Baroness Chakrabati : quomodo ceciderunt fortes

                                      QUOMODO CECIDERUNT FORTES

My friends well know that King Cyclops is not now, nor has ever been a Zionist.

Apparently in order to comment on the Chakrabati report one needs to declare one's bona fides.

That or be dismissed as a whingeing Jew who cannot be objective about Israel, Zionism, anti Semitism or the weather.

The King was born of the other great Jewish, socialist political tradition--Bundism [Yiddisher Arbeiter Bunde] .The Bunde believed/s in integration of the Jews within their domestic polities. The Zionists--Socialist and other--proclaimed the indispensability of an Independent Jewish Homeland in Eretz Yisrael.My lot was obliterated in the Holocaust. The Zionists got their homeland and created a refuge for the remnant of the Jewish masses from Europe and then from the Arab lands.

History is a tough judge. I would concede that the Zionists won on points.

A sliver of the Jewish Diaspora has found a home in the UK-200,000 in a population of 60 million.

Those of us with any sense of history know that the British have been good and generous hosts to the Yidos--and even to the Sephardim [Oriental Jews who do not speak Yiddish].The King's parents came as recently as 1920 and 1941 respectively. The Duchesses and I are first generation English. Did we encounter anti Semitism growing up. Of course. It was of the street kid variety and then later mild professional or institutional predjudice.But not from the state and certainly not from the Labour Party.

I was born only a decade after the “Battle of Cable Street" when Moseley's Fascists were turned back from marching through London's Jewish Quarter. This was not achieved by a handful of Jewish Taxi Drivers and Costermongers. An alliance of the Labour Party, the Trades Unions and the Communist Party joined to ensure "They Shall Not Pass”. The Labour Party's working class supporters rejected and defeated British Fascism.

  My glasses are not so rose tinted as to not note that the British government blocked Jewish immigration from Nazi Germany and later did all it could to prevent settlement in Palestine of post war Jewish refugees. But its population has been generous to this little alien group in its midst. In the vanguard of this welcome there has always been the Labour Party. The King's father and other Polish Jewish soldiers would have been shot for desertion but for the intervention of Labour MPs securing their transfer to the British Army.

So much for bona fides and hence my dismay at what my party has become.

First it must be said that the party has not become systemically anti-semitic. The object of disproving such a "systemic problem" was the deliberate tilting at a Straw man[even on serious issues the king loves to mix his metaphors] and  made by Corbyn's inner circle as a way of deflecting from the real issue.

The leader before Corbyn was Jewish and every Labor cabinet and NEC since 1932 has had Jewish members. Even now. I never heard criticism of David Milliband because he was Jewish, just that he was inept and frittered away a commanding political legacy allowing Cameron a second term. Until the current furore, British Jews have overwhelmingly supported, voted for and belonged to the Labour Party. They have been as loyal to Labour as the Rhonda Miners, the Govan Shipbuilders or the Liverpool Dockers.

   There have always been elements of the so called "hard left" which have bought into anti Semitic tropes--the Jews control the banks, the property market and the media. Pointing out a handful of prominent Jews in TV, the press and high finance. These calumnies are mirrored on the right with the added inconsistent absurdity that Jews are agitators and Communists ,control the Labour Party and have infiltrated even the Conservative party.

 Such foolishness has never been widespread in the British Labour Movement even within its mildly nativist wing.

The need for an "independent “enquiry into anti Semitism in the party [broadened for the purposes of dilution and political correctness to include "all expressions of racial, religious or ethnic intolerance"], resulted from a series of anti Semitic incidents or outbursts from a handful of University Labour Clubs, some members of parliament and a few prominent local government leaders in predominantly Muslim localities.

                                   See: King Cyclops blog 12 May 2106

  Several of the most egregious and unequivocal incidents were caused by close friends of Corbyn.

•  MP Naz Shah's face book page proposed "Relocate Israel  into the USA"
•  Shah also posted a page which compares Israel to apartheid South Africa, the segregated American South, and Germany under Hitler.
•  Ken Livingstone ex London Mayor and close personal friend of Corbyn went on TV defending Shah.
• He claimed Shah's comments weren't anti-Semitic because "a real anti-Semite doesn’t just hate the Jews in Israel."
• He also claimed that “When Hitler won his election in 1932 his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.”

These followed a row over anti Semitic bullying in half a dozen University labour clubs and a series of offensive tweets by some minor labour elected officials. 

The real problem was not "systemic anti Semitism" but the reaction of the leader Jeremy Corbyn to these incidents.

