empire watch, latest, UK

It is Time for George Versus the Dragon

David Lindsay

George Galloway speaking at a Stop the War protest.

At least once every week, the Member of Parliament for Birmingham Yardley, Jess Phillips, says something that would end the career of a Conservative, or of a Corbyn supporter, or of a man, or of anyone who was not Jess Phillips.

Phillips supports the present Israeli Government. She has accused British Pakistanis of importing wives for their disabled sons. Her position on abortion, whatever one may think of that issue, is effectively a call for the full legal integration of Northern Ireland into Great Britain. She is rude and abusive towards Britain’s most prominent black politician, Diane Abbott. Or at least she claims to be; it is possible that she has built her reputation on lying about having used gutter language towards a woman who was old enough to be her mother.

Phillips laughs at male suicides, at male cancers, at other men’s health issues, at violence against men, at problems in boys’ educational attainment, and at fathers denied access to their children. She has expressed the desire to stab Jeremy Corbyn. And she has said on Question Time that attacks of the kind seen in Cologne, “happen every week in Birmingham.”

Phillips is a beneficiary of the all-women shortlist system that has done more than anything else to turn the Parliamentary Labour Party from 50 per cent Broad Left 25 years ago to 85 per cent Hard Right today. Corbyn’s very highly politicised following is largely young and male because it is motivated by rage against the effects of deindustrialisation and against the harvesting of young men in endless, pointless wars.

But the economic changes of the last 40 years have turned into the ruling class the public sector middle-class women who dominate the PLP, while the wars of the last 20 years have barely affected them, having largely been waged for explicitly feminist reasons, albeit to no good effect for the women of Afghanistan, and to catastrophic effect for the women of Iraq and Libya. To Phillips and her ilk, who are Thatcher’s Daughters, the anger of the young men who are accruing to Corbyn is incomprehensible. As is those young men’s closely connected discovery for themselves of the various schools of heterodox economics, and of the traditional Great Books that, for ostensibly if questionably feminist reasons, have been excluded from school and university curricula.

As she herself would doubtless agree, Phillips could not contrast more starkly with George Galloway. Galloway’s is one of the two or three most important pro-Palestinian voices in the West, while he fully acknowledges that some people are now fourth generation Israeli, so that there is no point in telling anyone to “go home” when they are already at home. He holds Pakistan’s highest awards, the Hilal-i-Qaid-i-Azzam and the Hilali-i-Pakistan, for his work for Pakistan and Kashmir. He is half-Irish, with a profound and lifelong interest in Irish affairs.

He has been campaigning across the full range of health, workers’ rights, educational, and other social justice issues since 1967, 14 years before Phillips was born. He tabled the only ever parliamentary motion in support of fathers’ access to their children and against the secrecy of the family courts. He is a lifelong opponent of racism, and a longstanding friend of Diane Abbott’s. He has never expressed the desire to stab anyone, and he has never insulted the City of Birmingham.

Consider the recent attack on a Syrian boy in Huddersfield. That that footage went viral, such that someone has now been charged, was initially thanks to a tweet by Galloway. Yet the Today programme accused him of “politicising” the incident. Had it not been for him, then the BBC would never have known about it. This is typical of how he has long been treated. Oona King was given a peerage for no reason except that she had lost her seat to Galloway.

Just as I was the only person with anything like the status of a commentator to predict a hung Parliament in 2017, so I was the only such person to predict that Galloway would win the by-election at Bradford West at 2012. According to everyone else, if they mentioned him at all, then he would lose his deposit. But in fact he topped the poll in every ward, including those which were more than 90 per cent white.

On his return to the Commons, the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, called him by his name on the floor of the House, instead of recognising him as an Honourable Member. In 2015, UKIP and the Green Party, each of which had one MP, were permitted to participate in the General Election debates, but Respect, which also had one MP, was not. Guess who Respect’s one MP was.

In 2016, what can now be seen to have been his highly prescient campaign for Mayor of London was subjected to a media blackout comparable to that of the No2EU lists at successive European Elections. Most shockingly of all, the serious attempt on his life in 2014 is little known to the public, and much mocked within the elite.

