Campaign Against Anti-Semitism tries to intimidate Change.org to remove Petition criticising them
|The disgusting Islamaphobia of the CAA should be more than enough to debar them from human society let alone as a charity|
I came home last night to an urgent email from Change.org. Readers will know that I have sponsored a petition calling on the Charity Commission to deregister the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism because it is a nakedly political Zionist group.
Naturally a Black-Jewish woman who is an anti-Zionist is just too tempting a target for the CAA’s bile
Its letter to Change.org is clearly very rushed and shows every sign of panic. They list 6 points and fail to number the first point. They then repeat the first point in the 6th point. They also can’t spell ‘documented’ and their grammar is extremely poor throughout. It would seem that panic has set in among the arrogant threesome at CAA. It has just dawned on them that vehement and persistent attacks on what they call ‘racist Labour’, their allegations that Jeremy Corbyn is personally anti-Semitic, their attacks on Jackie Walker, Shami Chakrabarti and Gerald Kaufman, have nothing whatsoever to do with charitable activities and are highly partisan. Hence their panic attack.
Ludicrously they claim that they don’t libel opponents of Israel when that appears to be their main if not sole activity.
|This was one of a number of threatening tweets sent to Becky Massey the day the CAA publicly attacked her as an anti-Semite – it doesn’t take a genius to work out what ‘an armed Jew’ means – the CAA refused as a matter of policy to condemn or even acknowledge the consequence of their McCarthyite tactics|
The CAA say that their charitable activities are recognised by the Charity Commission which rather begs the question as to whether the Charity Commission actually know what the CAA are up to. Either way they are going to find out!
The claim by the CAA that they are ‘scrupulously not partisan’ apart from being an example of their awkward English is laughable. I have compiled just a few examples of their partisanship and bias.
|The CAA is a vehemently anti-Muslim organisation – the above pamphlet clearly implies that Muslims support Hitler|
They claim not to have elicited or provoked death threats. There is no doubt that they have caused death threats. Whether they have elicited them is a mute question. Certainly they haven’t condemned them.
Jackie Walker merits 19 posts accusing her of being an anti-Semite.
Jeremy Corbyn merits no less than 73 posts!
Gerald Kaufman can only rack up 21 posts.
|Steven Silverman – one of 3 CAA workers, their ‘enforcement officer’ and a loudmouthed bigot|
|Silverman’s words of wisdom|
|Silverman’s racist anti-Palestinian rhetoric|
|Theresa May also appears on the CAA’s site but there is a slight difference in the treatment of her and Corbyn|
Theresa May also has 8 posts but unlike Corbyn they are complimentary for example CAA CONGRATULATES THERESA MAY and then they expect us to take seriously their claim that they are non-partisan.
|When Netanyahu’s ex-adviser called America’s Jewish Ambassador, Daniel Shapira, a ‘Jew Boy’ – which is as anti-Semitic as it gets, I emailed the CAA asking for their reaction. Judging by their non-response they didn’t have any!|
You might say that the Tory Party today is not anti-Semitic. But that is not true. Eric Pickles, the Chairman of Conservative Friends of Israel is a good example of an anti-Semitic Zionist. He was Tory Party Chairman when they decided to abandon their alliance in the European Parliament with the Christian Democrats and instead form the European Conservatives & Reform group with far Right parties, at least 2 of which were anti-Semitic. The Chairman of the ECR was Michal Kaminski of the Polish Law & Justice Party. He was an ex-neo-Nazi who had opposed a national apology for the burning alive of up to 900 Polish Jews in the war by fellow Poles. Another member was Robert Ziles of the Latvian LNNK, who spent a Sunday every March marching with the veterans of the Latvian Waffen SS who helped guard concentration camps.
As even David Miliband observed: “Eric Pickles, the Chairman of the Conservative Party, explained without a hint of shame that we should not condemn one of their new allies, the ‘For Fatherland and Freedom’ party, who every year celebrate the Latvian Waffen SS with a march past of SS veterans, because they were only following orders.’
