Having
threatened to sue anyone who accused him of having jumped bail, Hoffie turns up with fellow absconder
Lenszner at Westminster Magistrates Court yesterday
The bravado and bluster seems to have deserted our Zionist duo
I have a confession to make. Something which would normally spell the end
of a journalist’s career.It
is fortunate that the readers of this blog don’t pay my wages (although you could contribute to the
cost of my new website!)*
·See below for details!
As you will know, I first broke the story of Jonathan Hoffman and Daman Lenszner jumping bail. They failed to turn up at
Westminster Magistrates Court on Monday to answer to charges of Common Assault, Assault by Beating & Threatening and Insulting Behaviour under s.4 Public
Order Act. Hoffman's first reaction to my story was to deny everything. He has plenty of practice at this. His answer to any accusation of Israeli human rights abuses is a one word answer 'liar' sometimes supplemented by the word 'terrorist'. No matter how convincing the evidence we are liars, pure and simple. A child shot dead, an Israeli soldier with a smoking gun? No problem, we are liars and terrorists. No need for any further conversation. Hoffie threatened anyone repeating my allegations with being sued for libel and losing their home and assets! I therefore decided to interview him in the hope of obtaining his side of the story! However this was not possible as Hoffman had gone to ground. I suspected that, being a good Zionist, he might have taken the rat run to Israel.
Someone trying to explain the basics of the law of defamation and that telling the truth can never be defamatory
Hoffie's first reaction to my story was to threaten anyone repeating what I had written with a writ for libel
I hesitate to admit this but in my article Arrest
Warrant Issued for Jonathan Hoffman and Daman Lenszner by Westminster
Magistrates Court Today I said that I had made contact with Hoffman and I printed out verbatim my exclusive interview (see below). I now have to confess that I made the whole interview up. Or rather I printed out what I imagined Hoffie would say if I had managed to collar him. Strictly speaking it wasn't true but I was certain that if I had managed to interview him then what I printed would have been an accurate reflection of his thoughts. I therefore acted with what might be called poetic license. The 'interview' was more prediction than fiction.
Although Hoffie doesn't actually mention the words 'antisemitism' one can glean this from the fact that Hoffie believes that anti-Zionism is just a form of anti-Semitism
Knowing how Hoffie would accuse a dog that
barked at him of ‘anti-Semitism’ I put words into his mouth and imagined that
his defence would be that the CPS is ‘institutionally
anti-Semitic’. Nonetheless I did wonder whether my suggestion would seem too implausible and outlandish. Surely even Hoffie wouldn't accuse the Police and CPS, to say nothing of the Judiciary, of 'antisemitism' given the video evidence? However what was a joke on my part on Monday became true a day later. It was as if Hoffie was determined to play the part of a cartoon caricature Zionist, reacting to everything with a one word answer 'antisemitism'.
The Jewish Chronicle's Report
My 'interview' with Jonathan Hoffman
‘The British legal system is
institutionally anti-Semitic and this prosecution is a good example of this
anti-Semitism. Daman and I were only going about our lawful business of
harassing Palestinian protestors and it is outrageous that we are being called
to account. We are calling for those who took the decision to prosecute to be
sacked for gross anti-Semitism. We are innocent. This is pure, undiluted
Jew hate and the Judge who issued an arrest warrantis
clearly an anti-semite too.' What Jonathan Hoffman actually posted on his blog
Hoffman has repeatedly argued that antisemitism and anti-Zionism are one and the same thing, so when he accuses the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) of being institutionally anti-Israel he means anti-Semitic.
Little did I
realise when I conducted the spoof interview that this was indeed going to be the line of defence that
Hoffie would employ.I can only promise never
to make any more jokes about Zionists accusing people of anti-Semitism. No doubt if the postman is late with the mail they will accuse him of antisemitism!
Hoffie as we all know him
The reaction
of Hoffman was all too-predictable. Firstly he denied the evidence. It was a lie,
dreamt up by that anti-Semite Tony Greenstein. There was no warrant for his
arrest and anyone who suggested otherwise would receive a libel
writ. All that is except me and that is only because I do not have enough money to satisfy him and as anyone will tell you you can't get blood out of a stone.
David Collier leaps to Hoffie's defence by accusing the woman he assaulted, Sandrew Watta, of 'antisemitism'
His
co-conspirator, Daman Lenszner, was even more emphatic.He posted a comment on my blog
which read:
‘No arrest
warrant out for me. No charges brought against me. Nothing. Nada. Rien. Your
lies are all in your head Greenstein. You need help.’
