisemitic, and deliberately used the word as a term of abuse. That is Mr Greenstein's offence, which is both prejudicial to the Labour Party and grossly detrimental to it.’
Yes I know it’s difficult to make head or tale of this farrago of nonsense. It seems Ogg is incapable of making a clear and lucid argument in plain English.
If I didn’t intend something to be anti-Semitic then it is unlike to be anti-Semitic. The fact that it is perceived by racists to be anti-Semitic is irrelevant. If the Labour Party thinks it is then it’s wrong. The Labour Party has a legacy of support for Israel and Zionism i.e. racism so its views on the matter are not the final word.
Apparently it is ‘prejudicial to the Labour Party and grossly detrimental to it’. This catch-all McCarthyist nonsense means nothing. How the hell can the term ‘Zio’ be detrimental to the Labour Party yet the theft of thousands of pounds by the former Chair of the Jewish Labour Movement from a Jewish charity not be detrimental? These bastards literally make it up.
The idiot, because clear this Ogg is either stupid or dishonest or both, goes on to make the most offensive of comparisons. He argues that
‘Mr Greenstein stands in the same position as someone who is aware that society considers terms such as "Paki" and "Nigger" to be racially offensive, but on the basis of a belief that the words 'in fact' mean something else, nevertheless deliberately use the words "Paki" and "Nigger" as terms of abuse whilst denying their racial connotations.’
I describe him as an idiot because ‘Paki’ ‘Nigger’ etc. are terms that are historically and politically located as terms of abuse. They are widely indeed universally accepted as deeply offensive racist terms. They are based on a person’s ethnicity. Zio, short for Zionist is based on someone’s political allegiance. Zio is not related to someone’s ethnicity.
In a discussion about the merits of lazy or racist MPs I tweeted that "at least your MP doesn't do as much damage - better a lazy or corrupt MP than @JohnMannMP addicted 2 murder & racism". Ogg then states ‘Mr Greenstein does not state who John Mann is addicted to murdering, or the kind of racism that is being referred to. It does not matter.’
Actually it does matter. John Mann, the rent a mouth from Bassetlaw has made it his business to run the false anti-Semitism campaign. He has abused for example a 90 year old Jewish Dr Glatt who called him out over his attacks on Jeremy Corbyn. See Open Letter to John Mann MP from a 90 Year Old Jewish Dr Glatt and A Desperate John Mann MP Tries to Undermine 90 year old Jewish Doctor's Letter by Falsely Alleging It was a Forgery
Mann is a deceptive and dishonest MP who during the first Corbyn election campaign wrote him an open letter accusing him of being soft on child abuse. If the Labour Party apparatchiks had any attachment to socialism then Mann would have been suspended if not expelled years ago. But of course Crooked McNicol and his henchmen approved of Mann’s attacks on Corbyn. Unfortunately Corbyn is incapable of realising that appeasement of these people will prove costly in the end.
Owen Jones – A Janus Faced Whore
Now I would have liked to take credit for the comment that Owen Jones is ‘is a Janus faced whore who bears the impression of the last person who sat on him.’ However I can’t. This classical witticism was thought up by someone else. I merely repeated it. However I agree with the sentiments but Ogg pompously declares that ‘It is not appropriate for Mr Greenstein to refer to Owen Jones, a prominent Guardian journalist, as a "whore", Janus faced or otherwise. It is personal abuse and there is no place for it in the Labour Party.’ Why not? It means he is a 2 faced git!
Despite Judge Brown saying earlier in her judgment that ‘This Court is not and cannot be concerned with the disciplinary processes of the Party and this Application will not be allowed by this Court to lead it into making any find ings as to the substantive matter of the complaints against the Applicant and the handling of those complaints.’ She later goes on to contradict herself when she says:
"(the Applicant) is demonstrably intelligent and has engaged in this process in an articulate and detailed way. He is also a highly controversial figure. It is the Court's view from seeing him within the Court process that he is intense and combative being highly emotional about the subjects of Israel and Palestine. He is someone whom the Party rightly or wrongly has suspended, about whom they have received a significant number of complaints and in respect of whom there are ongoing investigations. This background informs the decisions as to reasonableness of disclosure which might with information already known to or ascertainable by the Applicant might identify the third parties. He is within these proceedings prone to a very strong reaction to persons and submissions made. ... The Applicant quickly brands a query as to why a Claim form was not issued as being an allegation of fraud which viewed reasonably it was not. He alleges that only a "fool or a Knave" would interpret one of his comments in the way the Respondent submits which is an emotive comment. Whilst he claims to be viewed out of context he has within document[s] repeatedly used language which is offensive in any context - "racist Zios" "facist scum]"] to give just two small examples. I do not underestimate the complexity of the Applicant's views but his views and the strength with which he expresses them is something the Respondent....’
