Too even-handed

I should have called my previous post “If you didn’t laugh you’d have to cry.“ Was I being a bit too hard on the Guardian yesterday when I criticised it for giving equal credence to both sides of the antisemitism debacle during the Corbyn era? 

Who bears the blame for not grasping the fact that antisemitism is actually more troublesome than the retaliatory unpleasantness it engenders? The report itself? Martin Forde QC? The Guardian, Labour List?  One might even consider giving the Guardian a small Brownie point for being the first to mention the report at all. (When I was in the Brownies there wasn’t much emphasis on the badge-attaining side of it, but the uniform had a certain je ne sais quoi)

I see that the BBC has now weighed in. 

Anti-Semitism used as factional weapon within Labour, says report

Surprise. Firmly on the Guardian side of the fence. The Beeb’s version seems more Guardinista-like than the actual Guardian’s version. Illustrated with a massive Labour Party red rosette, the BBC’s emphasis is firmly placed on the principle known as “a plague on both their houses”.

"The dossier found "no evidence" of anti-Semitism being handled differently from other complaints and blamed "factional opposition" towards Mr Corbyn. "

This morning’s Times seems less equivocating and the picture they’ve used to illustrate the piece says quite a lot too. The uniform also has that je ne sais quoi.

So far the btl comments in The Times seem to be mainly from folk who abhor antisemitism. Their ‘takeaway’ from the report must be similar to mine. (That antisemitism is real and it’s not pretty)

I  don’t know if any of the aforementioned left-wing platforms allow comments, but I fear they would be as ‘even-handed’ about the matter as ever. 

A glimpse behind the scenes

Mahyar Tousi's latest YouTube video highlights a revealing piece of correspondence from 2013. It was sent by the BBC's Kevin Fitzpatrick - at the time a reporter for BBC Radio Manchester - to the the then-Labour leader of Oldham Council Jim McMahon [now MP for Oldham West], copying in other councillors, Greater Manchester Police and Kevin's BBC boss.

Though it shows that the BBC had - quite rightly - been asking questions about child sexual exploitation involving Oldham's 'Asian community', it proves that Oldham Council and the GMP asked the BBC not to broadcast anything about it and that the BBC agreed - 'for the time being'.

The council and the police were worried about 'tensions in the town ahead of Lee Rigby's funeral'.

We've long assumed that these sorts of conversations went on and that things were not being reported because of concerns about 'social cohesion', but it's still startling to see the evidence in black and white. 

Wonder what happened next, after the funeral?

Not a belated April Fools joke

So guess who has been made Shadow Minister for Community Cohesion by Sir Keir Starmer? Yes, Naz Shah, the Labour MP who:

• Was suspended by the Labour Party following tweets she herself conceded were anti-Semitic, including one suggesting Israel should be relocated to the USA with the words "problem solved".
• Marked the death of Winnie Mandela with a quote celebrating necklacing. 
• Denounced the MP for Rotherham, Sarah Champion, for writing an article about how "Britain had a problem with Pakistani men targeting vulnerable white girls".
• Retweeted and 'liked' a post of Twitter that said "Those abused girls in Rotherham and elsewhere just need to shut their mouths. For the good of diversity".

It's a good thing Dr Harold Shipman isn't still alive or Sir Keir might have made him Minister for Palliative Care.

Wonder if the BBC will take Labour to task over this?

Sky dive

I watched Sky’s version of the Labour leadership hustings. 

The set looked familiar and the host(ess) was Soppy Ridge.  (See, I told you I’d leave her name auto-incorrected)

The most annoying bit of the programme was during the part where they did their bit to address the party’s antisemitism problem, which they all (rightly) condemned as ‘racism’; all three insisted that the worst offenders had to be rooted out of the party.  They all spoke as if antisemitism had nothing to do with Islam. Lisa Nandy even managed to assure us that she was so anti-racist that she had no time for the “racist Tommy Robinson”(!) The chairperson confused the matter still further by bringing in an extra questioner, whose somewhat equivocal question on the same subject virtually negated the original unequivocal one. 

Rather awkwardly (though it amused me) one extremely earnest and passionate member of the audience got his knickers in a terribly uncomfortable twist, trying to defend Jeremy Corbyn by insisting that he wasn’t racist at all and refusing to concede that there was any such a thing as antisemitism in the Labour Party.  His enthusiasm for the party as a whole and his misguided attempt to support all three contenders effectively negated everything they’d just said.  In fact, it exposed their duplicitousness.

Emily for leader

Here we have Newsnight’s presentation of the individuals trying to get themselves elected as leader of the Labour Party. First I have to address Emily Thornberry’s defence against the charge of antisemitism.

Newsnight’s presenter Katie Razzall set the tone in a schoolmarmish manner but failed to challenge Thornberry’s preposterous demonstration of abject ignorance. (I suspect Razzall is equally ignorant ) 

Thornberry’s ugly little diatribe did the opposite of what was intended if indeed exonerating herself from the charge of antisemitism was her intention.

