Last week an event was held in Westminster, that is alleged to have deliberately excluded Jewish members from attending.  My own ticket was cancelled due to an overbooking, yet I later managed to get a place booked with a non-Jewish name. Some Jews who turned up were refused entry at the door, despite there being empty seats in the committee room. That particular event was hosted by MP Tommy Sheppard and complaints over the anti-Jewish racism have been lodged with the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Last night, another anti-Jewish event was held inside Westminster. It was also hosted by Tommy Sheppard.

Now some will protest and suggest that this latest event wasn’t an anti-Jewish event at all, but rather one that simply wanted to promote ‘Free speech on Israel’. Except when the matter is looked at closely, it quickly becomes apparent that what is occurring in Westminster is unacceptable racism against Jews.

Can you imagine a group calling themselves ‘Free speech on Africa’, holding a panel event in Westminster that suggests that not only is almost all racism imaginary, not only is the rise in racism deliberately manipulated by blacks for political gain, but blacks themselves are responsible for the racism they experience? In fact, the meeting would go as far as saying that the real victims of anti-black racism weren’t even blacks, but rather those who try to harm them.

There are so many blatant angles of racism within that example. Accusations of a strategy of manipulation and deceit being applied to an ethnic, racial or religious group, as if they form a unity in which such a cohesive conspiracy could exist.

Well this idea of a ‘plot’ is receiving legitimacy inside Westminster. And once again, the devilish race being blamed for all manner of ills are the Jews.

Free Speech on Israel and antisemitism.

Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi will inform you it is not Jews, but just Zionists that are the ‘devilish clan’. She suggested at the event, she abhors real antisemitism, and fights it whenever she can. Except this is simply not true. I produced two reports in 2017 about antisemitism inside anti-Israel activist groups, one about the PSC, the other about the Scottish sister ship, the SPSC. In both I spent much time ensuring all criticism of Israel was removed from the examples of antisemitism I put forward. In the end, almost all that was left, were examples of anti-Israel activists sharing material from white supremacy websites in the United States.

And what did Wimborne-Idrissi and her friends at ‘Free Speech on Israel’  do when these reports were released – how did they react to real, classic antisemitism? They attacked me for it, and ran articles that belittled the reports. In effect, ‘Free Speech on Israel’, came out in the defence of Holocaust Deniers, and believers in global Jewish conspiracy theory. The very idea that Wimborne-Idrissi, Free Speech on Israel, or Jewish Voice for Labour have any intention of fighting antisemitism is a cruel and vindictive joke.

These people provide cover for hard-core Jew hatred. Provide cover for those sharing material from groups like the Klu Klux Klan. And these people are given the legitimacy of a committee room in Parliament?

The Free Speech on Israel event.

Inside the event in committee room 12, there were sixty five people. Tommy Sheppard opened the event by suggesting he felt the need to give a platform to an argument that receives little airtime. Clearly Tommy is not aware that scores of events occur in the UK monthly that support anti-Israel activism, and the only difficult in freely speaking about Israel that exists, is experienced by those that support the Jewish state.  I wonder if he has seen the report into the SPSC, that suggests whenever the SPSC flag is raised in Scotland, between 40-50% of the demonstrators have shared white-supremacist material?

Wimborne-Idrissi then introduced herself as chair, pushing the same line, that this discussion over attacking Israel is stifled. She suggested they cannot receive ‘any sort of platform’, despite having been given the floor twice at the Labour Party Conference.  She continued to go on about how false accusations of antisemitism are deflecting attention away from the real sufferers, who are the Muslims. People who now face a ‘wave of bigotry’. This ‘don’t worry about the Jews, worry about the Muslims’ message was repeated by different members of the panel.

Shlaim, the artist and Gordon

Then came the three speakers. Avi Shlaim – who is now just a foolish old man lost in his own intellectual redundancy – spoke first, going on to suggest the evidence of antisemitism in Labour is ‘extremely flimsy’. This despite 1000’s of legitimate complaints being received by the party. He suggested the crisis is ‘manufactured’ and proposed that we should spend our time fighting the real problem which is ‘Xenophobia and Islamophobia’. Shlaim as he always does, mentioned the pre-war anti-Zionists in Europe, yet once again forgot to remind the audience what happened to them all. His line of argument is sickening. In truth the Bundists were tragically wrong – they thought Europe was safe and burnt in Auschwitz. The reality is, that had Israel been created in 1938 and not 1948 many Jews could have been saved.