Lenszner issues a blank denial of being on the run or having broken bail
Daman told me that he had spent the previous night watching Spurs at
White Hart Lane. Not once did plod come over and feel his collar. I explained
that maybe he and Hoffie weren’t on the Metropolitan Police’s list of 10 top criminals
(unfortunately) and it was highly likely that the Police on duty at the ground
were unaware of the dangerous criminal in their midst.
This was Hoffie's original account of what happened at the demonstration - he boasted that 'I gave Watfa Watfor yesterday' in relation to another incident involving free Israeli ice cream outside London University. One wonders how this will sit with his claim that he was the victim when it is clear that he already had it in for Sandra.
‘A court has issued an arrest
warrant for pro-Israel campaigner Jonathan Hoffman, after he failed to appear
for a hearing on an assault charge.
Mr Hoffman,
a former vice-president of the Zionist Federation, failed to appear at
Westminster Magistrates' Court on Monday to face charges of common assault and
using threatening words and behaviour, under Section Four of the Public Order
Act.
He told the
JC: "I did not receive any paper work asking me to appear in court. I have
been to the court and have been told to return by 11:30am tomorrow."
Another warrant was also issued
for Damon Lenszner who failed to appear at court charged with assault by
beating.’
One thing is for certain - Hoffie will lost some weight if he is confined to prison food!
I
have a Court Report from one of this Blog’s many friends:
‘They [Hoffman and
Lenzner] turned up separately at the court this morning and with unhappy
demeanour. They had to wait until 2.25pm before being heard . Hoffman asked to
sit in the well of the court due to a hearing problem (allowed) and
Lenszner remained behind glass. Both claimed NOT to have received notice of
trial. To their dismay they noticed that the charge seemed to have increased
and Hoffman gave instructions to his lawyer . He wanted to know why he was now
accused of assault by beating (as was his co-accused) POSSIBLY, had he
come when he should have then the more serious charge might not have proferred.’
They pleaded not guilty to the charges
put to them and there is to be a two day trial at Hendon Magistrates Court on
19/20 June with witnesses of course.‘
So
my advice to you all is to put the date in your diary, prepare your sandwiches
and settle down for an enjoyable two days!!
Tony
Greenstein
·For those who wish to contribute to the cost of my website,
details of payment are:
Labour’s Racist Witch-hunt Claims Another Victim – This Time the Victim
is both Black and Jewish
The expulsion of Jackie Walker today
was both inevitable and depressing. Inevitable because the ‘anti-Semitism’
narrative has been accepted by all the so-called leaders of the Left in the Labour Party and depressing
because it should be clear to all with eyes to see that the main target of the
witchhunt is not Jackie, Marc Wadsworth, Ken Livingstone or myself but Jeremy
Corbyn and the Corbyn project.
It is, one should add, a narrative
that is not
accepted by 77% of Labour Party members who know very well that the bogus
accusation of ‘anti-Semitism’ is, with regular monotony, levelled against any
and all supporters of the Palestinians. Noone seriously believes that Jews are targeted for antisemitic attacks in the Labour Party. This is and always has been about Israel.
Only this week, the Jewish former
Police Minister for the ANC, Ronni Cassrills, a hero of the struggle against South
Africa Apartheid, was banned
from speaking at Israel Anti-Apartheid Week by Vienna Museum because of, yes
you guessed it, accusations of anti-Semitism.
In America Ilhan Omar has been
accused of ‘anti-Semitism’ for having criticised AIPAC, the American-Israel Public
Affairs Committee which has long campaigned for support for Israel and funded
anti-Palestinian and pro-Israeli candidates.
Even Donald Trump didn’t blush as
he accused
Ilhan of ‘anti-Semitism’. Every racist under the sun is opposed to ‘anti-Semitism’.
What is happening in the Labour Party is nothing new. That is why those who have villified Muslims and asylum seekers, like Tom Watson, are so concerned about 'antisemitism'.
The accusations have been driven by
the Jewish Labour Movement, an Israeli Embassy front, which claims to be the
descendant of Poale Zion, which was affiliated as a socialist society to the LP in 1920. In actual fact PS had virtually died out before being refounded
in 2015 to fight the good fight against Jeremy Corbyn.