I admit it’s tricky, trying to suck up to four million potential voters who very likely conform to their religion’s default hostility to Jews, while at the same time trying not to fall foul of the Labour party’s so-called anti-racist raison d’etre. But she got it so very wrong.

 “I think it was really important as I often said, that it is our duty to speak out against the far-right government of Netanyahu, and what it is that that government is doing to the two-state solution.

And what is it that the Palestinian Authority is doing, prey, never mind the “far-right Netanyahu government”, to the two-state solution?  Oh yes, rioting and calling for endless days of rage.

“Which is different from being antisemitic” interrupts Razzall, eager to remind us that “criticising Israel” is not antisemitic.

“Hang on”  interjects Thornberry  “exactly!”

“And then to explain to people, you do that, and that is not antisemitic, but you do not blame the Jews for that.” 

No, not all of them. Not the Jews who belong to certain left-wing, anti-Zionist groups; save the blame for the right-wing, Netanyahu-supporting Jews who live in or support Israel. 

“And to explain to people, there is a clear disconnect. It is not the fault of some guy who lives in a flat in north London - he is not responsible for the death of Palestinian children. And people really need to understand the difference.”

The difference between the innocent ‘guy’ in London who happens to be a Jew through no fault of his own and the right-wing Israeli Jew who callously murders Palestinian children for sport.

“And time and time again, in my role as shadow foreign secretary, I made that absolutely clear. And i think that it would be right to say, that the record shows, that I have regularly called out antisemitism in my party in a very public way.

Yep. Thornberry stops short of chanting ‘Jews to the gas’ so how could she be antisemitic? She hasn’t got a racist bone in her body. (Nor any bones at all as far as one can tell.)

Because of her ‘pseudo-Sloaney with a hint of mid-Atlantic’ accent and her tic (i.e., keeps saying ‘frankly’) it’s impossible to take her seriously. She is like Corbyn and others in the Party in that they make stuff up as they go along as if trapped within some sort of ‘just-a-minute’ format and will be penalised for hesitation. And suffering from “likes the sound of their own voice' syndrome. And starting sentences with “And’ so they can continue talking nonsense on topics about which they know next to nothing without being interrupted or letting anyone else get a word in. And waving their hands (or trotters) around expressively to show off their red nail-varnish. I hope any of that doesn't put anyone off voting for her.


Update:

If anyone here is interested, here’s a video of the Labour Leader hustings that took place yesterday in front of the Jewish Labour Movement. If you’ve got the will and the stamina to watch it, you’ll see that Lisa Nandy is head and shoulders above the other candidates. (Candidates? Have I turned into Alan Lord Sugar?) (no)

Emily Thornberry seems to believe that her day - or was it days  - of glory as a stand-in for Corbs at PMQs were enough of a triumph to leapfrog her to the front of the process. No, Emily, you are vacuous, cliche-ridden, insincere and hypocritical. And spiteful. You’re fired!

The question remains. Is Nandy’s chairpersonship of Labour Friends of Palestine compatible with her support of Israel and/or the Jewish peoples’ right to self-determination? In fact, one could almost defend this by saying at least she couldn’t be accused of pro-Zionist partisanship. Which is a plus.

However, one niggle still won’t go away. I still worry that Nandy has been seduced by the Palestinian propaganda machine.

“I met a three-year-old child whose house was surrounded by the Separation Wall and was growing up without daylight. I saw a 15-year-old shackled by the ankles, who had been held in administrative detention for months without any contact with his family, access to school or a lawyer. I saw families humiliated at checkpoints on a daily basis and the denial of basic medical care as a result.

This is a movement which continually entices British MPs to visit ‘Palestine’ to view the obligatory theatrical production, a series of orchestrated anti-Israel set-ups wrought from self-pity, pathos and victimhood, specifically designed to hoodwink foreign governments into joining their quest to obliterate Israel.

If Nandy showed a glimmer of cynicism, awareness of - or insight into that specific aspect of her own pro-Palestinian advocacy, I could be won over. She’s the only credible leader.
If you watch the linked video I think you’ll agree with me. Hope so.

Panorama's John Ware sues the Labour Party for libel

John Ware's damning 10th July 2019 Panorama on antisemitism in the Labour Party provoked a predictable outcry from furious Corbynistas. 

Some complained to the BBC - including the Labour Party itself, which compiled 28 objections to the programme. This then went through to Ofcom. 

Well, Ofcom has now thrown out Labour's complaint declaring the programme to have been duly impartial. 

John Ware and some of the whistleblowers featured in the programme are now suing the Labour Party and some of its 'outriders' (gobby people on Twitter no doubt!) for libel.

They've hired Mark Lewis QC.

I wish them all the luck in the world.