On the panel was an artist, who spoke second and gave a meaningless talk, before Israeli academic Neve Gordon took the floor. When Gordon spoke he was clearly out of his depth, speaking in Israeli terms, about an Israeli based contextual argument, that has no relevance in the current global battle against the antisemitic forces in anti-Zionist activism. Gordon simply does not have a clue about any of the societal struggles taking place in Europe. Gordon spoke in intellectual but irrelevant prose, following the typical and overused line of the hard left, in suggesting all the antisemitism is on the right. An argument totally devoid of historical reasoning. Early 20th century antisemitism came from both the right and the left.

The Soviet Style circus

Which is why the use of a handful of Jews to attack the vast majority of Jews is nothing new. After the 1917 revolution, the Soviets did it expertly using the ‘Yevsektsiya‘. And this is all the meeting was – a circus that was performed to add legitimacy to the position of the antisemites. Of the sixty-five people present, the vast majority of Jews were Zionists and the vast majority of opposition were not Jewish, but rather ‘haters’. People who are using the ‘useful idiots’ to provide a platform for hate. Sandra Watfa was there. Elleanne Green was there. Timothy Horgan was there. Even Tom Suarez, who wrote a book which entirely butchered history and demonised Jews, was there. Jenny Tonge was there. Others too, non Jewish, recognisable faces from the anti-Israel activist groups.

It was a hate event, a Marxist antisemitic circus, taking place inside the British Democratic Estate. The Zionists were there in force, to play their part, and oppose, and object and feel persecuted. And all the while Idrissi smirked and felt empowered. The Q&A passed as it always would, with Idrissi ensuring that the few anti-Zionist hands that were raised, were given statistical preference. A few Jews complained about antisemitism – the panel agreed that antisemitism is terrible – but continually suggested that there is none of it on the left. The curtain came down. The circus will move to the next venue now.

However Tommy Shepherd seeks to justify himself, his decision making is built on naivety, ignorance, a failure to understand history or antisemitism, and he places it all on top of an greatly oversized opinion of the depth of anti-Zionist Jewry. So a final message just for him:

A message for Tommy Sheppard

Tommy – you wouldn’t attack the identity of 93% of Muslims, Blacks, Christians or any other group, so I am unsure why have you picked up the political axe to use specifically against the Jews. Inside that room were people who use the hashtag #jewnitedstates and several others who share white supremacy material. There was a man who wrote a book that suggested Jews sold their family members to the Holocaust. There was someone who spends his time publicly stalking Jews like me, and for that reason he was on the door and able to identify every Jew by name as they walked in.

You need to look at the report into the SPSC to understand the undeniable antisemitism being uncovered, and then ask yourself why the group who ran this event deflected attention from its findings. And finally you need to research history, and learn how the Soviets attacked their Jews – through the use of a tiny minority of Marxist Jews – people without religious or nationalist Jewish ties – using them to begin the brutal persecution of millions.

And then you need to reflect on what you are doing. You sat in a room that attacked 93% of UK Jews and somehow felt you were doing the right thing. You may not be able to see the hate, but the Jews saw it. They felt it the moment they stepped inside Westminster. The building that is meant to make us feel secure, is becoming increasingly more menacing. Thank you for your part in that.

 


Help support my research

I fight antisemitism and the revisionist narrative that demonises Israel. This research does make a difference. I was recently named as one of the J100 (‘top 100 people positively influencing Jewish life’) by The Algemeiner. I am fully independent, and your support makes much of what I do possible.

Please if you can, consider making a donation. Either a single amount or if you can a small monthly contribution.  We need to be there to expose the lies and we need to research the facts to tell the truth. Even producing just one of these pieces does take days, sometimes weeks, and whilst I do what I can, there are serious constraints that impact on what is possible. Your assistance can and does make a difference. Every contribution is greatly appreciated.

Keep up to date, subscribe to the blog by using the link on the page. Follow the FB page for this blog: and follow me on Twitter.

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

36 thoughts on “Tommy Sheppard’s anti-Jewish Marxist circus comes to Westminster

      1. Stephen,

        I think Scoffie is most well known around the London circuit, know as an idiot, one who hangs out with neo-Nazis’s, Paul Besser being among them – Mr Collier refuses this, despite load of photographic evidence from various venues – talk about guilt by association, Scoffie eats the stuff.

