Defend the right to protest – Defend the right of juries to reach a verdict according to their conscience!

Show solidarity with the 4 Elbit activists who have been convicted of trying to prevent war crimes

Registration

https://tinyurl.com/dthrcy6t

Letter to Judge Reid from signholders

UPDATE

WE HAVE JUST BEEN INFORMED THAT THE SENTENCING HEARING THIS COMING MONDAY HAS BEEN POSTPONED TILL MONDAY 10^th JULY 

This meeting has been called because 4 Palestine Action protesters, including myself, were convicted on May 16 of ‘intent to cause criminal damage’ to the Shenstone factory of Israeli arms company Elbit which manufactures engines which power the drones that murder and maim Palestinian civilians, including children.

We were arrested on March 9 2021 whilst driving to the factory. Two months later Israel attacked Gaza and murdered over 250 people, including 50 children.

The eagerness to prosecute for breaches of the law doesn't extend to Boris Johnson or powerful politicians involved in the COVID frauds

Of course Elbit Systems Ltd. could have been prosecuted under the International Criminal Courts Act 2001 of being ancillary to the commission of war crimes. Section 52 of the Act holds that acts committed outside the UK will be treated as committed here by persons resident in this country.

Carol Vorderman on corruption in this government

Matt Hancock too hasn't had his collar felt by the Police - strange that

However the Police, Judges and Tory/Labour politicians are more concerned with the damage to Elbit’s factories from paint than the damage done to human beings. That is the ‘logic’ of capitalism.

Today our fundamental rights are under attack. People are being sent to prison just for using the terms “climate change” and “fuel poverty” in court and arrested for literally upholding the law concerning the right of juries to make decisions on their conscience.

In 1670, Bushel’s Case established the right of a jury to reach a verdict ‘according to their convictions.’ This allowed the acquittal of the protesters that toppled the statue of the slave trader, Edward Colston. Since then the Court of Appeal has withdrawn ‘lawful excuse’ from damage to property.

Palestine Action activists have been prevented from explaining their motives when on trial. Climate activists have also been prevented from discussing their motives in court. This undermining of the jury system is a huge attack on all of our rights.

Amy Pritchard & Giovanna Lewis who were both sentenced to imprisonment for daring to mention climate change

You can show solidarity with Tony Greenstein and the 3 other Elbit activists on Monday June 26 outside Wolverhampton court (10am)

[the date is still not finalised because probation reports haven’t yet been obtained on most of the defendants]

Come along to our Zoom meeting on Saturday June 24 at 6pm

to discuss the issues and how we can fight back. Register here: 

https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_K4VLOrwARMueMGRUMnPjkg

Speakers include:

·         Huda Ammori from Palestine Action, which protests against factories supplying arms to Israel

• Kush Naker of Just Stop Oil
• Tim Crosland, Director of PlanB, which links mobilisation and litigation to hold power to account for the climate catastrophe
• Tony Greenstein, who is facing a custodial sentence and has been prevented from speaking out about his motives in court
• Deepa Driver on the fight for justice for Julian Assange

·         Cathy, Sally, Ollie arrested (28 April 23)

·         https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1CZteBxvaU

The Tolpuddle Martyrs also defied the law in order to form a union - unfortunately the TUC leaders don't have a fraction of their courage today despite holding a Tolpuddle Festival each year

 

QUOTES FROM PROMINENT JUDGES, LAWYERS, AND SCHOLARS

Lord Patrick Devlin, a former Law Lord and legal scholar, said:

‘The first object of any tyrant in Whitehall would be to make Parliament utterly subservient to his will: and the next to overthrow or diminish trial by jury, for no tyrant could afford to leave a subject’s freedom in the hands of twelve of his countrymen. Trial by jury is more than one wheel of the constitution: it is the lamp that shows that freedom lives.’

As Marcel Berlins and Clare Dyer wrote

‘Lord Devlin, one of the great law lords, regarded the jury's right to bring in a perverse acquittal as one of the glories of our jury system.’

"It gives protection against laws which the ordinary man regards as harsh and oppressive . . . an insurance that the criminal law will conform to the ordinary man's ideas of what is fair and just. If it does not, the jury will not be a party to its enforcement."

The BBC, Media and Politicians are always concerned about attacks on the right to protest in Hong Kong but never in Britain

Lord Justice Auld, a former Court of Appeal Judge said in 2001:

‘[Jury nullification] has been an accepted feature of our jury system for a long time and is seen as a useful long-stop against oppression by the State and as an agent, on occasion, of law reform.’

Melinda Janki, Guyana-based lawyer, and winner of the Commonwealth Rule of Law prize, 2023 said:

‘For decades ExxonMobil suppressed evidence that burning fossil fuels would destroy the global climate system. Today we in the Global South are living with the impacts. People are dying. Animals are dying. It is unconscionable and contrary to the rule of law for any judge to seek to suppress evidence of the destructive impacts of fossil fuels.’

