Here in full and without comment from me is Tony Greenstein’s detailed Assessment of the failing of the EHRC Report:
1. Quite amazingly for a report on anti-Semitism it doesn’t once try to define what it means by anti-Semitism. The EHRC know better than to define anti-Semitism concretely as hostility to or prejudice or discrimination against Jews. Instead they rely on things that are ‘offensive’ to Jews, regardless of whether they are true. It is an old trick.
2. There is no attempt to ask who the 2 complainants, the Jewish Labour Movement and the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism actually are. The fact that the JLM describes itself as the ‘sister party’ of the almost extinct Israeli Labour Party is not even mentioned. Ha’aretz, Israel’s liberal daily describes its former leader Avi Gabbay as a Likudnik. It is a party that supported Netanyahu’s attempt to deport Israel’s 40,000 Black African refugees because, in Netanyahu’s words, they threatened Israel’s racial ‘Jewish identity.’
‘More likely to be : Male – In Social Housing – Older than 35 – Working – Living in Scotland or in England, south of the Midlands – First Generation Immigrant – Sympathetic to Terrorism, Exreemism and Violence;’ This delightful figure illustrated the CAA’s ‘Muslims and Antisemitism’ Report
3. The CAA is a virulently Islamaphobic organisation, racist to its root, which works with Zionist supporters of Tommy Robinson. In other words the complainants to the EHRC are themselves deeply racist. It published a coloured graphic of the typical Muslim male as part of an attack on Muslims. If a similar graphic on Jews had been produced we would have never heard the end of it. The Jewish Labour Movement’s ‘sister party’ in Israel supported Netanyahu’s racist policy of deporting Black refugees because they are neither Jewish nor White – the JLM has never once condemned their racist sisters
4. Not once did the EHRC entertain the idea that accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’ have been the staple of Zionist attacks on critics of Israel for decades. No less than the French President Macron has declared that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are one and the same. So if one opposes the Jewish nature of the Israeli state then that is anti-Semitic. Today Ha’aretz published an article about how Israel is seeking to expand the boundaries of the Jewish town of Harish because Arabs, at 44% are already nearly a majority. It wants to expand it to dilute the Arab presence. Yet to call this what it is is ‘anti-Semitism’. Since when was it anti-Semitic to oppose racism?
5. The Report singles out two people in particular, Ken Livingstone, who pioneered anti-racism in local government and Pam Bromley, a councillor in Rossendale. The attack on Livingstone is particularly egregious but what the Report doesn’t mention is that it also singled out Chris Williamson. However Chris immediately instructed solicitors and the EHRC backed off. You won’t read that in the Report!
6. There was no mention of the fact, and it is a fact, that the anti-Semitism campaign began as a completely confected campaign led by that well known opponent of racism, the Daily Mail, which alleged that Corbyn had links with Holocaust deniers Paul Eisen. Not once does it ask why the racist tabloids suddenly became so concerned with ‘anti-Semitism’. In short the Report completely decontextualises the allegations whilst insinuating that anyone denying that there was an anti-Semitism problem was themselves anti-Semitic! This is called ‘denialism’ which is the logic of the Salem Witchhunt when women and men were hanged for witchcraft in Massachusetts. As Elizabeth Purdy wrote: Those who publicly questioned the guilt of a defendant were likely to be accused of witchcraft themselves.
7. The logic of ‘denialism’ is the ‘logic’ of the 17th Century witch-hunters yet Corbyn in his idiocy gave his backing to this nonsense. The idea that denying a crime is to admit it is the stuff of Kafka.
8. The Report talks of ‘zero tolerance’ of anti-Semitism yet the EHRC has indulged the racism of the Tory Party without even the slightest comment. It has done nothing about the hostile environment policy or Windrush where Black British citizens were illegally deported. The idea that the EHRC is an anti-racist body is for the birds.
9. Strangely enough for a report concerned with procedural irregularities it has nothing to say about Labour’s fast track expulsions where the accused are denied a hearing.
10. There is repeated talk of ‘Jewish community stakeholders’. It never once explains who these might be but we can assume it means the Trump Tory supporting Board of Deputies. A body which cheered on the Israeli army as they mowed down unarmed Palestinian protesters in Gaza. They blamed the death of medics and children on the victims and they then profess to be concerned about anti-Semitism.
11. Nearly all their examples of ‘anti-Semitism’ consist of social media posts. This simply trivializes anti-Semitism. Racism is about what people do not what they post on Twitter. Noone has ever died from a tweet but plenty have died from Israeli bullets.