George Galloway MP would provide a focal point for those who were broadly supportive of Corbyn but nevertheless critical of him. Corbyn’s housing and transport policies go nowhere near far enough. He supports the Government’s indulgence of the ludicrous theory of gender self-identification. He sides with neoliberal capitalism on the issues of drugs and prostitution. He has hinted at support for the Customs Union, which, in a crowded field, has a reasonable claim to be the worst of all the many bad things about the EU. He has accepted some of the Government’s baseless and collapsed claims about Salisbury, Amesbury, and Douma.

He has acted against the social and ethnic cleansing of Labour Haringey, but not to secure justice for the 472 Teaching Assistants in Labour Durham. He met the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the “Jewish Leadership Council” without having waited for the local election results in London to establish whether or not they spoke for anyone very much at all.

He has failed to prevent the Labour Party from suspending or expelling distinguished Jewish activists for purported anti-Semitism. He has failed to prevent the importation of the New York practice of branding as anti-Semitic any uppity black activist who challenged the Liberal Establishment. Unlike Corbyn, Galloway understands the need to control immigration in order to protect jobs, workers’ rights, and public services. Unlike at least this Corbyn, Galloway is critical of much of the anti-industrial policy response to climate change.

Only Roy Jenkins has ever been an MP for all three of Britain’s largest cities of London, Birmingham and Glasgow. Much of his Stechford constituency is now in Yardley. But Jenkins did eventually lose his seat of Glasgow Hillhead to Galloway, who has now been both a London MP and a Glasgow MP, as well as a Bradford one. With its close ties to Ireland, to the Islamic world in general, and to Pakistan in particular, Birmingham is a city made for Galloway.

His triumph at Bradford West was the greatest ever victory, in the world, over the baradari system by which caste, thoroughly un-Islamic though it is, has been kept going for many centuries in Pakistan and among Indian Muslims. That perpetuation lies at the root of the case of Asia Bibi, while the present British Government has relegalised the caste discrimination that the last Labour Government, for all its many faults, had outlawed. Add to all of this the fact that the West Midlands recorded the highest vote of any English region to Leave the EU.

Jess Phillips has got to go, and George Galloway needs to be the next MP for Birmingham Yardley. It is time for George versus the Dragon. We all know who won that one.

David Lindsay is a freelance journalist and an Independent political activist based in Lanchester, County Durham.


  1. One week on, and no denial. He is pretty obviously going to do this. He has certainly not ruled it out.

  2. I think people need to be aware that Corbyn is heavily compromised by the neoliberal EU progressives in the party. He has been subject to extreme pressure from progressives and I think his survival as leader having been demonized by the MSM and the progressives in his own party is quite remarkable. We don’t really know what Corbyn thinks, only what he thinks he can say within the highly precarious position he finds himself in.

    Corbyn should never have agreed to the last election and should have waited for the labour grass roots members to deselect all the Neoliberal progressives that despise the grass roots. Corbyn could have then committed himself to leaving the EU with a WTO no deal and offered voters a far more socially beneficial deal in the next election. He could also commit himself to having the Iraq enquiry reopened with no redaction and a similarly full enquiry into Libya and Syria which does not seek to protect the reputations of inhumane monsters like Blair.

  3. Badger Down says

    “some people are now fourth generation Israeli, so that there is no point in telling anyone to “go home””
    Total illogic there. Why not agree with the “israelis” that it is OK to cleanse a land of the people living there? Just steal it. And where will they go, these “israelis”? To wherever they came from: New Jersey, Poland, Germany, …

    • Israel was created in the same year as the Empire Windrush docked at Tilbury. “Go home”? Think on.

  4. On The World at One, Jess Phillips suggested that she might vote with the Government on Brexit if an approach were to be made. Rory Stewart then confirmed that it would be. By now, it probably has been. George Galloway, you know what you have to do.

  5. Molloy says


    The Galloway Ability To Upset Fasshhitts (One Act)
    ⒸMark and Molloy

    (___someone, on a learning curve, voice from stage left)

    “. . . . .roll on the demise of the neocon project.”


    (___a sensible human being, ideally centre stage, no music)

    . . . .”Who else is going to bring about this demise? The Red Tory Bliarite Backstabbers? The MSM? You?