Revd Dr Sue Parfitt, a priest and retired psychotherapist, said:

‘It’s a serious matter indeed if a jury feels unable to make decisions according to their conscience, just as it confounds the basis for the law in this land when defendants are prevented from telling the whole truth in court. Both rights must be defended.’

John Adams, lawyer, a leader of the American Revolution and later 2nd President of the USA, 1771, said:

‘It is not only [the juror’s] right, but his duty … to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.’

Oliver Wendell Holmes, US Supreme Court Justice, said in 1920:

‘the jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both law and facts.’

E.P. Thompson, writer and historian, said in 1980:

‘The English common law rests upon a bargain between the Law and the People. The jury box is where people come into the court; the judge watches them and the jury watches back. A jury is the place where the bargain is struck. The jury attends in judgment, not only upon the accused, but also upon the justice and humanity of the law….’

Michael Randle, addressing the jury in his own defence said:

‘The judge, Judge McCowan, in his summing up to the jury virtually directed them to find Clive Ponting guilty. He told the jury that the interests of the State were synonymous with the policies of the State and these were determined by the government of the day. Ponting's motives, he said were irrelevant. The jury should forget about any concept of moral duty. But the jury did not forget the concept of moral duty or were unwilling to accept the judge's contention that the interests of the state were synonymous with the policies of the government. They brought in a verdict of Not Guilty. The lamp of freedom shone more brightly that day, and a dangerous shift towards arbitrary power was avoided. I appeal to you today to keep that lamp burnished and shining and to allow considerations of humanity and common sense to guide your judgement. I invite you to agree with us that what we did was right and to find us Not Guilty.’

Matt Hutchings KC, a leading Barrister from London, said:

‘Our country is in crisis. The root cause is a clash between a government and media bosses who are acting at the behest of the fossil fuel industry, and our citizens, ordinary people who are calling for a rapid and just transition away from fossil fuels to green and clean energy. When people are charged with offences which they committed because of their sincere beliefs about the climate crisis, the jury should be allowed to hear evidence about these beliefs. It is not right that juries are prevented by judicial directions from hearing the truth about why the defendants are in the dock. The eminent judge Sir Patrick Devlin wrote in his book 'Trial by Jury' that juries were "an insurance that the criminal law will conform to the ordinary man's idea of what is fair and just". At a time when our democratic values and institutions are under attack, it is vital that we defend one of our sacred democratic principles: the independence of juries.’

Rabbi Jeffrey Newman from North London said: 

‘Intention is an ancient concept, fundamental in Jewish & British law, for example in distinguishing between murder and manslaughter. It seems to me, therefore, that we cannot disregard motivation when we come to look at actions and consequences in other contexts. As a Jew, and a rabbi - that is, a Jewish teacher - I have had to think very carefully about issues of obedience to the law and where and when a state may enact laws that a citizen, after careful and honest consideration, decides cannot and should not be obeyed. At such times, courageous protest by posters, placards or leaflet distribution have been prohibited by repressive regimes. Judges have sometimes focussed the attention of juries too narrowly thereby causing much harm. At this time, we must consider with all due wisdom the needs of our planet and all its species and of future generations as we assess the proportionality of protest.’

Paul Stephens, 58, a former Police Officer, said:

‘I joined the police in 1983 to protect the good people from the bad. Simplistic I know but I was 19. The legal system in the UK is doing the exact opposite. They are protecting polluters, allowing increased harm and obscene profits; whilst prosecuting people trying to save life in a way that is so unjust; gagging them from sharing their motivation with the jury. Extinction changes everything and the legal system must wake up and become a force for good.’

Heather Hallett, a member of the Court of Appeal from 2005-2019 and currently chairing the Public Inquiry into the COVID pandemic. In her 2017 Blackstone Lecture on the Role of the Jury said:

A jury may refuse to convict in spite of the law and the evidence because it concludes that the law is an unjust law. The jury passes its verdict on the law. Secondly, it ensures that the prosecution and the judge are on trial….

These trials all took place in the full glare of publicity. Here we see a specific application of the principle of open justice: the public can attend court and scrutinise what is going on. They can see the jury make its protest as to what they see as an unjust law or unjust application of the law. There is a check against arbitrary or oppressive conduct by the court. Here the 17th century rationale lives on despite Caverno’s claim. We see as Professor Zander has properly pointed out the jury can set aside ‘unjust laws, oppressive prosecutions and harsh sentences.’

Law Lord Lord Hoffmann confirmed this in R v Jones (Margaret) [2007] 1 AC 161 (89) when he stated:

My Lords, civil disobedience on conscientious grounds has a long and honourable history in this country. People who break the law to affirm their belief in the injustice of a law or government action are sometimes vindicated by history. The suffragettes are an example which comes immediately to mind. It is the mark of a civilised community that it can accommodate protests and demonstrations of this kind.

Trudi Warner (3 March 23)

Save Our Juries

A new group Save our Juries has been set up, the purpose of which is to protect and defend the right to a fair trial through the power of collective action, as judges undermine it by concealing from juries their proper role

Save Our Juries will defend and protect the right to a fair trial and shine a spotlight on the repression that is taking place by: 

1.    Literally upholding the law on signs which explain a jury’s right to acquit a defendant as a matter of conscience

2.    The power of silence and blank signs as a symbol of state repression. 

More than 20 people have already been referred to the Attorney General for upholding the law on our signs. The more the state reacts against us the more it exposes to the public its violence and authoritarianism. If you want to take collective action against the Government’s programme of repression at this critical moment.

Just as the fossil fuel companies and others have for decades hidden the truth of the climate and ecological crises from the public to maintain their profits, the British judiciary now perpetuates the suppression of evidence through the courts, including by:

1.     Banning those engaged in campaigns of political defiance from explaining their motivations and beliefs to the jury

2.     Telling the jury that motives, even if articulated, are irrelevant and must be ignored

3.     Sending people to prison just for using the terms “climate change” and “fuel poverty” in court

4.     Banning references to a jury’s right to acquit a defendant as a matter of conscience

5.     Arresting and referring for prosecution those who remind jurors of their right to make decisions on their conscience.

6.     Directing the jury that defences such as necessity, proportionality or reasonable excuse are not available.

7.     Limiting the time to present a defence to 15 minutes.

Jury trials are being turned into show trials, with the jury being used just to rubber-stamp the politicised directions of the judge.

Save Our Juries will campaign to protect & defend the right to trial by jury by nonviolent collective action.

The principle that juries can acquit a defendant on their conscience (“jury nullification”) has a long history. It was first established in 1670 when the Recorder of London tried to compel a jury to convict two Quaker preachers, William Penn and William Mead, for holding an unlawful assembly. Chief Justice Vaughan, of the Court of Common Pleas ruled that juries have the right to “give their verdict according to their convictions”. That ruling is celebrated with a marble plaque in the Old Bailey.

Because of that principle, the penalty of hanging for stealing sheep was abolished in this country because juries refused to convict people of that offence. After the passing of the Fugitive Slaves Act 1850, many US juries declined to convict those who had helped the enslaved to gain their freedom. In 1985, a British jury acquitted Clive Ponting for breach of the Official Secrets Act after he leaked a document which exposed the Government’s lies over the sinking of the Argentine ship, General Belgrano, with the loss of 368 lives, despite the judge’s direction that he had no defence in law.

The Jury is the “Achilles heel” in the Government’s programme of repression against those expressing defiance against its authoritarian policies. It only takes 3 out of 12 jurors to prevent a guilty verdict. If ordinary people are empowered to act on their conscience, as is their right, and presented with the relevant context, many will refuse to convict their fellow citizens who have been taking a stand against the corruption of the fossil fuel industry or those who are supplying arms with which to commit war crimes.

If juries routinely decline to convict, that’s not embarrasses the Government, it haemorrhages one of their primary sources of power, repression through the criminal courts. That’s why such extreme measures have been taken to bypass juries in conscience cases.

When Trudi Warner, a retired social worker held up a placard communicating the jury’s right to make decisions of conscience, she was arrested and sent to the Old Bailey. When 24 of us replicated her action in May outside Inner London Crown Court, Judge Reid referred us to the Attorney General for contempt of court. Those taking part included Quakers, health professionals, a priest, legal professionals and a retired police officer.

The Attorney General, the Government’s most senior legal adviser, now faces a dilemma. See The Times. She can either decline to prosecute, undermining the authority of the judges. Or she can prosecute us, in which case there will be more of us and the assault on trial by jury will be brought to national and international attention.

Likely and unlikely allies

Save Our Juries is a natural point of intersection for diverse campaigns and movements, including anti-racism, peace and climate movements. Juries have acquitted those who toppled the statue of the slave-trader, Edward Colston, those attempting to block violent deportations, and those resisting climate breakdown and fuel poverty. Likewise a judge had recently ruled that those blocking the sale of drones to Israel which would be used to target Palestinians, could not explain their motivations to the jury and could not inform the jury of their right to acquit as a matter of conscience.

Save Our Juries reaches across political divides. When someone’s liberty is at stake, the right to a fair hearing and the right to trial by jury are fundamental even to a ‘conservative’ sense of British justice. Judge Reid’s actions have already been gathering support from some unlikely sources, see for example “Protesters must be allowed to explain motives in court”, The Times:

 “Whether you sympathise with Insulate Britain or regard them as woke tofu-munchers, surely any defendant in a criminal trial is entitled to defend themselves when their liberty is at stake? … Banning all reference to motive also compromises the jury. Shouldn’t jurors be able to consider whether these protestors were acting out of conscience?”