12. Despite saying that they took evidence from Jewish Voices for Labour there is no evidence of this. The EHRC comprehensively disregarded the voice of anti-Zionist and non-Zionist Jews.
13. I wrote to the EHRC’s Investigation repeatedly offering to give evidence. They were not interested. When I pointed out their disinterest in Conservative Party racism they responded. With reference to your submission of 13 July 2019 and your specific observation relating to the Conservative Party, we can confirm that we are actively considering what, if any, action we may take in relation to the handling of Islamophobia and other discrimination within the Conservative Party. Further, we have made the following statement in relation to Windrush and the Government’s hostile environment policies.
14. And that was it. After having ‘actively considered’ my submissions the decided to do absolutely nothing!
15. Clearly there were some Jews who were more important than others. I told them that as the first Jewish person to be expelled I might have a different perspective on the fake anti-Semitism affair. They made it clear that they weren’t interested.
15. The EHRC said they launched their ‘investigation’ because of ‘serious public concern about allegations of anti-Semitism’. It is strange that serious public concern about Police stop and search, the Windrush deportations and other acts of state racism merited no such concern. In fact there was no public concern about Labour anti-Semitism. It was a narrative of the Tory press and the Labour right-wing.
16. Its main obsession was ‘political interference in the handling of anti-Semitism complaints.’ (p.7) Perhaps that was because the complaints themselves were politically motivated.
17. It talks of ‘anti-Semitic conduct’ but never mentions what that conduct is. Everything is inferred.
18. It mentions (p.17) that ‘over 20 elected representatives (including MPs, peers and councillors) resigned from the Party in 2018 and 2019 citing a failure to tackle anti-Semitism in their reasons.’ It was of course no coincidence that these people were all on the anti-Corbyn wing of the Labour Party and people who had never objected to for example New Labour’s hostile environment policy towards ‘illegal’ immigrants i.e. refugees.
19. The Report quotes uncritically the Community Security Trust reports on anti-Semitic incidents but these are not value free. The CST is another pro-Zionist organisation.
20. The legal basis of its inquiry, that the Labour Party was an association under the Equality Act 2010 omits the fact that it is a political party and allegations of ‘anti-Semitism’ were weaponised, e.g. the allegations at Oxford University which had been made by Alex Chalmers, a former intern of the Israel Lobby organisation BICOM. See How Israel lobby manufactured UK Labour Party’s anti-Semitism crisis. By definition a political party is not a sports club or other voluntary association. The EHRC is an organ of the state. It had no right to interfere and in essence take sides in a political dispute inside the Labour Party. It was Corbyn and Formby’s stupidity which prevented them telling the EHRC to mind their own business. Corbyn has literally dug his own grave.
21. The Report suggests as an example of indirect discrimination that a party that holds its meetings on the Sabbath is discriminating against Jewish members. Bollocks. The Labour Party is a secular not a religious body. It is under no obligation to take into account superstitious religious beliefs. The only time that this could possibly be relevant is if the Labour Party held meetings on Saturday but had a rule stipulating that it should not hold meetings on Fridays or Sundays. Secularism is perfectly legal. (p.22)
22. The Report hangs its argument on the basis that councillors, MPs and NEC members are ‘agents’ of the party. This is extremely dubious. They are elected representatives not agents. A political party is a free association of its members based on shared beliefs. It is no business of the State to interfere in its running as long as it abides by its own constitution.
23. Quite outrageously the Report describes ‘allegations that complaints of anti-Semitism are fake or smears.’ as themselves anti-Semitic (p. 28) yet this is a regular practice of Zionists who even call Jews who are not Zionists ‘self haters’ ‘traitors’ ‘kapos’ etc. It is a fact that Zionists, Jewish or other do, as a regular practice allege anti-Semitism where there is none. The CAA, one of the complainants is a regular practitioner in making false allegations of anti-Semitism. It particularly targets Jews. Even the person who drafted the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, Kenneth Stern gave testimony to the US Congress about the ‘egregious’ behaviour of the CAA in targeting a University Professor Rachel Gould as anti-Semitic for having written an article on the use of the holocaust to protect Israel. He also wrote an article ‘I drafted the definition of antisemitism. Rightwing Jews are weaponizing it’. The Report deliberately ignored the context which is that racist regimes allege racism against their opponents as a matter of course.
