Showing posts with label Merlyn Rees. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Merlyn Rees. Show all posts

26 January 2026

EXCLUSIVE: THE OTHER SIDE OF GERRY GABLE – Praised by the Tory Press & the Morning Star for his ‘Anti-Fascism’ They Omit His Support for Zionism & Israeli Apartheid

The Death of Searchlight’s Gable Represents the Death of Bourgeois Anti-Fascism

Gerry Gable, the Editor of Searchlight Anti-Fascist Magazine from 1981 onwards, died recently. What is remarkable is that all the obituaries, from the Morning Star to The Telegraph and Times were both completely uncritical and almost identical.

According to Andrew Bell, a former Searchlight Editor in the Guardian Gable

was one of the most formidable and persistent figures in the postwar fight against fascism and the extreme right in the UK.

The genocide supporting, anti-Palestinian Jewish Chronicle said that Gable

remained consistent in his efforts to defend democracy and expose the dangers of far-right extremism.’

According to Steve Silver, former Campaigns Officer for the Israeli funded Union of Jewish Students, in the Communist Morning Star, Gable was ‘the most tenacious post-war anti-fascist Britain ever produced’.

The Telegraph described Gable as having ‘waged a 50-year war on British neo-Nazis’.

It is not often that someone can receive almost identical praise from the papers of the Communist Party and the Tory Party. And still they got it wrong. Not a hint of the criticism Gable received found a space in their eulogies. Although one must not speak ill of the dead it is also important to speak the truth.

Perhaps the reason for their praise is that Gable’s work against Britain’s neo-Nazi right not only posed no challenge to the British state but was often carried out in collaboration with it. These tributes tell one side of the story. There is another, darker and murkier side.

Part of the reason is that Gable was a racist not an anti-racist, a Zionist not an anti-Zionist. The real credit for Searchlight’s work during the 1970s when it played a key role in destroying the National Front as a political force should go to Maurice Ludmer, its Editor between 1975 and 1981, and not Gable. Unfortunately Ludmer died an untimely death in 1981 at the age of only 54 leaving Gable to align Searchlight’s political direction with his own.

Maurice Ludmer, unlike Gable, was an anti-imperialist

Whereas Ludmer resigned from the Communist Party because it was not sufficiently devoted to the fight against racism in the working class Gable resigned in 1962 because ‘it had begun to adopt an anti-Israel line’ [Jewish Chronicle 23.10.87]. Gable explained that:

Israel was a democracy and these (Arab) countries were not. I have always supported Israel on those grounds first and foremost because I have always been a Jewish trade unionist.

Therein lies the difference between Ludmer and Gable. According to David Edgar’s obituary for Ludmer

Maurice believed passionately that fascism could not be effectively fought without attacking racism as well; he believed, too, that black workers must play their full part in the struggle against the most extreme and virulent form of racism, the National Front and its allies.

Gable’s lack of socialist politics led to his collaboration with a British state that was racist to the core. This was also why the Anti-Fascist movement lost its trust in him.

Gable’s relationship with the British state and his trading information on neo-Nazis with Special Branch and MI5 in exchange for information on the Left led to a breakdown in relations.

Gable’s Memorandum to London Weekend Television

In 1977 Labour Home Secretary, Merlyn Rees proposed deporting American journalist Mark Hosenball and ex-CIA agent Phil Agee. Agee and Hosenball were targeted because they were exposing CIA activities and the existence of Britain’s electronic intelligence agency, GCHQ, which was then a secret.

From Left to Right - Campbell, Aubrey and Berry

While researching to defend Agee and Hosenball against deportation, Time Out journalists Crispin Aubrey and Duncan Campbell met with John Berry, a former Signals Intelligence employee, a whistleblower, to discuss the operations of GCHQ.

Hosenball and Campbell, had co-written an article for Time Out magazine titled "The Eavesdroppers" which detailed the work of GCHQ. This, along with Agee's work, led to them being deemed threats to national security.

The ABC trial  arose from the government's attempt to silence investigations into its intelligence activities. Aubrey, Berry and Campbell (ABC) were arrested on February 20, 1977, days after the deportation order was finalised, under the Official Secrets Act for collecting and passing on information regarding signals intelligence.

In November 1978 this trial collapsed with token sentences being handed out. During the trial and the campaign that preceded it, the security services had done their best to poison the media via corrupt and tame journalists. One such was Gerry Gable, a researcher with London Weekend Television.