These are the people who helped plot Labour's false antisemitism campaign - (l to r) Shai Masot, Israeli agent, Ambassador Mark Regev and Jeremy Newmark (JLM)
In any event it is a disgrace that an organisation that affiliated to the Labour Party in the days when Labour supported the British Empire as a benevolent institution, when the Palestine Mandate was seen as a good thing despite denying any form of self-government to the Palestinians, should still be affiliated today. The JLM calls itself the Jewish wing of the Labour Party which is a lie since the majority of its 2,000 members are right-wing non-Jews.
The anti-Semitism witchhunt is driven by racists whose only concern is
support for the Apartheid State of Israel.
As with all the other expulsions in
the ‘anti-Semitism’ witchhunt, the actual charges against Jackie were not ones
of ‘anti-Semitism’ but in Jackie’s case ‘misconduct’
or what they called ‘“prejudicial
and grossly detrimental behaviour against the party”. I was accused of having ‘abused’
racists like Louise Ellman MP by telling the truth about them.
The cowards who expelled Jackie didn’t
even have the guts to accuse her of a specific crime.Instead they hid behind weasel words that
mean everything and nothing.
It is the idiocy of people like John
McDonnell that they either cannot or refuse to see what is happening. They refuse to understand that however much
you appease the Right they will come back for more.They move on from one victim to another.
Ken Livingstone described how, when
he came under attack McDonnell told him to apologise because ‘the Jews are a very forgiving people.’
Not only is this anti-Semitic in itself (there is no such thing as ‘the Jews’) but it is a racist stereotype
of the type that Owen Smith engaged in when debating Corbyn, when he said that
the Jews are good entrepreneurs. It is called philo-semitism but this is just
a form of anti-Semitism.
It is particularly shocking that Russell
Cartwright, of the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy, was one of the 3 panel
members who went along with this travesty of justice. Less is known of the
other two ciphers – Anna Dyer and Alan Tate. The CLPD used to stand for a left-wing Labour
Party. Today its acolytes are acting as Tom Watson’s puppets.
However even if Jackie was not
expelled for ‘anti-Semitism’ i.e. anti-Zionism that is what her crime was. The
Guardian quoted the JLM, the British branch of the
racist Israeli Labour Party, as welcoming Jackie’s expulsion.
The Jewish Chronicle, which retailed the
same lies about Jackie that they have been telling for the last 3 years, viz.
that she blames the Jews for financing the slave trade on the basis of the
omission of one word from a private Facebook discussion, quoted
the Board of Deputies, the CST and the Jewish Leadership Council as welcoming
Jackie’s expulsion:
‘The hearing took far too long to happen. It made the right decision, but
nobody wins in this latest ugly case of disreputable behaviour.”
Why, if Jackie’s only offence was one
against the Labour Party did these 3 Zionist organisations extend a welcome to
the expulsion of Jackie?
Every time another sacrificial victim
is offered up to the Zionist lobby and the Israeli Embassy there are those such as Lansman and now the CLPD who believe that this is the end of the
matter. However it isn’t.What began
with me then went on to claim Ken Livingstone, Cyril Chilson, Marc Wadsworth
and now Jackie Walker will claim yet more victims. Chris Williamson is next on the list as is Asa
Winstanley but as I have said from the very beginning, the real goal is the removal of Jeremy Corbyn.
It is unfortunate that Corbyn instead
of having the backbone to stand up against the fake anti-Semitism witchhunt
from the beginning decide to appease it and then apologise to it.Even worse was the behaviour of former Republican
supporter John McDonnell who has rowed back on every single principle of
anti-imperialism that he had in favour of flattering the City.
Because let no one imagine that if the Left of the Labour Party retreat now what do people think they will do when the pressure is really on in government? If you cannot fight a puff of wind like Tom Watson how the hell will Labour fight the capitalists and their press in government?
Tom Watson lost sleep thinking about the injustice to racist Labour MP Phil Woolas - his concern over 'antisemitism' is entirely bogus
Let no one imagine that the expulsion
of Jackie Walker is the end.The cowards
who wielded the axe, in particular Russell Cartwright, have merely enabled the
Right to grow stronger because with each expulsion the beneficiary isn’t Corbyn
but Tom Watson.The same Tom Watson who confessed
to losing sleep over the High Court’s removal from Parliament of the overtly
racist Labour MP Phil Woolas whose campaign was based on ‘making the White folk angry’ against Muslims. See Jackie
Walker’s Trial by Ordeal
If in fact what Jackie said was worthy of expulsion, why the hell have
people like Luke Akehurst not being expelled for supporting the shooting dead
by Israeli snipers of over 200 people in Gaza since the summer?Or is support for war crimes not prejudicial to the Labour Party?