24. To give but one example in Israel there are hundreds of Jewish only communities. In one city Afula, when houses under construction were due to be sold to Arabs hundreds of Jews took to the streets in protest. But if you allege Israel is a racist state then this is anti-Semitic. This Report is a racist report and it is a disgrace that Momentum refuses to call it out for what it is.
25. The Report makes the insinuation that Ken Livingstone’s defence of Naz Shah MP’s meme about relocating Israel inside the United States was anti-Semitic and that his references to the Israel Lobby were anti-Semitic. Perhaps these dishonest scribes would care to look at Wikipedia’s entry Israel lobby in the United States. (p.29) AIPAC, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee openly proclaims it is a lobby group. What the EHRC is saying is that the truth is now anti-Semitic. This is anti-Semitic.
26. Absurdly it described Pam Bromley’s comment ‘looks like fake accusations of anti-Semitism to undermine Labour aren’t working, so let’s have Chris Williamson reinstated.’ That is a statement of fact but even facts can be anti-Semitic apparently!
27. Ken Livingstone’s comments about Nazi support for the Zionists in Germany, which is a fact documented by Zionist historians such as David Cesarani and Francis Nicosia ‘caused shock and anger among Jewish Labour Party members.’ Well it didn’t shock Steven Kapos, a survivor of the Hungarian holocaust who I met because he understood the treacherous role of the Zionist organisation in Hungary. Even the Jerusalem District Court in 1955 found that Kasztner had collaborated with the Nazis. No doubt this would cause great shock too for these naïve racist Zionists. So what? The truth often offends. (p.30)
28. Even more ludicrously ‘Pam Bromley’s conduct… contributed to a hostile environment in the Labour Party for Jewish and non Jewish members.’ Well in that case everyone on the Right was offended. How is that anti-Semitic? (p.30)
29. Among the examples of ‘anti-Semitism’ were people who:
• Compared Israelis to Hitler or the Nazis
• Described a ‘witchhunt’ in the Labour Party or said that complaints had been manufactured by the ‘Israel lobby’. (why the scare quotes?)
• Blamed Jewish people for the ‘anti-Semitism crisis in the Labour Party’ (clearly the Report couldn’t distinguish between Jews and Zionists, which is itself anti-Semitic)
• Blamed Jewish people generally for the actions of the State of Israel. (where could people have got this idea? Could it be that Israel describes itself as a Jewish state?)
• Used ‘zio’ as an anti-Semitic term. ‘zio’ is short for ‘Zionist’. If you think all Zionists are Jews then you are anti-Semitic.
• Accused British Jews of greater loyalty to Israel than Britain. I have been called a traitor many times by Zionists who demand that Jews are loyal to Israel first and foremost. The Israeli Absorption Ministry even conducted a poll in the United States to find out what Jews would do if there was a crisis in relations between the USA and Israel! Now why would that be?! (p.31)
30. The Report makes great play of ‘interference’ by the Leader of the Opposition’s office in disciplinary matters. Why should it not have interfered given the racist bias of the Disputes Team under John Stolliday and Sam Matthews? (p.45)
31. Because of legal action the Report was forced to concede that the only unlawful interference in disciplinary processes was Tom Watson’s petition calling for Chris Williamson’s resuspension. Jennie Formby and Corbyn disgracefully acceded to this pressure. Corbyn has been hoist by his own petard.
32. Even if LOTO should not have interfered in the disciplinary process what business is it of the EHRC?
33. A good example of the circular logic of the geniuses who wrote the report was the statement that ‘Jewish members are proportionately more likely than non-Jewish members to make a complaint about anti-Semitism.’ Err yes!! Consequently the practice of interference in anti-Semitism complaints put Jewish members at a particular disadvantage compared to non-Jewish members. This is absolute nonsense. Obviously more Jews than non-Jews make complaints about anti-Semitism. It is an absurd comparison. How can it put Jews at a particular disadvantage when non-Jews don’t complain of anti-Semitism? (p.55) There is no comparator. The authors of the report don’t even understand the concept of indirect discrimination!
34. The Report also mentions that I was suspended yet given no details of the allegations against me, despite requesting information on several occasions. It reports that I successfully obtained an injunction. However what the report does not do is mention that I am Jewish (it didn’t mention me by name).
35. Even more relevant is the fact that the Labour Party expelled and suspended Jewish members regularly. What has this to do with anti-Semitism? The Report doesn’t mention this because it would have been inconvenient to its narrative. (p.63)
36. Some of the Report’s observations such as that the NEC and NCC do not give reasons for their decisions are true, but what business is it of the EHRC?