Save Our Juries campaigns to prevent the suppression of evidence and the subversion of democracy (hence its support for the self-determination of peoples and the decolonisation of land, education and ecosystems). Initially, Save Our Juries will support the following collective actions:

1.           Upholding the law on signs

Upholding the law on a sign outside court for an hour (e.g. between 9 and 10am) is a simple, accessible and powerful action. It presents the State with a deep dilemma. It must either:

i)  criminalise people for literally upholding the law, exposing to public view its repressive nature; or

ii)  permit jurors to be empowered by being informed of their right to acquit a defendant as a matter of conscience, risking a critical mass of jury acquittals.

A letter can be handed in to the presiding Judge, openly communicating the rationale for the action (such as the letter handed to Judge Reid by the 24 signholders in May).

2.           The power of silence (and blank signs) as a symbol of oppression

Blank signs may be held outside courts where defendants are being prevented from explaining their motives and advancing a defence (blank signs being the international symbol of state repression).

Campaign launch: at Gail Bradbrook’s trial at Isleworth CC (Monday 17th July), and on Friday 21st July) at Isleworth, ILCC, Hove, and other Crown Courts

If you’re interested in joining a sign-holding action in July (or at some later date), please email us at saveourjuries@protonmail.com

Unity not uniformity

There is a central working group of 5-6 people who have been working on the development of the campaign, action designs and the essential administration and care that allows people to take action.

Given the diversity of the movement, different groups engaging in the campaign will know best how to communicate with their communities. Quakers involved in the campaign, for example, have emphasised the role of Quakers in establishing the original precedent on the principle of jury nullification in 1670:

Tony Greenstein

“Quakers stand up for vital legal precedent established in 1670 Quaker trial”.

Contact

To join or support the campaign, please contact saveourjuries@protonmail.com.

Useful references

A.      PATTERN OF JURY ACQUITTALS

“We took direct action against the UK’s racist policies, and a jury acquitted us. Resistance can succeed” (Guardian, 16 June 23)

“Extinction Rebellion co-founder cleared of further charge in paint-throwing case” (Independent, 21 February, 2023)

“Insulate Britain activists cleared in court after M4 protest” (Bristol Post, 16 January 23)

“The government is undermining the idea of trial by jury after Colston Four verdict” (Independent, 20 April 22)

“Juries keep letting Extinction Rebellion off the hook — here’s why” (Evening Standard, 8 April 22)

“UK activists keep being acquitted by juries. What does that mean for protest?” Open Democracy, 22 January 22

“Grant Shapps slams Bristol jury for clearing Colston Four” (Daily Mail, 6 January 22)

“Jurors see the bigger picture: activists who were cleared in court”, (Guardian, 6 January 22)

“Jury acquits Extinction Rebellion protesters despite ‘no defence in law’” (Guardian, 23 April 21)

“Extinction Rebellion founder cleared of vandalism in landmark case after arguing climate change justification” (Independent, 10 May 2019)

B.       TRUTH-TELLING AND SOLIDARITY ACTIONS TO DATE

 “Climate activists risk contempt charges over placards outside court” (The Times, 2 June 23)

“Judge refers doctors, priest and Olympic Gold medalist to Attorney General over

alleged contempt of court” (Press release, 2 June 23)

“Judges join lawyers in the bear pit” (Law Society Gazette, 23 May 23)

“17 May 2023: Judge Silas “Silencing” Reid defeated by show of solidarity for retired social worker arrested for holding up a sign” (Press release, 17 May 23)

“Climate activists call crown court judge ‘unprincipled bully’ during protest” (Independent, 15 May 23)

“Protesters must be allowed to explain motives in court” (The Times, 13 March 23)

“Insulate Britain activist jailed for eight weeks for contempt of court” (Guardian, 7 February 23)

“Activists jailed for seven weeks for defying ban on mentioning climate crisis” (Open Democracy, 3 March 23)

“Climate activist who allegedly held sign directed at jurors may be charged” (Guardian, 4 April 23)

C.       ACTION AND MEDIA RESOURCES

Video and stills from signholders and others

Still pics

D.         OTHER RELEVANT MATERIALS

 “‘Not only a right, but a duty’: A history of perverse verdicts” (Justice Gap)

“Jury Nullification: The Short History of a Little Understood Power” (Midlands Historical Review)

School syllabus (Penn and Mead)

History GCSE: The Conventicle Act of 1664 and the Independence of the Jury (BBC)

The Auld Review, September 2001, Juries, paras. 99ff

“Lawyers For Israel Oppose Conscience”, Craig Murray, 20 May 23

Fully Informed Jury Association (US)

Jury Nullification (Wikipedia)

Why is Sharon Graham of UNITE Joining Starmer’s Attempt to Ban ‘Oh Jeremy Corbyn - The Big Lie’?