The lesson to be taken to heart from what has happened is that there is a
battle on between those want to see the Corbyn revolution extended and those
who want to see Labour become a safe and acceptable party of capitalism.This has nothing to do with ‘anti-Semitism’
or racism, except in so far as the main casualties of the witchhunt are Black
and Jewish anti-racists.
National
Kangaroo Committee Refuses to Hear a Personal Statement from the Accused
It
was a sunny spring morning with a carnival atmosphere outside as the
long-awaited and long delayed hearing on trumped up charges of ‘anti-Semitism’ against
Jackie Walker were at long last going to be heard. Except they weren’t as
Jackie walked out shortly after they began.
I
arrived shortly after 9 a.m. with my son to find about 100 people, Black and
White, with banners from Jewish Voice for Labour and Labour Against the
Witchhunt amongst others flying, as people assembled to protest against the
gross unfairness of the witch-hunt as it was now being played out in front of a
bevy of well-paid Labour lawyers.
The
hearing was being held at the Deptford Lounge, a community centre with a
library and computers, in a multi-racial area where Jackie grew up.No doubt it was situated as far away as
possible from Labour HQ in order to avoid protests spilling over to Labour’s
NEC which was also meeting at the same time.
I
was asked to speak shortly after arriving and I made the point that this whole
racist nonsense was deliberately contrived. Anti-Semitism has become the weapon
of choice of racists like Tom Watson and Donald Trump.
‘Anti-Semitism’
is the new anti-Communism of our age. Trump spent 17 minutes in his State of
the Union speech attacking refugees and migrants and then he began a
condemnation of ‘anti-Semitism’. But not the anti-Semitism of Robert Bowers who
murdered 11 Jews at Pittsburgh, a direct
consequence of Trump’s anti-refugee rhetoric, which Bowers had blamed on
the Jews. Trump’s anti-Semitism was, as Vice President Mike Pence explained, hostility
to the United States’s alliance with the Israeli state.
The
Labour Party’s equivalent of Mike Pence is Tom Watson. Watson demanded
the suspension recently of Chris Williamson for ‘anti-Semitism’.This is the
same Tom Watson who, when Phil Woolas, the racist Labour MP and former Home
Office Immigration Minister was removed as an MP for election offences by the
High Court, confessed that ‘I’ve lost
sleep thinking about poor old Phil Woolas and his leaflets.’
The
three members of the NCC who denied Jackie the right to make a short statement
at the beginning of the hearing were Russell Cartwright, a member of the Campaign
For Labour Democracy, the CWU’s Alan Tate and Ann Dyer, a Unite union activist.
Despite the first two being nominally on the Left there are no illusions that
they are capable of standing up to the racist witch-hunt that has been levelled
at Jackie for the past 3 years.
A Racist Definition of
Anti-Semitism
Despite
having adopted the IHRA
definition of anti-Semitism last September, a definition which conflates
anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, the Labour Party in Jackie’s case has made up
their own definition: Anti-Semitism is ‘whether
an ‘ordinary person hearing or reading the comments might reasonably perceive
them to be antisemitic’.
So
basically anti-Semitism is anything you want it to be. Of course there are
objective definitions such as the Oxford
English Dictionary definition of anti-Semitism – ‘’hostility to or prejudice against Jews.’ but if you are in the
business of weaponising anti-Semitism onbehalf of Israel then it’s preferable not to be tied down to something such as racism against Jews.
Turning a Blind
Eye to Racism in the Labour Party’s Own Evidence
Quite amazingly, in a case based on
an accusation of anti-Semitism, the Labour Party’s own evidence included racist
statements such as ‘[JW is] a white middle-aged woman with dreadlocks’ in other words Jackie has ‘blacked up’. How
much more racist can you get?Only a dumb and stupid Labour Party hack
could fail to perceive the racism inherent in this statement or the statement
that ‘Walker - who claims to be part Jewish”.
It is
true that some Zionists have difficulty with someone who is both Black and Jewish.
In Israel that takes the form of Ethiopian Jews being considered non-Jewish by
much of the rabbinical establishment and being forced to recircumcise. It is
strange that the Labour Party hacks responsible for this ‘anti-Semitism’
witch-hunt are incapable of perceiving actual racism.Similarly the written witness
evidence of Mike Katz, who is Vice-Chair of the Jewish Labour Movement, a
largely non-Jewish organisation which is also the ‘sister party’ of the racist
Israeli Labour Party. stated that ‘JW uses her self-identification as a
black woman and a Jew as cover to put her beyond criticism...” when that is precisely what Katz and the
JLM do.