Former BBC man tilts at the Labour crown

So, we learn tonight that the second Labour MP to enter the race to succeed Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader is none other than Clive Lewis.

And who might he be (I hear passers-by asking)?

Well, seasoned BBC watchers will know that Clive (an early Corbynista) used to be a BBC reporter - indeed the main political reporter on the BBC's Politics Show East.

And, if they read our blog, they'll also know that Corbynista Clive once well-and-truly dropped the BBC in it by boasting the following to a Momentum mob:

I was able to use bias in my reports by giving less time to one than the other. I reported on both but the angle and words and the language I used - I know the pictures I used - I was able to project my own particular political positions on things in a very subtle way.

I, for one, completely believed him about that. 

The BBC News website has, so far, treated Corbynista Clive kindly, with links to his Guardian article and direct quotes, but (so far) no criticism, and (so far) no mention whatsoever that he ever worked for the BBC.

In contrast, the Sky News website, while reporting the same story, has lobbed in a good deal more:

In 2017, Mr Lewis faced criticism from politicians on both sides of the chamber after a clip of him emerged telling a man to "get on your knees b****" during a comic quiz held at a fringe event during Labour's Brighton conference. 

He apologised "unreservedly" and said the language he used was "offensive and unacceptable". 

He was also accused of pinching a female Labour member's bottom at the Momentum The World Transformed festival - organised by the pro-Corbyn group - but he was later cleared of sexual harassment after an internal investigation.

All of which is only adding to my perennial feeling that we often only get half the story (at best) from the BBC, when it suits them.

Historical recall

Jeremy's not wrong:

This sounds familiar. pic.twitter.com/aNz9mkSHbF

— Jeremy Vine (@theJeremyVine) December 13, 2019

It certainly does. It's the language of Churchill delivered by a Corbynite. (Lloyd Russell-Moyle, who won in Brighton Kemptown, albeit with a 7% swing against him).

The demogogic body language and dramatic turning away from the crowd at the end though? As Ken Livingstone might say, do you know who else used body language like that while ranting?

Doomsday

I’m sick of seeing Jeremy Corbyn brandishing sheaves of paper to ‘prove’ the nastiness of the Tories. A bundle from Russia-with-love to prove that Boris Johnson is about to sell off our NHS to “Trump”. The evidence appeared to consist of a wad of thick black lines, the content redacted, obliterated and unreadable. But no matter. When today is over we might not have to see it again.

A few days ago BBC News featured a Corbyn rally (in Bristol, perhaps?) Corbyn, again waving papers before an adoring mob. This time, the front page of the Mirror featuring four-year-old Jack being “treated for pneumonia on the floor because there were no beds in Boris Johnson’s hospital.” Behind the anointed one, a comedy bobble-hat rose up, very slowly from beneath the podium to reveal the wearer - a photographer. Had the prospect of a Corbyn led “gov’ment” been less catastrophic, this slow-motion ‘photo-bomb’ might have added a moment of slapstick hilarity. I wish the intruder was an absurdist performance artist, but I expect the chap just wanted a shot of the great man from an unusual angle; the back of the head.

The confusion about the four-year-old boy-on-the-floor drags on. Speculation abounds. Who took the photo? Why was it taken in the first place?  The plea not to politicise it -  from the boy’s mother and from Jeremy Corbyn, whose very insistence that he wasn’t politicising it was effectively politicising it, something of which he must have been perfectly aware.

The assertion that the boy was ‘being treated for pneumonia’ on the floor, yet the drip was plainly not in use; but was it a drip or an oxygen thingy?  Whatever had happened, it was all due to callous Tory cuts. 

The editor of the Yorkshire Post has written some dubious hyperbole in the Guardian 

 “His mother, Sarah Williment, found herself in a moment of panic: her baby needed her. Moreover, her baby needed medical care from the amazing doctors and nurses at Leeds General Infirmary (LGI) but such was the demand from patients, he had to be made as comfortable as possible – on a pile of coats on the floor – until a bed and care became available.

Is a four-year-old technically a baby? Well, I s’pose, to a parent, one’s adult offspring are still babies, at a stretch. 

Was he waiting for ‘a bed and care’ or had he already ‘had’ care? If he hadn’t been seen yet, who supplied the drip cum oxygen mask? P’raps they brought one with them from home? This is getting ridiculous now.

“With only good intentions, Williment contacted her local newspaper, the Yorkshire Evening Post. In times of trouble, people often turn to their local newspaper. In this instance, Sarah only wanted to others to see just how stretched the team at LGI was, and humanise the impacts of too few hands at the pump.

As you do when you think your child baby has pneumonia. I’m not going to go on and on, much as I could.  I must try going to my local newspaper in my time of trouble - but will the Western Morning News care that a bunch of antisemites are running the country?