• The reaction by Corbyn was to dither. Nothing unusual about that.
• He initially refused to suspend Shah, reversing himself when faced with outrage from all sections of the party.
• He allowed for the suspension of Livingstone very grudgingly.
• He and Ken have been in the trenches together for a very long time. 
• They have been close friends for over forty years.
• His ham fisted handling of the issue led to renewed calls for this overthrow
• Many Jewish Labour members resigned or protested in other ways.

 The sub text is not just that he tolerates anti semites in his inner circle but that he is himself anti-Semitic. This is thought to be a little harsh.

To be fair he handled the issue about as competently as he has handled everything else.  

The trouble is that in the eyes of some--no not just the whingeing Jews or "Blairite traitors"-- Corbyn has form.

•  He has described himself as “a friend" of Hamas and Hezbollah. 
•  He has invited their leaders for tea in the House of Commons.
•  Both are listed by the USA, UK and EU as terrorist groups.
• They are kept at arms lengths by most Arab and Muslim governments.
• They are both proudly anti-Semitic.
• No dog whistles distinctions between Jews and Zionism for them.
• “kill Jews wherever you find them”
• He has regularly appeared at their rallies. 
• He has actively supported boycotts of Israeli Academics.
• Had praised a preacher who claimed that Jews had foreknowledge of 9/11.
• He has appeared on platforms with extreme Muslim clerics who have adopted the Jewish blood libel and denied the Holocaust.
• He claimed 'ignorance “of their views.
• Reporters unearthed that he had donated money and attended the conferences of an organization run by a renowned Holocaust Denier.
• Corbyn did not deny this but claimed "ignorance" of his views.
• By any definition some of Corbyn’s closest and oldest friends are anti-Semitic—Ken Livingstone, George Galloway et al.
•  His chief of staff, Seamus Milne, has been accused of bullying and interrogating staff with "Jewish sounding names “on their views on Israel. .http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/chakrabarti-ignored-antisemitism-problems-prsfpf95w
• Milne is veteran journalist with a substantial body of work indicating an apologist for Hamas and a fierce critic of Israel and the "Jewish Lobby".
• He too is long time acolyte of Ken Livingstone.

Is this guilt by association? Sure, but he is the leader of the second largest party in parliament and should legitimately be judged on his friends, associates and his & their published views. Every other political leader is and has been .Ask Obama, Clinton, Harold Wilson, Willy Brandt or Aneurin Bevan.

The clamour over Corbyn's [in] actions rose to fever pitch--partly whipped up by Labours enemies in the press--in the run up to the local elections last May. Corbyn, wisely, agreed to set up an inquiry into Racism in the Labour Party. The time honoured British method for buying time, defusing explosive situations and hoping the fuss will dissipate. An   apparently well respected and independent barrister [lawyer] agreed to chair the commission. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/29/jeremy-corbyn-sets-up-inquiry-into-labour-antisemitism-claims  

Fair enough. There were a few odd features to the process however. In the popular mind-including those of King Cyclops and his acquaintances-it was understood the commission would look into recent anti Semitic incidents, Corbyn’s handling of the problem and how the leadership should deal with such matters in the future. Most observers believed the core subjects of the enquiry were anti Semitic incidents and Corbyn's reaction to the problem.

         YET

• The inquiry was convened by Corbyn himself 
• It was not passed to an independent section of the national executive to manage the process 
• Apparently Corbyn  drafted the terms of reference-[see footnote 1] 
•  These were much broader than looking at issues of anti-Semitism  
•  It was to be very process oriented 
•  It did not explicitly look at recent recent past incidents
•  Nor  Corbyn’s own actions 
• He independently chose the chairman Shami Chakrabarti 
• It seemed originally that she would conduct the inquiry  alone 
•  It did not commit to transparency by making evidence and submissions available with a published report
• The chairman was to report back directly and solely to the party leader 
• Not to an independent party body or the NEC

  At the time I am not aware that much of a fuss was made about these apparent conflicts of interest. Nor was there public discussion about the Inquiries terms of refernce, which on reading seem to be designed NOT to deal with the issues at hand or the Leaders responses. It seems that Labour Party supporters, including King Cyclops, were just relieved the process would take the matter out of the headlines before the local government elections and the referendum on Brexit.