The
attack on Jackie Walker began in May 2016 when she was suspended for a Facebook
conversation in which she stated that ‘many Jews, my ancestors too, were [among]
the chief financiers of the sugar and slave trade… so who are the victims
and what does it mean .’ The word in bold was omitted and on this basis, a
whole artificial and fake campaign was constructed that said Jackie was
accusing Jews of having financed the slave trade. See The
lynching of Jackie Walker.
However this was so patently thin that Jackie was
quickly reinstated but the JLM didn’t give up. For four months they and their
corrupt Chair, Jeremy Newmark, demonised Jackie as an anti-Semite. On 17th
September, about 10 days before the fateful Labour Party conference, I wrote a blogabout
how the JLM campaign against Jackie was in full swing. When Jackie spoke at an LRC TUC fringe meeting in
Brighton in early September alongside John McDonnell, Newmark demanded
that McDonnell
‘must
explain his defence of Walker which is inconsistent with his call for zero
tolerance. This raises serious questions. Our members expect him to explain himself.’
Unfortunately McDonnell instead of standing his ground
caved into the false anti-Semitism witchhunt. McDonnell’s lack of a backbone
has resulted in people like Tom Watson quoting him to ‘prove’ that Labour has
an anti-Semitism problem.
There is no doubt that Russell Cartwright and his penel
will be too weak to stand up to the Labour Party’s legal team. Since they have
refused to even hear Jackie’s personal statement it is unlikely that they are
going to stick their heads out now. It is to be expected that they will be
incapable of asking searching questions about why it is that it is Jewish and
Black people, both of whom are combined in Jackie, who are the main victims of
the fake ‘anti-Semitism’ witchhunt.
Why it is that 77%
of Labour Party members say that anti-Semitism is not a major issue in the
Labour Party?Why is it that the
right-wing press, from the Mail to the Sun and Express are all so concerned
about ‘anti-Semitism’ in the Labour Party yet do not hesitate to demonise Black
people, Muslims and refugees to the extent of hiring
as a columnist Katie ‘refugees are
cockroaches’ Hopkins as a columnist.
Today was a marvelous celebration of the opposition to
the Labour Party’s racist witch-hunt. It followed Labour Against the Witchhunt’s meeting last night with Ken
Livingstone, Graham Bash and Jackie Walker which was attended by 150 people
near Holborn. The majority of Labour Party members are not convinced by the
fake anti-Semitism campaign. It is to the shame of much of the Labour Left, the
so-called Campaign Group of Socialist MPs, that they haven’t defended both
Jackie and Chris Williamson MP.
Chris Williamson sent a message of solidarity to the
rally which Stan Keable of LAW read out. It is shameful that he is the only
Labour MP to have done so.Clive Lewis,
Diane Abbot and David Lammy – all Black MPs have looked the other way, as have
people like Laura Pidcott, Cat Smith and Dennis Skinner. The Left in the PLP
has remained silent as a witchhunt of anti-racists has taken place of which
Jackie is but the latest casualty. The only beneficiary will be Tom Watson and
the TIG group.
It was good to see another victim of this racist
witchhunt, Marc Wadsworth at the demonstration today. Marc is presently engaged
in litigation with the Labour Party and he has been disgracefully attacked, as
has Jackie, by the turncoat racist, Jon Lansma, who heads Momentum.
Below is Jackie’s statement:
Tony Greenstein
Jackie Walker
denied right to speak in her own defence
Today
Jackie Walker was forced to withdraw from a disciplinary hearing when the most
powerful Labour Party disciplinary committee refused to allow Jackie Walker the
right to make a short opening statement in her own defence.
Background
Jackie
Walker (a black Jewish Woman) was suspended from the Labour Party 2 ½ years ago
for asking a Labour Party antisemitism trainer, at an antisemitism training
event, for a definition of antisemitism. Since then she has been the subject of
the most appalling and unrelenting racist abuse and threats, including a bomb
threat.
Jackie
Walker said:
“After almost three
years of racist abuse and serious threats; and of almost three years of being
demonised, I was astounded that the Labour Party refused to allow me a few
short moments to personally address the disciplinary panel to speak in my own
defence. What is so dangerous about my voice that it is not allowed to be
heard?”
