Gemma Bolton
That’s the problem? Having an opinion? Tell us more. “Labour has launched an investigation into social media posts by a newly elected member of the party’s ruling national executive committee (NEC) … Gemma Bolton was one of five left-wing candidates backed by the Momentum organisation”. And that is bad how, exactly?
Still on the nudges and winks, we are told “a series of social media posts shown to the JC revealed the Mid-Sussex Labour Party member’s hardline views on Israel and her support for the deselection of MPs seen as being disloyal to former leader Mr Corbyn … In another tweet the following month she expressed her support for boycotting goods from Israel - writing ‘BDS works’, accompanied by three clapping emoji’s”. Spurious apostrophe there.
So what is the complaint? Here, the JC finally gives the game away. “Asked to comment on Ms Bolton’s postings, a Labour Party spokesperson said: ‘The Labour Party takes all complaints of antisemitism extremely seriously and they are fully investigated in line with our rules and procedures, and any appropriate disciplinary action is taken.’”
Lee Harpin
But what Ms Bolton has done is make a criticism of the state of Israel. And the IHRA also tells us “criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic”. Perhaps the complaint relies on this from the IHRA: “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour”. But here a problem enters.
Ms Bolton is not denying anyone their right to self-determination. Now, I’m not going to comment further on her assertion. But the impression is given that anyone criticising the state of Israel, and/or expressing support for the BDS movement, is being targeted, and painted as if they are indulging in anti-Semitic behaviour.
Still, it keeps Lee Harpin in gainful employment, so that’s all right, then.
https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/zelostreet7
18 comments:
I smell a Starmer Quiff red tory quisling rat....
Sir Quiff is going full Stalin, a mere mention of Israel or god forbid having enjoyed a holiday in Israel brings out Sir Quiff's henchmen.
Tackling antisemtism everyone can agree with, but going after members for talking about Israel, is deeply sinister and smacks of authoritarianism.
Starmer by embarking on these purges proves he is no unity candidate, just paranoid and no better than real anti Semites.
The suspension of Corbyn, is likely to end up with Corbyn being thrown out to appease the vocal anti Corbyn voices.
Yet there is little grounds to suspend Corbyn, even on the flimsy 'Disrepute' charge, more likely is the continual heavy losses of members, Corbyn is deeply popular and has amassed a huge legal fund intially to defend against John Ware who threatened to sue Corbyn, but on seeing Corbyn's defence fund and likely victory in the High Court bottled it.
Now is Sir Quiff, going to risk a major embarrassing court battle with his predecessor? What of Sir Quiff if he loses??
Dangerous times for Socialists in the Labour Party, I decided it was time up for me back in December, how many more will decide it's time to start anew somewhere else??
Like Yaxley-Lennon with his court case, 16:39 and 00:40 should provide evidence.
@ 11:26.
If you can't see the evidence of your own eyes....
@13:33
If only there were a 860 page report detailing these activities. If only there were multiple other examples easily accessible through the links on this article. If only there was another case detailed in the very article our centrist friend was commenting upon.
Still, I'll play. Evidence of 'Stalinist' purges carried out by Starmer's wing of the party? Ones where there is video or textual evidence that the accused parties did NOT say what the centrists accused them of? That's easy: the cases of Jackie Walker, Marc Wadsworth or Chris Williamson for a start.
Politeness prevents me from saying what 11:26 should do.
@13:33
Well, my eyes read a piece in The Guardian stating that the General Secretary of the Labour Party suspended Jeremy Corbyn and there's no information about who has complained to the Labour Party about Gemma Bolton.
Are you the same 'Anonymous' who criticised The Guardian for not seeking to influence disciplinary hearings at Momentum and the Labour Party?
https://zelo-street.blogspot.com/2020/11/labour-hierarchy-of-racism.html
If you are, read Tim's most recent article about the Jewish BoD and take a good look at yourself.
13:33
Ah!
A Daily Mail reader.
Anonymous @17:45
You're claiming that the EHRC report into anti-Semitism in the Labour Party includes evidence that the new Leader of the Labour Party will at a future date go full-Stalinist and ignore the major criticism.
Were you drunk when you posted?
Or
Are you Grimes?
Or
Are you one of Staines' shitweasels?
@17:45
Really? Well, your eyes should also have read the piece where they attributed the suspension to Keeves before they realised they'd made a giant fuck-up as such an action would contravene the findings of the EHRC. And also make Keeves guilty of what Mr Corbyn has been accused of doing.
FYI @11:26 did not make the comments that you deliberately mischaracterise. I actually criticised The Guardian for its hypocrisy and double standards in seeking to influence disciplinary hearings. In other words, the complete opposite of what you allege.