Glastonbury’s Cancellation of The Big Lie Is A Surrender to Corporate Interests, Racism & Apartheid – It is also an Attack on Free Speech

The hypocrisy of the British Establishment and its servile echo chambers in the Labour movement knows no bounds.

On 11 May the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act became law. On 1 June a Free Speech Tsar (a strange title since the Tsar didn’t believe in free speech!) Arif Ahmed, a philosophy professor at the University of Cambridge, was appointed.

Arif Mohamed is a political chameleon. The misnamed Campaign Against Anti-Semitism had railed against Ahmed as he had denounced the IHRA definition of ‘anti-Semitism’. As Liar Lee Harpin of the Jewish News reported on 16 January 2023:

In a blog written in February 2021, Ahmed wrote: “I am strongly against Gavin Williamson’s requirement that universities adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism.”

“This ‘definition’ is nothing of the kind; adopting it obstructs perfectly legitimate defence of Palestinian rights.

“As such it chills free speech on a matter of the first importance. I hope the Secretary of State reconsiders the need for it; but these new free speech duties ought to rule it out in any case.

However this was unacceptable to the government. Mohamed may possess all the correct freedom of speech credentials when it comes to Muslims and trans-rights protesters but he clearly didn’t understand that when it comes to Zionism there is no such thing as ‘free speech’?

A campaign then got going from the usual sources to ‘change the mind’ of the good professor and sure enough after the Zionists and the government had exerted enough pressure, Arif reversed his previous commitment to free speech on Palestine.

On 1 June 2023 Jewish News reported that

After his appointment by Sunak was confirmed by The Times, Ahmed appeared to partially tone down his criticism of IHRA in an op-ed written for the newspaper. He said:

 “The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition is an important tool for understanding how antisemitism manifests itself in the 21st century. Adopting it sends a strong signal to students and staff facing antisemitism. ”

The CAA, an Zionist propaganda organisation which masquerades as a charity, crowed about its success in pushing back against Arif’s naïve belief that free speech covered the Palestinians.

The Labour Files – The Spying Game I Al Jazeera Investigations

There has been a determined attempt by the Zionist Lobby, the BBC and the media to suppress any debate or discussion about the ‘anti-Semitism’ smears that led to the destabilisation of Corbyn. Al Jazeera’s four part investigation The Labour Files, which documented what had happened was almost completely ignored by the mass media. The Guardian has even deleted comments underneath articles which mention it. So much for Comment is Free!

The Labour Files – The Spying Game told the story of how the Labour Party used hacked data from a journalist to investigate members who were critical of the party. With the knowledge of the party’s leadership, hacked emails were used as evidence to expel Labour councillors and activists in Croydon.

Jeremy Corbyn – The Big Lie

The Big Lie is made by award-winning radical film-maker Platform Films. It is produced by Chris Reeves and Norman Thomas and it is narrated by Alexei Sayle. It explores the political deceit of those who undermined the Corbyn movement and uncovers the critical role played by Starmer and his cronies.

It is no surprise that Jeremy Corbyn – The Big Lie, has resulted in a concerted campaign by Starmer, the Zionist lobby and Intelligence assets like Paul Mason to prevent it being shown.

The protestations by Zionist organisations that the film peddles 'conspiracy theories ' by blaming Jewish organisations (actually it never mentions the term 'Jewish organisations') is both laughable and hypocritical. The Board of Deputies, which sent the above letter to Glastonbury and Mike Eavis, led the smear campaigns against the Left and Corbyn. They call themselves a Jewish, rather than a Zionist, organisation even though their constitution commits them to support Israel, right or wrong. Marie van der Zyl, the author of the above letter, was particularly prominent in the campaign.

The BOD which denies involvement in a smear campaign against Corbyn confirms what the film says by smearing it as  'antisemitic'

The campaign against The Big Lie included the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism writing to Vodafone, the corporate sponsors of Glastonbury, in order to get them to put pressure on the Eavises who organise the festival. That was then followed up by Paul Mason, who has previously devoted his time to ‘exposing’ and witchhunting ‘far left rogue academics.’

Mason wrote a witch-hunting article in Labour List, the housepaper of Starmer’s Labour Party, attacking the film as a series of  ‘Corbyn conspiracy theories.’ Mason wrote that

‘the film presents a full-blown conspiracy theory about Corbyn’s opponents, conflating Zionists, Jews and Israel as part of a force that “orchestrated” his overthrow.

Mason hasn’t even seen the film. It isn’t those who produced this film who conflate  Zionists, Jews and Israel but Mason’s Zionist friends. As if to prove the point Mason goes on to argue that the film

‘appears to match at least two examples of anti-Semitism in the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition, and should raise legal and ethical questions for any venue considering screening it.