        However, I digress, Scoffie was indeed in attendance, however his bearish behaviour was modified by the fact that Parliamentary Security Services were ready for him and his chumps. he still managed to make an ‘arse’ of himself from the firsthand accounts I have access too.

      2. onthedarkside410122300.wordpress.com/2017/12/07/no-to-antisemitism-denial-in-parliament/

        ‘No MP would want to host David Irving in a Parliamentary Committee Room to advocate Holocaust Denial. So why does Tommy Sheppard think it’s OK to host a meeting advocating Antisemitism Denial? Would he host a meeting where gays are told they are making false claims of homophobia? And where those false claims are said to simply make the problem worse?

        Of course he wouldn’t. So why are Jews fair game?

        Several MPs contacted the Speaker before the meeting to say that it was not an appropriate event to be hosted in Parliament. John Bercow – If you read this, please believe that you can no longer rely on the good sense of MPs as regards what are suitable topics for Committee Room meetings. You have to set up a system of permissioning. You owe it to the Jewish Community and you owe it to the taxpayer who funds Parliament. ‘

  1. Collier is hardly a Jewish name, so your whole premise about excluding people with Jewish sounding names is conceptually flawed.
    So much for your “research”. I’d get myself a peer reviewer if I were you.

    1. This is a particularly ignorant remark. Collier is a well known independent investigative reporter on these subjects and his name and face are both recognisable to the organisers of such events who seek to expel him from their racist events

      1. Indeed he is a well known face. And perhaps that is why he and others like him were barred – not because of some sinister plot to prevent people with Jewish sounding names from attending.

        Also if he’s a reporter, investigative, independent or otherwise, who fact- checks and edits him.

        1. So we have established your entire argument was flawed. There may have been a deliberate exclusion of those with Jewish names, and I was included because I don’t need a Jewish name to be recognised.

          1. Ah “may have been” is totally different from saying people were excluded because they had Jewish sounding names.

            It also means that you didn’t have to give another name to get in bc Collier doesn’t sound particularly Jewish.

            Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and they barred you bc of who you are not what you are.

            If anyone has a flawed argument, it’s you.

  2. David two things

    1000’s of legitimate complaints of antisemitism in the LP. This is a new one on me. You know this how ? Can you name 30 ?

    It was a Marxist. circus ? I have nothing against Marxists, some of by best friends as they say, but your evidence for this ?

    1. Stephen, on the Labour issue I am aware of 1000’s of complaints, and in support have seen hundreds of horrible examples. I know it because having seen so many of the examples, I have little reason to doubt the underlying truth of the claim. My reference to the ‘Marxist circus’ is driven by the comparison with the ‘Yevsektsiya‘, and supported by the fact the many(secular) AZ Jews are indeed Marxists. The event felt like a choreographed Soviet show trial – hence – a circus. No disrespect to your friends of course.

      1. I am sure no offence would be taken.

        As for your figures I think the less said the better, at least outside a more considered environment.

        1. Stephen,

          As we are aware, and given Collier’s research is usually baseless accusations – (research is usually qualified via a matrix and peer reviewed of course, which Collier’s is certainly not, unless its by Hasbara cronies. I stray though, for as we have witnessed in English Law, these baseless findings of endemic anti-semitism, specifically related to the Left & Left’s embrace of Palestinian solidarity, don’t actually stand up in a Court of law. However, given the lack of any legal structure whatsoever in the Labour Party Stasi Unit overseen by McNicol, one is of course guilty if anyone complains about anything, as long as said complaint is against a Leftist within the Party. Collier & the JLM are great at this rubbish, but, as they say, rubbish in, rubbish out, which is the whole basis of Collier’s research, namely, its rubbish period.

  3. Ah “may have been” is totally different from saying people were excluded because they had Jewish sounding names.

    It also means that you didn’t have to give another name to get in bc Collier doesn’t sound particularly Jewish.

    Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and they barred you bc of who you are not what you are.

    If anyone has a flawed argument, it’s you.

  4. Horgan was appointed to check the registrations at the door. So an A1 Jew-hater now has the names of all those who were present to protest Antisemitism Denial.

    Outrage.

      1. If he didn’t , it would be down to Timothy Horgan , an obsessive stalker and antisemite acting as chief bouncer for the circus proceedings. His twitter account was blocked for just that reason. That about sums up this ugly little hate fest.