Stephen Pollard is thinking what I’ve been thinking for ages. I can’t even remember if I’ve written about it before, but I’m pretty sure I have. Pollard, from his piece in the Telegraph:

"The truth is that I can now barely bring myself to contemplate what this election says about my fellow Brits' willingness to tolerate Jew-hate. Whatever share of the vote Labour ends up with, it's safe to predict that over a third of voters have no problem with the concept of installing as prime minister a man who is repeatedly labelled an anti-Semite, not least by those like Dame Margaret Hodge who have worked alongside him.
[…]
In 2017, it was possible to argue that they didn't know about all this. That's impossible now. The issue of Labour's anti-Semitism has been given a full and comprehensive airing both during and long before the campaign. 

[...]The worst of them all are the so-called moderate Labour MPs. In the four years since Mr Corbyn was elected leader many of them have tweeted and spoken a lot about solidarity with the Jewish community. But when an election was called and they had to make a choice, they chose – actively, consciously and unambiguously – to ignore the pleas of the Jewish community, and to side with the Jew haters. Their campaigning was not to stop anti-Semitism, it was to put the leading anti-Semites into power.

Momentum-inspired aggressive behaviour of the baying mob is spookily 1930s-like.

On an odder note, have you noticed, Jeremy Corbyn himself has succumbed to the fashionable Labour glottal stop. He suddenly started using the famous Labour Party pronunciation, referring to the organisation as The Labour Par’y.  

Might Angela Rayner impose the ‘silent T’  as part of Labour’s revolutionary educational policy: “Equality Rules for Dumbed-down Schools”?

The ‘Islamist lobby’ has us on the back foot. Here’s why.

The ‘Islamist lobby’ has us on the back foot. Here’s why. I will be honest and admit I don’t really know why. But this has been allowed to happen somehow. All I can do is present a couple of examples.

On the Spectator website, Stephen Daisley brings us: Take it from this expert: Jeremy Corbyn is an anti-Semite

“Yair Lapid is not mincing his words. One of the leaders of Israel’s main centre-left party broke with protocol this morning at a conference in Jerusalem to urge British voters not to elect Jeremy Corbyn.”

Many responses to this piece seem to agree that “interfering” in another country’s election is unbecoming, but more relevant to me is that there is also a disturbing assertion that whining about antisemitism is counterproductive. 

Yep. We mustn’t barge in and trample too heavily all over the Labour Party’s antisemitism problem because it will antagonise people! Oh, dear. Whose terms are we arguing on? 

That was number one. Now for number two:

Don't frighten the horses

On Sunday a rally against antisemitism took place in Parliament Square. Some celebrity speakers were invited, including Tracy Ann Oberman and Rachel Riley.  You might have read the post about this on Harry’s Place (you probably wouldn’t have heard about it elsewhere) but it’s not so much the rally itself that I’m interested in. (Did it do any good? I have no idea.) More worrying is the fact that one of the advertised speakers was dis-invited. His name is Col. Richard Kemp. 

I’m a fan of Col Kemp for several reasons - one being that his pro-Israel advocacy has the inbuilt advantage of (him) not-being-a-Jew.  This is the opposite of being an As-a-Jew. In the current climate of rampant Jew-bashing, any Jew who complains about antisemitism is automatically placed on a “they would say that, wouldn’t they” footing. (Whose terms are we on now?) 

Another good reason to admire Col Kemp and to accept the validity of his views is his formidable military experience, which gives him a unique understanding of Middle Eastern warfare and what drives it. He has huge respect for the moral and ethical standards of the IDF.

So why was he un-invited to speak at the rally? Because his outspoken views on Islam might ‘discredit’ the cause. Yes, suspend your disbelief - this really happened. Look at the video on Daphne Anson’s blog (and on YouTube) and weep. If you see this fearful timidity an insignificant example of ‘don’t frighten the horses’ I think you're mistaken. Tracy Ann and Rachel, admirable as they may be for speaking out, especially as they work alongside many lefty, anti-Zio luvvies, both still feel the need to tag “Islamophobia and all forms of racism” onto their campaigns against antisemitism. 

Whose terms are we on, again? If you look at the responses to the aforementioned article, you’ll find a mixed bunch of comments. Fancy having to argue over the no-platforming of a loyal ally, and all for the fear that he might offend someone by mentioning that a large chunk of the antisemitism they're rallying about emanates from within Islam. The ones who defend that awful decision are on the back foot - and there’s your embryonic blasphemy law for you. 

"That makes him Jewish"

One of the first tweets I saw after getting home from work today was this:

Stephen Daisley: Labour’s candidate in West Dunbartonshire, Jean Anne Mitchell, responded to Nick Robinson’s questioning of Jeremy Corbyn over antisemitism by highlighting the BBC presenter’s Jewish heritage. She shared a post about his ethnicity to a WhatsApp group.

