This is reprinted, with permission, from a solid Twitter Thread posted today by @simonmaginn
The subject? 10 repulsive, and apparently orchestrated, attacks upon the Labour Party and its senior members over the last few years. Claims of Anti Semitism were the weapon of choice, making it an even more repulsive series of acts upon people that are probably the LEAST antisemitic in the entire UK.
Here we are pleased to publish 10 rebuttals of each one, counting down from 10 to 1
As Simon Maginn says ;-
“These old chestnuts keep coming up, so I thought I’d post them as a thread. The scam is visibly falling apart now as more and more people become aware of it.”
10 – Chris Williamson
Claim: Mr Williamson, then an MP, said Labour had been too apologetic for Antisemitism
BBC’s Nick Robinson tweeted it. It is still up today
In fact what Mr Williamson said was this:
“The party that has done more to stand up to racism is now being demonised as a racist, bigoted party. I have got to say, I think our party’s response has been partly responsible for that because in my opinion we’ve backed off far too much, we have given too much ground, we’ve been too apologetic… We’ve done more to address the scourge of anti-Semitism than any other party.”
Oddly, the last part of Mr Williamson’s statement, where he talks about’addressing the scourge of antisemitism’, doesnt get quoted.
This is called ‘clipping’- extracting words from a longer speech in order to misrepresent it.
Transcript for the quote is here,
Verdict : False
9 – Jackie Walker
Claim: Ms Walker said “Jews controlled the slave trade”.
Again the BBC’s old reliable Nick Robinson said exactly this in a now deleted tweet.
In fact what Ms Walker said was this:
“Oh Yes– and I hope that you feel the same towards the African Holocaust? My ancestors were involved in both — on all sides as I’m sure you know, millions more Africans were killed in the African holocaust and their oppression continues today on a global scale in a way it doesnt for Jews…and many Jews (my ancestors too) were the chief financiers of the sugar and slave trade, which is of course why there are so many synagogues in the Caribbean. So who are the victims and what does it mean? We are victims and perpetrators to some extent through choice. And having been a victim does not give you a right to be a perpetrator”
BBC finally retracted Mr Robinson’s accusation, describing it as ‘Insufficiently accurate”, and Mr Robinson was required to delete his tweet, though in so doing, regrettably, made the further smear against Mr Willkiamson above.
He is prolific
8 – Jeremy Corbyn – Irony
Claim: Jeremy Corbyn said, “Jews[or sometimes Zionists] dont understand English Irony”
In fact what he said was this…”…the other evening we had a meeting in Parliament in which Manuel, [The Palestinian Ambassador Manuel Hassassian] made an incredibly powerful and passionate and effective speech about the history of Palestine, the rights of the Palestinian people. This was dutifully recorded by the, thankfully silent, Zionists who were in the audience on that occassion (Simon Maginn’s emphasis) ; and then came up and berated him afterwards for what he had said.
They clearly have 2 problems.
One is that they dont want to study History, secondly, having lived in this country for a very long time, (Probably their whole lives), they dont understand English irony either.
Manuel does understand English irony and uses it very very effectively. So I think they needed two lessons, which we can perhaps help them with.
You will note the (habitually) careful language: “The Zionists who were in the audience on that occassion.” Unless you were one of the named, self identifying Zionist protestors who had disrupted the meeting in question, Mr Corbyns remarks about irony obviously do not apply to you.
Indeed, one of the protestors, Richard Millett, is currently sueing Mr Corbyn for libel. His entire case is that he is identifiable as one of the people Mr Corbyn called ‘Disruptive’ at the meeting.
So unless you’re him this isnt about you.
Transcript here: https://labourbriefing.org/blog/2018/8/29/full-texxt-of-that-speech-by-jeremy-on-zionists-and-a-sense-of-irony
7 – Jeremy Corbyn – The Wreath
Claim: Jeremy Corbyn laid a wreath at the cemetery in Tunisia where the 1972 Munich Olympic Terrorists were buried
In fact, the wreath was laid at a memorial to victims of Israel’s “Operation Wooden Leg”which was universally condemned for its attack on the PLO Headquarters in Tunis in revenge for the Olympics atrocity.
The Munich terrorists are buried in another country.
Jeremy Corbyn was in the wrong country.
6 – Baddiels Leaflet
Claim: There was a leaflet at a Labour Partry Conference about the holocaust that didnt mention Jews.
TV Celebrity David Baddiel claimed in a TV promo for his book, “Jews Don’t Count” that he had been informed by “Someone on the NEC “[Labour National Executive Committee] that there had been a Labour party leaflet circulated at a Labour conference about the holocaust that didn’t mention Jews.
What he seems to be referring to in a garbled form here is a petition by the SWP [Socialist Workers Party] in 2008 at a far right rally in Derbyshire, which by some unnacountable error, lists the ‘Other victims of the holocaust, but omits 6 million Jews’.