You will not find even a cursory mention of this type of genuine anti-Semitism on CAA because their sole concern is anti-Zionism.
|There are no less than 73 posts attacking Corbyn as an anti-Semite|
The latest ‘non-partisan’ post of the CAA PALESTINE SOLIDARITY CAMPAIGN SPEAKER CALLS ON JEWS TO “OVERCOME” SUFFERING OF THE HOLOCAUST is an attack on Bruce Kent, the former Catholic priest who spoke at the picket of Netanyahu on Monday. The CAA are ‘appalled’ because Bruce Kent called on Jews to “overcome” the trauma of the Holocaust. Apparently ‘it cannot be overcome’. Instead they should continue to suffer and non-Jews should understand that ‘one of its principal lessons is that Jews absolutely must have the right to self-determination, as embodied in the state of Israel’. I can’t think of anything more guaranteed to increase anti-Semitism than the pronouncements of the CAA. The non-political CAA assert that ‘It is prejudiced to expect Jews to renounce all connection to Israel or be judged to be in some way deficient.’ On the contrary, it is a sign that Jewish communities outside are coming of age in rejecting the poisonous doctrines of Zionism.
|There is nothing on the CAA site about the BNP, the main holocaust denying organisation in the UK|
Below is the complaint that the CAA have made against the petition and beneath that is my response, which is lengthy.
This is what you can do
- Share the petition widely and get others to sign it. It has just over 500 signatures now. Let’s make it at least 1,000.
- Write to Change.org. at email@example.com and say what you think about the attempt of this McCarthyite organisation to destroy freedom of speech.
- Make a formal complaint to the Charity Commission that the CAA breaches the stipulation on a charity being non-political and that its targeting of individuals is reprehensible and has no connection with public benefit or charitable purposes. This is important because we need to put pressure on the powers that be to deregister this Zionist propaganda organisation.
The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism are the wild men of the Zionist Right. They are widely disliked even amongst the more sane Zionists. They tread on the turf of the CST, they are loud and bombastic, they are dishonest in the surveys they run, they are overtly anti-Muslim. There are numerous reasons to make a complaint and more to the point, this nasty little group is vulnerable because they haven’t taken any care over what they write or what they say.
Let’s sink them.
|CAA hate Jewish MP Gerald Kaufman, the Father of the House of Commons, because he supports the Palestinians. Gerald used to be a strong Zionist but he became revolted by what he saw|
Campaign Against Anti-Semitism’s Bogus Complaint
TO PROMOTE RACIAL HARMONY FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT BETWEEN JEWISH PEOPLE WHEREVER IN THE WORLD AND OTHER MEMBERS OF SOCIETY BY THE ELIMINATION OF ANTISEMITISM, INCLUDING RAISING AWARENESS OF THE OCCURRENCE OF ANTISEMITISM AND PROVIDING ADVOCACY, ASSISTANCE, CARE AND RELIEF IN RELATION TO THOSE AFFECTED BY ANTISEMITISM. TO ADVANCE EDUCATION AS REGARDS THE HISTORY, CAUSES, EFFECTS AND PREVENTION OF ANTISEMITISM FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT.
We do not libel opponents of Israel, we factually report the activities of antisemites. Claiming otherwise is severely damaging to our reputation.
- Our charitable activities are recognised by the Charity Commission and HM Revenue and Customs. Claiming otherwise causes donors to doubt that our charity is legitimate and recognised by the relevant authorities.
- Our charity is scrupulously not partisan. Recently there has been a widely-docuemented rise of antisemitism on the left of British politics, particularly within the Labour Party. We report on anti-Semitism where it occurs, not according to a political bias. Charities are not permitted to be political organisations and the clear intention of this petition is to defame our charity to the Charity Commission.
- Our charity have not elicited or provoked death threats. If such threats have occurred they are by no action of our charity. Claiming otherwise is severely damaging to our reputation.
- Our charity is extensively engaged in fighting antisemitism from the far-right, including a private prosecution and judicial review being undertaken to secure prosecutions of fascists and Holocaust deniers.
- Our charity does not libel opponents of Israel, we factually report the activities of antisemites. Claiming otherwise is severely damaging to our reputation and the clear intention of this petition is to defame our charity to the Charity Commission.
All of the above statements are factually inaccurate for the reasons stated.
We cannot know the true identity of the person who created the petition.
We request that these details be withheld.
Response to Complaint of the Campaign Against Antisemitism
Thursday, 09 February 2017
Thank you for sending me a copy of a Notice of Complaint from the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism. I reject, in its entirety, their assertion that the petition to which they object is, in any way, defamatory. Truth is an absolute defence to a claim for defamation in the British libel courts. I believe that the same is true for the American courts where the legal hurdles to obtaining judgment for the Claimant are even higher.
I have no objection to the Claimant having my name and email address. I would, however, object to them having details of my address because of death threats that have already been made against their victims. Sharing custody of a disabled boy it would jeopardise the safety of others besides myself.
The Claimant’s Notice of Complaint has clearly been drafted in a hurry because they forget to number point 1 of their NoC and then repeat the same point at number 6. Coupled with their misspellings and poor English, this suggests that they have been seized by panic at the threat to their charitable status.
I will endeavour to explain in my response why our allegations are fully justified and part and parcel of free speech. The CAA believes that they have license to attack people at will but they object to being the object of criticism themselves.
The purpose of the NoC is to get Change.org to take down a petition with which they politically disagree. The truth often hurts. There is nothing in it which is libellous and there is nothing in it which damages their reputation. Any damage to their reputation stems solely from their own activities.
However this case will be a test of whether or not Change.org is willing to stand up for free speech against those forces which seek to destroy and undermine our basic liberties. The petition is based solely on the activities of CAA as I will explain below.
My rebuttal of the CAA’s arguments should be read in conjunction with two blog posts which I have written concerning the activities of CAA.
The CAA state that they ‘PROMOTE RACIAL HARMONY FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT BETWEEN JEWISH PEOPLE WHEREVER IN THE WORLD AND OTHER MEMBERS OF SOCIETY BY THE ELIMINATION OF ANTISEMITISM’. I disagree. The CAA is a deeply racist organisation. This is another reason why they should be deregistered as a charity.
The elimination of anti-Semitism and indeed all forms of racism is a noble enterprise and one to be lauded. However the making of false accusations of racism and anti-Semitism against people who are not in the least anti-Semitic or racist is despicable. To falsely accuse someone of anti-Semitism is not only wrong in itself but it lets those who are anti-Semites off the hook. Genuine anti-Semites can easily point at the false allegations of anti-Semitism in order to disguise their racism. This is not simply theoretical. When Gilad Atzmon, an ex-Israeli jazz player who was indeed anti-Semitic, first appeared in Britain a decade ago, many people rejected the accusation that he was anti-Semitic, despite his using terms like the ‘Judaic code’ and alleging Jewish conspiracies to take over the Western world, precisely because people had become immunised by false accusations of anti-Semitism. It was only after a long and hard campaign to convince people, in which I was heavily involved, that Atzmon was rejected by the Palestine solidarity movement and a statement was issued by Ali Abunmah and other leading Palestinians and Arabs, Granting no Quarter A Call for the Disavowal of the Racism and Antisemitism of Gilad Atzmon. You can read more about what I called the ‘boy cried wolf’ syndrome in an article I wrote for the Guardian newspaper, The Seamy Side of Solidarity.
The activities of the CAA, far from combating anti-Semitism are likely to lead to an increase in this form of racism. As the CAA said in its ‘Annual Anti-Semitism Barometer 2015 Full Report’ it was formed to tackle anti-Semitism of ‘both a classical ethno-religious nature and also a political nature related to Israel’. I suggest that the latter is their main concern. I do not accept that opposition to Israel’s endemic and systematic racism has anything to do with anti-Semitism. I oppose what Israel does to the Palestinians because of my opposition, as a British Jew, to racism. It would be utterly hypocritical to oppose anti-Semitism and then condone racism against the Palestinians.
The CAA are a Zionist organisation which sees as one of its purposes the engendering of panic in the Jewish community by talking up ‘anti-Semitism’. That is one reason why they search for anti-Semites where none are to be found.
