Why Dishonesty and Deceit are Hardwired into
Labour’s Disciplinary Procedures
 |
| 'MrGreenstein's lurid allegations about the torture and beating of children', |
Late Friday afternoon, barely 36 hours away from my
Expulsion Hearing I got an innocent request from Jane Shaw, Secretary to the National
Constitutional Committee. Labour’s
National Executive Committee (in reality Crooked McNicol) wanted to introduce 4
new documents at the last minute.
‘You will be
familiar with all of the documents’ Jane told me – and indeed I am familiar with
them.
 |
| The fragrant Ella Rose in attack |
Also attached was what is called a
Skeleton Argument, which lawyers usually provide before a court hearing in
order to summarise their arguments. This
Skeleton however was somewhat fat, taking up no less than 22 pages.
Jane, mindful of the fact that I do not have legal
representation at the hearing, reassured me that the skeleton argument ‘includes nothing new, but merely sets out
the case that the NEC barrister intends to make, which you could find helpful.’ How you might ask could I resist such
blandishments. In case I was sceptical, Jane reassured me that I would have a
chance to object on Sunday to the introduction of more than 150 pages of new
documents.
 |
| I am criticised for calling the Director of the Jewish Labour Movement 'pathetic' |
What you might ask were these documents? Well the first one was the Chakrabarti
Report. Jane must have known I’d
find it difficult to resist this particular document. After all it is a guide to how the Labour
Party should conduct its disciplinary process on the basis of natural justice,
fairness, due process and transparency. Perhaps
McNicol has turned over a new leaf and recognises that things must now change
for the better?
The next document seemed a bit more suspect. It was the Home
Affairs Select Committee Report on Anti-Semitism in the UK, which introduced
the fake IHRA definition of anti-Semitism that conflates anti-Zionist and
anti-Semitism.
Even more strangely the next document was the Judgment
in the case I brought under the Data Protection Act against the Labour Party to
unredact various documents which the Labour Party had sent me. This application failed but it had nothing to
do with anti-Semitism. So I was puzzled
why McNicol wanted to introduce it.
The fourth document was a blog article of mine on
how the Chakrabarti Report was a
missed opportunity which balanced support for and criticism of specific
aspects of the Report. No harm surely in
having yet one more of my own articles?
 |
| It is 'offensive' to accuse this woman of supporting Palestinian child abuse despite her steadfast defence of the Israeli military's treatment of Palestinian children |
Yet still I suspected a rat by the name of Iain
McNicol but since I was at a friends’ graduation ceremony at the Brighton
Centre I wasn’t able to look at the skeleton argument at the time. I said it was highly unusual to introduce
documents at the last minute when I had been told it was not possible and I
particular objected to Document No. 3. I
suggested instead that they obtain the transcript of the Injunction Hearing at
the High Court as that had quite a lot to say about fairness in Labour Party
disciplinary matters!
I therefore sent a short email on my mobile:
‘As DJ Brown stated in her introduction to her
judgment (page 2): ‘This Court is not and
cannot be concerned with the disciplinary processes of the Party and this
Application will not be allowed by this Court to lead it into making any
findings as to the substantive matter of the complaints against the Applicant
and the handling of those complaints.’
I therefore wrote that ‘I cannot imagine what possible purpose could be served by the
introduction of the latter’ I therefore
opposed the introduction of this document.
I also suggested that if they wished to introduce
these documents then they should adjourn the hearing and also include several
articles of my own critical of the Home Affairs Select Committee Report. In particular one by David Plank a former Government
Special Advisor to the Social Services Select Committee which was damning of the
Home Affairs Committee Report, stating that it was not worth the paper it was
written on.
My correspondence with Jane Shaw can be viewed here. The Skeleton Argument can be seen here. It is a model of deception and
tautology. Time permits me only a few
comments.
1.
After all the nonsense about ‘anti-Semitism’ it
turns out that apart from the use of the term ‘Zio’ ‘the NEC does not otherwise
allege that Mr Greenstein’s conduct was anti-Semitic.’ Strange that, because what then was I
suspended for? All that stuff in The
Telegraph and Times about comparisons between Israeli marriage laws and the
Nuremburg Laws has vanished into thin space.