    I think GG/ Assange/ Snowden/ Craig Murray / genuine alternate media/ Max Blumenthal/ Patrick Henningsey/ Off Guardian/ thousands of others like them may achieve something.
    If they don’t, at least they’ve tried. And they do seem to have the DS fasshhitt powers that be seriously rattled enough to take off the mask and go into overdrive with their propaganda campaigns and censorship and lying and psyops and killing more children.”

    With thanks and Sláinte, Mark


  6. DunGroanin says

    Gorgeous George is a pantomime character, like Fartage and like the newly molded Gollum Stephen Hardly-Lennon…plenty of mouth, no trousers.

    I am certain there would be any number of local people in each constituency, who could be viable candidates to replace the Jess – she can join George and Nigel in their gobshittery on the airwaves, make a perfect fit!

    Santa has promised me a general election for xmas!

    • Molloy says


      DG, my friend —

      “pantomime character” (s) in no way. . . have the ability to disembowel a corrupt DS U$ Congress.

      Better a character than a Red fas$shist instrument of the 0.1% methinks.



      • DunGroanin says

        Molloy last i looked he left the congress with its entrails in situ – what exactly did he change or achieve there? Anything longterm? Anything?
        Cheers – roll on the demise of the neocon project

        • Molloy says


          DG — All the best to you. (video still working okay 5 minutes ago)

          (speaking to U$ Congress, reps for the DS. . . . )

          “Senator, this is the mother of all smokescreens. You are trying to divert attention from the crimes that you supported from the theft of billions of dollars of Iraq’s wealth. Have a look at the real oil for food scandal. Have a look at the first 14 months you were in charge of Baghdad, the first 14 months when 8.8 billion dollars of Iraq’s wealth went missing on your watch. Have a look at the real scandal breaking in the newspapers today, revealed in the earlier testimony in this committee that the biggest sanctions busters were not me, or Russian politicians or French politicians, the real sanction busters were your own companies with the connivance of your own government.”



          ¡No pasarán!


        • mark says

          Who else is going to bring about this demise? The Red Tory Blairite Backstabbers? The MSM? You?

          I think GG/ Assange/ Snowden/ genuine alternate media/ Max Blumenthal/ Patrick Henningsey/ Off Guardian/ thousands of others like them may achieve something. If they don’t, at least they’ve tried. And they do seem to have the powers that be seriously rattled enough to take off the mask and go into overdrive with their propaganda campaigns and censorship.

    • Jim Scott says

      Whatever people think of George he does not throw around misinformation as he does prepare for his debates by properly learning and understanding the subjects he deals with. Another thing that stands out is that he does not pander to the well heeled or for the corporate lobbyists who grease the palm of politicians, instead he fights for the rights of the downtrodden. That he does so vociferously does not concern me and I see it as being a positive quality.

  7. Yarkob says

    Jess Philips is a bigoted, uninformed and very divisive idiot. And just as a sop to those who would call me sexist for speaking truths about a woman, she’d still be an idiot if she were a man.

    • Molloy says


      Yark — Totally Agreed. x a Trillion.


  8. Frankly Speaking says

    Galloway was shockingly turfed out of the Labour Party.

    He is the natural successor to deceased party leader John Smith but was usurped by Tory B.liar.

    He owned the US Congress. He is champion of the non-aligned world. The UK could, with Galloway as Prime Minister, be the independent non-aligned centre of the world.

    Instead we are the obedient poodles of the Neoconservatives and their unipolar worldview. How sad.

  9. Makropulos says

    Jess Phillips is another trying to gain credibilty as a wacky relevant “character” on Have I Got News For You. The above article is fine but I must query this bit:

    “And she has said on Question Time that attacks of the kind seen in Cologne, “happen every week in Birmingham.””

    Should the word “seen” not be in scare quotes?