The Daily Record quotes the post that the Corbynite Scottish Labour candidate shared:

We watched the BBC Leadership Debate chaired by Nick Robinson. Throughout the debate we felt that Robinson gave Johnson an easy time, allowing him to avoid answering the audience’s questions and instead giving him free reign to attack Corbyn. We thought he was biased. And then we Googled him. His mother was born in Shanghai, where her German-Jewish parents fled during the 1930s. That makes him Jewish.

The paper continues [with my comments added in parentheses and italics]:

Contacted by the Record, Mitchell said she had shared the message “for information purposes, nothing more” and was “absolutely” not endorsing it. 

["For information purposes, nothing more". Seriously? Jeremy wept!]

She said: “I’ve got so many Jewish friends and I would never, ever, ever to do anything that was in any way anti-semitic.” 

[The "Some of my best friends are..." defence, usually descried by the Left as the inevitable starting phrase for racist bigots].

After being read the section on Robinson’s Jewish heritage, she said: “I did not read that message properly. I was tired, I had been out campaigning all day. I came in, I sat down, I watched the debate, I came in and I shared that with the group because it was to do with the programme. 

[Poor thing! She was so tired she missed the 'That makes him Jewish' bit that was the message's concluding point.]

She also said: “I am really, really troubled that someone in a candidate group has actually let that be shared outwith the group. That is really pretty alarming.” 

[Eh? Is that the main thing that's troubling her? And what exactly is troubling her here? That an antisemite in her group let it be shared "outwith the group"? Or that a whistleblower within her group blew the whistle?]

Wake up BBC!

If anyone spots the BBC reporting this, please let us know. This is a star BBC presenter after all that the Corbynista antisemites are going after.

Quelle Surprise!

This comment merits a post of its own:

stewgreen8 December 2019 at 12:26  

Every time we point out the hourly lefty bias of the BBC the leftmob shout "Look the Berry Report from the Cardiff School of Journalism shows that there is no lefty bias in the BBC".

So Berry who finds no left bias in the BBC now tweets: 

"There is no antisemitism crisis in Labour. There is a small number of people who hold antisemitic viewsand Labour has robust system to deal with them." 

Strangely he's been ratioed. 46 people clicked like vs 99 who clicked reply to disagree with him. 

Cue a reprise of this from 2013:

I come with my own biases, of course - but then so does the report author tasked with promoting the report to the world - Dr Mike Berry.  

He's associated with the Glasgow Media Group - a  40-year old left-wing campaign which, according to Wikipedia, "claimed that television news was biased in favour of powerful forces and actors in society and against less powerful groups such as the organised working class". He's co-authored several books with hardcore anti-Israel activist Greg Philo, head of the Glasgow Media Group, alleging pro-Israel bias on the part of the BBC. 

Someone who co-writes book after book attacking Israel and the "pro-Israel" BBC seems to come from a not dissimilar mindset to that of the leftist Media Lens website (which naturally approves of Dr Berry's work).  

And with that of Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party.

"At last!"

Today's The Andrew Marr Show certainly wasn't the white-knuckle ride that last week's edition was. 

Andrew seemed much calmer today.

Not so some of his viewers though. John McDonnell's repeated claims that “We’ve done everything, I think, we can possibly do” concerning antisemitism in the Labour Party has aroused some anger:

Karen Pollock, Holocaust Education Trust: I’m afraid this isn’t true. It just isn’t true. That is the tragedy but also the danger. 

Sam Freedman, Education Partnerships Group: It just a complete lie. I can't describe how angry this makes me.

John McDonnell remains an compelling performer though, and I suspect many will have been 'taken in' by his 'passionate sincerity' at the end:

We've always got to learn lessons, of course we have, all political parties, it isn't just the Labour Party. I want us to be a shining model. I apologise to the Jewish community for the suffering we've inflicted on them. I say to them we are doing everything possible. We are going to learn more lessons and we want to be the shining example of anti-racism that the Labour Party should be, and I hope I come out of this now having in this, gone through this horrible, horrible period, we come out of it now actually showing respect to the Jewish community and tackling this issue and enabling the Labour Party to tackle anti-Semitism in wider society. 

One who did seem to be 'taken in' was Andrew Marr himself. After Mr McDonnell reached his peroration there, Andrew slapped his thigh and said, with a dramatic flourish, "At last!", before thanking the shadow chancellor for talking to the programme - as if John McDonnell had finally done the right thing.

A Saturday evening rant

I'd value your advice here...

*******

The BBC pays - and I probably pay - far too much attention to the demented cries of bias from the Corbyn mob. 

I do it because it's important for a blog called 'Is the BBC biased?' to consider the question as broadly as possible and to dwell sceptically on the 'complaints from both sides' defence. 

And it's important to consider other perspectives too.

*******

Ah but...

The issue which I think I've somewhat lost sight of is that the BBC has normalised far-left extremism, thus paving the path to making the idea of a Corbyn-led, antisemitic, far-left-heavy Labour Party government seem worthy of acceptability in a country with a centuries' old tradition of democracy and reasonableness and a marked aversion to (European) continental fanaticism.