On 2 May 1977, Gable sent a memo to his superiors at LWT regarding Phil Kelly who was active in the campaign to support the ABC defendants. Kelly later became editor of Tribune and an Islington Labour councillor.

The memo confirmed that Gable was working hand in glove with the British and Israeli secret services to smear the campaign to support Hosenball and Agee.

Gable alleged that Kelly had taken part in a PLO terrorist training camp. There was no truth in this allegation but lies came easily to Gable. According to the New Statesman (15.2.80):

The wording of Mr Gable's memo suggests clearly that he was engaged in a 2-way transaction with his security sources... The nature of the official material received and recorded by him suggests that much of it was coloured by phone-tap info and informer reports.  

As Time Out observed, the memo caused those who Gable mentioned, like Hosenball, who had previously considered Gable as a friend, to feel betrayed. (22.2.80)

It is something that people in anti-fascist politics have also experienced.  There is reason to believe that Campbell was also being monitored by Gable.

Brian Gentleman

Nine years later and Gable was up to his old tricks, this time for Channel 4's 20/20 Vision. Gable befriended, and took advantage of, a lonely low-level civil servant in the DTI, Brian Gentleman.  One day Gentleman found himself accused, live on TV, of being a Czech agent.

However the Police refused to prosecute. Gentleman was considered a Walter Mitty character whom Gable had entrapped. The Broadcasting Complaints Commission delivered a stern rebuke. It was also the subject of a question in the House of Commons from Gerald Howarth MP.

The Role of Searchlight

Searchlight Magazine played a crucial role in exposing the National Front in the 70s as a neo-Nazi organisation. Under Ludmer it was an effective weapon for the anti-fascist  movement. In the words of Unmesh Desai, now a right-wing Labour councillor but at the time an anti-fascist activist, ‘Searchlight was our bible’.

Once Ludmer had died Gable took the magazine in an overtly pro-imperialist direction. For years I helped sell the magazine but I stopped doing so when it became overtly pro-Zionist. One particularly absurd front page was the September 1987 issue ‘The New Axis’ featuring Ghadffi, Khomeini, Patrick Harrington and Louis Farrakhan. It was a precursor of George Bush’s ‘evil axis’.

This was followed up by the January 1989 issue ‘The Year of the Mad Dogs’ featuring Ghadaffi again. This fitted in with Reagan’s rhetoric against the Libyan regime. An equally demented graphic on the State of the British Right in January 1989 included Muslim fundamentalists, Black British activists, Arabs a plenty but curiously no mention of Zionist organisations such as the Jewish Defence League.


Searchlight had became a pro-Zionist rag and a mouthpiece for British Intelligence. It is little wonder that the Telegraph, not normally sympathetic to the fight against fascism or racism, gave such an adulatory obituary to Gable.

Anti-Fascist Action (AFA)

It is in his effect on the anti-fascist movement that Gable and Searchlight were most destructive. AFA was formed in February 1985 to take on a resurgence of violent fascism and groups like Blood & Honour, C18 and the British Movement.

Not only was Searchlight trading information with MI5/Special Branch but it was actively trying to split and destabilise the anti-fascist movement. When Zionist Board of Deputies attacked the newly formed Anti-Nazi League [ANL] Ludmer didn’t hold back in  attacking the BOD:

‘In the face of mounting attacks against the Jewish community, both ideologically and physically, we have the amazing sight of the Jewish Board of Deputies launching an attack on the Anti-Nazi League with all the fervour of Kamikaze pilots.’  [Searchlight November 1978]

Guardian journalist David Rose, described by Larry O’Hara as a ‘journalistic mouthpiece’ for the Met Police and Searchlight, smeared Class War as a fascist organisation. Allegations were made by Gable that their leadership, in particular Ian Bone, were supporters of the NF, that racism was endemic in CW, that they were police agent-provocateurs on demonstrations and that the NF & CW jointly planned the Stop the City demonstrations targeting Jewish businesses.

CW were never popular on the Left, their paper was often crude politically but no one doubted that they were anti-fascists. They attracted a young, punk periphery. They also appealed to a section of the working class including many miners during the 1984-5 strike. They were the perfect foil for Gable and MI5.  

At its Manchester conference in 1986, AFA narrowly took a decision to suspend CW from membership until an Inquiry looked into Searchlight’s allegations. When the Inquiry asked for evidence 

Searchlight was unable to supply any to support its allegations.

At this, AFA’s second conference I was elected onto AFA’s Executive. When a Commission of Enquiry reported, CW were exonerated but the damage to AFA had been done. The 1986 AGM nearly broke up in turmoil as a result of the allegations.

As the AFA Report into Searchlight Allegations Against Class War concluded:

Despite the leading role of Searchlight magazine in the affair, and despite many approaches to the magazine for evidence, the sum total of material from Searchlight to the enquiry was nil.  We are bemused by Searchlight's role in this affair.

In the course of the inquiry Gable had admitted to monitoring anarchists. For whom he didn't say. He had engaged in the destabilisation of AFA on behalf of the British state and his Special Branch and MI5 friends. None of his obituaries have even mentioned Gabel’s role as an informer for the British state.

See also my article for the Newsletter of Palestine Solidarity Campaign Undermining Anti-Fascists, Defending Zionism. I was heavily involved in the Anti-Fascist movement from the mid-70’s onwards. See my 2012 book on the History of Fighting fascism in Brighton and the South Coast.

Brighton AFA Letter to AFA Groups (24.6.93) and to Gable (16.7.93) and Gable Letter to Greenstein (13.7.93)

On 24 June 1993 I wrote on behalf of Brighton AFA to other AFA groups warning them about Gable and Searchlight. I referred to his targeting of Malcolm Astells, a member of Midlands AFA as a neo-Nazi infiltrator on the basis that:

‘every time he takes charge something goes wrong: either people get arrested or are led away from confronting the nazis on wild-goose chase.’

I referenced similar allegations against Class War and made the point that when false allegations are made against people

the result can only be to sow confusion and suspicion in our ranks. lt is a classic tactic of the secret state, the purpose of which is to destabilise and demoralise its enemies. It also means... that it is that much easier for genuine fascists to infiltrate our ranks.’

My letter stung Gable into sending me a rebuttal on 13 July 1993. Gable disguised his real reason for writing with the pretence that I  owed Searchlight money for copies of Searchlight that he had sent me to distribute. In fact I never heard again of his legal threats.

The rest of his letter was mere bluster, repeating claims that he had supplied evidence to AFA’s CW Inquiry. In the course of his rant, Gable accused me of being a ‘self-hating Jew’. Gable, also resented my comparison to Maurice Ludmer who had always taken the position that the issue of Zionism should not be allowed to divide the anti-fascist movement.

This was a time when some supporter of Israel, such as Miriam Karlin and Professor Geoffrey Alderman, had broken ranks with the Board of Deputies to sponsor the Anti-Nazi League. Today when the Zionists are holding hands with Tommy Robinson and supporting Genocide, such a position is clearly untenable.

In my response three days later I explained that the term ‘self-hater’ has a Nazi lineage. That was what anti-fascist Germans were accused of before going on to make the point that:

I have always found it difficult to oppose racism and fascism in Britain and then turn a blind eye to racism and fascism directed against Palestinians simply because the perpetrators are Jewish. You have no such qualms. Therein lies the reason for your political degeneration.

Black Activists Challenge Searchlight’s Racism

In July 1991, a coalition of black-led anti-racist groups published an OpenLetter in Labour Briefing that publicly criticised Searchlight. Searchlight of course had refused to print the letter.

This letter was driven by a series of long-standing disagreements, culminating in allegations of racist treatment of black anti-racists at an Ilford synagogue meeting. 

At the meeting Black attendees, were banned, searched, and physically intimidated by security guards. Newham Monitoring Group Secretary, Jasbir Singh, reported being subjected to a body search. All this was directed by Gerry Gable.

The letter represented a major public rift between Searchlight and Black anti-racist groups. It led to the formation of the Anti-Racist Alliance in November of that year.

Black activists questioned the magazine's methods and its collaboration with the state. This highlighted a rift between Searchlight and grassroots Black-led groups, such as NMP.

The Briefing letter alleged that Searchlight had fostered a hostile environment for black activists. Whilst Searchlight worked with the Police Black people were suffering from police racism. Searchlight was seen as the right-wing of the movement.

These tensions were exacerbated by the association with Herut, the political party that founded Israel’s Likud party led by Netanyahu. Although the letter said that their main differences were not over the Middle East it was inevitable that Searchlight’s support for Zionism had an effect on relations with Black activists.

The letter’s authors took issue with Searchlight’s approach to racism which emphasised cultural differences rather than seeing economic and political discrimination as being at the heart of state racism, a term that Searchlight barely recognised.

The signatories also took issue with the equation by Searchlight of anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism given that many Black people oppose Zionism because it is an apartheid ideology. Most prominent Black anti-racist groups in Britain signed this letter.

There followed a heated correspondence in Briefing itself. This clearly angered Searchlight which had always taken care not to print critical letters in the Magazine.