  10. “Corbyn’s very highly politicised following is largely young and male because it is motivated by rage against the effects of deindustrialisation and against the harvesting of young men in endless, pointless wars.”
    I disagree. The whole “Youthquake” movement credited with boosting Corbyn in the 2017 election has been debunked, it was an imaginary construct of frightened Tories and Liberals who were scared that the “Oh Jeremy Corbyn” chant was becoming too real. Young people haven’t changed and they don’t vote. Corbyn was/is(?) undoubtedly popular with them but they didn’t go out and vote for him in the 2017 election, and nor will they in the next one. Even on the matter of the EU most young people are not connected enough to vote, contrary to what remainers say about old supporters of Brexit all dying and younger voters just coming of age who will save us from ourselves…it’s all wishful thinking, 40 to 50% of 18 to 25 year olds vote. The rise in votes for the 2017 election came from voters aged 30 to 40 and Corbyn’s support rose in every age group other than those over 70. Apparently the biggest shift overall, was in older voters voting Conservative, due to UKIP voters returning to the fold. I would also say that many women support Corbyn, they are less moved by claims that he would tank the economy and they like his policies.

  11. Paula C Williams says

    You’ve got it right about George Galloway,he should be in parliament.He is brilliant. Right about Jess Philips. She is a disfunctional mindless egomaniac. But wrong about Jeremy Corbyn. He has made statements about all the issues,anti-semitism and so on, that the right have tried to defeat him with. He does not get mixed up in unwinnable fights against the dragon of neo-liberalism.This is intelligent strategy. It is Corbyn who will defeat the dragon.

    • Ken Kenn says

      Ah….the Babes of the Blair’s Babes.

      It’s unfair to put the reasons for female Blairites acting as they do down to Women only selections stifling the
      men’s conversations about manly issues.

      Mrs May is a woman and I’m not against her because she is a woman – I’m against her because I am against her politics and policies.

      Ditto with the likes of Jess Philips.

      As we have witnessed over the years with the attacks on Corbyn, the Blairites ( male and female ) had become used to their cosy world of percentages of austerity and siding with the US in attacks ( they are not wars) on the Middle Eastern nations. Add to that the abstention on the Welfare Bill – as they didn’t want to be seen as the party of benefits- are we surprised that a lot of these people have emerged. Most of them come from the Voluntary/charity sector and have never had any contact with Trades Unions or the working class in general. Basically they view themselves as arbiters between the poor/workers and not the advocates of the same when they land in Parliament.

      This is the class chasm between those current politicians and Galloway.

      Jess Philips is only one of many uninformed politicians.

      Male and female.

      Deselection might sort the thing out though.

      • harry stotle says

        Blair was the price Labour paid to overcome 3 terms of Thatcherism although in ’97 it was less evident Tony would turn out to be the money-grabbing, war loving neoliberal he has proved to be.

        Over the last few years the struggle for the soul of party has been fough along the Blair/Corbyn axis.
        In other words supporters have been asking themselves: do they want a Labour party deeply enmeshed with the neocons (with all of the economic and international carnage this inevitably brings) or one that promises a return to core values, and dare I say it, a form of socialism, albeit heavily diluted not seen in Britain since 1945?

        ‘Corbyn’s list’ highlights the various allegiances and needless to say Jess Phillips is in the ‘core negative group’ when it comes to her attitude to his leadership.

        Jess may have some decent qualities but what good are they if the Faustian pact made with Blair is handed over to anotyer tory-lite acolyte such as Chuka the Centerist, Liz Kendall or Yvette Cooper?
        Labour MPs from this side of the party may offer more polished rhetoric than the tories, but in terms of impact on the lives of those who form the bottom third income distribution there is virtually no difference in the way such rhetoric translates into meaningful alternatives.

        If Jess really cares about such people isn’t it time a light went on for her that root and branch change is necessary to reverse Britains 40 year decline into a neoliberal dystopia – I have no idea if Corbyn, or indeed any leader is up to such a momentous task but I am as certain as I can be that the likes of Chuka or those who embrace Blairism certainly aren’t.

  12. Molloy says


    (Stewart Lee tribute gig; using Acocks Green accent). . . . .

    . . . .I like Je$$ Phillips – a lot – probably far too much if I’m really honest – and I accept and apologise for being overcome by a lack of political correctness. I am too fond of Je$$ Phillips for civilised society to cope with.

    However, Owing (accent plus innocence) to Labour Party quotas I’m not officially allowed to comment on anyone who fails to support the bombing of children in Yemen and in Libya; and Iraq.