The whole point of the IHRA ‘definition’ of anti-Semitism was to conflate criticism of Israel and Zionism with anti-Semitism whereas anti-Zionists are careful to make a clear separation between Jews and Zionism. That is why we are attacked as ‘self haters’. The implication being that being a supporter of Zionism and Israeli Apartheid is integral to being Jewish. But in the minds of spooks and MI5 assets like Mason, words mean what you want them to mean.

Paul Mason’s clinching argument is that

The film claims to tell the story of what caused the Corbyn project to fail, employing a familiar cast of characters: Chris Williamson, Jackie Walker, Tony Greenstein, Graham Bash and Ken Loach, all of whom have been expelled from or suspended by Labour, together with David Miller, the former Bristol University academic sacked after complaints from Jewish students.

Since when is expulsion from the Labour Party proof of anything other than McCarthyism? Three of the 5 people named above as being expelled are Jewish! Starmer’s conflation of Zionism with being Jewish is what genuine anti-Semites also believe. That has led to Jews being five times more likely to be expelled from the Labour Party today than non-Jews. This is Starmer’s ‘war against anti-Semitism’.

And if you are a member of the non-Zionist Jewish Voices for Labour then you are 35 times more likely to be expelled. So if anyone is anti-Semitic it is Paul Mason and his NATO/MI5 allies. As a result of Mason, the CAA and all the other forces exposed in Jeremy Corbyn – The Big Lie, Glastonbury cancelled the screening of the film.

If anyone is a conspiracy theorist it's Paul Mason whose spider web above is 1 long conspiracy

Paul Mason was exposed by the Grayzone as having been

engaged in a malicious secret campaign that aims to enlist the British state and “friendly” intelligence cut-outs to undermine, censor and even criminalize antiwar dissenters.

In one leaked email, Mason thundered for the “relentless deplatforming” of The Grayzone and the creation of “a kind of permanent rebuttal operation” to discredit it.

In another, the celebrity journalist declared that “the far left rogue academics is who I’m after,” then rants that he is motivated by fear of an emergent “left anti imperialist identity” which “will be attractive because liberalism doesn’t know how to counter it.” See Paul Mason’s covert intelligence-linked plot to destroy The Grayzone exposed

The Editor of Labour List, Tom Belger, not content with Mason’s article, ran another asking Why did Glastonbury only pull controversial Corbyn film after backlash? A more appropriately title article might have been ‘Why did Glastonbury surrender to an Apartheid lobby and a disinformation article by a discredited spook like Paul Mason?

The Orwellian Statement from Glastonbury justifying their Capitulation to the Apartheid Lobby by Claiming It's in the Name of Equality!

The real reasons why pressure was put on Glastonbury to cancel Oh Jeremy Corbyn – The Big Lie is simple. It is an attempt to hide the truth and prevent people learning about the forces which made false ‘anti-Semitism’ claims against Corbyn and his supporters. For all the froth from Tories about ‘free speech’ what they really mean is that they want free speech for Braverman, racists and homophobes. When it comes to anti-Zionism and support for the Palestinians they support any amount of cancel culture. Tom Tugendhat tweeted

It’s not often I find myself agreeing with Paul Mason.

@Glastonbury shouldn’t allow itself to be exploited by antisemitism-deniers seeking to peddle their vile conspiracy theories. I hope they change their mind and decide against screening this film.

Tugendhat has no problems being in the same government as Cruella Braverman who talked about an ‘invasion’ of asylum seekers. A government which has a history of racism including anti-Semitism, not least former Prime Minister Boris Johnson whose novel 72 Virgins was replete with genuine anti-Semitic tropes about Jews conspiring to fix elections through their control of the media.

The decision to try and prevent people seeing what happened during the Corbyn years has provoked a massive backlash. Norman Thomas stated that the cancellation was a product of "vicious outside pressure" and went on to explain that:

 “An outside pressure group has declared war on our film. They wrote to the festival's sponsors... and whipped up huge storm of complaints about the film claiming, without any foundation whatsoever, that the film is antisemitic."

"The claim that the film is antisemitic is a total smear. The festival organisers even had a lawyer examine the film who pronounced it totally devoid of antisemitism."

 “Journalists, who know very well what's going on, have to stand up and call this out for what it is: rank censorship.

"The problem is, if they do, they fear being accused of antisemitism.

"But if enough of us stand together the accusation won't stick and this madness will end."

In a statement on behalf of Platform Films, Norman Thomas wrote

“WE WILL SCREEN BANNED CORBYN FILM IN EVERY TOWN IN THE COUNTRY,” VOWS PRODUCER

GLASTONBURY AXING OF FILM IS CAUSING A BOOM IN SCREENINGS!