The CAA has, through adept PR managed to generate headlines and publicity through the skewed use of opinion polls. In its 2015 Report it claimed, through the use of distorted statistics, that an opinion poll showed that ‘almost half(45%) of British adults believe at least one of the antisemitic statements shown to them to be true’. It asked questions such as ‘“Jews talk about the Holocaust too much in order to get sympathy.” This is deemed anti-Semitism. But this was a loaded question given that supporters of Israel repeatedly use the Holocaust as a shield to ward off criticism. People see that Zionists talk about the Holocaust in a way that is seen to be politically manipulative. Is a positive answer to this an indication of anti-Semitism? I think that is very doubtful with most people.
Apparently 1 in 5 people believed that “Jews’ loyalty to Israel makes them less loyal to Britain than other British people.” Where can they have got this idea? Possibly from Zionists?
Ha’aretz, Israel’s only liberal daily newspaper reported that on an Israeli Embassy survey Israel Asks U.S. Jews, Israelis: Where Do Your Loyalties Lie? How many times have I been called a Jewish ‘traitor’ for not supporting Israel? The whole basis of this accusation is that I owe a dual loyalty, indeed a higher loyalty, to Israel rather than the UK.
|the Jewish Chronicle’s poll found, contrary to the CAA, that nearly 90% of British Jews had no intention of going to Israel|
The CAA also conducted a thoroughly unscientific poll of British Jews in order to find ‘proof’ that most Jews were thinking about leaving Britain for Israel. It found that:
58% of Jews believed that they had no future in Europe.
More than half of all British Jews feel that antisemitism now echoes the 1930s
1 in 4 British Jews has considered leaving the country in the past two years because of rising antisemitism.
45% of Jews questioned feel their family is threatened by Islamist extremism.
77% of Jews questioned have witnessed antisemitism disguised as a political comment about Israel.
84% of Jews consider boycotts of businesses selling Israeli products to be intimidation &
82% say that media bias against Israel fuels persecution of Jews in Britain.
To say that these were loaded questions would be putting it mildly. They were ideas put in the heads of people in order to gain an answer. No attempt was made to put countervailing opinions to the audience. For example it would have been equally possible to put a question such as ‘Is it legitimate to boycott settlement goods in order to pressurise Israel into a political settlement.’
Contrast this with a rigorously controlled, academic survey of the British Jewish community by the Department of Sociology at City University (November 2015). This found that nearly a quarter, 24%, of British Jews supported sanctions to bring about a peace settlement. Indeed there is what it calls a ‘sizeable minority’ supporting sanctions (34%-41%) among the young, the highly qualified academically, and those who are not affiliated to a synagogue; with much lower support (i.e. strong opposition) among older respondents, non-graduates and members of Orthodox synagogues11 (11% – 18% support). The City University survey even more surprisingly found that whilst 59% identify as a Zionist nearly a third, 31% didn’t see themselves as Zionists.
Even the ardently pro-Zionist Jewish Chronicle poured cold water on the CAA’s findings’ with its own Survation poll. Some 88% of British Jews in this poll stated that they had no intention of emigrating. Jewish Chronicle 14.1.15. JC poll reveals 88 per cent of British Jews have not considered leaving UK
The CAA poll was junk but it had served its purpose, which was to make Jewish people feel uneasy about their position in this country and whip up fears of anti-Semitism. Zionist organisations see their goal as ‘helping’Jewish people to emigrate to Israel. Using fears of anti-Semitism is one such method.
Under the title PROFILE OF BRITISH MUSLIM ANTISEMITISM (the CAA seem to love the use of capitals – which people normally take to be a form of shouting online)the CAA publish a highly racist and offensive cartoon of a typical Muslim male. Far from introducing racial harmony, CAA seem determined to achieve the opposite.
To answer their points in the order that they made them:
- The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism’s state that ‘We do not libel opponents of Israel, we factually report the activities of antisemites.’