*******

If we get a far-left, antisemitic government after 12 December I'll hold the BBC partly responsible for failing to ring the alarm bells and warn the public anywhere near enough.

*******

Yes, I know that's exactly the same sort of language that Newswatch's Samira Ahmed has used in the past to complain about far-right extremism being platformed by the BBC. 

And by that she, very openly, meant the likes of Nigel Farage. 

But Nigel Farage isn't a far-right extremist...

...unlike, say, John McDonnell, who is a far-left extremist (albeit with a great taste in middle-class jumpers and a tendency to try to disguise his privileged background).

*******

From Ash to Grace, from Aaron to Owen, the far-left have been platformed to the nth degree by the BBC. 

No matter how extreme their views (and they are often very extreme), the BBC invites them on again and again and again. 

They're young and dashing and pretty and not working class, and none of them have ever been the leader of the EDL. 

They're acceptable extremists, and the BBC indulges them.

*******

Why? 

*******

The reason, in part, is because they represent one of the two main UK political parties.

The problem is that one of the two main main UK political parties has been invaded, conquered, hollowed out, and turned upside down and inside out by far-left extremists.

The extremists are now in charge of Labour, and it's now no longer the Labour Party that people have always voted for - including me, in the past, from time to time. 

It's now a weird, far-left cult stuffed with Israel-obsessed antisemites - and people who can't or won't see that their party is stuffed with far-left Israel-obsessed antisemites, and other forms of antisemites (including Muslim antisemites). 

And yet the BBC grants Jeremy Corbyn's far-left cult-of-a-party equivalent respectability with the Conservative Party, rather than leading the charge against them on behalf of moderation, democracy and opposition to antisemitism. 

It's just what they do though, isn't it?  It's all about due impartiality, isn't it?

And Jeremy Corbyn isn't Nigel Farage after all.

And the BBC is broadly soggy-left, so the far-left doesn't worry them as much as the moderate, pro-Brexit right does.

And Labour isn't pro-Brexit (despite JC, who might be).

*******

I fear that the BBC just don't see it. 

They have blinkers on. Lots of blinkers. Blinkers galore.

They should beware though, because the far-left aren't anywhere near as fixated as they are on Brexit and the Tories. 

The far-left, being far-left, are largely preoccupied with enemies closer to home and, so,  much more fixated on  soggy left types - such as the BBC.

They will come for the BBC, if elected. And many people at the BBC - who didn't see it coming - will not like it one bit.

*******

Rant over. What do you think?

"Media: stop gaslighting Jews"

Any passing BBC people should read the following by Maajid Nawaz (which I've arranged from his Twitter feed into a short 'pamphlet') explaining why the lazy or disingenuous attempts at drawing equivalence between Labour antisemitism and Conservative 'Islamophobia' are wrong, deeply misguided and downright dangerous:

Chapter One

I’m getting rather tired of the equivocation around this Labour antisemitism issue, so here’s a thread for confused pundits & voters. Some smart people out there have been hoodwinked by dishonest political hacks, or are simply too tribal to accept the difference in the following (written on twitter so apologies for the choppy style). 

People of any political persuasion must acknowledge:

1) Every party will have some policies you don’t like.

2) Every party will also have rogue members, or leaders, who said nasty things too.

3) Usually, if a party has policies you disagree with, you simply don’t vote for them.

4) For Britain’s Jews & their allies, the issue with Labour Party is none of the above. I repeat: it is *none of the above*. So Corbynists, pls stop obfuscating, strawmanning & deflecting.

5) The issue is Labour Party stands accused of being *institutionally antisemitic* (racist).

6) This is *very* different to finding individual policies you hate, or representatives who utter bigotry.

7) For a body to be institutionally racist (ironically, a phrase coined by a 90s Labour gov. inquiry) *not every member* is necessarily a racist, nor necessarily is the leader.

8) For a body to be deemed *institutionally racist*, intention & individual behaviour isn’t a primary issue. Rather outcomes are considered. If the totality of this body’s procedures, institutions & structure lead to *racist outcomes*, then sincerity & individual intent is no defence.

9) This is why 90s Lab government’s McPherson inquiry (rightly) deemed police ‘institutionally racist’ after unpunished racist murder of black teenager Stephen Lawrence. They were not calling all police officers racist. Nor did it mean that other UK orgs didn’t suffer racism too.

10) So, back to the Labour Party: British jews and their allies are accusing this Labour Party under Corbyn of being ‘institutionally antisemitic’. This means precisely that the party’s mechanisms, procedures and institutions lead to racist outcomes against its Jewish members.

11) This does *not* mean every Labour member is racist. It also does not necessarily imply that even Corbyn is (he might be). Rather, it points to the failure of Corbyn’s ship, with him as captain, to steer away from antisemitism. Sincere individual intent is not a condition here.