Comments about how Israel is waiting for its Holocaust survivors to die
so that it has more money to spend on weaponry?
No mention either. Throughout my
22 months suspension the goal posts have been continually changed. The charges are now:
4.1. Offensive comments online,
including the word "Zio";
4.2. Offensive posts and
comments on Mr Greenstein's blog;
4.3. Email in which he mocked the
phrase "final solution".
 |
| Lacking all procedure, McNicol wants to slip in a few more documents at the last minute |
Most of these for example 4.3 where I
sent a satirical post to McNicol are covered in my 2 previous submissions to
the Labour Party.
I responded
robustly to abusive posts and I stand by them.
What is noticeable is that those on the Right who are abusive have a get
out of jail free card, such as Deborah Lowe and Warren Morgan, Leader of Brighton
and Hove Council – both nasty Blairites.
Chakrabarti Report & Zios
Contrary to what I expected the Chakrabarti Report
(which has still not been discussed or approved of by Labour’s NEC) is not
being introduced because of its recommendations of a fair process. Good gracious no. The only
reason is because it quotes
Chakrabarti’s mistaken view that ‘Zio’ is a racist epithet.
The Labour Party’s barrister, one Thomas Ogg, takes
exception to the use of ‘Zio’ as a term of abuse. I freely confess that I use the term ‘Zio’ in
a pejorative manner. If I call someone a
racist I don’t use it as a term of flattery.
Their idiot of a barrister argues that:
‘Mr Greenstein has even used the term in his response to the
Opening Submissions of the NEC. Page 49 of the most recent set of submissions
(internal page 12 of J’Accuse ') states:
"On my blog one day I got 2 posts - one from a Zio and another from a
Neo-Nazi. I found the post from the Zio more disturbing than the holocaust
denier. Strange that. Why do you think that was?"
Why does Ogg think I abused the
Zio? Perhaps because the vile twerp
wished that my family and me should have ended our days in Auschwitz. Of course Ogg doesn’t mention that. This is a
good example of the dishonesty of the legal profession. Ogg goes on
to argue that:
‘Even
if Mr Greenstein honestly did not intend to be antisemitic, he knowingly used a
term that is both perceived and publicly stated by the Labour Party in the
Chakrabarti Report to be antisemitic, and deliberately used the word as a term
of abuse. That is Mr Greenstein's offence, which is both prejudicial to the
Labour Party and grossly detrimental to it.’
Yes I know it’s difficult to
make head or tale of this farrago of nonsense.
It seems Ogg is incapable of making a clear and lucid argument in plain
English.
If I didn’t intend something to
be anti-Semitic then it is unlike to be anti-Semitic. The fact that it is perceived by racists to
be anti-Semitic is irrelevant. If the
Labour Party thinks it is then it’s wrong.
The Labour Party has a legacy of support for Israel and Zionism i.e.
racism so its views on the matter are not the final word.
Apparently it is ‘prejudicial to the Labour Party and grossly
detrimental to it’. This catch-all
McCarthyist nonsense means nothing. How
the hell can the term ‘Zio’ be detrimental
to the Labour Party yet the theft of thousands of pounds by the former Chair of
the Jewish Labour Movement from a Jewish charity not be detrimental? These bastards literally make it up.
The idiot, because clear this Ogg is either stupid
or dishonest or both, goes on to make the most offensive of comparisons. He argues that
‘Mr
Greenstein stands in the same position as someone who is aware that society
considers terms such as "Paki" and "Nigger" to be racially
offensive, but on the basis of a belief that the words 'in fact' mean something
else, nevertheless deliberately use the words "Paki" and "Nigger"
as terms of abuse whilst denying their racial connotations.’
I describe him as an idiot
because ‘Paki’ ‘Nigger’ etc. are terms that are historically and politically
located as terms of abuse. They are
widely indeed universally accepted as deeply offensive racist terms. They are based on a person’s ethnicity. Zio, short for Zionist is based on someone’s
political allegiance. Zio is not related
to someone’s ethnicity.
John Mann
In a discussion about the merits
of lazy or racist MPs I tweeted that "at
least your MP doesn't do as much damage - better a lazy or corrupt MP
than @JohnMannMP addicted 2 murder & racism". Ogg then
states ‘Mr Greenstein does not state who
John Mann is addicted to murdering, or the kind of racism that is being
referred to. It does not matter.’