This statement can best be judged against the posting on the CAA’s site last Friday February 3rd 2017 entitled ‘JUST ANOTHER DAY FOR RACIST LABOUR AS ANTISEMITIC TWEETS OF PARTY’S CHAIR IN HOVE, BRUNSWICK AND ADELAIDE REVEALED. This statement should be judged in the light of not only their first but their third point, viz. ‘Our charity is scrupulously not partisan.’
|This post appeared last Friday attacking Brighton Labour Party/Momentum and PSC member Becky Massey
– the ‘non partisan’ CAA routinely describes Labour as ‘racist Labour’
|CAA’s attack on Israeli Marxist Professor Moshe Machover as a ‘terrorist supporter’|
Not only does the above statement libel Becky Massey, who is not in any way anti-Semitic, but it also describes the Labour Party, the largest party in the UK, as ‘racist Labour’. Another post to its side also refers to ‘racist Labour’. If words mean anything then how can CAA deny that they are a partisan group. Do they call the Conservatives ‘racist’? There is certainly much more evidence for this proposition, for example Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary’s reference to Black people’s as ‘piccaninnies’ and their ‘watermelon smiles’.
|AIPAC the largest and wealthiest pro-Israel group in the USA openly calls itself the ‘Israel lobby’ yet Becky Massey’s references to the Lobby are a code for ‘Jewish Lobby’ according to the CAA|
There isn’t a racist bone in Becky Massey’s body. The idea that she believes Jews are racially inferior or that they should be subject to the same treatment in Britain as Palestinians in Israel is preposterous. What is this allegation of anti-Semitism based on? Two tweets:
- That the Israel lobby manufactured the anti-Semitism crisis in the Labour Party.
- That Israel has the Tory and Labour parties under its control.
The first and most obvious point is that Becky refers to Israel, not Jews. The only people who conflate Israel and Jews and hold the latter responsible for the former are anti-Semites! There is a well founded belief that the Israel lobby in this country has indeed manufactured the false anti-Semitism crisis in the Labour Party. That is not just my opinion. It is for example the opinion of Professor Avi Shlaim, one of Israel’s foremost historians and Professor of International Relations at St. Anthony’s College Oxford. In a recent interview, he stated that:
‘Anti-Semitism is not a real phenomenon within the Labour Party or any of the other major political parties. There are anti-Semitic incidents, but they are usually related to Israel’s behaviour, to Israeli brutality… but I think that fundamentally that Israel, the Israeli propaganda machine and Israel’s friends in England, the Israel lobby in Britain deliberately confuse or conflate, and I stress they do it deliberately, anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism.’
There could be no clearer statement than this about the false anti-Semitism narrative that the CAA has devoted so much of its time and energy to perpetuating. In their attack on Ms Massey, the CAA state that:
According to the International Definition of Antisemitism, which was adopted by the British Government in December, prompting Labour to also claim that they adopt it, “Making…stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as…Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions” is antisemitic.’
Ms Massey didn’t even mention Jews. The CAA did! The idea that the Israeli government somehow constitutes a ‘Jewish collective’ is in itself an anti-Semitic trope since it is based on the idea that all Jews, myself included, bear a responsibility for the actions of the Israeli government.
The ‘International Definition of Anti-Semitism’ that the CAA refer to is actually a reworking of the discredited EUMC Working Definition on Anti-Semitism which the European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency discarded in 2013. It was opposed by a large body of public opinion – including the University College (Lecturers) Union and the National Union of Students. The CAA’s ‘international’ definition attempts to conflate criticism of Israel and Zionism with anti-Semitism. See The EU has retired it’s ‘working definition’ of anti-Semitism – it’s about time
In their response to Becky’s assertion that the Israel lobby had manufactured the false anti-Semitism allegations against the Labour Party, the CAA alleged that ‘Since these allegations did not come from Israel but were from British Jews, the “Israel lobby” is a misnomer: she means a ‘Jewish lobby’. This is an outrageous assertion.
‘Israel lobby’ is not a euphemism for a ‘Jewish lobby.’ It is how those groups campaigning for Israel in the West describe themselves. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful and richest of the pro-Israel groups in the United States, says in its own press statement that ‘AMERICA’S PRO-ISRAEL LOBBY HOLDS ITS ANNUAL POLICY CONFERENCE IN WASHINGTON, D.C.’ Is AIPAC too anti-Semitic? The CAA says:
‘That Massey she (sic) claims that Labour’s antisemitism crisis is a fabrication of the “Israel lobby” is truly ironic: for that antisemitism crisis rests squarely in the black hearts of individuals like her.’ The restrained language of the CAA when describing the ‘black heart’ of a woman they have never met and know nothing about proves that the CAA is an organisation out of control.