If the sage advice of the elderly, but experienced, King Cyclops had been sought [and in hindsight] he would undoubtedly have advised

•  that one of the causes of the inquiry [Corbyn] could not be seen to control the  process 
•  the terms of reference should be drawn up independently, narrowly and directly related to the matter in hand
•  those providing evidence or briefs to the inquiry should be on notice that these would be published [anonymously if necessary]
• that the inquiry not be conducted by a single individual  
• For obvious reasons NOBODY in their right mind would do such a review alone
• all its members should be independent of the party hierarchy

It is critical that there be “no hint of even the appearance of a conflict of interest"on the part of members of the tribunal

 It was probably thought that a Barrister who was Director of the highly respected Liberty, the British civil rights organisation, would not take on the assignment without ensuring such safe guards were established in advance.And that its terms of reference were meaningful to the issues.

  Most of us assumed as Director of liberty she was independent of all political parties. She was appointed to lead the inquiry in April 2016.She had resigned from Liberty in March and her first decision on accepting the appointment to the inquiry was to join the Labour Party.Oops.

She accepted the terms of reference, the direct reporting relationship to Corbyn and the lack of transparency in the conduct of the inquiry. At least it was decided to have two other members to participate in the proceedings. One, Professor David Feldman, a respected academic familiar with the issues at hand and the other Baroness Janet Royall a  pleasant, non combative  and reliable member of the Labour party establishment.

 The independent inquiry reporting directly to the leader looked shakier than expected and its terms of reference did not cover the specific recent incidents and Corbyn's response. But apart from a few whingeing Jews no one much cared. http://www.algemeiner.com/2016/05/24/jewish-watchdog-groups-in-britain-seriously-skeptical-about-labour-partys-antisemitism-probe/#

Two months later ,on the 30 June ,the findings of the inquiry were released at a press conference in Westminster. The Launch turned into fiasco.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/06/jewish-labour-mp-ruth-smeeth-was-reduced-tears-labour-s-anti-semitism :

Corbyn in introducing the report managed to draw a moral equivalence between the state of Israel and Isis. Apart from revealing the idiotic mindset of the leader of the second-largest political organization in the United Kingdom, it distracted from the substance of the report itself. 
Nor was it noted at the time that the report was issued in the name of Chakrabarti herself and not in the name of all three members of the commission.

 At the same press conference a Jewish MP fled the meeting in tears of frustration after being harangued and vilified by Marc Wadsworth  a Corbyn supporter and member of Momentum.This occured in front of the entire press corps. Corbyn,chairing the meeting did nothing to intervene.At the end of the meeting Corbyn was stupid enough to allow himself to be filmed talking and joking with Wadsworth--apparently a long time acquaintance.

It is kind to say the report itself received mixed reviews.
Ranging from Corbyn "vindication" to various MPs ,Jews and "enemies" of the Labour Party claiming a "Whitewash". 
Like most other observers--and as far as I can tell all journalists -King Cyclops did not actually read the report. http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/party-documents/ChakrabartiInquiry.pdf

I relied on the press release summaries and press reports.

The report seemed to  have achieved the primary objectives of  taking the issue off the table before the local UK elections and of effectively obfuscating the issue of anti semitism and Corbyn's enabling.We could look forward to Naz Sha and Ken Livingstone being rehabilitated sooner rather than later.

In fact,Naz Shah had the wit[fear or shame] to apologise for her postings and was reinstated on July 5th,nine weeks after she had been suspended and five days after the release of the Chakrabati Report.This  is known in the trade as  "a decent interval".This action by the party is called by Jews a Mitzvah[blessing].For Ken a "a decent interval" would be a month after Corbyn's re-election as leader or never .Depends on your point of view.

The cover up did not last long:

On July 14 in an interview on J-TV a Jewish television channel Chakrabati admitted that she had interviewed Mr Corbyn for the report about why he had described Hamas as “his friends'.Asked why she had not mentioned this in her report, she said:

 “I was not adjudicating on Mr Corbyn, his leadership or any other individual in the party.”

Challenged over whether she was satisfied with the answers, Ms Chakrabarti said: “I believe his answers to be genuine.”

During the interview  Ms Chakrabarti was also asked if she had been promised a peerage. She replied: “You can ask the question but I am going to evade it at this point.”http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/20/shami-chakrabarti-declines-to-deny-offer-of-peerage-by-labour

In a bizarre interview July 26th on the BBC  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-oQeF8M-Lg Chakrabati was asked if she had been offered a peerage by Corbyn  http://politics--news.com/2016/07/27/kirsty-wark-ambushes-shami-chakrabarti-about-labour-peerage-on-newsnight/

  Then the bombshell   On August 3 it was announced that Corbin had nominated Chakrabarti for a peerage.