Actually it does matter. John Mann, the rent a mouth from Bassetlaw
has made it his business to run the false anti-Semitism campaign. He has abused for example a 90 year old
Jewish Dr Glatt who called him out over his attacks on Jeremy Corbyn. See Open
Letter to John Mann MP from a 90 Year Old Jewish Dr Glatt and A
Desperate John Mann MP Tries to Undermine 90 year old Jewish Doctor's Letter by
Falsely Alleging It was a Forgery
Mann is a deceptive and
dishonest MP who during the first Corbyn election campaign wrote him an open
letter accusing him of being soft on child abuse. If the Labour Party apparatchiks had any
attachment to socialism then Mann would have been suspended if not expelled
years ago. But of course Crooked McNicol
and his henchmen approved of Mann’s attacks on Corbyn. Unfortunately Corbyn is incapable of
realising that appeasement of these people will prove costly in the end.
Owen
Jones – A Janus Faced Whore
Now I would have liked
to take credit for the comment that Owen Jones is ‘is a Janus faced whore who bears the
impression of the last person who sat on him.’ However I can’t. This classical witticism was thought up by
someone else. I merely repeated it. However I agree with the sentiments but Ogg
pompously declares that ‘It is not appropriate
for Mr Greenstein to refer to Owen Jones, a prominent Guardian journalist, as a
"whore", Janus faced or otherwise. It is personal abuse and there is no place for it in the Labour
Party.’ Why not? It means he is a 2 faced git!
Despite Judge Brown saying
earlier in her judgment that ‘This Court
is not and cannot be concerned with the disciplinary processes of the Party and
this Application will not be allowed by this Court to lead it into making any
find ings as to the substantive matter of the complaints against the Applicant
and the handling of those complaints.’ She later goes on to contradict
herself when she says:
"(the Applicant) is demonstrably intelligent and has engaged
in this process in an articulate and detailed way. He is also a highly
controversial figure. It is the Court's view from seeing him within the Court process
that he is intense and combative being highly emotional about the subjects of
Israel and Palestine. He is someone whom the Party rightly or wrongly has
suspended, about whom they have received a significant number of complaints and
in respect of whom there are ongoing investigations. This background informs
the decisions as to reasonableness of disclosure which might with information
already known to or ascertainable by the Applicant might identify the third
parties. He is within these proceedings prone to a very strong reaction to
persons and submissions made. ... The Applicant quickly brands a query as to
why a Claim form was not issued as being an allegation of fraud which viewed
reasonably it was not. He alleges that only a "fool or a Knave" would
interpret one of his comments in the way the Respondent submits which is an
emotive comment. Whilst he claims to be viewed out of context he has within
document[s] repeatedly used language which is offensive in any context -
"racist Zios" "facist scum]"] to give just two small
examples. I do not underestimate the complexity of the Applicant's views but
his views and the strength with which he expresses them is something the
Respondent....’
Now one can argue as to the
merits of the above but one thing is clear.
It is what lawyers term ‘obiter
dicta’ in other words it is a Judge’s opinion but forms no part of the
Judgment. It is not part of the ratio.
So the attempt to introduce the Judgment, which concerns other unrelated
matters, is part of the dishonesty and deceptiveness of McNicol’s Barrister
Ogg.
Weasel Words
Ogg states that ‘The NEC does not have to prove actual prejudice
to the Labour Party. All that is required is that the conduct is
"prejudicial", that is, is liable to cause prejudice to the party in
the sense of being capable of having that effect.’ So there is no need to prove any damage to
the Labour Party Party was caused merely that it was capable of so doing. In other words a wholly subjective test that
could be applied to virtually anything.
Of course when it comes to Jeremy Newmark having defrauded a charity of
thousands of pounds this is a ‘private’ matter not at all prejudicial. But a friend in Hove, Riad, who was convicted
years ago of having broken the Oil for Food sanctions to Iraq for humanitarian
reasons, because those sanctions were killing thousands of people (US Secretary
of State Madeleine Albright stated that killing half
a million children was ‘a price worth paying) was ‘auto excluded’ from the
Labour Party. That was not private.
Ogg rejects my argument that social
media posts are "here today and gone
tomorrow"I
stating
that ‘that is not the Labour Party's
approach to abuse online.’ Except of
course that the Labour Party approach to online abuse only applies to the Left not
the Right. I gave the example of where I
was called a ‘poisonous piece of shit’
by ex-Councillor Craig Turton, which Councillor Warren Morgan, leader of
Brighton and Hove Council approved of and 4
times McNicol refused even to accept a complaint. And then Ogg complains that I call him
Crooked McNicol!!
Louise Ellman
What is amazing is Ogg’s attempt
to defend this execrable MP who justifies and defends Israel’s treatment of
child prisoners on grounds of ‘security’.
Ogg states that: ‘There are two
aspects of Mr Greenstein's blog [77J which are objectionable and offensive.’
56. First, the use of the phrase "child abuse" is
deliberate ly provocative. The phrase evokes sexual abuse, and therefore
suggests that Louise Ellman MP, a prominent Jewish Labour MP, supports the
same. The phrase "child abuse" appears nowhere else in the article, including
the passages from the reports by UNICEF. Mr Greenstein's summary of the conduct
Mr Greenstein complains of as "child abuse" is an attempt to shame Ms
Ellman by the use of emotive language, which is contrary to the Labour Party's
Social Media Policy.
57. Second, the passages from Ms Ellman's speech quoted by
Mr Greenstein do not support the allegations he makes against Ms Ellman . Mr
Greenstein writes: "The torture and beatings by the Israeli army, which
refuses to record its interrogations, which refuses access to lawyers or even
parents to accompany their children, is acceptable to Ellman". He also
writes: "Every excuse for torture, the beating of children ... was made by
Ellman". Neither of those allegations is supported by the passages from Ms
Ellman's speech which he quotes in his blog. Ms Ellman supports detention, but
makes no comment on "torture" and "beatings".
This is the most shameful part
of Ogg’s submission. It is true. Ellman doesn’t comment on torture or beatings
however others do in the debate. Instead
she merely justifies the kidnapping of children in the middle of the night,
their shackling and treatment on ‘security’ grounds. Her omitting to comment on
the treatment of Palestinian children whilst defending the Israeli military’s
behaviour should be the subject of disciplinary action.
This wretched woman should have
been thrown out of the Labour Party years ago but of course, like war criminal
Tony Blair she is an honoured member. In
the debate
Sara Chamption stated that ‘in
February 2015, UNICEF issued an update to its original report and noted that
allegations of “alleged ill-treatment of children during arrest, transfer,
interrogation and detention have not significantly decreased in 2013 and 2014”.
Jo Cox highlighted the fact that ‘evidence from Military Court Watch suggests that 65% of children
continue to report being arrested at night in what are described as terrifying
raids by the military. Will she comment on that worrying fact?’
Sarah Champion went on to state that:
Some
93% of children continue to be restrained with plastic ties, many painfully so,
and the standard operating procedures are frequently ignored. Around 80% of
children continue to be blindfolded or hooded, a practice that the UK and
UNICEF reports said should be absolutely prohibited. Audiovisual recording of
interrogations has been mandated only in
non-security-related offences, which means that nearly 90% of cases involving
children, including those accused of attending a demonstration, continue to
take place without this practical safeguard.
Perhaps
most disturbing is the fact that the reports of physical abuse—consisting
mainly of punching, kicking, position abuse and slapping, but in some cases
also including more serious allegations, such as of being mauled by dogs and
receiving electric shocks—are now higher in number than they were in 2013.
What was Ellman’s
response?
‘Does my hon. Friend really believe
that the solution to this horrendous conflict between two peoples—the Israeli
and the Palestinian people—can be found by encouraging individual child
Palestinians to commit acts of violence against other human beings?’
Not only not one word, not one syllable of condemnation or even
criticism of Israel. She accepts as
given the guilt of the Palestinian children.
Not a word about shackling, painful handcuffs, refusal to access lawyers
or parents or indeed any of the safeguards that Jewish Israeli children have as
of right. If anything my comments on this despicable woman were too mild.
The treatment of Palestinian children is justified because they
were being ‘incited’ to violence against the Israeli military. Presumably if it
weren’t for that incitement they would come to love living under a military
dictatorship. The pathetic submission
from Ogg is really nothing more than a defence of the indefensible.
Ogg even talks of ‘Mr Greenstein's lurid allegations about the torture and
beating of children, which are not supported by what Ms Ellman actually said,
is provocative, inaccurate and offensive.’
Well it might be provocative and offensive, to Ellman, but it’s not
inaccurate.
What does that well known
anti-Semitic newspaper Ha’aretz have to
say? On 22nd February 2017
under the provocative headline ‘Israel
Tortures Palestinian Children, Amnesty Report Says’ it reported that:
‘The report
found that among those tortured and detained under administrative orders were
also children. Methods of torture included beatings, painful shackling and
sleep deprivation. Among 110 Palestinians killed last year by Israeli forces,
the report charged, some posed no threat to life and thus were shot unlawfully.’ Lurid?
Ogg takes particular
exception to my inference that ‘child abuse’ implies sexual abuse. What does the
Public Committee Against Torture in Israel have to say on this
subject? According to The
Independent of 1.1.14.
‘The Public
Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI) published a report which claimed
children suspected of minor crimes were subjected to “public caging”, threats
and acts of sexual violence and military trials without representation.’
One wonders whether Ogg
considers ‘acts of sexual violence’
as constituting sexual abuse or not or whether his definition is elastic enough
to escape that ‘offensive’ description? According to a report on YNet, the
online version of Israel’s largest circulation paper Yediot Aharanot:
‘ A CNN
investigative report aired Thursday slammed the treatment of Palestinian
children by IDF soldiers.
The report included uncorroborated charges of sexual
abuse against Palestinian youngsters while in IDF custody.
The CNN
report featured an unidentified Palestinian boy claiming that IDF forces
attempted to insert an object into his rectum after he was arrested. The
unidentified youngster said a dozen officers were standing around and laughing
while he was being interrogated, stopping only when their commander stepped
into the room.’
One wonders whether the
Labour Party’s tame barrister finds that abusive enough to merit the caption
‘sexual abuse’? Mehdi Hassan in the New
Statesman asked: ‘Did
the Israeli army sexually abuse Palestinian children?
So idiotic does Ogg’s
submission become that in paragraph 58 he refers to Ellman as ‘Ms Greenstein’!!
Ogg also takes exception
to my comment re Ella Rose that her appointment as Director of the JLM deprived
some village of their idiot! One thing
these bureaucrats lack is a sense of humour.
Ella Rose has previously
distinguished herself as a little thuglet.
Crooked McNicol & Others
There is a whole section
devoted to my favourite Labour Party General Secretary!!
We
are told that ‘In this blog
post, Mr Greenstein uses the word "crook" or "crooked" to
describe
Mr
lain McNicol no less than 17 times .’ and that ‘A crook is a dishonest or criminal person.’ Err yes.
I would say that McNicol is dishonest.
As to whether he is criminal I think the jury is still out.
Apparently by saying that John
Mann is a ‘devious little opportunist’
I am mocking his height. Actually I’m
not. Perhaps I should have said a big
opportunist but my meaning was more subtle.
It is also an offence to
describe Chuku Ummuna as ‘White
politically’ and in para. 77 ‘The NCC will
note that in that blog Mr Greenstein goes on at [161J
to use racially charged language in
respect of "White minorities like Jews".’ What utter rubbish. What utter tosh.
The final charge is that:
‘On 3rd May 2016, Mr Greenstein sent
an email to the General Secretary of the Party, lain McNicol, in which he
proposed a "rule change" which would require that "all membership applications and nominations
for party office or for Labour candidacies should first be submitted for
approval to the Israeli embassy." In that email he uses language
reflecting the Nazi plan under Adolf Hitler to exterminate Jewish people: "If passed, it would provide a final, I
mean complete, solution".
Unfortunately satire and parody
completely escape the hacks and paid legal mouthpieces of the Labour
Party. As I’ve already dealt with this
nonsense already I won’t repeat my defence!
All in all a pretty sad and
pathetic tome. Please read it, if only
for pure amusement!!
Tony Greenstein
