Party Conferences, whether Labour, Tory, Lib Dem or whoever else, have fringe meetings. And the clue is in the title: the party fringe does not enjoy the imprimatur of the party concerned. One does not need to be connected in any way to the party hosting the main Conference to take part. Some of those taking part are opposed to the party hosting that main Conference, while some have been banned by it.
Hence the likes of the “Freedom Zone” at the Tory fringe, as it includes some groups with which the Tory Party does not wish to be associated. Labour cannot be expected to be any different, except of course to those trying desperately to paint the party in the worst possible light, which inevitably brings us to the perpetually thirsty Paul Staines and his rabble at the Guido Fawkes blog, and the Dacre doggies at the Daily Mail.
So it was that yesterday the Fawkes massive told readers “Labour Fringe: Expel Jewish Group From Party, Israel Like Nazis”, the handiwork, as with so much of The Great Guido’s most blatant falsehood and misinformation, of newly anointed teaboy Alex “Billy Liar” Wickham. So some fringe ranters rocked up at a fringe event? Is the Fawkes rabble going to hold the Tories to the same standard next week? No, thought not.
Which c*** says I'm a f***ing bigot? Are they foreign?
This was then taken up by the obedient hackery of the legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre, who put it on their front page, screaming “Anti-Semitism at Conference … BBC star intimidated … LABOUR IS THE REAL NASTY PARTY”. The supporting article was worse.
How much worse? “Labour was branded the 'new nasty party' last night after an outbreak of intimidation and anti-Semitism at its annual conference … Jeremy Corbyn was urged to act after activists applauded panellists at a fringe meeting who likened supporters of Israel to Nazis”. Jezza is now supposed to personally police the Conference fringe.
And there was more. “Mr Corbyn was also facing a row about intimidation of Laura Kuenssberg. The BBC's political editor has been given a bodyguard following threats from Left-wingers at the conference”. None of the threats were repeated, for some reason. But this was lapped up by the Fawkes folks in a self-congratulatory post titled “Another Year, Another Conference Anti-Semitism Row”. So let’s get to the point here.
Milk, no sugar, hold the smear
What happens at a fringe event is not “At Conference”. It is “On the Conference fringe” (hint in the description, there). Moreover, Labour is set to adopt a rule change clamping down on anti-Semitism, not that the Fawkes rabble or Mail is about to tell readers. This is no more than a crude smear, combined with an attempt at deflection. After all, The Great Guido was no stranger to dishing out the anti-Semitism smears when it was Ed Miliband on the receiving end (see HERE and HERE). And nor was the Mail.
More precisely, the Mail got itself in hot water with a series of Jewish voices after its bizarre attack on the memory of Miliband’s late father Ralph, when it talked of “The jealous God of Deuteronomy” and “visiting the sins of the father on the sons”.
When it comes to intimidating the BBC and its personnel, both The Great Guido and the Mail have no room to talk - especially the latter. And as to the Mail’s past dalliances with anti-Semitism … I’ll just leave that one there.
So hysteria mounts at the Daily Heil and the Guido Fawkes hard right bullshit blog.
ReplyDeleteGood.
Shows they're rattled.
Expect them to get much, much worse - and therefore even more exposed for what they are. Yesterday's corrupt people.
Both Dacre and Staines must stare into their shaving mirrors and spit hatred at themselves. Very sad people in need of serious counselling help.
The anti-semites within the Free Speech On Israel group are chaired by Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi who was allowed to speak twice to the conference floor. This is not a case of some random morons turning up in Brighton at the same time as party conference. This is a case of anti-semitic party members exposing their ugly, small-minded views. This is not the appropriate opportunity to discuss media bias. It is irresponsible to make generalisations about the people involved in order to make your point about the media. You are arming the anti-semites within the Labour Party by trivialising their actions and ignoring their involvement. If you want Labour to succeed (which seems to be the roots of your piece, as you discuss anti-Labour bias), we need to pull together to ensure that members' small-mindedness is always robustly challenged, so that all communities can be sure that we will stand up for their rights.
ReplyDeleteThere truly were a small number of people at a small number of fringe meetiings who said that for Labour to, at last, have a rule against racist conduct by members would 'start a witch hunt of Jeremy supporters' / 'mean you will be expelled for criticising Israel' / 'mean any Zionist can accuse you of an anti-Semitic thought and you will be expelled' / 'puts thought crime in the Labour rule book' / ''stop Jeremy becoming Prime Minister.' All these statements were applauded in the meetings. I was there.
ReplyDeleteThe DM very professionally takes these events and uses them for a splash about the 'new nasty party.' Of course it is not all in all a nasty party.
The new rule is in the same spirit as football clubs warning season ticket holders that they'll be banned for life if they shout racist abuse, or most employment contract disciplinary rules nowadays.
But the Labour Party must have a higher standard and it does have members who make up lies and clap about a right wing/Jewish/Israeli government conspiracy that has somehow taken Jeremy Corbyn prisoner and re-written the party rules,
Claptrap. It's a straightforward rule against discrimnation and hate speech directed at someone because of the way they were born. Supported by Jeremy Corbyn and voted into the rule book by constituency members and unions today.
let's see how it works in practice.