It seemed to many that this was a payoff to the future Baroness Chakrabarti  for a whitewash report It certainly revealed that the "nice,decent,honest " Mr.Corbyn was a world class hypocrite.He has been a lifelong opponent of such peerages and of the undemocratic British "upper" chamber.In his campaign for the leadership last year he was adamant should he win...
  “Labour will certainly not nominate new peers for the Lords".

The response across the Labour movement ranged from silence from his supporters to outright condemnation or ridicule of both Corbyn and Chakrabati and the total discrediting of her report.

Tom Watson   Deputy Leader---I guess he would know

Mr Watson told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: 'The timing is not great for the Labour Party, I wasn't aware, I wasn't consulted on whether Shami was going in, I didn't know that we'd provided citations for this particular round. And I do think it's a mistake because I don't think agree with resignation honours.

He added: 'Sure enough, she delivered a whitewash which failed to deal with Labour's anti-Semitism problem in any meaningful way.

'She did not tackle allegations of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party or their woeful handling by Jeremy Corbyn, and she even refused to adopt a definition of anti-Semitism.

'Having promised to never send anyone to the House of Lords, that is exactly what Jeremy Corbyn has done in return for a clean bill of health.'

John Mann,    chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism,

 Accused Mr Corbyn of 'appalling hypocrisy'.He told LBC radio that Miss Chakrabarti had 'sold herself cheaply' for a Lords seat.

Wes Streeting  MP  tweeted: 'Shami Chakrabarti will bring great experience to the Lords.But let's not pretend that a Labour peerage in these circumstances doesn't stink.'

Miscellaneous

'The report, which was weak in several areas, seems to have been rewarded with an honour."

'This whitewash for peerages is a scandal that surely raises serious questions about the integrity of Ms Chakrabarti, her inquiry and the Labour leadership.'

'The inquiry avoided criticising Mr Corbyn for describing Hamas and Hezbollah as friends, and how this affected the debate on the issue in the party.'

'She also failed to question why he didn't clamp down quickly on perceived anti-Jewish comments by Ken Livingstone and online posts by MP Naz Shah before she was elected'.

"The report recommended keeping suspensions secret and ruled out lifetime membership bans."

And on and on 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3724629/Outcry-peerage-Corbyn-apologist-Appointment-Shami-Chakrabarti-draws-fury-Jewish-leaders-weeks-report-Labour-anti-Semitism.html#ixzz4Hd892TUJ 

 


 My many labour friend,nearly all of whom support and contribute to Liberty and to my own favourite Amnesty International,have been stung into disillusioned silence.

KING CYCLOPS was thus driven to actually read the report.I assumed that some of the criticism would be justified but much would be over the top hysteria.I expected a report worthy of a trained barrister assisted by a respected academic. http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/party-documents/ChakrabartiInquiry.pdf

  There is a well recognised and logical structure to such independent reports.

1.    Enlist an  independent  tribunal. 
2.    Agree  a relevant and appropriate set of terms of reference . 
3.   Gather evidence and the facts.  
4.    Seek submissions from all interested parties.  
5.    In particular insist that anybody whose name ha been raised or besmirched be given ample       opportunity to give their side of events.
6.   Analyse the evidence.
7.   Draw conclusions
8.   Make recommendations
9.   Justify the relevance of the recommendations to the problem

• By this point you will not be surprised at my disappointment.
• Far from the the criticisms being over the top they were more rational than the report itself.
• We have no idea whether the conclusions followed the facts and views gathered or submitted.
• The Labour party refuses to publish the evidence; even of those who have called for their own submissions to be made public.
• There is no analysis presented.
• Merely a list of assertions.
• The conclusions in part follow the assertions.
• The recommendations are mostly anodyne,irrelevant or anticipated in the Inquiry's terms of reference. It is a thorough whitewash job ;her first employers at the Home Office would be proud.
• Please read it for yourself and weep.

Not convinced ?Still live in desperate hope that the Labour leadership is better than this?That Chakrabati would not connive in a whitewash in exchange for a Peerage?You have not read the attached report,have you?

Let me help with a smattering of examples:

The report said Labour was 'not overrun' by anti-Semitism, Islamaphobia or other forms of racism.”  ..... despite an "occasionally toxic atmosphere".

This conclusion exonerates a straw man

I have read an awful lot about the antis semitic incidents,Corbyn's response and the outrage of his critics.I cannot find any of his critics claiming that  "Labour was  overrun by anti-semitism"or 'Islamophobia" or  "other forms of racism".