  5. onthedarkside410122300.wordpress.com/2017/12/07/no-to-antisemitism-denial-in-parliament/

    No MP would want to host David Irving in a Parliamentary Committee Room to advocate Holocaust Denial. So why does Tommy Sheppard think it’s OK to host a meeting advocating Antisemitism Denial? Would he host a meeting where gays are told they are making false claims of homophobia? And where those false claims are said to simply make the problem worse?

    Of course he wouldn’t. So why are Jews fair game?

    Several MPs contacted the Speaker before the meeting to say that it was not an appropriate event to be hosted in Parliament. John Bercow – If you read this, please believe that you can no longer rely on the good sense of MPs as regards what are suitable topics for Committee Room meetings. You have to set up a system of permissioning. You owe it to the Jewish Community and you owe it to the taxpayer who funds Parliament.

  6. Morning all from Jerusalem, the eternal undivided capital of the Jewish State. What a morning to be alive eh?

    Loving watching the way that the trolls here have hatched their cunning plot of pushing David on his research credentials as if this is the new A bomb in the battle of Social Media Hill. Combine this with some crass personal attacks on this bloke Hoffman and you have an offensive as potent as several thousand tommies walking very very slowly in a straight line towards a battery of enemy machine guns. ” Oh dear David, you may have caught the Vicar in the study with the smoking gun and posted a film on YouTube to prove it but where’s your Health and Safety certificate?” Wimps.

    1. Ian – It’s funny and a sign of desperation. The way to attack an article is to argue its logic or factual content. As I haven’t conducted any ‘secret trials’, but am merely reporting on events or publicly accessible evidence, then the line being pushed is beyond insane. A journalist’s reputation isn’t built up on ‘academic peer review’ (I mean – how stupid), but rather on ‘public peer review’ – the integrity of the argument, the weight and validity of the evidence, and whether any of his ‘findings’ immediately or eventually collapse. Of course, these people have every capability of having an academic look at it. If they are stuck, I have many on my subscription list who would be glad to help. As it is, because the evidence is so strong, and their ability to dent the argument so weak, they’ve taken to puffing smoke in the air in the hope someone is taken in by it.

      1. What makes me laugh David is how the pack followed the lead as soon as it started trending, like some sort of revelation. They’d tried the whataboutery, skirted the fringes of guilt by alleged association, dabbled with the ad homs, even questioned your funding arrangements and have now ended up here. The barrel bottoms will be bloody from their scraping fingers, poor souls. You can only see this as a victory.

        1. Ian surely on this wonderful day to be alive we can adopt a kinder gentler pose. After Trumps wonderful statement on Jerusalem surely we can sit back and enjoy it for a while.

          This is a wonderful example of why I would have voted for Don had I been eligible to do so.

          1. Always magnanimous in victory Bellers. Rule 1 on the Colonialism and Media Studies sandwich course. Breaking open the choccy Hobnobs as we speak.

          2. Ian there is one state between the river and the sea and that won’t change. Jerusalem is the obvious capital. I very much welcome Don’s initiative.

        2. Actually, I questioned his whole premise that he and others had been barred because of their Jewish sounding names.

      2. Thing is, you call it research. If you had called it journalism or reporting then, of course, other questions arise, such as who fact checks your copy and who edits for grammar, syntax, etc?

        1. You really are a bit of an idjit aren’t you.

          ‘Investigative journalism is a form of journalism in which reporters deeply investigate a single topic of interest, such as serious crimes, political corruption, or corporate wrongdoing. An investigative journalist may spend months or years researching and preparing a report. Investigative journalism is a primary source of information. Most investigative journalism is conducted by newspapers, wire services, and freelance journalists. Practitioners sometimes use the terms “watchdog reporting” or “accountability reporting”.’

          1. Actually, dear boy, even an investigative journalist needs to be edited and have his or her facts checked.
            Otherwise, it’s just the musing/rant of a blogger.

  7. Yeah come on David. And while your at it let’s see your O Level certificates as well. The Representation of Contentious Opinions Act 1948 (as amended) section 9 sub section iii(c) clearly states that all credentials must be displayed by the door. In fact you’re well within your rights to ask Dickie and others to present their Media Response Practitioner Certificates that allow them to comment here as subject experts. This is complex stuff and we don’t want any old riff raff.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *