John Mann MP’s opposition to ‘anti-Semitism’ doesn’t extend to Gypsies and Travellers

John Mann's Racist Hypocrisy -  whilst opposing ‘anti-Semitism’ he fans the flames of racism against Roma and Gypsies 

How is one to understand the fact that John Mann MP, who is Chair of the Parliamentary Committee Agains Anti-Semitism is a common and garden racist when it comes to Travellers, Gypsies and Roma?

In ‘the Bassetlaw anti-social behaviour handbook – your guide to the law’, written by Mann, advice is given to his constituents on how to deal with ‘loitering by youths’, ‘graffiti’, ‘neighbours from hell’, ‘alcohol’ – and ‘travellers’.  In other words Travellers, Gypsies and Roma are one more social nuisance to be dealt with by way of an ASBO.

Strangely Mann's opposition to 'antisemitism' doesn't prevent him giving advice on how to deal with Gypsies

In the section on ‘Travellers’ there is a big, bold strapline saying “the Police have powers to remove any gypsies and travellers”. Imagine if you were to substitute ‘Jews’ for ‘gypsies and travellers’.  It might be the first substantive evidence of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party!

Anti-Roma racism in Britain is over 6 times as high as anti-semitism. In Italy 82% of the population have racist attitudes to Roma - it is no surprise that John Mann indulges in racism against Roma whilst purporting to oppose antisemitism

After the existence of Mann’s racist booklet was revealed Traveller Times reported that the ‘Parliamentary group for anti-Semitism, which Mann chairs, pulled out of a debate on Gypsies, Roma and Travellers “with no explanation” after failing to answer questions on Mann’s booklet

When Mann was contacted by Traveller Times Mann stood by the booklet, 20,000 of which he claimed had been distributed.  Mann claimed not to understand why his booklet is racially offensive.  Since Romani Gypsies and Irish Travellers are protected, like Jews, under the Equality Act 2010, he must know that his booklet contravenes that Act as well as being simply racist and offensive in itself.

John Mann's helpful guide to evicting Gypsies or Travellers

The explanation for Mann’s behaviour is quite simple.  Mann’s concern with ‘anti-Semitism’ is related to support for Zionism and the Israeli state. The campaign which he has fronted over ‘anti-Semitism’ has always been about criticism of Israel not hate of Jews. 

Gypsy children like these were deported like Jewish children to Auschwitz and gassed - however it is inconvenient today to remember that the Holocaust also murdered Gypsies.

We live in times when anti-Roma hate is rising fast.  In Italy the Interior Minister, Matteo Salvini has threatened to expel thousands of Roma and create a register of those who remain. Mann's behaviour fits into the increasing hostility and overt racism towards Gypsies.  Opposition to fake 'antisemitism' is easy for racists like Mann.

The Zionist movement has always considered the Holocaust as unique and opposed any attempt to generalise from the Nazi Holocaust to anti-racism as a universal principle.  In the words of Professor Yehuda Bauer of the Hebrew University Jerusalem and Yad Vashem, ‘Roma were not Jews, therefore there was no need to murder all of them’, his assumption being that the Nazis only intended to wipe out the Jews. [Yehuda Bauer, "Jews. Gypsies. Slavs: Policies of the Third Reich." UNESCO Yearbook on Peace and Conflict Studies 1985 (Paris, 1987), p. 86]

Bauer elaborated his views in a debate with the late Sybil Milton [The History Teacher, Vol. 25, No. 4. (Aug., 1992), pp. 513-521]  Milton showed that all Bauer’s assumptions concerning the Gypsies and the Holocaust were based upon Nazi stereotypes, for example that it was only itinerant gypsies who caused social problems who were the target for elimination.

Sybil Milton, senior historian at the US Holocaust Museum wrote, ‘the percentage of Gypsy mortality was approximately the same as the percentage of Jewish mortality in the Holocaust.’ (Gypsies and the Holocaust, The History Teacher, Vol. 24, No. 4. (Aug., 1991), p. 377).  Approximately half a million Gypsies and Roma were murdered in the Holocaust.  Despite this the fate of the Gypsies has been comprehensively ignored and the historical narrative distorted.

The Holocaust has become an ideological weapon deployed by Zionism against the Palestinians.  The Holocaust is seen as the primary justification for a Jewish state.  An ethno-religious state is an oddity that went out with the French Revolution. Israel’s exceptional status owes a great deal to the Nazi murder of six million Jews.

Zionism has been quick to argue that although the Nazis had many victims, only one group were the victim of genocide – the Jews.  As Milton noted although the diary of Adam Czerniakow, the head of the Warsaw Ghetto Judenrat recorded the presence of both German and Polish Gypsies in the Warsaw ghetto, Professor Yisrael Gutman’s comprehensive study ‘avoids even passing mention of them’. [The Jews of Warsaw,:Ghetto Underground  Revolt, Brighton, England. 1982].  Gutman was based at Yad Vashem, Israel’s Holocaust Propaganda Museum.

Gypsies are a variant of Noisy Neighbours and Neighbours from Hell

It is ironic that John Mann, Chair of the All Parliamentary Group on Anti-Semitism and the person who accused Ken Livingstone of being a Hitler apologist, is revealed as an anti-Gypsy bigot and racist.