There is considerable evidence, e.g. in the recent Al Jazeera programmes, The Lobby, in which an undercover reporter spent six months gathering evidence from various pro-Israel groups, that the anti-Semitism controversy in the Labour Party has indeed been the subject of Israeli state interference. Another example was a well researched article by Asa Winstanley How Israel lobby manufactured UK Labour Party’s anti-Semitism crisis. It showed how the allegations of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party after Jeremy Corbyn was elected Leader were manufactured by the Israel lobby.
The CAA followed the allegations against Ms Massey up with more false allegation of anti-Semitism, this time against Emeritus Professor Moshe Machover, an Israeli Jewish Professor of Mathematical Logic at Kings College University in London. Another restrained headline was ‘CAA lodges complaints over professor’s support for genocidal antisemitic terrorists’. They alleged that ‘Professor Moshe Machover, who teaches philosophy at the University of London has been exposed for supporting Hamas, ‘a genocidal antisemitic terrorist organisation which is proscribed under the Terrorism Act.’ The CAA also alleged falsely that Machover said that Jewish students were under the control of the Israeli embassy.’
This is a thinly veiled attempt to use anti-terrorist legislation in order to inhibit and prevent freedom of speech and debate on university campuses. CAA is fundamentally hostile to any notion of a free and democratic civil society. Anti-terrorist legislation is designed to prevent terrorism not free speech. If it does that then terrorism has won.
Machover gave a nuanced answer to a question about Hamas, which was clearly too complex and nuanced for CAA’s purposes. The CAA said that ‘Universities have an obligation under the government’s Prevent counter-extremism strategy to ensure that speakers do not come onto their campuses to spread messages in support terrorism or hatred. Universities are obliged to stop such speakers from speaking on their campuses, not to leave students to “judge for themselves”.’ Again this is an outrageous accusation. Machover was responding to a question about how and why Hamas exist. Or is it not allowed to talk about such groups?
Moshe Machover is founder of the Socialist Organisation in Israel – Matzpen. Moshe is also a personal friend. As a Marxist Moshe certainly does not support Hamas politically, which he and I regard as a politically conservative and backward Islamic organisation. However we recognise it and the Palestinian peoples’ right to resist Israel’s occupation. A right all people living under occupation have under international law.
- The CAA state that their ‘charitable activities are recognised by the Charity Commission and HM Revenue and Customs. Claiming otherwise causes donors to doubt that our charity is legitimate and recognised by the relevant authorities.’
Yes that is the whole point of the petition! We are calling upon the Charity Commission to conduct an investigation into the CAA and reverse their decision to recognise it as a charity in the light of their uncharitable activities. They are a McCarthyite organisation which targets and demonises individuals that they disagree with. I realise that the CAA would like to be granted an immunity against criticism that they don’t accord to others, but we live in a democratic society. I expect Change.org to support our right to make that criticism.
The CAA accuse people of ‘anti-Semitism’ at the drop of a hat but they have nothing to say about the high levels of racism in Israel,. Since CAA see opposing ‘anti-Semitism’ of a ‘political nature related to Israel’ as their goal, then they have to face certain facts about Israel. According to the Pew Research Centre’s Report Israel’s Religiously Divided Society a plurality, 48% of Israeli Jewish citizens support the physical expulsion of Israeli Arabs.
Anyone who dares to point out the staggeringly high level of racism in Israeli society is automatically pilloried as anti-Semitic by the CAA through a tendentious analysis of their speech and the making of quite unwarranted assumptions. Only yesterday there was a report in the Israel’s Ha’aretz An Israeli Bar Put a Palestinian Beer on Tap. Then the Depressingly Expected Happened the subtitle is ‘Angry social media backlash and calls for a boycott followed the sale of Ramallah-made brew at a pub in Haifa.’ What kind of society is it in which an Arab beer causes a Boycott? Yet this is standard in what is termed a Jewish state. Because I oppose a Jewish state, which means Jews have privileges over non-Jews, I too according to the CAA am an ‘anti-Semite’. Denying the collective right of Jews to a nation state, is also anti-Semitic. 100 years ago saying that Jews form one collective was an anti-Semitic proposition!