Now one can argue as to the merits of the above but one thing is clear. It is what lawyers term ‘obiter dicta’ in other words it is a Judge’s opinion but forms no part of the Judgment. It is not part of the ratio. So the attempt to introduce the Judgment, which concerns other unrelated matters, is part of the dishonesty and deceptiveness of McNicol’s Barrister Ogg.
Ogg states that ‘The NEC does not have to prove actual prejudice to the Labour Party. All that is required is that the conduct is "prejudicial", that is, is liable to cause prejudice to the party in the sense of being capable of having that effect.’ So there is no need to prove any damage to the Labour Party Party was caused merely that it was capable of so doing. In other words a wholly subjective test that could be applied to virtually anything. Of course when it comes to Jeremy Newmark having defrauded a charity of thousands of pounds this is a ‘private’ matter not at all prejudicial. But a friend in Hove, Riad, who was convicted years ago of having broken the Oil for Food sanctions to Iraq for humanitarian reasons, because those sanctions were killing thousands of people (US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stated that killing half a million children was ‘a price worth paying) was ‘auto excluded’ from the Labour Party. That was not private.
Ogg rejects my argument that social media posts are "here today and gone tomorrow"I stating that ‘that is not the Labour Party's approach to abuse online.’ Except of course that the Labour Party approach to online abuse only applies to the Left not the Right. I gave the example of where I was called a ‘poisonous piece of shit’ by ex-Councillor Craig Turton, which Councillor Warren Morgan, leader of Brighton and Hove Council approved of and 4 times McNicol refused even to accept a complaint. And then Ogg complains that I call him Crooked McNicol!!
What is amazing is Ogg’s attempt to defend this execrable MP who justifies and defends Israel’s treatment of child prisoners on grounds of ‘security’. Ogg states that: ‘There are two aspects of Mr Greenstein's blog [77J which are objectionable and offensive.’
56. First, the use of the phrase "child abuse" is deliberate ly provocative. The phrase evokes sexual abuse, and therefore suggests that Louise Ellman MP, a prominent Jewish Labour MP, supports the same. The phrase "child abuse" appears nowhere else in the article, including the passages from the reports by UNICEF. Mr Greenstein's summary of the conduct Mr Greenstein complains of as "child abuse" is an attempt to shame Ms Ellman by the use of emotive language, which is contrary to the Labour Party's Social Media Policy.
57. Second, the passages from Ms Ellman's speech quoted by Mr Greenstein do not support the allegations he makes against Ms Ellman . Mr Greenstein writes: "The torture and beatings by the Israeli army, which refuses to record its interrogations, which refuses access to lawyers or even parents to accompany their children, is acceptable to Ellman". He also writes: "Every excuse for torture, the beating of children ... was made by Ellman". Neither of those allegations is supported by the passages from Ms Ellman's speech which he quotes in his blog. Ms Ellman supports detention, but makes no comment on "torture" and "beatings".
This is the most shameful part of Ogg’s submission. It is true. Ellman doesn’t comment on torture or beatings however others do in the debate. Instead she merely justifies the kidnapping of children in the middle of the night, their shackling and treatment on ‘security’ grounds. Her omitting to comment on the treatment of Palestinian children whilst defending the Israeli military’s behaviour should be the subject of disciplinary action.
This wretched woman should have been thrown out of the Labour Party years ago but of course, like war criminal Tony Blair she is an honoured member. In the debate Sara Chamption stated that ‘in February 2015, UNICEF issued an update to its original report and noted that allegations of “alleged ill-treatment of children during arrest, transfer, interrogation and detention have not significantly decreased in 2013 and 2014”.
Jo Cox highlighted the fact that ‘evidence from Military Court Watch suggests that 65% of children continue to report being arrested at night in what are described as terrifying raids by the military. Will she comment on that worrying fact?’
Sarah Champion went on to state that:
Some 93% of children continue to be restrained with plastic ties, many painfully so, and the standard operating procedures are frequently ignored. Around 80% of children continue to be blindfolded or hooded, a practice that the UK and UNICEF reports said should be absolutely prohibited. Audiovisual recording of interrogations has been mandated only in non-security-related offences, which means that nearly 90% of cases involving children, including those accused of attending a demonstration, continue to take place without this practical safeguard.
Perhaps most disturbing is the fact that the reports of physical abuse—consisting mainly of punching, kicking, position abuse and slapping, but in some cases also including more serious allegations, such as of being mauled by dogs and receiving electric shocks—are now higher in number than they were in 2013.