John Mann was the 'best friend, best man and political ally' of the racist New Labour Immigration Minister Phil Woolas

However it isn’t really that surprising. Mann was a strong supporter of racist New Labour Immigration Minister Phil Woolas. Woolas, who told a number of outrageous lies about his Lib-Dem opponent in 2010 was the only MP in living memory to have his election result nullified by an election court for electoral fraud.  Amongst the emails uncovered was one from his election agent Joe Fitzpatrick which stated ‘If we don't get the white folk angry he [Woolas]'s gone.’  Stirring up racism was seen as crucial to a Woolas victory. See John Mann MP – Zionist Scumbag and Apologist for Phil Woolas, New Labour Racist Kicked Out by an Electoral Court

This was one of the racist leaflets issued by Phil Woolas's campaign in Oldham East - yet John Mann was happy to stand by 'Phil'

Following the decision of the High Court to annul the election, Harriet Harman as acting Labour Party leader took the decision to withdraw Labour’s support for Woolas in his legal battle. She rightly decided that the facts that were found by the High Court, his clear lying and appeal to white racism, could not be condoned by the Labour Party even if legally he might have a case. John Mann, his best friend and best man at his wedding disagreed.  Mann, who knew Woolas from their days in student politics, had no problem with Woolas’s racism or his record of hostility to asylum seekers and refugees.

John Mann was outraged when his racist friend, Phil Woolas, had his funding cut off by the Labour Party

Harriet Harman’s actions caused an uproar in the Parliamentary Labour Party and one of his main backers was – John Mann!  It would seem that some forms of racism are more acceptable to this racist opportunist.  ‘Anti-Semitism’ is verboten but a bit of anti-gypsy racism, hostility to refugees and Islamaphobia is perfectly acceptable to this hypocrite.

Professor David Feldman – Chakrabarti’s Liberal Bares his Teeth

Feldman Joins the Zionists Racist Attack on Momentum Black Activist Jackie Walker

Professor David Feldman is the classic Establishment Liberal.  Full of fine principles but none of them so sacrosanct that they cannot be sacrificed when needs must.  Feldman is Director of the Pears Institute for the Study of anti-Semitism at Birkbeck University, which is funded by the Pears Family Trust, a liberal Jewish Trust itself financed by a family web of property companies. 

Professor Feldman holding forth with the Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks

If the Jewish Labour Movement's Jeremy Newmark, who perjured himself at the Fraser v UCU Employment Tribunal, is telling the truth for once, then Feldman made a gratuitous attack on Jackie Walker for the sake of pleasing his listeners, having not bothered to ascertain her actual views

When Feldman was announced as Vice-Chair of the Chakrabarti Inquiry, he was immediately attacked by the Zionists.  David Hirsh, whose Engage led the unsuccessful opposition to a Boycott in the University College Union wrote that Feldman was a signatory to ‘Jewish antisemitism-denying groups, such as Jews for Justice for Palestinians and Independent Jewish Voices’. 

Another line of attack on Feldman was the statement by IJV that the Zionist campaign around ‘anti-Semitism’ in the Labour Party was “baseless and disingenuous” Feldman was leaned upon to disown the statement, which he quickly did.  Two members of Free Speech on Israel met with Feldman during the course of the Chakrabarti Inquiry and found him sympathetic in contrast to Baroness Janet Royall, the other Vice-Chair of the Chakrabarti Inquiry, who led her own inquiry, into Zionist allegations of anti-Semitism at Oxford University Labour Club.  Bizarrely Royall later let it be known in a blog article for the Jewish Labour Movement, that 

‘I know that you will share my disappointment and frustration that the main headline coming out of my inquiry is that there is no institutional Antisemitism in Oxford University Labour Club.’ 

David Feldman heads the liberal Pears Institute at Birkbeck College, London University

Feldman had previously compiled a ‘sub-report’ for John Mann’s Parliamentary Committee on Anti-Semitism.  Reading back over this Report, it is clear that the seeds of Feldman’s current position had already been sown, when he implied that giving offence to the Jewish community, however defined, is tantamount to a form of anti-Semitism.  Like many academics he is reluctant to be explicit and say what he actually means.  In Section 3 of the Report, Feldman argued that:

‘we should acknowledge the sense of offence felt by many British Jews last summer and autumn in the face of some or all of the criticism directed at Israel and their perception that this criticism was, in fact, anti-Semitic.’

Feldman, like many Zionist academics, is difficult to pin down.  What concretely does he mean by acknowledging the sense of offence felt by many British Jews?  Is he suggesting that Operation Protective Edge, to which he was referring, when over two thousand Palestinians, including 551 children, were killed, should not have been the subject of protests and demonstrations?  He says that there was a ‘perception’ that this criticism was ‘in fact, anti-Semitic’.  What Feldman doesn’t do is say what his opinion is or indeed why there is this perception and where it has come from.  Instead what he does is to drop heavy hints, signalling the direction which he wants you to travel in, whilst ensuring that he has prepared enough escape clauses.

Feldman mentions in the Report one person who, apparently, had a ‘Hitler was right’ placard.  It is of course possible, that such a person existed, although no evidence was provided.  A similar allegation was made by Jonathan Arkush to the Home Affairs Select Committee, again without anything resembling evidence. Arkush alleged (p.40 HASC Report) that during 'one of the Gaza campaigns, there were “huge marches” in London at which people held placards that read “Hitler was right.” Such was the contrived nature of HASC's Report, in reality an excuse for an attack on Corbyn, that it never even occurred to them to ask Arkush to back up his allegation with anything in the way of evidence. To this day no one has ever produced photographs of these Hitler placards.

What Feldman doesn’t mention are the demonstrations outside Ahava and the Israeli Embassy, to name but two, where Zionists stood side by side with Holocaust denying anti-Semites of the English Defence League and other fascist groups.  Far-right support for Zionism is the subject whose name Feldman dares not speak.  The support of the Andrei Breiviks and Geert Wilders for Zionism is something that the good professor Feldman does not to mention.