All I have ever asked
for is for equal treatment, due process and natural justice; it seems that this
is too much to ask of the Labour Party.”
STATEMENT OF
JACKIE WALKER
Today
(26 March 2019) I (Jackie Walker) attended the long overdue Labour Party
disciplinary hearing, before the Labour Party’s highest disciplinary panel
(National Constitutional Committee). I was accompanied by my defence witnesses
and legal team; I had submitted over 400 pages of evidence in my defence.
At
the beginning of the hearing, the Chair advised me that this was to be an
informal hearing and that I could address him by his first name. The Chair then
invited procedural questions. Through my lawyer I asked to be allowed to make a
brief opening address to the Chair and Panel. The large team of Labour Party
lawyers objected. The Chair adjourned the meeting to consider my simple request
to speak. Despite repeated requests from my lawyer that I be allowed to speak
at the outset of my hearing, the Chair ruled that I remain silent. I therefore had
no alternative other than to withdraw from the hearing, as it was clear to me
that I would not receive a fair hearing.
Background
It
is vital to appreciate the astonishing background of the process that has been
applied by the Labour Party apparatus to me.
On
25 September 2016, at the Labour Party (LP) Conference in Liverpool, I attended
a LP training event entitled ‘Confronting antisemitism and engaging with Jewish
voters’. The training session was co-hosted by the LP with the Jewish Labour
Movement (JLM), and was presented by the vice-chair of the JLM, Mike Katz. The session
was open to all LP members attending the Annual Conference. As is normal practice the presenter encouraged
and engaged in discussion and debate with attendees throughout the hour-long
training session.
Towards
the end session I put my hand up to speak and was invited by Mr Katz to ask a
question/make a comment.
I asked for a “definition of antisemitism”
I commented “wouldn’t it be wonderful if
Holocaust day was open to all people who experience holocaust”, and
I asked about security matters relating to the
Jewish community.
I was
secretly filmed by an unknown person who released the film of my contribution at
the meeting to the media and footage of the closed training event was published
online by newspapers. On 29 September 2016 the LP suspended me and subsequently
charged me that my words were:
antisemitic;
inappropriate; and
undermined Labour’s ability to campaign against
racism.
I am
black. I am Jewish. I am a woman. I have spent my life fighting racism and
inequality. My ethnicity, Jewish heritage and gender have brought me into
direct conflict with those who abuse and threaten others on the basis of colour
of skin, race, religion and gender. I abhor antisemitism. I abhor
discrimination against black people. I abhor all discrimination.I abhor the differential treatment of women.
I absolutely and vehemently reject the charges made against me by the LP.For 2 ½ years I have faced a grossly unfair
disciplinary process that has now reached new heights of staggering unfairness.
The
increasing instances of serious unfair process have become intolerable in the
weeks leading up to this hearing. Unfair
process had infected all aspects of the LP investigation and prosecution. My fundamental right to a fair hearing has
been wholly compromised by the conduct of the LP.
LP submission on what constitutes anti-Semitism
The
definition of what is antisemitism (as opposed to legitimate criticism of the
state of Israel) deserves serious respectful political debate, including
controversial debate. It defies all logic, and threatens the essence of free
speech, to be accused of antisemitism for simply asking the fundamental
question: what is antisemitism?
The
recent NEC Code of Conduct on Antisemitism was not in existence at the time of
the training session in September 2016. The
endorsement by the LP of the IHRA definition of antisemitism did not take place
until after the Conference of 2016. The
endorsement by the LP was the subject of significant debate. The endorsement is
“to assistin understanding what constitutes
antisemitism”. In fact during the training session Mike Katz referred not
to the IHRA definition but to the European Union Monitoring Centre’s
definition. The LP now submits that the test to be applied to an allegation of antisemitism
against me “does not require the NCC to engage in a debate as to the proper
definition of anti-Semitism” but rather whether an ‘ordinary person hearing or
reading the comments might reasonably perceive them to be antisemitic’. That is an extraordinary dilution of the
adopted test of “hatred towards Jews” which is a definition of antisemitism
with which I wholeheartedly agree.
LP relies on racist statements to prosecute me
It is
beyond any sense of fair process that in prosecuting me for antisemitism for my
asking a training session for a definition of antisemitism in September 2016, that
the LP, astonishingly, has submitted racist and discriminatory statements made
about my colour, gender, appearance, ethnicity and heritage, to support its misconceived
case against me.