When the Campaign Against Racism & Fascism [CARF], which had produced its own separate section in Searchlight from 1979 until 1990 split over political differences such as the magazine’s pro-Israel stance and its prioritisation of anti-Semitism over state racism and its pro-imperialist politics, they sent in a letter explaining why they were parting. Searchlight refused to print it despite CARF having produced a section of the magazine for 11 years. See Powerbase for a timeline of the split.

Searchlight however could not ignore the letter that was printed in Labour Briefing given the support it had in the Labour Movement and from several MPs like Corbyn and McDonnell. Searchlight acolytes had no option but to defend it but Gable stayed silent.

In the September 1991 issue Ray Hill, a former Searchlight mole in the British Movement, who had become Deputy Leader, penned a letter which avoided virtually all the accusations. He did though insult the Black organisations who had signed the letter as ‘three men and a dog’. Daphne Liddell, of the New Communist Party, contributed a more emollient letter.

In the October issue Larry O’Hara, an independent anti-fascist researcher penned an article which I am told made Gerry Gable spit blood. O’Hara rehearsed all the allegations of Searchlight’s links and work for the secret State. O’Hara, although he didn’t always get things right, had been a thorn in Searchlight’s side for years. Gable had become obsessed with him.

In the February 1992 issue Graeme Atkinson, Searchlight’s European Editor, contributed an article but added little that was new, referring to the ‘hoary old 1977 ‘Gable Memorandum’. That was the best he could do because it was difficult to explain Gable’s admission of working for the security services. Graeme accused Briefing of using ‘knife in the back’ tactics in printing O’Hara’s article. Graeme has since broken with Searchlight.

Finally in March 1992 I had a long letter in Briefing responding to Atkinson and also explaining the political problems that anti-racists and anti-fascists now had with Searchlight. The full correspondence can be found here.


Winter 2015 Searchlight Suggests that the Labour Party expel 'Jew hater' Tony Greenstein
Searchlight Support for the Labour Party ‘Anti-Semitism’ Witchhunt

It was not therefore surprising that Searchlight and Gable would lend their support to the ‘anti-Semitism’ witchhunt of socialists and anti-Zionists in the Labour Party. In its Winter 2015 issue there was an item ‘Anti-Semitism’ which asked

‘How is it that nobody appears to have looked into the background of Tony Greenstein, a Brighton antifascist and pro-Palestinian activist’ before going on to call me a ‘Jewish Hater’.

In fact I was suspended in March 2016 and I was the first Jew to be suspended and then expelled from the Labour Party as part of the ‘anti-Semitism’ witchhunt. The article makes it clear that it thoroughly approved of this right-wing attack on socialists and anti-Zionists in the Labour Party. 

Below are links to a number of documents referred to in this blog.

Tony Greenstein

AFA Report into Searchlight Allegations Against Class War

Black activists challenge Searchlight July 91 and here

Gerry Gable Again – Black Flag – the Brian Gentlemen Affair and here

Spy Trial By Television and here

The Eavesdroppers – Duncan Campbell and Mark Hosenball, Time Out  and here

Powerbase Article on Searchlight

Searchlight 'anti-fascist magazine joins forces with Labour’s ‘anti-Semitism’ witchhunt

The Death Agony of Searchlight Anti-Fascist Magazine

Searchlight & the State – Kate Sharpley

Destabilising the Decent People – Duncan Campbell, Bruce Page, Nick Anning

Searchlight Obituary for Gerry Gable

Jewish News Frazer Article

Morning Star Obituary for Gable

Jewish News  Obituary

Gable Memorandum transcript

Our Searchlight Problem – Lobster Magazine

Letter – Tony Greenstein, Brighton AFA to supporters 24 June 1993

Letter – Gerry Gable to Tony Greenstein 13 July 1993

Letter -Tony Greenstein to Gerry Gable 16 July 1993

Obituary -:Gerry Gable (1937-2026), architect of modern British anti-fascism – Andy Bell

29 June 2024

The Nauseating Hypocrisy of The Guardian as Julian Assange is Freed

It was Guardian ‘journalists’ who, from the safety of their expense accounts, sneered & jeered whilst intelligence asset Luke Harding invented lies aimed at keeping Assange locked up



Assange & the Guardian  - How a 'liberal' newspaper jeopardised journalistic freedom

Last Tuesday Julian Assange was freed after 12 years of wrongful imprisonment after agreeing a ‘plea deal’ with the US government over espionage charges when the only significant US witness admitted under oath that he had been lying the whole time.

When Assange was set free from Belmarsh for the ‘crime’ of having revealed American war crimes, I wondered what angle I should take. I decided that Guardian hypocrisy was a good approach after I read The Guardian view on the WikiLeaks plea deal: good for Julian Assange, not journalism. If hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue then Editor Katherine Viner must have overdosed on the stuff.

At last Julian Assange is Free

I then came across Jonathan Cook’s excellent It was the media, led by the Guardian, that kept Julian Assange behind bars.

Cook wrote about how David Leigh and Luke Harding, who worked with Assange on behalf of the Guardian, had become extremely hostile to him for not agreeing to their writing his. Instead they 

‘repeatedly betrayed confidences and manoeuvred against Wikileaks rather the cooperating with it. Assange was particularly incensed to discover that the paper had broken the terms of its written contract with Wikileaks by secretly sharing confidential documents with outsiders, including the NYT.

In giving evidence at the Old Bailey, a senior investigative journalist, Nicky Hager, described the pair’s 2011 book WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy as “not a reliable source”. Hostility to Asssange extended to virtually all the Guardian’s ‘journalists’.

Deepa Driver interview with BBC on Assange’s Release

It was Luke Harding and Dan Collyns who wrote the article Manafort held secret talks with Assange (Guardian 27.11.18). This was a fabrication, planted by the intelligence services which alleged that Assange was in league with Donald Trump. Manafort had been Trump’s campaign manager. No evidence was provided for the allegation that they had had 3 visits. The security cameras didn’t catch sight of Manafort and the Embassy visitors’ book was not signed by him. This was Harding’s revenge, courtesy of MI5/6.

At the centre of the US case against Assange was information in Leigh and Harding’s book that ‘Assange was recklessly indifferent to the safety of US informants named in leaked files published by Wikileaks.’ In fact this was the opposite of the truth.

‘Assange was meticulous about redacting names in the documents. It was they – the journalists, including Leigh – who were pressuring Assange to publish without taking full precautions....

But to bolster its feeble claim against Assange – that he was reckless about redactions – the US has hoped to demonstrate that in September 2011, long after publication of the Iraq and Afghan diaries, Wikileaks did indeed release a trove of documents – official US cables – that Assange failed to redact....

In fact, the story behind the September 2011 release by Wikileaks of those unredacted documents is entirely different from the story the court and public is being told. The Guardian has conspired in keeping quiet about the real version of events for one simple reason – because it, the Guardian, was the cause of that release.

The February 2011 Guardian book the US keeps citing contained something in addition to the highly contentious and disputed claim from Leigh that Assange had a reckless attitude to redacting names. The book also disclosed a password – one Assange had given to Leigh on strict conditions it be kept secret – to the file containing the 250,000 encrypted cables. The Guardian book let the cat out of the bag. Once it gave away Assange’s password, the Old Bailey hearings have heard, there was no going back.

Demonstration Outside the Guardian's Offices 2020

It is this that explains why, for over a decade Guardian’s writers and columnists have attacked the very person who the Guardian had teamed up with, to produce its scoops. Instead of campaigning against the extradition proceedings against Assange the Guardian kept quiet. ‘Left’ journalists like George Monbiot refused to cover the case. In 2020 we held a demonstration outside the Guardian’s offices near King’s Cross to protest at its silence during the extradition hearings.

It is therefore a chutzpah (defined as when a boy who has killed both his parents asks the court for mercy because he’s an orphan!) when, after Assange’s release, in its leading article the Guardian wrote that

‘Julian Assange should never have been charged with espionage by the US. The release of the WikiLeaks founder from custody in the UK is good news... This is no triumph for press freedom. Mr Assange’s plea has prevented the setting of a frightening judicial precedent for journalists, avoiding a decision that might bind future courts. Nonetheless, this is the first conviction for basic journalistic efforts under the 1917 act.

Using espionage charges was always a bad and cynical move. ... Alarmingly, the Espionage Act allows no public interest defence, preventing defendants from discussing the material leaked, why they shared it, and why they believe the public should know about it. ... It is possible that future administrations could take this case as encouragement to pursue the press under the Espionage Act. ... The political solution to this lengthy saga is welcome, ... But the threat to press freedom has not ended. Its defence cannot rest either.

That Assange has finally gained his freedom is no thanks to the Guardian which lied and deceived throughout his 14 year ordeal.