In America by way of contrast, liberal Zionists such as the Jewish Forward and its columnists have been forced to confront the fact that supporters of Zionism are more than happy to hold hand with open anti-Semites such as Breitbart’s Steve Bannon, Donald Trump’s Strategic Advisor.  In his article of December 23^rd in the Guardian, Will Britain’s new definition of antisemitism help Jewish people? I’m sceptical Feldman refers to Trump as a ‘US president whose noisome electoral campaign was sustained by nods and winks to anti-Jewish prejudice’ but he draws no conclusion from these nods and winks.  In fact they were far more than nods and winks, as Bannon’s appointment demonstrated.

The Jewish Forward, a liberal Zionist paper seemed shell-shocked, not only by Trump’s victory and the open anti-Semitism of his supporters, but at the welcome they received from the Israeli government and the Zionist movement.  In what seemed to be a journey of self-discovery How Steve Bannon and Breitbart News Can Be Pro-Israel — and Anti-Semitic at the Same Time, the Forward’s Naomi Zeveloff declared that:

‘though it would seem impossible to hate Jews but love the Jewish state, these two viewpoints are not as contradictory as they appear.

Zeveloff cited Steven Cohen, a sociologist at the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion that there is “little correlation” between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, and that “Many people who dislike Jews like Israel and many people who are critical toward Israel are affectionate toward Jews.”

This might seem like bread and butter to some of us, a statement of the obvious, but to those who have been brought up on anti-Zionism=anti-Semitism propaganda, it is indeed like the second coming.  Revelations on stereoids!

Zeveloff was genuinely shocked by the fact that although Trump 'has professed an ultra-right view of Israel... many of Trump’s followers spout anti-Semitism.'  Zeveloff cites Yael Sternhell, a Tel Aviv University professor of history and American studies, that "As long as Jews are in Israel fighting the ‘good fight’ with the Arab world as a bastion of American ideals and values in the Middle East, then they are very useful and admirable allies,” but “Once they are home demanding a multi-cultural democracy, demanding that the country accommodate their religion, their belief and their custom that is a different story.”

All this has involved a very steep learning curve.  Zeveloff and those around her at Jewish Forward concluded that Israel is a “model for white nationalism and/or Christianism,” and that 'Some also see Jewish immigration to Israel as helping their cause of a Jew-free white America.'  She quotes Todd Gitlin, a Columbia University sociologist and cultural commentator that  the coexistence of anti-Semitism and right-Wing Zionism “in Trump’s world make sense,” and that “Anti-Semitism and right-wing Zionism are varieties of ultra nationalism, or, to put it more pejoratively (as it deserves to be put) tribalism. They both presume that the embattled righteous ones need to bristle at, wall off, and punish the damned outsiders. They hate and fear cosmopolitan mixtures. They make a fetish of purity. They have the same soul. They rhyme.”

In the maelstrom in American politics that Trump's election has caused, where anti-Semitism is no longer confined to private golf clubs but public discourse, liberal Zionists have been forced into an understanding that Zionism is the other side of the coin to racial nationalism and white supremacism. It remains to be seen whether they also see that those young Jews who have been active in the BDS campaign aren't 'self haters' or closet anti-Semites, but anti-racists who drew these lessons at a far earlier stage of their lives.

However these are topics that David Feldman prefers to avoid.  To the good professor, Britain is an island.  The alliance with the Right of the Tory Party with people like Eric Pickles goes unmentioned, even though Pickles defended the Tories line-up with anti-Semites in the European Conservative & Reform Group in the European Parliament in 2009, a topic I've covered previously. The fact that Zionism is an international movement is disregarded.  Instead in his article, whilst purportedly casting doubt on the International Holocaust Remembrance Authority’s definition of anti-Semitism, he give credibility to the 'demons' which it is attempting to cast out.

The policies Feldman is now arguing for, including his gratuitous attack on Jackie Walker, the Momentum Black activist who Jon Lansman set up for suspension by removing her as Vice Chair of Momentum, are consistent with the political weaknesses of Chakrabarti.  Others, including Free Speech on Israel saw Feldman and by extension Chakrabarti in a more benign light.  The attack on Walker is likely to come as a shock to them since their majority greeted Chakrabarti's Reports as if it was the Sermon on the Mount.  Indeed it was only after a great deal of internal agonising that they agreed to publish my critical Chakrabarti – A Missed Opportunity to Develop an Anti-Racist Policy for Labour

I copy below a letter I have sent to David Feldman outlining why I think his Guardian article is superficial and tendentious, a Zionist rendering of a quite familiar theme tune.

Tony Greenstein

Feldman's article in the Guardian - a particularly stupid headline - Can redefining anti-Zionism be of help to Jewish people? might have been more honest!

Dear Professor Feldman, d.feldman@bbk.ac.uk

I write regarding your article in the Guardian Will Britain’s new definition of antisemitism help Jewish people? I’m sceptical.  It seems that the flak that you have experienced as Vice-Chair of the Chakrabarti Inquiry from the Jewish Chronicle and other Zionist critics, has taken its toll on your ability to discern the differences between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.  Like many academics before you, your judgement has succumbed to the prevailing McCarthyite atmosphere in British politics.

In your talk Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism in Britain to the Conference on “Antisemitism in Europe Today” in November 2013, organized by the Jewish Museum Berlin, you wrote that:

For the fifty years following the Balfour Declaration, Labour party support for Zionism did not stem from an appreciation of the necessity of Zionism for the Jews. Rather, Labour support for Zionism was based on the fact that Zionists were European colonists who, it was believed, brought a higher level of civilization to a part of the world that remained locked in medieval backwardness in its level of economic development, in its political organisation, its religious practices and in its social organisation. The fact that the Zionists appeared to combine technological progress with socialist organisation, both on the kibbutzim and in the trade unions, rendered made them especially attractive allies in Britain’s global mission.