The LP
relies on anonymous witnesses who have written:
“[JW is] a white middle-aged
woman with dreadlocks”
“Walker - who claims to be part
Jewish”
And also
on the written witness evidence of Mike Katz who states:
“... JW uses her self-identification as a black woman and
a Jew as cover to put her beyond criticism...”
There
is no conceivable place in a fair disciplinary process for such statements to
be allowed in evidence.
As a
black person I have long campaigned for the proper recognition and
memorialisation of those who died and suffered during the shameful period of
the slave trade.During the training
session I was making the point that it would be fitting to include the victims
of the slave trade as well as other pre-Nazi genocides in the Holocaust
Memorial Day commemorations. In
prosecuting me for raising that comment, again astonishingly, the LP relies on an
anonymous witness who writes:
“I am not at all
happy regarding her obsession with
African genocide and the holocaust”
I
have repeatedly asked those conducting my disciplinary process for anonymous
and racist evidence to be removed from the evidence presented by the LP. My applications have not been agreed.
That
is unfair.
I
applied to the Panel to adjourn my case to
allow the reliance on racist material by the LP to be referred to the Equality
and Human Rights Commission for investigation. My application was rejected.
That
is unfair.
Other racist and threatening remarks
I have
been subjected to threatening, racist and abusive remarks throughout the time I
have had to wait for the LP to carry out its disciplinary process. Some
examples of the material sent to me have included:
“Jackie
Walker is as Jewish as a pork pie, stop harassing Jews you fucking Nazi scum”
“Jackie Walker and her defenders can go hang”
“Jackie
Walker’s Jewishness is a hastily constructed identity to protect her from the
backlash of her antisemitic comments”
“Her
father whom she barely knew apparently was Jewish so she isn’t Jewish...nothing
to do with her colour”
“We
should send people like you to the fucking gas chamber! Palestine does not
exist, nor did it ever exist. Israel has been a Jewish homeland for 3,000
years! Moron”
“Was
that thundercunt referring to you wanting to see Corbyn shove Jackie Walker
into a burning bin? You didn’t mention ethnicity”
“God,
what a fucking anti-Semite black Jewish working class female Momentum
vice-chair Jackie Walker is! Can’t think why Labour want rid”
The
above examples were submitted by me as part of my documents in the disciplinary
process yet the Panel hearing my case still did not allow my application to
remove racist and discriminatory evidence being relied on by the LP.
That
is unfair.
Secret Panel to hear my case
Until
this morning I had not been allowed to know the identities of those who are to
sit in judgment on my case despite the LP presenter and the LP legal team being
aware of the identities since last year.
Initially
the LP claimed that it would not release
details of the Panel to me or my solicitors, because of security concerns. The
clear discriminatory inference is that I as a black person am prone to trouble
and/or violence; that whenever black people and their supporters gather to
object or protest there is a tendency to disorder causing a security risk. This
is plain racist discriminatory negative stereotyping.
When
pressed, the LP confirmed it has not received any threats relating to my case
but still refused to let me know the identities of Panel members. I could not carry out any background checks on
previous statements or connections of the Panel members to assess the risk of
bias and lack of independence.
That
is unfair.
Secret venue
For
personal reasons, of which the Panel is aware, I wanted to visit the hearing
centre to familiarise myself with the venue. The LP refused to let me know where the
hearing was to take place until 4 working days before the hearing which was too
late for me to make a familiarisation visit.
That
was unfair.
Failing to put intended charges to me
I am
also charged with bringing the Party into disrepute for pursing my legal rights
against the LP for a serious breach of my personal data held by them. I am being charged for defending my rights. The
charge was never put to me at the lengthy investigatory meeting I had with the
LP investigator or at any other time during the almost 2 year long
investigation stage of the process.I
was never given an opportunity to explain my position before a one-sided
decision was made by the LP to charge me. When I protested that it was a clear
breach of natural justice to go straight to a charge without seeking my comment
at the investigatory stage I was told by the LP that:
“Natural justice does not require that she [JW] also has
the opportunity to respond at an investigatory stage”
Trade
Unions built the LP. It is unthinkable
that a trade union would accept a disciplinary process that completely
by-passes the investigatory stage and goes straight to a disciplinary charge
without any input or comment from the person to be charged. It is unthinkable that a police investigation
would go straight to charge without interviewing the accused to seek comment.
Yet
that is what the LP has done to me.
That
is unfair.