What was Ellman’s response?
‘Does my hon. Friend really believe that the solution to this horrendous conflict between two peoples—the Israeli and the Palestinian people—can be found by encouraging individual child Palestinians to commit acts of violence against other human beings?’
Not only not one word, not one syllable of condemnation or even criticism of Israel. She accepts as given the guilt of the Palestinian children. Not a word about shackling, painful handcuffs, refusal to access lawyers or parents or indeed any of the safeguards that Jewish Israeli children have as of right. If anything my comments on this despicable woman were too mild.
The treatment of Palestinian children is justified because they were being ‘incited’ to violence against the Israeli military. Presumably if it weren’t for that incitement they would come to love living under a military dictatorship. The pathetic submission from Ogg is really nothing more than a defence of the indefensible.
Ogg even talks of ‘Mr Greenstein's lurid allegations about the torture and beating of children, which are not supported by what Ms Ellman actually said, is provocative, inaccurate and offensive.’ Well it might be provocative and offensive, to Ellman, but it’s not inaccurate.
What does that well known anti-Semitic newspaper Ha’aretz have to say? On 22nd February 2017 under the provocative headline ‘Israel Tortures Palestinian Children, Amnesty Report Says’ it reported that:
‘The report found that among those tortured and detained under administrative orders were also children. Methods of torture included beatings, painful shackling and sleep deprivation. Among 110 Palestinians killed last year by Israeli forces, the report charged, some posed no threat to life and thus were shot unlawfully.’ Lurid?
Ogg takes particular exception to my inference that ‘child abuse’ implies sexual abuse. What does the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel have to say on this subject? According to The Independent of 1.1.14.
‘The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI) published a report which claimed children suspected of minor crimes were subjected to “public caging”, threats and acts of sexual violence and military trials without representation.’
One wonders whether Ogg considers ‘acts of sexual violence’ as constituting sexual abuse or not or whether his definition is elastic enough to escape that ‘offensive’ description? According to a report on YNet, the online version of Israel’s largest circulation paper Yediot Aharanot:
‘ A CNN investigative report aired Thursday slammed the treatment of Palestinian children by IDF soldiers.
The report included uncorroborated charges of sexual abuse against Palestinian youngsters while in IDF custody.
The CNN report featured an unidentified Palestinian boy claiming that IDF forces attempted to insert an object into his rectum after he was arrested. The unidentified youngster said a dozen officers were standing around and laughing while he was being interrogated, stopping only when their commander stepped into the room.’
One wonders whether the Labour Party’s tame barrister finds that abusive enough to merit the caption ‘sexual abuse’? Mehdi Hassan in the New Statesman asked: ‘Did the Israeli army sexually abuse Palestinian children?
So idiotic does Ogg’s submission become that in paragraph 58 he refers to Ellman as ‘Ms Greenstein’!!
Ogg also takes exception to my comment re Ella Rose that her appointment as Director of the JLM deprived some village of their idiot! One thing these bureaucrats lack is a sense of humour. Ella Rose has previously distinguished herself as a little thuglet.
Crooked McNicol & Others
There is a whole section devoted to my favourite Labour Party General Secretary!!
We are told that ‘In this blog post, Mr Greenstein uses the word "crook" or "crooked" to describe
Mr lain McNicol no less than 17 times .’ and that ‘A crook is a dishonest or criminal person.’ Err yes. I would say that McNicol is dishonest. As to whether he is criminal I think the jury is still out.
Apparently by saying that John Mann is a ‘devious little opportunist’ I am mocking his height. Actually I’m not. Perhaps I should have said a big opportunist but my meaning was more subtle.
It is also an offence to describe Chuku Ummuna as ‘White politically’ and in para. 77 ‘The NCC will note that in that blog Mr Greenstein goes on at [161J to use racially charged language in respect of "White minorities like Jews".’ What utter rubbish. What utter tosh.
The final charge is that:
‘On 3rd May 2016, Mr Greenstein sent an email to the General Secretary of the Party, lain McNicol, in which he proposed a "rule change" which would require that "all membership applications and nominations for party office or for Labour candidacies should first be submitted for approval to the Israeli embassy." In that email he uses language reflecting the Nazi plan under Adolf Hitler to exterminate Jewish people: "If passed, it would provide a final, I mean complete, solution".
Unfortunately satire and parody completely escape the hacks and paid legal mouthpieces of the Labour Party. As I’ve already dealt with this nonsense already I won’t repeat my defence!
All in all a pretty sad and pathetic tome. Please read it, if only for pure amusement!!