To Jordan.
ReplyDeleteNonsense.
The criticism is levelled at the expansionist-nationalist government of Israel, not Judaism.
The government crimes against the Palestinian people are well recorded and acknowledged by the United Nations and human rights agencies. Do you want a list?
I suspect your rant is nothing more than another load of anti-Corbyn codswallop. It's no coincidence this kind of muck is co-ordinated with other lies.
Trying to hide this behind a wall of propaganda simply won't wash. We've seen and heard it all before. Yesterday it was anti-union. Tomorrow it will be anti-community ownership. This sort of lying propaganda stinks the place out.
Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi is a Jew. Jordan, your pitiful rant is full of 'errors'. I could take them down one by one, but it's so obvious you are a shill it's not worth it. Yes she made speeches, and they were excellent and warmly received.
ReplyDeleteSupport for the plight of the people of Palestine is not antisemitism. There are many people with concerns about how these new 'rules' may be implemented.
Free Speech On Israel is not antisemitic. Smearing them as such shows your agenda. It appears the pro Israel lobby is getting worried?
Bless you, comrade. You've told me I'm wrong. I am now converted. You didn't need to reason why. Bravo.
DeleteThe blog author doesn't seem to be debating what happened at conference, only who it was attributed to. Therefore I didn't explain that I only objected to anyone saying there is no anti-semitism problem based on them never seeing anti-semitism, the idea that free speech should extend to questioning whether the Holocaust happened, false accusations (according to the reporter who went to FSOI without being tipped off by anyone) that Jewish Labour Movement ran to the Telegraph and calls to remove Jewish groups from Labour - it seems to be the followers who most emphatically applaud Corbyn's tolerance and desire to start a peaceful dialogue with people involved in terrorism and conflict, who fall furthest short of the same tolerance. I object to targeting Labour's Jewish members who don't appear to have voiced support for the deaths and oppression of the Palestinians. Whether that falls within any objective criteria of anti-semitism is questionable, I admit.
I'm not very clued in on the whole issue, I believe the larger group of the Israeli government shouldn't bully the smaller group of Palestinians, so I respect anyone who actively campaigns in support of Palestine. By no means am I pro-Israel.
I like Corbyn, joined after he became leader and canvassed for his councillors and parliamentary candidates this year.
Wimborne-Idrissi's speeches were described as "foolish and erroneous" by Chakrabarty.
All I want is for Labour members to respect eachother, debate all matters responsibly and be protected from any genuine form of abuse.
I've only replied because I've met Labour members like you and I'm concerned that they get so worried about the establishment that they don't sleep at night. You might not believe a word of this reply which qualifies my previous comment, but still I wanted to reassure that I personally haven't been bought by the Israel lobby, nor am I part of any pro-Israel group whose leadership might have for all I know.
From Craig Murray's blog:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/09/manufactured-smears-establishment/
The Manufactured Smears of the Establishment
"Miko Peled, target of the latest Labour anti-Semitism allegations, is a Jewish Israeli, former member of Israeli special forces, son of a famous Israeli general and grandson of a signatory of Israel’s founding Declaration of Independence. You can object to his views, but he can hardly be anti-semitic in any sensible meaning of the term. Nor is he either British or a member of the Labour Party, nor was he speaking at an official Labour Party event.
Given all of the above, in what rational world can Miko Peled said spark newspapers from the Guardian to the Daily Mail to carry, as their lead stories, articles on anti-semitism in the Labour Party, centred entirely on Peled’s comments to a fringe meeting last night?
What Peled is alleged to have said is that discussion of the Holocaust ought to be allowed – with an apparent inference that means discussion of its existence or extent. Now we only have versions of what he said put out by his opponents, so I do not know the precise words he used or their context. I have always banned holocaust denial from this blog, because having had occasion to serve in Poland and both meet survivors and be involved in commemoration events, I have had much closer contact than most people with the overwhelming evidence for what happened. I also find it to be true that those who espouse holocaust denial are often using it as a vehicle for actual anti-Semitism and even for Nazi sympathy. So it is not allowed on this site. But neither do I think it should be actually illegal to hold that view. In context, Peled may have been saying no more than that.
If Peled was saying holocaust denial ought to be a valid subject for party political meetings, I disagree with him very strongly. It also contradicts what he is reported to have said immediately afterwards. He said that platforms are not given to neo-Nazis and were not given to supporters of apartheid South Africa, so they should be denied to Zionists too. I broadly agree with that – but would deny a platform to Holocaust deniers on the same score.
Peled’s remarks have been a great boon to the mainstream media who have had a great deal of difficulty in finding a way to denigrate Corbyn’s leadership sufficiently. They had fallen back on the old “Misogynist” charge related to Laura Kuenssberg, with the BBC’s extraordinary propaganda decision to give her a bodyguard in case she was yet again subjected to joking pantomime hisses."
Peled is a Jew, not British, and not a member of the Labour Party.
The rest of the blog is worth reading over the Kuenssberg affair.
Any stick with which to beat Labour, the right wing press is desperate.