A controversial film about Jeremy Corbyn banned by Glastonbury is going to be screened in every town in the country, claims its producer.

 “Glastonbury was forced to drop the film after pressure was put on its sponsors. But we have no sponsors. This banning is going to rebound in a big way!”

“We will make no charge for screening the film. People have to just tell us where and when they’re going to screen it.”

 “It’s been claimed — undoubtedly by people who haven’t seen it — that the film is ‘antisemitic’ — but Glastonbury festival had a lawyer examine it who pronounced it totally free of antisemitism. On top of that, most of the principal commentators in the film are actually Jewish, so, by banning this film, the festival is actually banning Jews.”

 “It’s been claimed the film is full of conspiracy theories. This is absolute nonsense. The film is a straightforward documentary which tells the story of how Jeremy Corbyn became leader of the Labour Labour Party and explores the forces that brought him down. It’s a piece of political history that powerful people want to bury — but we won’t let that happen.”

People are attempting to suppress it for one big reason — it tells the truth.”

Narrated by Alexei Sayle, the documentary explores claims Jeremy Corbyn was a victim of a concerted smear campaign, that Keir Starmer played a deceptive “spy cop” role in Corbyn’s shadow cabinet and that Starmer is waging a witch-hunt in the party.

The Glastonbury festival had been advertising the screening on their website for almost a month, but the pressure groups launched their attack on it with just a few days to go before the festival started, in order to do maximum damage.

 “The people behind this attack are skilled in what they do. They don’t want people to know the truth and they don’t want films like this to be seen. And they know how to put the boot in.”

The screening of the film in the festival was due to be followed by a live discussion with film-maker Ken Loach, who also appears in the film.

 “The same people who have got our film banned are also viciously attacking Ken. The next thing is, they’ll be trying to get his films banned, too. This is just mad McCarthyite stuff.”

In the meantime, though, according to Mr Thomas, the banning of the film seems to have backfired in a big way. He said:  “Since news of the ban has got out, we have been inundated by people wanting to organise screenings of the film in towns across the country. And we will do all we can to help them. Between us we will get the truth out there.”

To see a trailer of the film, go to  https://youtu.be/9TACIA7oSIk.

For details of other screenings of the film go to https://www.facebook.com/platformfilmsuk/ or email norm6344@gmail.com

Sharon Graham and Unite Ban Corbyn: The Big Lie is Part of Her Bromance with Keir Starmer

On 8 June the Chair of Unite SE/6246 Branch Damian McCarthy wrote to Regional Secretary Sarah Carpenter asking why screenings of the film at Unite’s Portsmouth Office had been cancelled “on the orders of Regional Secretary Sarah Carpenter.”.

Carpenter emailed back the same day to say that:

I have asked for the screenings to be cancelled whilst I seek further guidance.  I have not had any instructions to cancel.

At this point I wrote, as Secretary of the Branch to Carpenter to ask:

You say that you have not had any instructions to cancel. Yet you also say that you need to seek ‘further guidance’. That suggests that you were advised to cancel the booking. Perhaps you would enlighten us as to who gave you this advice? Otherwise your need to seek guidance makes no sense.

On 13^th June Carpenter wrote back:

The issues covered in the film are pertinent to internal Labour Party matters and that is not the focus of our union.  Unite’s members are working on issues linked to our local communities and to industrial issues, and union resources are prioritised in these areas.  Resources include use, maintenance and security of Unite buildings.

 There are a number of screenings in local independent venues, which are open to interested members.

This means that we will not be showing the film in the Portsmouth office, and I will alert the relevant branch of this.

This was nonsense. What are these ‘internal Labour Party matters’? The resolution that was passed unanimously by our branch last night rejected the idea that:

‘the issues in the film are internal to the Labour Party and not relevant to Unite members. The film is about the orchestrated attack on Jeremy Corbyn and the socialist leadership of the Labour Party from 2015-19.

We do not believe that the following issues are irrelevant to Unite members:

*        increased privatisation of the NHS, which Keir Starmer supports

*        public ownership of water, rail and the utilities which Starmer opposes

*        Zionism and Apartheid Israel which Starmer supports

*        the racist treatment of refugees which Starmer supports

*        worker’s struggles which Keir Starmer opposes

*        Tory legislation restricting the right of protest and our civil liberties which Starmer supports

Carpenter would not reveal who had given her  the ‘advice’ but as Skwawkbox revealed it was Sharon Graham, the General Secretary of Unite who is increasingly as running a despotic and nepotistic regime. There have been a series of revelations of what has been going on and the decision to openly join Starmer and the Labour and TUC Right in banning the film should cause the scales to fall from the eyes of those who had illusions in Graham.

Although Graham has talked of supporting strikes at the same time she has done nothing to campaign against the new anti-trade union laws. Nor has she at any stage called for general f strike action against this government. Sharon Graham’s support for strike action has to be seen in the context of her lack of socialist politics.