    Also because of Labour Party protocols for dubious political, coercive institutions unable to support their first ever genuine leader, protocols yet to be announced, I am not even allowed to talk to anybody who subscribes to the recently published (UN; New York, $285 retail) Tony Bliar Handbook of Selfless Inspired Self-Loving Devotion to the Unlawful and awful Unlawfully elected non-racist UK state regime and it’s long forgotten Empire glories of self-less acts towards humankind.

    Protocol also forbids any thought by me or any disrespect and slur by me on any so-called democratic institution which apparently welcomes such an esteemed author as Tony to its cocktail parties.

    So (sighing a lot), with reluctance and a heavy heart, and because if truth be told I actually wanted to join a proper Democratic Socialist party, looking after everybody not the few, and able to properly look after and respect an admirable leader, I am prevented from communicating with Je$$ Phillips.
    And I have to say that on reflection I am reluctant to appear a complete idiot by conveying my nascent unrequited adoration to Je$$ Phillips. But like Je$$ Phillips in her book I can only speak the truth.
    (achingly long pause for looking gormless). . . . .
    . . . .Therefore, please forgive me, Je$$.

    Finally, please accept my sincerest congratulations, Je$$ Phillips, on your appointment as shadow Secretary of State for Children, as from January 2019 in the soon to be proscribed Democratic Unionist Tory party. And on your soon to be annulled elevation to the Nobel WMD Laureateship and the Privy Council, also soon to be a proscribed NGO.

    [E&OE; copyrights Molloy Inc. . . With thanks to my old pals and Bomb Eh’s Stewart Lee and Chris Morris, ¡No pasarán!]


  13. mark says

    It would be great if GG could get back into Parliament. He could have made a major contribution there to issues like Skripal, recent Syrian Gas Hoaxes, Yemen, the Anti Semitic Smears, Russiagate and Brexit, which largely went by default in his absence. They broke the mould when they made GG. We are lucky to have a small number of exceptional, principled individuals like him who cannot be intimidated or bought off, Assange, Snowden, Eva Bartlett, Vanessa Beeley, Chris Hedges and a few others. They are worth their weight in gold. The Establishment tried to smear GG with forged documents from Iraq, but he sued the Deep State MSM mouthpieces on several occasions and won very substantial damages. This was high risk – libel cases can be difficult to win and can leave you bankrupt with millions in legal costs. His appearance before the US Senate was classic. The MSM tried to set him up with their “Fake Sheikh” provocateur making anti semitic remarks – and this blew up in their faces. He has been threatened and attacked by Zionist thugs.

    It would be the icing on the cake if he could get rid of the loathsome Phillips at the same time. She is the epitome of all that is wrong with the Labour Party, or at least the 80% of it made up by the Red Tory Blairite Backstabbers, reptiles like Bradshaw, Bryant, Gapes, Benn and so many others. But for them old Jezza would now be in 10 Downing Street – but the prospect of that terrifies them even more than it does the Tories, the City, Deep State, Spooks, Board of Deputies and MSM.

    • Maggie says

      @ Mark,
      I don’t know if you watched Question time when he faced a hand picked, completely Hostile Jewish audience. The hatred against him was palpable and embarrassing. It was clear as day just what the Palestinians are up against.

      Here’s WHY George will never be heard in mainstream, or be given a fair hearing.
      If only Britons knew…
      This article about the British charitable organisation, the Campaign against Anti-Semitism (CAA), and its officers, Gideon Falter and Steve Silverman, examines events in England but ought to serve as a cautionary message for Canadians, Americans et al..

      This article will delve into the corrosive methods of the CAA; review the manner in which this ultra Zionist group “discovers” anti-Semitic “incidents”; examine their inaccurate statistical “studies” and see how they seek to intimidate Political Parties, venues, (David Ike fits here..) the press and others; and look at the court cases which the CAA has prosecuted, in the guise of fighting anti-Semitism. The CAA has managed to manoeuvre British society into ABDICATING ITS CORE LIBERAL VALUES, INITMIDATE THE PROSECUTORIAL AND JUDICIAL SYSTEM AND SILENCE CRITICISM OF ISREAL in both social media and the mainstream media.