37. The Report says that Jennie Formby suggests that ‘these systemic issues affected all complaints of all kinds, not just anti-Semitism complaints’ and it then comments that ‘If correct, this means that an even wider pool of members was treated very poorly by their political party.’ Possibly true but what business is it of the EHRC? Have they investigated how the Tories treat their members? (p. 73)
38. The Report notes that the Labour Party ‘has recently introduced reforms that improve the ability of the National Executive Committee (NEC) and the NCC to decide cases and to expel members when appropriate.’ What they fail to mention is the inherent unfairness of people being expelled on the whim of a staff member without even a hearing.
39. The Report refers to the ‘outcry from CAA, Board of Deputies and Labour MPs and peers’ when Chris Williamson was reinstated. Yet strangely there is no censure by the EHRC for this interference with the disciplinary process. Strange that!
40. Another example of ‘anti-Semitism’ was that ‘a member shared a meme in March 2018, which expressed that ‘an anti-Semite is now someone Jews hate.’ Here you have stupidity mixed with malevolence. The person who coined this meme was Hajo Meyer, an anti-Zionist survivor of the Auschwitz death camp. His actual quote was that ‘it used to be the case that an anti-Semite was someone who hated Jews, now it’s someone who the Jews hate’. An amusing observation. Jeremy Corbyn chaired a meeting at the House of Commons with Hajo in 2010 and when the Zionists publicised it the idiot apologised. Is it any wonder that Corbyn lost credibility? The more you apologise the more they go for you. Why the hell did Corbyn apologise for chairing a meeting addressed by a holocaust survivor? The BBC reported that Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn apologised for appearing on platforms with people whose views he “completely rejects“. (p.86)
41. There are repeated complaints that ‘anti-Semitism’ was not given the same priority that sexual harassment allegations were. (p.93) Perhaps that was because sexual harassment claims tend to be genuine!
42. Apparently the Labour Party committed unlawful harassment because its conduct ‘included suggesting that complaints of anti-Semitism were fake or smears’. But I was accused of anti-Semitism and I’m Jewish. Who am I harassing by denying this nonsense? Utterly absurd.
43. It was suggested that Ken Livingstone’s comments that Zionist Jews were acting on behalf of a foreign power were ‘clearly anti-Semitic’. But the definition of a Zionist is that their loyalty is to Israel. How is that anti-Semitic? (p. 106)
44. The moron(s) who wrote this Report therefore find ‘agent Ken Livingstone’ caused the Labour Party to indulge in harassment. It is no wonder that Keir Sturmer bought off Labour’s racist former staff.
45. The Report found that the comments by Naz Shah ‘went beyond legitimate criticism of the Israeli government’ and that Ken Livingstone’s support for these comments and his suggestion that scrutiny of them was part of a smear campaign are not protected by Article 10 of the ECHR. Absolute rubbish and unsurprisingly the Report doesn’t explain why this is so. ( p. 108) The EHRC is simply wrong on this. Of course Ken’s comments are protected, despite the Zionists wishing to clamp down on free speech as they do in Israel.
46. Likewise Pam Bromley’s comment that a ‘huge sigh of relief’ went up when an Israeli spacecraft crashed on the moon. This is garbage. If someone shouted ‘hurray’ when the Chinese spacecraft crashed would that also be racist?
47. The fools who wrote this hatchet job concluded that ‘Pam Bromley’s comments were unwanted conduct related to Jewish ethnicity.’ Except that she didn’t mention Jews! That was the anti-Semitic inference of the authors of this report. (110)
48. The Report finds that the unwanted conduct it identified was contrary to the Equality Act but equally breached the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. Again that proves that its conclusions are junk.”
At the culmination of his detailed assessment Tony Greenstein concludes, “The only fitting place for this shoddy report is in a wastepaper basket. Indeed that would be a good place to deposit Labour’s racist leader, Sir Keir Sturmer.” The value of this piece of carefully considered work from a member of the Jewish community is that it forms the basis of a grievance that should now be handed to a Legal Team in preparation for a Judicial Review. I hope that despite personal vindication Chris Williamson will do this. we must challenge this judgement just as we must challenge the Covert 2-19 Rigged Election result and demand an Investigation. We need to remove the Tory Party from office befoe they do any more harm. DO NOT MOVE ON.