It would be difficult to disagree with this analysis.  Labour’s support for Zionism was part and parcel of its wider support for the British Empire.  Unlike the Conservatives, who defended imperialism as the source of Britain’s wealth and power, Labour’s support was dressed up in the rhetoric of Trusteeship.  This ‘liberal’ imperialism which, during the Attlee government, resulted in the super-exploitation of our African colonies and Malaya reached its dénouement in the Blair doctrine of liberal interventionism in Iraq and Afghanistan.

What you fail to understand in the current crisis is that opposition from the Left to Israel and Zionism still stems from the Zionist colonisation.  Zionism did not stop being a colonisatory movement in 1948.  Organisations such as the JNF, which pioneered the colonisation of Palestine in the Mandate period, have continued their work of ethnic cleansing to this day.  You must surely be aware of the proposed demolition of Umm al-Hiran village and the repeated demolitions of Al-Arakhib in the Negev today as part of the process of Judaisation of the Negev?  What has this to do with anti-Semitism?

It is the settler-colonial nature of Israel which results in nearly half Israel’s Jews supporting the physical expulsion of Israeli Palestinians.  This hideous racism expresses itself in a multiplicity of ways on a daily basis. 

In your report to the parliamentary committee against antisemitism’ of 1 January 2015 you cited Brian Klug’s definition of anti-Semitism as ‘a form of hostility  towards Jews as Jews, in which Jews are perceived as something other than what they are’, which Brian refined to read as ‘hostility towards Jews as ‘Jews’ or ‘hostility towards Jews as not Jews.’

Anti-Semitism can incidentally also encompass not just hostility but envy and admiration i.e. philo-semitism.  So when Owen Smith was asked during a debate with Corbyn what he admired most about Jews, he said they were “a very entrepreneurial set of people.,” a classic anti-Semitic trope. Ironic since Smith based his campaign on opposition to ‘anti-Semitism! 

Your article begins by saying that ‘Everyone is against antisemitism: we just can’t agree on how to recognise it.’  This is logically absurd.  If people cannot agree how to recognise anti-Semitism, how can they be against it?  What is it that they are against?

You state that anti-Semitism, which historically meant ‘discrimination, violence and genocide’ against Jews now ‘operates in a context created both by the formation of the state of Israel in 1948 and the consequence of its military victory in 1967.’  What you don’t say is who has placed it in that context and why.  Surely that is important?

You also accept that Palestinians are subject to ‘discrimination and occupation, annexation and expropriation’ yet you go on to say, without comment, that critics of the above ‘are now denounced as antisemitic by Israel’s leaders and by their supporters around the world.’

The obvious conclusion to draw would be that defenders of Israel and Zionism are abusing the memory of anti-Semitism , including the memory of the Holocaust, in order to defend Israel’s racist and murderous practices today.  It would not be a difficult conclusion to draw since Holocaust and Nazi abuse is standard in Israel.  For example shortly before Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated, Benjamin Netanyahu was addressing crowds which included effigies of Rabin in SS uniform. 

Instead you say that anti-Semitism ‘does service both as a defence of minority rights, and in the context of support for a discriminatory and illiberal state power.’   How can it be anti-Semitic to oppose racism and discrimination?   Your silence speaks volumes.

The Zionist use of the charge of racism against anti-racists is not exactly unknown.  Defenders of the Apartheid used to dress up their arguments for White supremacy as being about defence of the White population.  British fascist groups like the BNP campaigned around ‘rights for whites’ and accused opponents of being anti-White racists.  The Zionist use of ‘anti-Semitism’ as a defence of anti-Palestinian racism is not exactly unknown.

You acknowledge that Trump’s election campaign ‘was sustained by nods and winks to anti-Jewish prejudice’ yet you avoid drawing any conclusions from the welcome he received, not only from the Zionist Right but Yair Lapid and Isaac Herzog of the Israeli Labour Party.  You seem oblivious to the fact that the Breitbart alt-Right as represented by Steve Bannon combines support for Zionism and anti-Semitism.  I could mention for example the President of the Zionist Organisation of America, Mort Klein who quite happily invited Bannon to the ZOA’s annual gala dinner whilst denouncing Obama as a ‘Jew hating anti-Semite’!

The conclusions to be drawn from the above are obvious. Antisemitism has been weaponised by those whose concerns are not hatred of Jews but defence of Israel/Zionism.  Yet you state that ‘antisemitism has been a surrogate for another quarrel: whether the Labour party should be a comfortable place for Zionists.’  Your conclusions are bizarre, a classic example of a non-sequitur. 

In case it has escaped your attention it is not Zionists who have been suspended and expelled in the anti-Semitism witch-hunt of recent months.  It is ironically Jewish opponents of Zionism and the Israeli state like Jackie Walker and myself.  That was why the Chakrabarti Inquiry was set up. 

You say that ‘in parts of the left the terms “Zionism” and “Zio” have become part of the lexicon of invective.’  This is a false narrative.  The controversy over ‘Zio’ first surfaced with the resignation of Alex Chalmers as Chair of Oxford University Labour Club.  As was later revealed, far from being an innocent student he was an ex-intern for BICOM, the Israeli propaganda group.

You stated that ‘Zionism and anti-Zionism encompass a range of positions’.  Perhaps but it is untrue to then say that ‘Zionists are at the forefront of protest against Israel’s policies’. This is fantasy.  Nor is it true that ‘Many... anti-Zionists accept the state’s right to exist’.  Opposition to a Jewish supremacist state is the sine qua non of anti-Zionism. 

You speak of ‘the well of support that exists for people who reveal prejudice or callous insensitivity towards Jews. The last year has been punctuated by a handful of headline-grabbing incidents of this sort’.  What is this ‘proven incidence of anti-Semitism’ based on?  What is amazing is that despite the repeated references to anti-Semitism in the Labour Party over the past year, there have been virtually no proven incidents of anti-Semitism.