Just a few of the poisonous articles in the Guardian - all based on trivial, malicious and unfounded allegations

The stench of hypocrisy emanating from the Guardian’s offices is overwhelming. The Guardian, which benefitted from scoop after scoop after scoop after scoop after scoop as a result of Wikileaks revelations, turned on the person who enabled those front page stories, with a tale of treachery and deceit that would put Judas to shame.

Deepa Driver Speaks on the Injustices of our ‘Justice System’ vs Julian Assange

But when the United States and its masters of the dark arts hit on the idea of framing Assange for rape in Sweden, knowing full well that such an allegation would inevitably cause people to question whether they should be supporting him, the Guardian and the rest of the liberal rat pack ran as fast as their little legs could carry them.

Unlike liberals and identity politics feminists, the Deep State is not stupid. It knows very well how to sow the seeds of division among its opponents. Sexual crimes and #metoo rank highest of all in the list of accusations to wreak havoc in the ranks of Assange’s supporters.

The same has happened over Israel’s genocide in Gaza.  Israeli propagandists have worked hard to conjure up tales of ‘rape’ by the Palestinian resistance despite a total lack of evidence. The weaponisation of rape has a long history and Black and Jewish people have both been its victims as they were portrayed as sexual predators in the Deep South and Nazi Germany. The case of the Scottsboro Boys, 9 Blacks who were falsely accused of rape and nearly executed in Alabama, stands out as an example of racialised lynch mob justice.

Nils Melzer, the UN Rapporteur, in The Trial of Julian Assange demolished the accusations of rape showing that it was the Police and a corrupt Swedish prosecutor who formulated these charges despite a lack of evidence. The women concerned hadn’t made allegations of rape. That was the Swedish state on behalf of the United States.

The Guardian was assiduous in playing up the rape allegations. In February 2016, in response to a UN Report that Assange was the victim of arbitrary detention, the Guardian published a leading article  Julian Assange: no victim of arbitrary detention. It said:

It is true that he has never been charged, as his lawyers have argued. But that is because Swedish legal procedure requires an interview to take place before any decision to prosecute: since Mr Assange left Sweden in 2010 before he could be questioned and has resolutely refused to return, no such interview has taken place.

But that was a lie. As Nils Melzer pointed out, Assange delayed his departure from Sweden in order that prosecutors could question him. They refused to do so. He had already been questioned by police. The Guardian and its contributors made a special effort to run with the rape allegations in order to cover up its own malfeasance.

But that did not stop feminists and liberals using these accusations to target Assange on behalf of US imperialism. The Guardian’s ‘journalists’, not least its female journalists, were the worst.

Marina Hyde, the Guardian’s empty head, was the nastiest and snidest of the lot. Hadley Freeman, on loan from the Jewish Chronicle, penned a puerile attempt at wit. Suzanna Moore a poisonous transphobe and Hanna Jane Parkinson joined in the baying mob.

The Guardian’s male ‘journalists’ lacked the viciousness and bitchiness of their female colleagues but they made up for it. None more so than Nick Cohen, whose years of sexual abuse, was covered up by Jonathan Freedland and other senior editors.

Cohen’s abuse was the subject of an article in the NYT. The Guardian prided itself on #metoo but when it came to it, it too covered up gross and persistent sexual assault bordering on rape. As Martha Gill put it in the Observer #MeToo men want to be forgiven, but what of the careers of their casualties? I’m sure all the young journalists who were forced to give up internships or jobs at the Guardian because of Cohen have been handsomely compensated-not.

None of this prevented Cohen from attacking Assange though!

Some of Assange's supporters say that the women have no right to put allegations of sexual abuse before a competent court. Instead, they denounce them as "feminazis" in language so extreme that the women's lawyer said his clients were "the victims of a crime, but they are looked upon as the perpetrators". ...  Activists, who claim they are the enemies of patriarchy, dismiss allegations of sexual abuse as a CIA conspiracy.

Cohen wasn’t the only righteous hypocrite on the Guardian. Marina Hyde was convinced that Assange was ‘a man hiding in an embassy to avoid a rape investigation’. Nothing to do with the CIA wanting to bump him off. The talentless Hyde had an obsession with Assange, remarking in another turgid article that ‘the higher he has gone in his “quest for justice”, the smaller he has looked.’

But when it comes to getting it badly wrong, no one was quite as skilled as Cohen. In another paranoid article Cohen wrote that:

Greenwald and the rest of Assange's supporters do not tell us how the Americans could prosecute the incontinent leaker. American democracy is guilty of many crimes and corruptions. But the First Amendment to the US constitution is the finest defence of freedom of speech yet written. The American Civil Liberties Union thinks it would be unconstitutional for a judge to punish Assange.