Far from combating anti-Semitism the CAA is responsible for increasing it by encouraging people to make the association between Israel’s racism and British Jews.
When the Charity Commission agreed to register the CAA they had no idea of what they were going to do. I and a number of other people have made formal representations to the CC that the CAA are not a bona fide charity. It is their fear of deregistration that is responsible for this bogus and patently false complaint to Change.org.
I expect Change.org to reject what used to be called a gagging writ, viz. an attempt to use the British libel laws to inhibit freedom of speech. That great British crook, Robert Maxwell was well known for indulging in just this practice. If Change.org bow to the CAA’s patently false complaint then they will irreparably damage their reputation in the United Kingdom.
- The CAA state that ‘Our charity is scrupulously not partisan. Recently there has been a widely-docuemented (sic!) rise of antisemitism on the left of British politics, particularly within the Labour Party. We report on anti-Semitism where it occurs, not according to a political bias. Charities are not permitted to be political organisations and the clear intention of this petition is to defame our charity to the Charity Commission.’
The misspelling, poor English and repetition of paragraphs demonstrate that this complaint is the result of panic. They are well aware that their defaming of individuals, their partisan political attacks against public personalities and their hysterical McCarthyite language will not bear scrutiny. Their logic chopping and attempts to confuse political concepts and social categories convince only themselves. Their abuse of the term ‘anti-Semitism’ as a political weapon against anyone who criticises Israel is not a charitable activity.
|The CAA accuse Shami Chakrabarti and Corbyn of Corruption|
The statement that the CAA ‘is scrupulously not partisan’ demonstrates that at least the CAA possesses a sense of humour. Every action of theirs is designed to be partisan. I will give some examples, but they really are only a small selection:
- In its attack on Rebecca Massey it states that ‘The Labour Party does not act on antisemitism. Even worse has been perpetrated by even more high-profile figures and yet has famously been dismissed after hearings in camera under the terms of the laughable Chakrabarti report.’ The Chakrabarti Report was a carefully considered report on the allegations of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. I disagree with much of it but I do so in measured not hysterical terms. See Chakrabarti – A Missed Opportunity to Develop an Anti-Racist Policy for Labour
Baroness Chakrabarti, who is the highly regarded former Director of Liberty (the equivalent of the US’s ACLU) produced a Report on racism and anti-Semitism which found that:
The Labour Party is not overrun by antisemitism, Islamophobia or other forms of racism. Further, it is the party that initiated every single United Kingdom race equality law.
This conclusion was highly inconvenient to the CAA which is in the business of proving that anti-Semitism is everwhere in the Labour Party. However this isn’t the experience of Labour Party members themselves. When Owen Smith, in a debate with Jeremy Corbyn, alleged that the Labour Party ‘had a shameful anti-Semitism problem’ members of the audience heckled him. Why because no one treats this media manufactured story seriously.
Baroness Royal sat on the Chakrabarti tribunal. She produced a Report into allegations of anti-Semitism at Oxford University Labour Club. Royall found in her Report that ‘I do not believe that that there is institutional antisemitism within OULC.’
The CAA however dismisses all such evidence as ‘laughable’ because it doesn’t fit into its preconceived narrative of widespread anti-Semitism in the Labour Party.
- On the CAA website I searched under ‘Corbyn’ and found 73 entries for him, none of them complimentary. they have titles like Corbyn’s hypocrisy exposed yet again by Labour’s latest stealthy readmission of suspended antisemite or The leopard does not change its spots: Jeremy Corbyn and Hatem Bazian
- the CAA’s reaction to Jeremy Corbyn’s election was that ‘Jeremy Corbyn was today re-elected by Labour members to lead the Labour Party. yesterday, Campaign Against Antisemitism instigated disciplinary proceedingsag ainst Jeremy Corbyn over his promotion of the lie that accusations of antisemitism are dishonest and nefarious.’ Corbyn is a liar.