As someone suspended for over 9  months, with no charge drawn up and subject to rumour and innuendo, not least via leaks to the national press, I challenge you to substantiate this or withdraw it.  I also suggest you read the transcript of my interrogation.

Perhaps you were referring to Jackie Walker who has been traduced by Zionism’s professional racists and propagandists.  It would appear that you have aligned yourself with this campaign.  I refer to the Tweet by Jeremy Newmark of the Jewish Labour Movement: ‘Prof David Feldman, Vice chair of the Chakrabarti Inquiry tells #Limmud Jaqui Walker's views are in "tradition of anti-Jewish thinking" ‘

Perhaps you would confirm whether the above comment represents your considered viewpoint?  Perhaps you have spoken with Jackie?  It would appear that you are in agreement with the racist campaign against Jackie Walker – the vicious and libellous newspaper articles, the racist tweets and other gratuitously offensive remarks by the Newmarks of this world.  Perhaps you would like to explain why you think that someone who has a long-standing reputation as an anti-racist and anti-fascist campaigner is in the tradition of anti-Jewish thinking?  Is a discussion of the involvement of her Jewish ancestors in the enslavement of the Black side of her family anti-Jewish?  The involvement of Jews in the slave trade has been the subject of extensive academic debate for the past two decades.  I suggest you read The lynching of Jackie Walker before making any further comment.

You suggest that racism isn’t simply about power relations, that it can also be directed at white middle class groups such as Jews.  Possibly but your suggestion that most Jews ‘feel attached to the strongest power in the Middle East’ suggests a hidden agenda.  It is also both wrong and irrelevant.  Wrong because British Jews feel less attached to Israel today than in previous decades.  Just 59% now call themselves Zionist compared to 71% five years ago.  31% say they aren’t Zionist.  Challenging group identity or political prejudice dressed up in religious clothes has nothing to do with racism.  Perhaps you have forgotten Salman Rushdie and the Satanic Verses?  Just as challenging FGM or the Burka has nothing to do with racism.

You conclude by saying that the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is ‘bewilderingly imprecise’ and that the Home Affairs Select Committee’s abysmal report has been ignored regarding guaranteeing the right to freedom of speech on Israel.  Unfortunately you have misread the latter.  It recommended that the ‘accusatory or abusive’ use of the term Zionism be criminalised as an offence of hate speech.

You are right that the IRHA definition of anti-Semitism ‘spurn(s) solidarity with other groups who are the targets of bigotry and hatred.’  What else would you expect of a definition of anti-Semitism whose purpose is to neutralise criticism of a state that allows you and me to ‘return’ to it whilst forbidding the return of the Palestinian refugees?  Racism rarely begets tolerance.

Yours sincerely,

Tony Greenstein 

John Mann MP – Zionist Scumbag and Apologist for Phil Woolas, New Labour Racist Kicked Out by an Electoral Court

A Gentle Correspondence with 

Tony Greenstein

  

John Mann Portrayed by the Richard Desmond's Express as the Innocent Victim

Phil Woolas - ex-New Labour Immigration Minister Thrown Out by Electoral Court - Campaign based on making Whites 'Angry' - Best Friend of John Mann MP

UPDATE:  John Mann now denies he is a Zionist but his record on the subject is crystal clear.

One thing John Mann MP cannot be accused of is being too clever by half, the term used by the Marquess of Salisbury about the then Tory Shadow Chancellor Iain McLeod (originally used to describe Disraeli). 

Portrait of a New Labour Opportunist

Woolas's Leaflet  - Racist to the Core - John Mann Stood by Him Regardless

In my post ‘John Mann MP Complains of being called a Zionist Scumbag’ subtitled ‘Which did he object to?  Zionist or Scumbag?’ I focussed attention on one John Mann MP, who's been waging a one man vendetta against Jeremy Corbyn.  Not being a subtle man, he took to suggesting Jeremy was soft on child abuse. 

The Hard Done-by Mann

Styled ‘rent-a-gob’ by Matthew Norman of the Independent, because of his habit of commenting on anything and everything, John Mann is not known for his cerebral brilliance.  In other words he’s thick.  After protesting loudly at the fact that I made the, fairly obvious point to someone who’s not Jewish, that he might not really understand what anti-Semitism is, he protested at how dare I challenge his right to self-identity. 

Interview with Jewish Chronicle when Mann Declares Himself non-Jewish

Well for one thing, I am not a relativist.  I don’t believe there is any inalienable right to self-identify and not have that identity challenged.  If I say I am a visitor from Jupiter I would expect people to challenge this rather than have anti-Jupiterism as the next form of anti-racist multi-cultural smooching.  So I did a google search and guess what?  Mann himself identifies as non-Jewish!  In his interview in the Jewish Chronicle with Simon Round of 12 February 2009 which begins 'Labour MP John Mann is not Jewish'.  It continues 'There may be nothing Jewish in his background but... Indeed, he is adamant that the fight against antisemitism should be led by non-Jews.'  http://www.thejc.com/lifestyle/the-simon-round-interview/interview-john-mann-mp

John Mann though is a sensitive creature and of late he has been complaining that he is being targeted for abuse. Labour to investigate after MP called ‘Zionist scumbag’ for opposing Jeremy Corbyn 

John Mann is Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group against Antisemitism and came to my attention when the debate took place over the European Monitoring Committees Definition of Anti-Semitism, which was a Zionist definition which conflated criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.  But John Mann understands nothing about anti-Semitism though he poses as an expert.  The most skilful putdown of him and his collaborator, the corrupt ex-MP Dennis McShane was by the Chairman of the Employment Tribunal in Fraser v UCU (where the lecturers union were accused of 'anti-semitism' for boycotting Israeli universities): 

"We did not derive assistance from the two Members of Parliament who appeared before us. Both gave glib evidence, appearing supremely confident of the rightness of their positions. For Dr MacShane, it seemed that all answers lay in the MacPherson Report (the effect of which he appeared to misunderstand). Mr Mann could manage without even that assistance. He told us that the leaders of the Respondents were at fault for the way in which they conducted debates but did not enlighten us as to what they were doing wrong or what they should be doing differently. He did not claim ever to have witnessed any Congress or other UCU meeting. And when it came to anti-Semitism in the context of debate about the Middle East, he announced, “It’s clear to me where the line is …” but unfortunately eschewed the opportunity to locate it for us. Both parliamentarians clearly enjoyed making speeches. Neither seemed at ease with the idea of being required to answer a question not to his liking."