      The CAA does not just attempt to LIMIT speech; it openly follows a scorched earth policy “that if someone commits an anti-Semitic act in the UK (including criticism of Israel)” the CAA “ENSURES RUINOUS CONSEQUENCES, be they CRIMINAL, PROFESSIONAL, FINANCIAL OR REPUTAITONAL”.
      For example, in the last 18 months Britain’s largest political party, the Labour Party, has suspended and expelled over 100 of its members for expressing their views on Israel or Jewish history. Presumably these dismissals act as a DETERRENT to others who might also wish to express their opinions.
      Hard as it is to believe, in 21st century Britain people have been imprisoned for trying to be funny…
      The CAA’s “success” in Britain is not irrelevant to Americans.
      Despite the First Amendment, rules limiting speech have been creeping into our society, notwithstanding our constitutional protections.
      Organisations not unlike CAA have been operating in the US for some time. In South Carolina ‘criticising Israel is essentially prohibited’ on public university campuses, and in other states support for BDS (the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement) will prohibit one from getting a Government job or contract. Similar laws have been proposed in the US Congress.
      It is crucial that we resist this slide into controlled speech at the expense of our crucial values of free expression and tolerance.
      The case of Rowan Laxton
      In 2006 Rowan Laxton was using an exercise bike ALONE on the mezzanine floor of a London gym when he saw a television report about an elderly Palestinian man killed by the Israeli assault on Gaza. Laxton allegedly exclaimed: “F…..g Israelis! F…..g Jews!” Gideon Falter (now head of the CAA) and William Lemaine, who were on a LOWER FLOOR USING WEIGHTS, claimed to have overheard Laxton, and complained to staff at the gym.
      The police were going to let Laxton off with a caution but, before it could be arranged, Falter found out that Laxton was a senior Foreign Office official and brought the story to half a dozen newspapers.
      The police decided to proceed with a prosecution.
      Laxton was initially found guilty of “using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour… within the hearing or sight of a person LIKELY to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby…” aggravated by using abusive words that had a racial or ethnic element. Laxton was fined and removed from his Foreign Office position.
      Laxton exercised his right to an appeal and a re-hearing wherein the Crown Court found that Laxton did not say “f…..g Jews”, the comment on which the prosecution was based and which he had always denied. The court also found, as an alternative ground, that Laxton would have thought no one was within earshot.
      The Daily Mail played a KEY ROLE in ensuring that the case received national attention and went to trial, but seems not to have reported the appeal and acquittal at all.
      It is an open question of HOW Falter heard Laxton’s alleged outburst, if at the time NO ONE WAS WITHIN EARSHOT of Laxton. One reasonable assumption is that the court did not believe that Falter actually heard Laxton’s statement.
      Eight years after the Laxton incident… Gideon Falter founded the Campaign Against Anti-Semitsm, a hardcore Zionist charity that advocates zero tolerance of, and vows to ensure “criminal, professional and reputational consequences”, to those it decides are anti-Semites.

      Stephen Silverman is the CAA’s “Director of Investigations and Enforcement” and has DEDICATED MUCH OF HIS TIME TO RUINING THE INTELLECTUAL AND ARTISTIC CAREERS OF OTHERS. Silverman is himself a musician wannabe, and runs a music school in a London suburb.
      In the last few years Silverman and the CAA have engaged in a relentless assault against Artists, Intellectuals, Religious leaders and elected Politicians operating in or visiting England. The “Director of Investigations” does not like ex-London Mayor Ken Livingstone, nor does he approve of a list of Academics or Church ministers who care for Human Rights or DARE TO DISAGREE WITH ISRAHELL. The self-appointed inquisitor DESPISES the hugely popular Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Silverman has made a number of attempts to ruin the music careers of both Alison Chabloz and Gilad Atzmon. In addition, Silverman takes it upon himself to write and call music venues demanding that they cancel Atzmon concerts claiming that Atzmon is a notorious anti-Semite. (I wonder if it was he who was responsible for having David Ike conference cancelled in Leicester?) Stephen Silverman, was exposed in open court in December 2016 as having been the Twitter troll @bedlamjones. As a Zionist troll, Silverman abused anti-Zionists, particularly women. His sadistic posts called for arrest and imprisonment in response what he considered to be “anti-Semitic” comments.
      Silverman has also determined that Gordon Nardell, the man who has taken on the unenviable job of policing anti-Semitism within the Labour Party, is insufficiently sensitive to anti-Semitism. Apparently, according to Silverman, “Nardell has also turned his sights on Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, stating that our work to combat hatred directed at Jews by Labour members is “revolting” and results in anti-Semitism being “abused and belittled”.
      For Nardell’s sin of distrusting the CAA, the CAA has demanded that “An independent and transparent disciplinary process… be instituted in the Labour Party”. The CAA’s website does not explain why the Labour Party need justify its own campaign against anti-Semitism to the CAA.