I am also unclear why you should seek to remind me of Justin Schlosberg's claim that the BoD are involved in “a case study of political corruption on an eye-watering scale”. Back in the summer, I linked to the findings that "On the IHRA definition, according to Schlosberg, The Guardian's online coverage was less balanced even than that of the Sun". https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-923X.12806
Keenly awaiting the lols you will provide contorting yourself in order to defend the treatment of Jackie Walker, Marc Wadsworth and Chris Williamson.
Somebody reads the Graun !?!
@22:15
So, in your mind, Jackie Walker was sacked by Momentum because The Guardian didn't back her.
@22:12
Nope. Wrong again. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the reports would know I was referring to the leaked Labour Party report. It is 860 pages long whereas the EHRC report is 130 pages. I feel a bit silly having to explain this but I appear to be corresponding with someone who makes Toby Young seem proficient at counting: 860 is not 130. And yes, it does contain evidence that Keeves' wing of the party has attempted a 'Stalinist' purge of the left. You would know that if you had ever bothered to read it.
@13:47
Change your username to: The shit Cathy Newman. It would then better suit your abiity to follow an argument.
@17:51
My bad. I thought that you were referring to a legitimately published document so, I assumed that you meant the EHRC report. I paid no attention to the number of pages because, with digital material, the number of pages varies according to many factors e.g. font size.
I haven't read the leaked document as it appears, according to many sources, to be a log of dog's breakfasts plus what the dog shat.
About as much use as the predictions of Nostradamus to a lay reader, but it seems to be fodder for lawyers.
@21:33
If googling 'EHRC report antisemitism' revealed multiple samizdat copies, your excuse might hold water. However, it doesn't and so your excuse makes your inability to tell the difference between 860 and 130 even more foolish.
Your contribution at 11:26 on 17 November 2020 above demands your interlocutors provide evidence yet you yourself only refer to mysterious unnamed "many sources". Are you sure you didn't get confused again and accidentally click on reviews for Dogs' Dinners: The healthy, happy way to feed your dog by Debora Robertson? https://www.amazon.co.uk/Dogs-Dinners-healthy-happy-feed/dp/1911595652
@18:03
Oh, you're so clever.
I should have posted "appears to me from the many sources that I clicked on"
I must try harder because, if I don't, someone will waste time putting me right when they could have been winning a case by commenting on pieces like this: -
'A leaked 860-page investigation, “The work of the Labour Party’s Governance and Legal Unit (GLU) in relation to antisemitism, 2014-2019,” paints a devastating picture of the filthy operations of the Blairite right. In doing so, it underscores the politically criminal role played by former party leader Jeremy Corbyn in shielding these vicious anti-socialist and anti-working-class forces from demands for their expulsion.' - https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/04/27/labo-a27.html
@8:51
It's nothing; you make it easy. And, yes, you must try harder. If you don't, you'll end up linking to a source that contradicts your claims that the leaked report is "a log of dog's breakfasts plus what the dog shat [sic]". The Fourth International clearly accept the findings of the report as otherwise they wouldn't have claimed that it "paints a devastating picture of the filthy operations of the Blairite right". And isn't that just another way of saying what Jonathan said above, that Labour have demonstrated cowardice in appeasing "the vocal anti Corbyn voices"? A claim which you implicitly challenged when you demanded he provide evidence.
And, yes, you have 'tricked' me into agreeing that Mr Corbyn should have taken a far more combative stance with regard to Hodge, Austin, Berger, Smeeth et al. Just as I think he should have been ferociously anti-Brexit rather than impotently triangulating. He's not the Messiah.
@17:59
COAB
That link is one of many where a writer takes a view of the report. Other writers take different views. Mix up all the views from all the writers and, hey presto, you get a dog's breakfast.
My hope was that you'd seek to put forward your views somewhere other than this thread.
If you can't address the accusation of a "criminal role played by former party leader Jeremy Corbyn" that's published on a left wing website, so be it.
Here's the second paragraph from that article: -
"Written by Corbyn’s allies, ostensibly to show that a “hyper-factional atmosphere” undermined the party’s response to anti-Semitism complaints, the document proves that the party apparatus waged a relentless, reactionary campaign against its own membership and that Corbyn went along with this witch-hunt."
A reminder.
The article is about a complaint of anti-Semitism and there's no mention of Starmer in the article.
no mention of Starmer in it.
no mention of Starmer in it.
no mention of Starmer in it.
@22:53
You know how you'll listen to James O'Brien and not be able to understand how the Gammon can ignore the evidence in front of them and instead make strawman arguments? And you know how you can't believe Trump will create his own facts while contradicting himself? You know how you think you're better than them? You're wrong. Again.
Post a Comment