12) What British Jews are (correctly) alleging is that the Labour Party discriminates against them, as a party machine. That the outcomes in that party no longer protect them against racism. This is an *institutional* failure.

13) So, back to my opening line about political tribalism: any instinctive defence, “Whataboutery” response, or even allegations of hypocrisy, like “why aren’t you doing more to address racism in your own party?” entirely miss the nature & seriousness of what is (accurately) alleged:

14) British Jews and their allies are *not* in a state of alarm because Labour has individual racists in it (which is bad enough as it is). No. The Tories, Lib Dem’s, Brexit party & others all have bad apples. I repeat: the issue isn’t the existence of bad apples.

15) The issue very precisely & seriously is under Corbyn, Labour seems not only to have ignored the problem, or denied it, but in many cases doubled down on it & worse even blamed the victims for reporting it. In other words: the Labour Party machine has been co-opted by racism.

16) If one understands the nature & seriousness of the allegation, then one would never reply by saying, by way of example: “but what about Johnson and niqabi Muslim letterboxes?” Bad thing to say, but not evidence that the Tory party *machine* discriminates against Muslim members.

17) Also, it’s very important to recognise that criticising ultra-Conservative Muslim dress is a political right, because the ‘choice’ to adopt fundamentalist dress is a valid societal choice that must equally be subjected to scrutiny - like any religious conservatism must be.

18) No. Racism is not the same as criticising my religious choices, or lack thereof. You can (politely) criticise my religion, because it’s an idea. All ideas must be scrutinised. But one cannot insult another’s race, without being rightly deemed a racist.

19) Jews are both a people and a religion. European antisemitic tropes against Jews concern their supposed habits as a ‘people’, not their religion. So, it's racism to suggest that all Jews are secret greedy capitalists, or have large ugly hooked noses, for example.

20) No serious Jewish voice or organisation has ever said it’s racist to criticise Israel. None. I repeat, none. This is a complete Strawman. I criticise Netanyahu’s policies regularly and know many Jews and Israelis who do so too. The issue is about:

a) traditional European antisemitism flooding back into Labour (eg: East London ‘greedy capitalist’ mural that Corbyn defended),

b) holding Israel’s Jews to higher standard than the world,

c) an obsessive focus on Israel for errors that are far worse elsewhere,

d) supporting or otherwise praising genocidal, jew-murdering terrorist groups.

21) Some examples for all of the above can be (non-exhaustively) found here: https://twitter.com/thegolem_/status/1191348844375740416…

22) So, people like Tory Baroness Warsi, who seems to have made a career of late out of deflecting over this antisemitism issue in Labour, to attacking her own party instead over “Islamophobia” (sic) totally miss the point:

23) Johnson, or any rogue Tory MP or member, can and do say racist or proto-racist things, but does the party with a Muslim-origin Chancellor really discriminate against Muslims institutionally? Does it then double down & deny its racism (I repeat: blasphemy is not racism).

24) This Muslim believes not. And I have *never* voted Tory in my life, and will not do so this time either. There are problems in the Conservative party, yes. I disagree with them, yes. But they are yet to meet the test of being *institutionally* anti-Muslim.

25) Truth is, there is only one major political party right now that has had senior former cabinet members resign over this (correctly) alleged *institutional* racism. There is only one party that is being investigated by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission over said racism. That party is the Labour Party.

26) AND THIS IS WHERE I GET UPSET: if Boris Johnson, Jo Swinson, or anyone other party leader, let alone individual MP, had SHARED A PANEL in Parliament with members of the now banned violent NEO-NAZI UK-based TERRORIST group National Action, you would all be going ballistic now.

27) Yet Corbyn not only shared platforms with jew-killing Hizbollah & Hamas TERRORISTS, he not only called them friends, but took £20K from their sponsor: holocaust denying theocratic dictatorship of Iran. Now..imagine you’re Jewish, and then imagine Corbyn in No.10 as PM. Precisely.

After all the above has been digested & recognised as a unique problem only with Labour right now, then add that Corbyn is a Brexiter too & may bargain away the UK with SNP (allowing Scotland another vote) just to become PM, you’ll get why we say #NoToAppeasement & #NeverCorbyn.

After the holocaust we vowed in Europe #NeverAgain - then Bosnia happened. Europe is not immune to repeat-offending. We must never be too arrogant to think we are. Brexit or Remain, we do have choices other than Labour. We must not betray our Jewish cousins over a tribal vote.

After all this, if we still choose Labour, at least let’s stop pretending we are “progressives”, or that we care about racism & minorities or that we “listen to victims when they tell us we’re hurting them”. It’s all BS. Just admit that you really don’t give a damn about Jews.

Ends.

Chapter Two

BBC Politics: "Unfortunately Islamophobia is a serious problem, it’s endemic, it’s institutional within the Conservative Party”. Muslim Council of Britain’s Miqdaad Versi says “no action has been taken” and the party has a “structural problem”. 