It has never been repeated, and the SWP have never denied or minimised the holocaust in any way.
Ironically the petition was specifically about remembering the victims of the holocaust, in the face of far right holocaust denial.
Nothing to do with the Labour Party.
Nothing whatsoever to do with Jeremy Corbyn.
Mr Baddiel has never, to my knowledge, been challenged on his claim, nor has he been required to show any evidence that what he claims ever happened at all.
5 – The IHRA Definition
Claim: Corbyns Labour party was antisemitic because of its initial reluctance to adopt the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism and all its examples.
The new head of the EHRC, Baroness Falkner, recently said the definition is “Extremely poorly worded and probably unnactionable in Law,” while it directly conflicts with the duty to protect free speech.
The Labour party have been forced to publish details of a ‘Secret Code’ in operation, which was an attempt to make the IHRA definition legally actionable. Corbyn was condemned for this code, which Starmer has been forced to admit he is still using.
4 – The EHRC
Claim: The EHRC found the Labour Party ‘institutionally antisemitic’
Here is the EHRC website.
Type the words ‘institutionally antisemitic’ into it.
You get results but not one of them about this report.
It simply doesn’t say it
From The Dangerous Globe,
“To clarify, from the above linked website you are steered to the EHRC report titled, “Investigation into antisemitism in the Labout Party”, it is 130 pages long and can be downloaded from this address: https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/investigation-into-antisemitism-in-the-labour-party.pdf
A search of the document itself (Ctrl F) using the words ‘institutionally antisemitic’ turns up only one result, on page 127. This section is annex 7, “How we carried out the investigation” and it cites a report by Professor Alan Johnson,(BICOM) ‘Institutionally Antisemitic: Contemporary Left Antisemitism and the Crisis in the British Labour Party’ (March 2019) having been used as a reference for the EHRC report, and not part of the content.
The claim itself is not made anywhere else in the actual EHRC report.
3 – The Friends
Claim: Jeremy Corbyn referred to representatives of Hamas and Hezbollah as ‘Our Friends’
This is so. What is missing here is context. Corbyn habitually refers to anyone at a meeting as ‘friends’.
It is boilerplate diplomatic courtesy attempting to establish a positive atmosphere to a hopefully productive meeting.
It does not mean that he agrees with everything every one of them ever said and done, because that is not how meetings work.
If it were, he would , logically, also have to agree with everything said and done by the opposing side, as well as holding all of the positions of everyone he has ever met.
I think a moments’ consideration shows this idea to be obviously absurd.
Verdict: True but grossly misleading because of context stripping.
2 – Ruth Smeeth/Marc Wadsworth
Claim: Marc Wadsworth used an antisemitic trope to Jewish MP Ruth Smeeth.
At the launch of the Shami Chakrabarti report on antisemitism in April 2016, black rights activist Marc Wadsworth was reported as saying to (then Labour MP) Ruth Smeeth, who is Jewish, ‘Look who is working hand in hand with the media’
1 Marc Wadsworth had no knowledge Ms Smeeth is Jewish, nor any reason to know that. He merely recognised her as a Labour MP, and saw Ms Smeeth and a Daily Telegraph journalist passing a document between them.
There is nothing antisemitic in his 10 words to suggest antisemitism.
2 There simply is no antisemitic trope of ‘Working hand in hand with the media’. Of course Jewish people work in, and with, the media, why shouldn’t they?
The Trope is control and ownership of the media. So this accusation requires the manufacturing of an entirely new antisemitic trope, and one which is patently ridiculous.
Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHv3D7g4RH4
1 – The Mural
Claim: Jeremy Corbyn approved of an antisemitic mural, which shows, ‘big nosed Jewish Bankers’expoloiting the masses
1 They are not ‘Jewish Bankers’. 5 are bankers, only two of whom are Jewish, and the sixth is a bizarre figure from the world of English occultism, Aleister Crowley, also not Jewish (He invented his own religion, Thelema).
It is quite obviously not a statement about ‘Jews’, as the artist himself has explained, since only 2 of the figures are Jewish.
The accusation simply makes no sense.
2 Neither did Corbyn “approve” of it. He saw a thumbnail of a facebook post about it, and asked why it had been removed.
When it was explained to him that some people thought it was antisemitic he apologised.
That is literally the whole thing
A free to use, comprehensive and independent search engine which is about to become your favourite. https://thereal.news
TheReal.News is a search engine that has had the spin removed. We use sites that we have studied for some time and monitored for integrity and we don’t use sites that we have seen which either spin or lie their way to the front page. Everybody is biased in some way or they aren’t breathing, but Bias and Bollocks are not the same thing.
People that tell the truth are quite easy to find because they cite references and sources to back up what they say. The opposite is also true.