And yet Assange was prosecuted. Under the Espionage Act. The Americans were determined to exclude his protections under that same First Amendment (because he wasn’t a citizen). Cohen to be fair was not the only one to get it wrong. James Ball, wrote in 2018 that

The only barrier to Julian Assange leaving Ecuador’s embassy is pride. The WikiLeaks founder is unlikely to face prosecution in the US, charges in Sweden have been dropped – and for the embassy, he’s lost his value as an icon

David Crouch attacked Assange over breach of privacy with an article about how he had defied Swedish prosecutors by releasing a statement. Having been interviewed by Sweden’s prosecutors Assange was perfectly entitled to release his version of events.

In 2019 Jessica Elgot, another transfer from the Jewish Chronicle reported on a letter from MPs that urged that priority be given to rape claims that were by then dead. Quite conveniently that saved them from defending someone who had revealed the US’s dirty secrets.

None of these people have apologised for their squalid attacks, despite having got it wrong about the US intention to extradite Assange. If the Guardian had any principles it would have fired the lot. As I said on the demonstration outside the Guardian, it had only one good journalist, its cartoonist Steve Bell, and he was fired!

Declassified Clip on Starmer's Role When at the CPS on the Framing of Julian Assange

All of this pales in comparison with Starmer’s role as head of the Crown Prosecution Service. The CPS urged the Swedes not to drop their extradition request when the lack of evidence was plain.  ‘Don’t you dare get fold feet’ was the message sent by the CPS to them.

The CPS has admitted to destroying key emails related to the Assange case, mostly covering the period when Starmer was in charge, while the CPS lawyer overseeing the case advised the Swedes in 2010 or 2011 not to visit London to interview Assange.

Now is a good time to remember that when Starmer was (a deeply unpopular) Director of Public Prosecutions and Assange was fighting attempts to extradite him to Sweden, as a staging post for extradition to the US, Starmer flew at least three times to the US in connection with the Assange case. He was accompanied by security officials. The CPS destroyed all records of Starmer’s discussions – as it did with records showing what he knew about serial rapist Jimmy Savile:

This was not Starmer’s only example of grovelling to the US on extradition. When the US wanted autistic hacker Gary McKinnon after he had hacked its servers looking for information on UFOs, Starmer told the Americans he would ‘do everything’ to ensure the extradition went ahead – and flew in fury to bow and scrape to Washington after the then Home Secretary Theresa May quashed it.

Starmer has been described as a ‘long-time servant of the British security state’ and has relentlessly backed moves to protect state agents from crimes such as rape and murder. He attacked environmental and human rights protesters, supported immunity for soldiers who murdered civilians in Northern Ireland and refused to oppose laws allowing the state to persecute journalists. Not once did he speak out against the relentless US pursuit of Assange, despite the collapse of the US case when its main witness admitted lying.

If Starmer is elected as Prime Minister we can expect a continuation of the Tory policy of criminalising protest. There isn’t a piece of paper between him and the Tories. See Video: Starmer met US agencies about Assange extradition – CPS destroyed all records

An important article in the London Review of Books by Patrick Cockburn, one of the few genuine journalists left, described how:

Melzer describes an investigation that was politicised from the moment on 20 August 2010 when two women, then known only as AA and SW, went to a police station in Stockholm ‘to inquire whether Mr Assange could be compelled to take an HIV test’. Within hours, ‘the Swedish prosecution ordered the arrest of Mr Assange and informed the tabloid newspaper Expressen that he was suspected of having raped two women.’

Over the next nine years, as the investigation was repeatedly closed by one prosecutor only to be reopened by another, Sweden regularly indicated that it wanted to question Assange, but in practice showed little desire to do so or to bring the investigation to a conclusion. The main effect of the stop-go judicial proceedings was to keep the controversy over what Assange did in Stockholm in 2010 on the boil. The Swedish government finally replied to Melzer’s letter in November only to say that it had ‘no further observation to make’; the following day the investigation was formally closed.

None of this is likely to change the way Assange is seen. In keeping with past experience, almost no mainstream news outlet paid any attention to Melzer’s questions about the conduct of the case. The world’s biggest newspapers, which had published the WikiLeaks disclosures on their front pages in 2010, distanced themselves from Assange very shortly afterwards, often declaring that he was a difficult person to deal with or was slapdash in his handling of the US government cables and reports. He was accused of being a ‘narcissist’, as if that were something more than a character flaw, or as if his character flaws – whatever they were – had any bearing on the information that had been revealed.