Well John Mann and myself have conducted a vigorous email debate today and I thought I should share the contents with others, so it is copied  below.  Incidentally one nugget of information I found  was that John Mann was a political ally of Phil Woolas, the disgraced former New Labour MP and Minister whose election was overturned by an electoral court in 2010.  Woolas had been a particularly nasty and racist immigration minister and in the fight against the Liberal Democrats in his Oldham East & Saddleworth constituency, one e-mail in the debate within his election team stated, that ‘"If we don't get the white folk angry he [Woolas]'s gone."  This was the basis of the election campaign that Woolas fought.  This played to anti-Islamic racism in a constituency which had already seen race riots.

John Mann, dedicated opponent of racism though he is, had no hesitation in supporting Phil Woolas when he was suspendedby Harriet Harman.   ‘Among those to have spoken out in support of Woolas was John Mann, a close friend of his.’

Such is the nature of the double standards that operate within the Zionist supporting community of Labour MPs these days.  Racists to a Mann.

Correspondence

On 23 Aug 2015, at 15:39, Tony Greenstein wrote:

Dear Mr Mann,

I am puzzled.  What is it you are objecting to?  Being called a scumbag, when that would seem a more than appropriate description of someone who alleges that Jeremy Corbyn is soft on child abuse?

Or is it being called a Zionist when it is clear that you use the term 'anti-Semitism' as a form of abuse of those, Jewish included, who criticise Israel and Zionism.  To use a Yiddish word, it is something of a chutzpah for a non-Jew to accuse Jews of 'anti-Semitism', but well let that pass. 

Zionism incidentally, since you don't seem to understand the word, is a political movement that sought to establish a Jewish state by accepting the anti-Semitic notion that Jews don't belong in the countries they were born in.

Of course your Parliamentary Committee on anti-Semitism is really a means of attacking critics of Zionism and Israel, since it has nothing to say about the far-Right, which is where anti-Semitism comes from.  But as someone who is not even Jewish, you wouldn't understand what anti-Semitism is about in any case.

So what's your objection?  To 'Zionist' and 'scumbag' being combined?  I am puzzled.

Regards

Tony Greenstein

Labour to investigateafter MP called ‘Zionist scumbag’ for opposing Jeremy Corbyn

UK Parliament Disclaimer: This e-mail is confidential to the intended recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no liability is accepted for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail.

On 23 August 2015 at 16:10, MANN, John <john.mann.mp@parliament.uk> wrote:

I will publish a full response including your email. 

John Mann

Sent from my iPhone

On 23 Aug 2015, at 18:06, Tony Greenstein <tonygreenstein111@gmail.com> wrote:

It's already been posted on social media

Tony Greenstein

On 23 August 2015 at 18:24, MANN, John;john.mann.mp@parliament.uk; wrote:

There is a surprise. Your lies no bounds and are calculatedly designed to deceive. 

You ought to re-read Steve Cohen. 

Sent from my iPhone

On 23 Aug 2015, at 18:44, Tony Greenstein wrote:

You are a fool aren't you?  Is that why you were appointed to the Chair of Parliament's anti-Semitism Committee?  You don't have a clue as to what racism or anti-Semitism is.  When was the last time you spoke up about asylum seekers?  It's people like Jeremy Corbyn who have spoken up against the treatment of refugees.  You are a New Labour scumbag, remember?

If this had been the 1900's you would have been in the forefront of opposing Jewish refugees from Czarist Russia entry into this country and in 1938  you would have stood alongside the Daily 'Hate' Mail in opposing the entry of Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany.

But that isn't the type of anti-Semitism you oppose.  Your anti-Semitism is solely concerned with opposition to Israel and Zionist racism.  You stand full square with Netanyahu and his concern that 'droves' of Arabs are voting or Deputy Defence Minister Eli Dahan who believes that Arabs are 'beasts that aren't human'.

For the record I knew Steve Cohen.  I stood alongside him and I spoke at his commemoration meeting after he had died (and I reprimanded the Engage group's attempt to exploit Steve's memory).  Steve and myself were the targets of fascist violence whereas you and New Labour condemned fascists and anti-fascists as the same.  Steve was a supporter, as I am, of No Borders.  People like you want to make Europe into a Fortress against immigrants.

Towards the end of his life Steve moved firmly into the anti-Zionist camp holding that a Jewish state was inevitably a racist state.  According to your Committee he was also, no doubt, an anti-Semite.

Tony Greenstein

On 23 August 2015 at 19:17, MANN, John;john.mann.mp@parliament.uk wrote:

Time you read his book then and thought about the split in Socialist organiser. You cannot move beyond your Trotskyist mentality. It dominates your mind

You know full well that I receive the same abuse from right as from ultra left.

Who got action taken against Bonehill! Who did national action target this spring? 

Oh dear. Who chaired the FA task force on islamophobia? 

Don't give me this political analysis crap.

If you bothered to look you would see my views on every issue- I don't hide on obscure websites.

And as for the idea that racism must only be opposed by its victims. Interesting position. 

How dare you define my identity? Who do you think you are defining any bodies identity? 

That's your big problem - you do.

You have no idea who I am or where I am from. You know nothing of me, my family or my background. I will identify myself not you . 

As for you, I only know that your ultra left friends used to call you tony greenslime, something that indicated to me a in built racism. 

Strangely it was only self identified Jews or presumed Jews who received such casual racism

As for your pathetic slur only likely approach to Jewish refugees, I recommend you buy my book on anti Semitism. 

As for steve Cohen, perhaps we should ask jane Ashworth . You are not and never will be a steve Cohen and if you were to use his book as a campaign tool....

Read it.   

Your ranting is too comical to be obscene. Have s walk on the beach, it will help

Sent from my iPhone

John Mann

you tell me to read his book.  Steve Cohen wrote at least 3 books.  I assume you mean his book on 'left anti-Semitism'.  I have a copy of it and I disagree with much of its political analysis.  A strange concept to you no doubt.

What split in Socialist Organiser?  Between the right and further right, the closet supporters of imperialism and the invasion of Iraq and the open supporters of imperialism and the invasion of Iraq?  I am not interested in a tiny ex-Trotskyite sect like SO/AWL and Jane Ashworth who has long abandoned any pretensions of being on the Left. 

Although I have not examined your positions on other political matters I assume you too were a supporter of Bush & Blair's genocidal invasion of Iraq and will therefore take responsibility for all that happened, such as the growth of Isis and Sunni Fundamentalism.  No doubt you still support the alliance with Saudi Arabia as well as Israel (which also supports Al Qaeda group al-Nusra as well as Isis).

Bonehill is an isolated nonentity on the far-right.  He represents nothing, absolutely nothing.  Likewise National Action.  The main fascist groups in this country - BNP and EDL - are both ardent supporters of Israel and no doubt agree with everything you say about 'anti-Semitism'.

Yes it's quite cuddly to be opposed to 'Islamaphobia' whilst in practice supporting the main agents of anti-Muslim racism.  Did you oppose Labour's 'anti-terrorist' legislation that criminalised thought?  A step taken even further now with Theresa May's attack on 'extremism' which is introducing the method of the Police state into schools and universities, with vetting of speakers?  You have opposed none of this.  New Labour prepared the ground for all that is following in terms of civil liberties and naked racism.  You helped build the Jihadist groups with your support for attacking Iraq and Afghanistan.  You then have the audacity to trumpet some minor chairing of an FA committee.  Pathetic.

Jeremy Corbyn, the man you demonise, opposed the Iraqi invasion root and branch alongside that giant of the socialist left, Tony Benn.  You were always part of the New Labour cast that used the defamatory scarecrow of 'anti-Semitism' to attack opponents of Israel's murderous and horrendous racism.  A racism which ends up in the burning alive of an 18 month old child.

I don't doubt that the man termed 'rent a gob' by Matthew Norman has his views spread everywhere.  Unfortunately they lack any substance.  Of course I don't suggest racism should be opposed only by its victims but when people who are not victims of racism take it upon themselves to try and define that racism, anti-Semitism in this case, in order to use it as a stick to beat those who are the victims of a far greater evil, then I certainly step in.

You can self-identify yourself as much as you like but you are not Jewish.  That is a fact.  Perhaps in your sojourn around the media you have forgotten your interview in the Jewish Chronicle with Simon Round of 12 February 2009 which begins 'Labour MP John Mann is not Jewish'.  It continues 'There may be nothing Jewish in his background but... Indeed, he is adamant that the fight against antisemitism should be led by non-Jews.'  

The fact that someone makes a play on my name (in fact it has been done by people from right to left) doesn't mean that they are anti-Semitic.  Merely puerile like your good self.

I doubt if I would learn anything from your book.  My own book on fighting fascism in Brighton and the South Coast is of far greater interest.   These days books on anti-Semitism are two a penny.  What I judge is your record.  You were, as I have already  pointed out, heavily criticised by the Employment Judge in Fraser v UCU.  Because when it came to it allegations by you of anti-Semitism could not be backed up, because there was no anti-Semitism.  And therein lies the rub.  Accusations of anti-Semitism that are false and made for naked political ends by the Right, to defeat a Boycott of Israel for its Apartheid policies, are extremely damaging.  Like the boy who cried wolf you actually help legitimise anti-Semitism (of the real kind).

I suggest you try informing yourself of the situation of Palestinians and why we support boycott.  The fact that the Dawabshe family in Duma, West Bank, two of whom have died because of the firebombing, will not receive anti-terrorist compensation because they are not Jewish and on the West Bank there are 2 sets of laws i.e. Apartheid.

Acquaint yourself with the fact that Arabs can't buy or lease 93% of land in Israel because they are not Jewish nationals or that Arab stone throwers can be gaoled now for 20 years whereas settlers who throw stones receive no penalty.  Or that the Chief Rabbi of Safed, Shmuel Eliyahu receives no penalty for issuing an edict against letting out flats or apartments to non-Jews and Arabs (oh he was criticised by Netanyahu when the publicity spotlight was on him but he is still paid a state salary as befits a rabbi in Israel).  Or why the authors of Torat HaMelech by 2 rabbis inc. Yitzhak Shapira are not prosecuted for writing a book detailing when it is permissible to kill non-Jews yea even infants.  And then tell me that Boycotting such a state is 'anti-Semitic'.

I make no claim to be Steve Cohen.  I am my own person.  Steve and I had a comradely relationship and we became closer over the years.  You can read my obituary on my blog.  We were both of the Left.  You are not which is why Steve would have chosen me above you any day of the week.  Steve would have had contempt for you and the tragedy is that you don't understand why he wouldn't support a New Labour MP.

There are things that Steve wrote to me, which would support the above, that I would even divulge to you in open correspondence because I have too much respect for him.  And it is because I respected Steve, and vicer versa, that we could disagree.