- Reacting to the election result, Gideon Falter, Chairman of Campaign Against Antisemitism said: “the Labour Party is no longer a safe place for British Jews…. though we are an apolitical organisation, we are today speaking out to say that the Labour Party now does more to normalise racism than to oppose it.” Extremely serious charges if true but hardly the language of an impartial charitable organisation.
- Another article is headed Shami Chakrabarti nominated for a peerage by corbyn in return for clearing Labour of Antisemitism is an accusation that Jeremy Corbyn was guilty of bribery and corruption. It is a criminal offence to offer honours in return for favours.
- Another target of the CAA is Gerald Kaufman, a Jewish Labour MP, who is pro-Palestinian. There are 21 references to him compared to none for the fascist BNP. Gerald referred to ‘Jewish money’, not a term I would use, in reference to the Conservative Friends of Israel. But this term is widely used in the Jewish community. I searched the Jewish Chronicle archive and came up with 590 examples. The allegation that Jewish donors will no longer fund the Labour Party is the common currency of Zionist propaganda, see for example The Independent of November 9th2014, Labour funding crisis: Jewish donors drop ‘toxic’ Ed Miliband. Likewise the allegation that there is a Jewish vote is commonplace for example Britain’s Jewish Voters Desert Labour Party Amid Anti-Semitism Row.
These are just a few samples of CAA’s naked political partisanship. The suggestion that they are apolitical simply doesn’t stack up.
- The CAA states that ‘Our charity have not elicited or provoked death threats. If such threats have occurred they are by no action of our charity. Claiming otherwise is severely damaging to our reputation.’
I accept the fact that the allegations made may damage the reputation of the CAA, however it is a fact that the tweets making unabashed threats of violence against Becky Massey were a direct consequence of the false and defamatory article that CAA put up on its website. They occurred the same day. The CAA did not contact Ms Massey or Professor Machover before pillorying them. Their behaviour has been outrageous and has caused Ms Massey to fear for her physical safety since supporters of Israel are often extremely violent.
- Our charity is extensively engaged in fighting antisemitism from the far-right, including a private prosecution and judicial review being undertaken to secure prosecutions of fascists and Holocaust deniers.
The fact that there is no mention of the main fascist party in Britain, the British National Party or the English Defence League on their web site speaks volumes. When searching for the EDL, it came up with 2 results – none of them to do with the EDL! The above mentioned legal work is trivial. Britain has tiny fascist organisations because organisations like the Anti-Nazi League and Anti-fascist Action made sure that their demonstrations never went unopposed. The CAA are unknown in anti-fascist circles.
E-mail from Change.org to Tony Greenstein concerning petition
Thank you for using Change.org. We’re writing to let you know that we received a ‘Notice of Complaint’ from the Campaign Against Antisemitism requesting to remove certain statements of the petition on the grounds that this content is defamatory of the organization. We are enclosing the formal Notice of Complaint for your review. At the request of the claimant, we have removed his/her name and contact information.
Change.org is an open platform and we care deeply about free speech and empowering our users to create the change they want to see. However, when you use Change.org, you agree to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines, and this includes agreeing not to violate third party rights such as defaming others.
This Notice of Complaint compels Change.org to act within five days of receiving it, and therefore we require a response from you as soon as possible. We want to make sure you have the facts for your own protection and to give you the opportunity to amend or remove the petition.
Please let us know by February 13, 2017 if you:
consent to the removal of the allegedly defamatory statements as identified in the Notice of Complaint; or
alternatively, if you wish to maintain the petition
consent to Change.org sending your user name and email address to the claimant; or
alternatively, if you would like to provide other contact information so that you and the claimant can correspond directly about this claim.
Please be assured that if you do not consent to sharing your contact information with the claimant, we will not share this information unless instructed by a court order. We will also notify you of such a court order to give you a chance to oppose it.
If we do not hear from you by February 13, 2017 with all of the information listed above, we will be obliged to remove the petition per the Notice of Complaint.
We are sorry that your petition resulted in legal claims and we wish there was more that we could do to support you but, as mentioned, unfortunately we are legally compelled by this Notice of Complaint.
Please do let us know if you have any questions, and thank you again for using Change.org.
(From US Office/Help desk)