      What is anti-Semitism?
      UNESCO’s DEFINITION of racism is that it is “A theory of races hierarchy which argues that the superior race should be preserved and should dominate the others. Racism can also be an unfair attitude towards another ethnic group. Finally racism can also be defined as a violent hostility against a social group.”
      Whereas, THE TRADITIONAL DEFINITION of anti-Semitism is the “criticising of, or discriminating against Jews for being Jews”. This definition is not substantially different from UNESCO’s definition of racism.
      However, despite the fact that enforcing hate speech laws based on a traditional definition of racism would protect Jews as well as others, in December 2016 the United Kingdom followed other countries in adopting the “INTERNATIONAL DEFINITION of anti-Semitism”, which begins by saying: “Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred towards Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed towards Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, towards Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
      The new “INTERNATIONAL DEFINITION” is troubling because it specifically targets speech and THOUGHTS and fails to define what a “certain” perception of Jews is, and an expression of hatred towards Jews is cited, not to make the definition more precise… but only as one possible example.
      It is well worth reviewing the “examples of anti-Semitism” included in the “international definition” which are extremely broad and include, among other things, ”Accusing a Jewish person of ”valuing Israel or his fellow Jews over his home country” and the seemingly paradoxical provision prohibiting speech ”denying that Jews have the right to self-determination through Israel.”
      But if racism against one group is to be fought on a broader basis than other forms of racism, that extra protection ought to be to aid a group uniquely needing the state’s protection – an allegedly poor, downtrodden and persecuted group…..
      It is of note that, in contrast to the downtrodden, Jews as a group have been extraordinarily successful at ”utilising the media and the courts” and obtaining the power to “Hold the feet of the government to the fire”.
      If UNESCO’S DEFINITION at defining racism as a universal problem, the “INTERNATIONAL DEFINITION” adheres to the idea that Jews are not a part of the universal, they are ”somehow different, their plight is unique.”
      Why do the Jews in particular need a broader definition of racial hatred?
      Why do Jews see a need to create a category of hatred that applies only to them? What is lacking in the UNESCO definition that is covered by the “international” one?
      The answer is that the “INTERNATIONAL DEFINITION” serves to restrain speech and restrict thought. It conflates the Jewish State of Israel with Jews as it vets a range of discourses such as criticism of Israeli POLITICS, Jewish CULTURE, Jewish HISTORY and Zionist IDEOLOGY.
      It is not surprising that this definition is espoused by some Zionist institutions. However, its adoption by so many countries is perplexing and begs an explanation. In a world in which free speech, freedom of association and freedom of religion are valued, there is a real question of why such a broad definition of anti-Semitism is appropriate and what exactly it is designed to accomplish?
      Then there is the CAA, for whom the international definition is only a starting point… . Their accusations of anti-Semitism go beyond even the very broad and over-inclusive definition of the “international definition.”
      If you find anti-Semitism in t-shirts, major party political gatherings or stupid pet videos, then the definition is very expansive indeed.
      Why would an organisation dedicated to fighting anti-Semitism be so interested in finding anti-Semitism in every possible utterance?
      It is clear that the CAA wants to stop any discussion of Jews, Israel or Jewish history in any but its prescribed manner. In its aggressive policing of speech, the CAA and others work to ENFORCE Jewish power precisely as it is defined by Gilad Atzmon: “the power to suppress criticism of Jewish power”.