Tony Greenstein

I   forgot to mention your support of the racist New Labour ex-Immigration Minister Phil Woolas.  Thrown out by an Electoral Court for trying too hard to make 'Whites Angry'.  You stood by him through thick and thin.  No doubt part of your anti-Islamaphobia campaign?

Tony Greenstein

On 24 August 2015 at 06:09, MANN, John;john.mann.mp@parliament.uk; wrote:

I do not define myself as a Zionist under any definition of the word , you cannot evidence me being a Zionist on your definition. 

Yet you use the term pejoratively against me. Interesting. ( and many others do the same)

Your only basis for doing so is that I chair a committee on anti Semitism

Better that you followed cohens bravery in challenging anti Semitism on the left

Sent from my iPhone

You may not define yourself as a Zionist, however that does not mean you aren't a Zionist.  Having been an active anti-fascist for over 30 years, unlike your good self, nearly all members of the National Front and BNP that I came across denied they were fascists.  They purported to be 'patriots'.  However fascists they were and are - and a Zionist you are.

A Zionist is someone who supports the Zionist movement and its creation, the State of Israel.  There is no doubt that you fit into that category and the best example of that is the Report of the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism which you chaired in 2014.

It is a classic example of the 'new anti-Semitism'.  It took evidence almost wholly from Zionists.  I recognise just one person who might possibly come under the rubric of a non-Zionist.  The eminent expert in how the term anti-Semitism is misused, notably in the European Monitoring Committee's Working Definition of anti-Semitism, which you approve of, Dr Brian Klug is a notable omission.  So too is Tony Lerman, the former Director and founder of the Institute of Jewish Policy Research, who was forced out of his job for not toeing the Zionist line on matters such as 'anti-Semitism'.

The Report complains about the fact that people associate British Jews with what Israel does.  In itself a fair comment, but not once does it make even the tiniest criticism of the Board of Deputies of British Jews who strenuously seek to align British Jewry with Israel's crimes, proudly proclaiming that British Jews support Israel.  It is no wonder that some misguided people do therefore equate Jews with Israeli war crimes when Jewish representative bodies, albeit not as representative as they believe themselves to be, do their best to make such connections.

Indeed you note, with approval, (para 169) that in the House of Lords, a cross bench peer’s comments that “much antisemitism is a reaction to the appalling Israeli treatment of its Arab neighbours” were roundly condemned by others attending the debate.  Why?  It's obvious from the spike in anti-Semitic incidents that you draw attention to that the two are related.

The Report, quite disingenuously, seeks to associate the Boycott of Israel with anti-Semitism.  As someone who has proudly taken part in a number of Boycott activities, including those which closed the Ahava shop in London and Sodastream in Brighton, as well as the disruption of Israel's Philharmonic Orchestra at the Proms, I cannot see there is a trace of anti-Semitism therein.  Boycott actions are directed at Israeli commercial concerns not at Jewish ones, despite your conflation of the two.

The fact that you turned up at the Fraser v UCU Employment Tribunal, where you were roundly criticised by the Tribunal, to give evidence that UCU had been anti-Semitic for boycotting Israeli universities, institutions that provide support and backup to the military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, demonstrates in itself where your sympathies lie.

Your criticism of the Tricycle Theatre for having initially refused to sponsor a Jewish Film Festival because it received Israeli Embassy funding, even though it said it would provide the equivalent subsidy itself, apparently 'caused shock and tremendous concern' to those who gave evidence to you.  It is a pity that they weren't shocked and concerned by the death of over 2,000 people in Gaza as a result of the actions of the Israeli government, which the Embassy represents.

Although it may be due to ignorance rather than malevolence, you report that the Home Secretary spoke out against antisemitism at a Conservative Friends of Israel even.  Perhaps, given your remit is anti-Semitism, you could have focussed on the fact that CFI has previously invited noted anti-Semites such as Michal Kaminski, a Polish MEP who has campaigned against a Polish apology for Jedwabne or  Robert Zile MEP of Latvia, who marches annually with the Waffen SS veterans.  But then that would be embarrassing since Israel has strong links with all manner of pro-Zionist anti-Semites.

You even attack John Prescott MP for writing in his Sunday Mirror column that Gaza was comparable to a concentration camp and that “What happened to the Jewish people at the hands of the Nazis is appalling. But you would think those atrocities would give Israelis a unique sense of perspective and empathy with the victims of a ghetto” para. 167

The Report seemed disturbed by the fact that 'flowers with a card naming three children killed in Gaza were left outside a prominent Jewish centre in North West London, deliberately in time for Jewish schoolchildren being collected from a summer scheme to see them.' para. 128

What has that to do with anti-Semitism?

Attacking its critics as 'anti-Semites' is a standard Zionist trope.  Telling Jewish anti-Zionists that it is a pity they didn't die in the holocaust and other abuse, is another form of Zionist anti-Semitism.  One lovely example, among many, that I have received at my blog was:
'It's a shame that either Hitler or the Angel of Death, missed your family's house. Or Neturei Karta's.  Don't even call yourself a Jew,traitor.'  

A large percentage of anti-Semitic comments comes from Zionists but that would be inconvenient to you or your fellow travellers.

So when you ask for evidence that you are a Zionist, you might now understand why your Report more than fits the bill.

I note that you were one of the Labour MPs not to support the creation of a Palestinian state and I am unaware, though no doubt you will provide some evidence to the contrary if you have any, that you have ever raised your voice in opposition to what Israel does in stealing the land of the Palestinians and killing thousands of them.

Your concern about 'anti-Semitism' is entirely devoted to the cause of Zionism which is why the firm of Mishcon De Reya provided you with pro bono support, as they did in the Fraser v UCU case.

Tony Greenstein