In fact they seem to have gone to some lengths to emphasise the problem was  in isolated pockets and within the leader's inner circle.--sure Google away and see if you can prove me wrong with a quote from the lunatic fringe of the victimocracy.

It “recommends” members should not use terms such as Paki or Zio and should avoid of invoking Hitler in debates about Israel and Palestine”. 

This needs to be recommended ?!? Just as well the Party is not "overrun"  

Board of deputies of British Jews [and others ] claimed the report was " weak on the demonisation of Israel" and 'omitted any mention of party figures who have displayed friendship towards terrorists'. The Jew boys are correct.

No mention of ANYTHING the party leader said or did --ever.

No doubt the Talmudist in Jeremy's soul would point out that this lack of "mentions" was entirely appropriate as the "term of reference" failed to cover such matters. Check the footnote !

 Chakrabarti was joined in this review by  Professor Feldman and Baroness  Royall. Very sensible as for obvious reasons NOBODY in their right mind would do such a review alone.Why risk the potential opprobrium single handed and open oneself to accusations of singular bias or dishonesty.

As a barrister she would recognise in the cannon of ethics that it is "critical to avoid a conflict or even the appearance of a potential conflict of interest".

Yet on page 4 Chakrabati wrote :“But for the avoidance of doubt...., this Report is mine, and mine alone, and I will take responsibility for it.”

Why hers alone? If I were a member of this triumvirate I would expect to fully share responsibility for the conclusions and recommendations.

Are Profesor Feldman and Baroness Royall children ,chicken shit or what?

As I have indicated : most of the recommendations  range from the puerile  to the unexplained all the way through to the incomprehensible with little logical justification in between.

Think I am exaggerating .READ THEM.

  

•                  Puerile                                     #1-5
•                  Unexplained                          # 12-14  
•                  #s 12-14 would have suited Mosely very well.                                                                              [Yes my friends he had been Labour MP for Smethwick from 1926 to 1931,and in                       the Labour government of 1929-31].
•                  Anodyne or irrelevant—most of the rest

 If you find a SINGLE recommendation that is useful for a political party rather than your local citizen's advice bureau or a quango let me know. 

I have felt the need several times to emphasise that King Cyclops not a Zionist.

I would appreciate you reading the section “Zionism and Zionists” on page 12 and let me know what it means,if anything, and the import of the last sentence on Labour party “behavior”.

ENOUGH ALREADY! If you need more ,read the report .It will take 15-35 minutes.

  BARONESS CHAKRABATI  has achieved a threefer. She has:

1.  Ruined her Reputation.She will be remembered for ever more as the Author of the Chakrabati Report.A respected campaigner who sold out for a lousy Peerage.
2. Failed to Rehabilitate Corbyn's Reputation.Not even a fig leaf.He Reneged on what he consistently championed for over forty years.The whole affair makes him look devious and   malevolent.
3.  She has shamed the Labour Party.Completely failed its loyal Jewish and philo semitic members and  also given cover to the handful of bigots and sociopaths in its midst.One more stake in the heart of once  great movement with pride in its role in the vanguard of social justice.

Think this is over the top?Ask yourself three questions.

1. Do you have faith in the Report?
2. Are you proud of either Corbyn or Chakrabati?
3. Do you believe your Jewish comrades are still comfortable voting Labour?

Maybe in Chakrabati's mind this was all worth it.

Vice Chancellor of Essex University

Frequent participant in the BBC's  ANY QUESTIONS

A member of the 2011 Leveson Inquiry into Press ethics,wherein she supported that 

newspapers,after 300 years of freedom from state control,be under statutory regulation.

An Olympics  2012 Flag Bearer.

A  CBE in 2013

Baroness Chakrabati 2016.

She is now a fully paid up member of the Great & Good ,comfortably ensconced in that 

Westminster Club. 

                                      

                                quomodo ceciderunt fortes

Footnote 1:

My terms of reference are as follows:  

The Inquiry, which will report in two months (of its launch), will:  

• Consult widely with Labour Party Members, the Jewish community and other minority representatives about a statement of principles and guidance about anti-Semitism and other forms of racism, including Islamophobia.  

• Consult on guidance about the boundaries of acceptable behaviour and language.  

• Recommend clear and transparent compliance procedures for dealing with allegations of racism and anti-Semitism.  

• Look into training programmes for parliamentary candidates, MPs, councilors and others.  

• Make recommendations for changes to the Code of Conduct and Party Rules if necessary.  

• Propose other action if needed, to ensure Labour is a welcoming environment for members of all communities.