What is the point of claiming you support workers’ struggles if you fail to challenge the legal framework which is making successful strikes next to impossible? Why has Graham refused to join other unions in opposing the anti-trade union laws?

I know some people have said that Skwawkbox has been running a vendetta against Graham but by her actions over the Big Lie film it is clear that they are not without foundation. To ban a film aimed at educating members as to the vicious ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign by Labour’s neo-liberal wing suggests that Graham is part of them. As Skawkbox says of the banning of the film:

The move, which comes hot on the heels of the Glastonbury festival’s cowardly decision to cave in to pro-Israel groups that do not want the smears of the pro-Israel right inside and outside the Labour party exposed, appears to be a further confirmation of longstanding reports from insiders that Unite general secretary, for all her protestations about Starmer’s behaviour, has made an accommodation with his regime.

Another senior figure in the movement told Skwawkbox that:

‘Starmer’s thought police are now running my union. It’s a disgrace.’

Sharon Graham’s tenure as general secretary has been marred by allegations… that she attempted to have evidence destroyed in bullying and misogyny complaints about her husband, whom she now employs in her office despite a final warning from the union for his behaviour and by the union’s appalling treatment of Irish union legend Brendan Ogle, who is now taking legal action over Unite’s ‘disgusting’ abuse and bullying following his return from cancer treatment…. the union’s conduct toward him led to protests during Graham’s recent Dublin visit, outrage among Irish politicians and threats from a whole sector to disaffiliate entirely.

In addition, after her supporters failed in their bid to take control of the Unite executive despite ‘dark money’ spending on advertising, ineglible and racist members being allowed to stand and the alleged use of paid organisers in and following the exec election campaign, her faction has resorted to Starmerite tactics to try to discredit the executive members’ election of a new left-wing union chair and both vice-chairs, as well as the vital Finance and General Purpose Committee.

The Labour Right and the British State are by their very nature secretive, dishonest and manipulative. They engage in conspiracies all the time. It is not anti-Semitic to tell the truth. Conspiracy theories are about the ‘hidden hand’ of a few individuals who manipulate events. The film makes no such argument.

However to deny that there are conspiracies and that Corbyn was the victim of a large number of them is to deny facts that Al Jazeera and others have uncovered. That is the real reason why Paul Mason is  jumping up and down together with his neo-liberal friends.

It is interesting to read the review of Diane Datson in North East Bylines. Unlike its detractors, Diane actually watched the film.

I was interested to see how the film would tell the tale of the shocking behaviour within the right wing sector of the Labour Party machine so I went along to see Oh Jeremy Corbyn – the biggest lie on Thursday 9 February at Conway Hall, London. It was difficult to get a seat, the hall was jam-packed.

In short, the film tells of the alleged corruption within Labour Party backed up by written evidence and by ex-members who have suffered at the hands of Keir Starmer and his purges. It makes clear that the establishment was petrified of Jeremy Corbyn, of his popularity amongst the people, of his stance on Palestine and his promotion of peace and negotiation instead of considering war as a first option.

It tells how the establishment relied upon right-wing Labour staffers and MPs to do the dirty work and bring Corbyn down and ensure a Conservative victory in 2017. We learn how, when Corbyn secured the biggest vote share ever for Labour in 2017, they upped the ante and weaponised antisemitism and the remain campaign against him. It also reveals that there were those who worked hard with Labour MPs and paid money to bring Corbyn down.

Starmer is portrayed as corrupt, craven and “leading a lawless party” who will stop at nothing to purge the left – accusing and suspending many left-wing members as antisemites. The film suggests that anti-Semitism was the smear that stuck and so therefore was utilised to bring about the downfall of the Corbyn project.

A shocking film

The film is sinister and, for those that don’t know anything about the events, very shocking. It will make many very angry as we were robbed, in the most undemocratic way, of a prime minister who would listen to the people and work on the side of humanity. It will infuriate the public, as it is clear that no one likes duplicity. It will also make many people very sad.

The real message conveyed in this film is that the Labour Party is no alternative to the Conservatives – it serves the ruling class and is led by someone every bit as devious as Boris Johnson, if not more so.

However, I for one felt uplifted, as the film ended optimistically. Many of the interviewees think that all is not lost – those millions of people who were inspired and given hope by the Corbyn project haven’t gone away – they are to be found supporting the picket lines, protesting and fighting for many causes such as public ownership of the NHS and the right to strike and the establishment is STILL petrified.

This film should be shown far and wide. It is well evidenced and the interviews with ex members, and in some cases their despair, adds a very human element. Many people are working hard to get it shown – it will be seen time and time again in the future as it depicts such a scandalous almost unbelievable era in the story of the Labour Party. The good people of this nation deserve to know the truth.