Your MCB is dominated by Jamat-e-Islami Islamists (Muslim Brotherhood equivalents in South-Asia) so it’s no surprise you’d say this. Oh & only 2% of us British Muslims actually think you represent us politically. So stop pretending you do.

The day Boris Johnson calls neo-Nazi black & Muslim killing terrorists his friends (he hasn’t) & accepts funds into his personal account from a neo-Nazi endorsing state, is the day you get to equivocate like this.

Media: stop gaslighting Jews.

Chapter Three

My dear media pundits: 

On Labour antisemitism, I understand that you’re generalists, who have to be abreast of everything, and therefore can’t be on top of everything, but I’ve been engaged in these issues of political extremism *all my adult life*, literally from opposing sides. 

So at least (please) do me the favour of reading a thread I write *before* repeating the cliche back to me that “all racism is bad, and the Tories are racist too” (as if I - a Muslim survivor of violent racist attacks, and the War on Terror era - hadn’t thought of that angle).

I’m not saying you have to agree with everything I say, I’d be worried if you did, but on this (clearly my forte) please (for my sanity) read my view in any given thread first & then disagree (preferably without repeating an objection that I’ve already addressed in the thread).

Or better yet *ask* me instead of *telling* me about a topic I’ve spent the last 25 years and 2 additional Islamic languages learning.

Honestly, before responding please pause to consider if it’s slightly patronising, in any way at all for you to respond with tried & tested cliches about Tory ‘Islamophobia’ (sic) when the issues are disgustingly incomparable.

Aside from that annoying misnomer ‘Islamophobia’ (which really reinforces a ‘death for blasphemy’ taboo in my parents’ country Pakistan & here in UK) the comparison of Tory anti-Muslim bigotry would only be appropriate if Boris Johnson had called the Neo-Nazi Christchurch killer his “friend” and had taken money, personally, from a state that funded that killer (as Corbyn did with Hamas while taking up to £20K from Iran).

So, until the day Boris Johnson flirts with actual Muslim-killing terrorists it’s disgusting to draw such analogies, because they are deeply insensitive to our Jewish friends.

What’s also disgustingly insensitive is to compare any policy of the Israeli state with a terror group. Again, the appropriate comparison with Hamas & Hezbollah is to the Christchurch anti-Muslim neo-Nazi killer, not Netanyahu (despite my fierce disagreements with his policies). Netanyahu is a state leader, not a genocidal anti-Muslim terrorist. Only political amateurs and/or morally bereft obfuscators equivocate & confuse statecraft (agree or disagree with it) with genocidal terrorism that eg: targets babies.

So pls, do try to assume I’m not as stupid as you may think I am (no matter how hard that may be) and consider that I may have already thought of what you’re about to say regarding the very real presence of Tory ‘Islamophobia’ (sic).

I dunno, just maybe, during the 4 years I spent studying & debating these issues as a political prisoner in Egypt when surely I had time to rethink many of the political assumptions you now may hold & advocate (that I used to fiercely advocate too), maybe that time allowed me to arrive at a slightly unique perspective? Maybe?

Thank you and forgive me, this isn’t meant to sound like a whinge. It’s just so morally wrong to equate Corbyn’s moral & institutional support for terrorism with ‘mere’ Tory bigotry or crudeness.

And before anyone says it, no, I don’t vote Tory. I’m voting @LibDems. Thank you. 

I’m really sorry for this, but you won’t believe the amount of ‘splaining I have to put up with.

A snapshot

As Sue mentioned in the previous post, I sent her a rushed email this morning before heading off to work after reading both the BBC and Sky website's  takes on the news that Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis had strongly denounced Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party for spreading the poison of antisemitism. I wrote:

Comparing the BBC website report to Sky's, the BBC gives over more space to Labour than the Chief Rabbi while Sky's report is largely the views of the Chief Rabbi plus lots and lots of damning context - which the BBC avoids. Plus the BBC twice uses the word "claims" as a verb to describe the Chief Rabbi's criticism of Corbyn and Labour. Two very different reports. 

I didn't mention to Sue that I'd also done a quick, early morning count. 

At the time of writing (around 7 am), the BBC piece featured 11 paragraphs of direct or indirect quotes from Labour as against 10 such paragraphs from Rabbi Mirvis and others criticising Labour - i.e. more paragraphs for those supporting Labour against the Chief Rabbi than for those criticising Labour. There were surprisingly few extended quotes from Rabbi Mirvis. 

In stark contrast, Sky featured a mere 6 paragraphs of direct or indirect quotes from Labour compared to 20 paragraphs given to Rabbi Mirvis and those criticising Labour. There were plenty of extended quotes from Rabbi Mirvis.

Whatever else this shows, it certainly shows a marked difference in attitude between the two broadcasters.