Given the gravity of the issues at stake, the silence of journalists about Assange’s detention in Belmarsh following Ecuador’s revoking of his asylum status is striking. Here was evidence of a radical shift in US security policy, towards the position taken by countries like Turkey and Egypt, which have sought to criminalise criticism of the state and to conflate the publication of news it doesn’t want the public to hear with terrorism or espionage. ... as Glenn Greenwald has pointed out in the Intercept, Western media have ‘largely ignored what is, by far, the single greatest attack on press freedoms by the US government in the last decade at least: the prosecution and attempted extradition of Julian Assange for alleged crimes arising out of WikiLeaks’s ... publication – in conjunction with the world’s largest newspapers – of the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs and US diplomatic cables’. They couldn’t jail the editor of the New York Times so they pursued Assange instead.

 

Tribute needs to be paid to Stella Assange, who I had the privilege of meeting during the Future of the Left events at the 2022 Labour Party conference in Liverpool where I spoke. Stella has been a dogged campaigner. John Pilger was a staunch supporter as was Yanis Varoufakis but with very few exceptions Labour MPs like Jess Philips, who ran with the rape allegations, have been silent or hostile.

I have a few observations. The thrust of the US charges related to Wikileaks having endangered their agents and operatives. Although Assange took care not to reveal their names I have to confess that I couldn’t care less what happened to them. I remember when ex-CIA agent Phil Agee, deliberately went out of his way to expose them in his book Inside the Company, which is still a good read. Agee was deported by Home Secretary Merlyn Rees in 1977

The CIA has been responsible, through the coups it has engineered in Chile, Indonesia, Iran etc. for the deaths of over a million people in Indonesia alone. If there are a few less CIA thugs roaming the streets then that makes far more people safe. US foreign policy is designed to make all except the elites unsafe.

I also want to comment on the judicial proceedings. Yet again our judges, who never let it be forgot are the 'most socially exclusive groups of all the professions’ according to the report, Elitist Britain by the Social Mobility Commission and the Sutton Trust. It shows that 65% of senior judges were educated at an independent school & 75% attended Oxford or Cambridge. [Law Gazette, 25.6.19.]

The inquities in this case are staggering. There is firstly the conflict of interests. The Westminster Chief Magistrate Lady Emma Arbuthnot who made key rulings against Assange is married to Lord James Arbuthnot, a former Defence Minister and Chair of the Defence Select Committee. Arbuthnot was also an advisor to the Islamaphobic Henry Jackson Society.

The Lord Chief Justice who was responsible for rejecting Assange’s first appeal, Ian Burnett, was a long-standing friend of Alan Duncan, the Minister at the Foreign Office who was responsible for the campaign against Ecuador for  harbouring Assange. He later described Assange in parliament as a ‘miserable worm’.

But it’s not just these obvious conflicts of interest. Running through these proceedings is the assumption that the United States has the right to prosecute non-citizens for ‘offences’ committed outside its territorial jurisdiction. Of course in reality the evil empire considers that its reach extends everywhere but at no point did this point even enter the heads of the judiciary.

Secondly Article 4 of the Extradition Treaty of 2007 between the US and Britain explicitly excludes political offences. It reads:

Extradition shall not be granted if the offense for which extradition is requested is a political offense.

 However  the judges are well paid to ensure that their duty to the security state always outweighs their duty to justice and naturally they found a form of weasel words to get around this.

It might be thought that revealing details of war crimes committed by the United States was in itself a compelling reason for rejecting the extradition request however that would be to underestimate the morality of Britain’s judiciary. Crimes by the state are never crimes unless there is a political advantage to making them so. The fact that committing war crimes is illegal under the International Criminal Court Act 2001 is no bar to making revelation of them an offence.

Then there is the small matter of the CIA listening in to privileged conversations between Assange and his lawyers. The judges didn’t rule on this they simply ignored it altogether.

Then there was the attempt of the CIA to assassinate Assange. Naturally the judges didn’t think this had any bearing on the extradition proceedings. After all that’s the CIA’s job. So how can one party trying to kill another be of any relevance? 

So all in all Britain’s judiciary completely disgraced themselves but that too is not the first time.

We can thank Australia’s electorate that they turfed out the previous administration under Scott Morrison and elected a Labour government under Anthony Albanese that campaigned vociferously for Assange’s release. Whatever the sins of the Australian Labour Party, and they are many, one can be thankful that Albanese is not Keir Starmer otherwise Assange would still be in Belmarsh.

Tony Greenstein