Lack or loss of investigatory records
When
I pointed out that some of the evidence to be relied on by the LP at the
hearing had never been put to me during the investigation interview, the LP
admitted in writing that:
“The NEC wishes
firstly to record that the precise details of the matters put to Ms Walker
during the investigatory interview are not known to those now presenting the
case, as the interviewer is no longer in post.”
It
is incomprehensible that in such a serious case, where charges of antisemitism
are being made against me, that an accurate and complete record has not been kept
by the LP of their own investigation.
In
light of my previous grave concerns about the unlawful handling of my personal
data I am extremely concerned that there have been further breaches of Data
Protection laws concerning the management by the LP of my personal data.
That
is unfair.
Late submission of evidence by LP
On
20 March 2019 the LP served more evidence on me that it intends to rely on at
the hearing due to start today. I was not given time to consider the fresh
evidence, assess the context of that evidence and to counter that evidence. An application for an adjournment of the
hearing to allow me time to deal with the evidence in the nine new documents
served so late was not allowed by the Panel.
That
is unfair.
Prejudicial public statements by Labour MPs
My
case has attracted significant public interest and comment in the press, most
of which has been ill-informed and biased. However I have also been subjected
to significant negative prejudicial statements from Labour MPs making it
impossible for me to have a fair hearing within the LP.I have made complaint of this and was told
this would be discussed with the General Secretary however, this behaviour
persisted. If this were in another setting the MPs could be found to be in contempt
of court.
For
example, on 27 February 2019 on House of Commons letterhead thirty-eight MPs,
members of Labour Tribune, put their names to a letter written to the General
Secretary of the Labour Party wherein I was clearly referred to and where it
was said that I was:
“...someone who has been thrown out of the party for
making antisemitic comments”.
Those
MPs would have been aware that their letter, which was published online and in
the press, would seriously prejudice my hearing due to take place within a
month of their letter. They were giving a clear steer and signal to the Panel
of what the outcome of my hearing is to be. They wrongly identified me as
someone expelled from the LP and wrongly identified me as someone who has been
found to be antisemitic by the LP.
On 22
March 2019 the MailOnline published an article entitled “Shadow chancellor John
McDonnell’s ‘anti-Semitic’ ally must be expelled, or Labour ‘has no future ’MPs
warn”. The article states:
“Her [JW] case will finally come before Labour’s
disciplinary panel on Tuesday after two-and-a –half years of delay.
Backbenchers said the party must ensure she is expelled- if Labour is to have
any chance of proving it is not institutionally anti-Semitic.
Dame Margaret Hodge said: ‘It’s extraordinary that it has taken
so long to bring her to an expulsion hearing. Tough action must be taken but
one expulsion will not solve a far deeper cultural problem that has infected
the party”
Backbenchers,
and in particular Dame Margaret Hodge, have directly interfered in my right to
a fair hearing. They have prejudiced a fair hearing by making such prejudicial
statements only one working day before my hearing. Their aim is obvious. Hodge
has given the clearest possible signal to the Panel of the outcome she wants
and expects.
The
interference in the disciplinary process by these MPs has made it impossible
for me to have a fair hearing.
That
is unfair.
My
decision to withdraw from this hearing
Faced
with an inherently racist disciplinary process where the evidence of abusive
racists is relied on by the LP to prosecute me; faced with multiple examples of
a grossly unfair process in the investigation and prosecution of my case and
the conduct of my case at the NEC and NCC Panel stages; faced with the discriminatory
secrecy of the Panel appointed by the LP to hear my case; and faced with the
prejudicial public statements by Labour MPs preventing my ability to have a
fair hearing, I am left with no
confidence whatsoeverin the ability of
the LP to conduct a fair disciplinary process.
I am
expected to appear before an unfair Panel where the LP has ridden roughshod
over my rights in its headlong blinkered hankering to expel me from the Party
to satisfy the wishes of those who are not involved in the detail of my case
but who have judged me unfairly and have already condemned me.
I have
spoken of a lynching and a witch hunt. If
I were in a fair, independent and unbiased court I would say “I rest my case”.
In
such an unfair and biased process I do not now recognise the ability of the LP
disciplinary process to investigate and try my case with the equality and blind
fairness everyone should expect of a democratic process that recognises the primary
importance of the rule of law and fair due process.
“As
a result of the truly astonishing decision this morning to prevent me from even
addressing the disciplinary panel at the outset in my own defence, I was left
with no option but to withdraw from the disciplinary process”