      Freedom of t-shirt
      While freedom of speech may be evaporating throughout the English-speaking world, at least we are assured that freedom of t-shirt is still protected in England.
      Last year, the CAA’s website bemoaned that Edinburgh-based law graduate Sophie Stephenson won’t face criminal charges for wearing a Hezbollah t-shirt.

      The CAA wrote that: “On 1 July 2017, Stephenson tweeted a photograph of herself wearing a Hizballah t-shirt, explaining: “Went out to dinner with my family tonight wearing a Hizballah t-shirt.” And then, even worse, Stephenson confirmed: “I have a flag too.”
      The CAA, in its zeal to fight anti-Semitism, reported Stephenson to the Police, alleging that she had committed an offense under Section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000. But despite the CAA’s urging, Scottish Police declined to act against the young “rebel”.
      The CAA “Considered undertaking a private prosecution” against Stephenson. However, its website lamented, “We were unable to secure enough funding to do so”. Following its report of the supposedly anti-Semitic/terrorist-loving Stephenson, the CAA called upon the public to “Consider making a monthly donation to help fund Campaign Against Anti-Semitism” presumably to allow it to CONTINUE TO HARASS BRITONS, accusing them of anti-Semitic behaviour, and interfering with their elementary freedoms including the right to wear rebellious t-shirts. Disturbingly, asking for donations in this context suggests that the CAA is attempting to cash in from its dubious anti-Semitic claims. Not exactly the ethical conduct you might expect of a charity.
      Methodology, it is not!
      The CAA claims to run “METHODOLOGICAL” “research into anti-Semitism in British political Parties”. Trolling and spying on elected British Politicians on social media and public meetings, the CAA keeps a “record” of allegedly “anti-Semitic discourse and discourse that enables anti-Semitism, by officials and candidates in political parties”.
      This means that a Jewish organisation with a clear political agenda endeavours to monitor the British Political discourse to RESTRAIN certain political opinions. The CAA’s actions prosecuting its farfetched “findings” are dangerous enough, but more troubling is its success in TERRORISING the British political universe into compliance with its dictates….
      What are some “examples” of discourse that the CAA has claimed enable anti-Semitism and the dissemination of anti-Semitic ideas?
      Ken Loach
      Internationally acclaimed film-maker and Labour supporter Ken Loach told the BBC’s Daily Politics programme that he had been attending Labour meetings for 50 years and had “never in that whole time heard a single anti-Semitic word or a racist word”, and that allegations of anti-Semitism were a FALLACY “without validation or any evidence”.
      The CAA claimed that Loach’s statement brought to light a “Discourse that enables anti-Semitism and the dissemination of anti-Semitic ideas.”
      How is Loach’s statement racist? Does it target Jews, identify Jews as a collective or advocate discrimination against Jews or anyone else?
      Is there even a criminal category or a showing of bias in which “not witnessing” conduct implicates one in that very conduct?
      How does not witnessing anti-Semitism make one into an anti-Semite?
      Does not witnessing a murder makes one a murderer?
      Under the CAA’s “rationale” anyone who fails to see the anti-Semitism, is an anti-Semite.
      Diane Abbott
      Abbott ran foul of the CAA when she said: “It’s a smear to say that Labour has a problem with anti-Semitism. It is something like a smear against ordinary party members.” The CAA claimed that “Abbott’s comments were widely condemned. The overwhelming majority of UK Jewish Community Bodies have expressed public concern about anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, including the chief rabbi.” Whether or not this statement is accurate, how is it that Abbott’s statement was misinterpreted as a criticism of Jews when it is clearly a defence of the Labour Party?
      Ken Livingstone
      The CAA has a long file on former London Mayor Livingstone, beginning in 1982 when the paper, the Labour Herald, of which Livingstone was co-editor, ran an unfavorable cartoon of the then Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin.
      According to the CAA, Livingstone’s most egregious anti-Semitic remark was his claim that in 1932 (Hitler came to power in 1933) Hitler had championed Jewish emigration to Israel (actually, then Palestine) and was “supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews”.
      The United States Holocaust Museum website generally supports Livingstone’s statement and reveals that until 1941, Germany encouraged Jews to emigrate and that 60,000 Jews left Germany/Austria for Palestine, a number second only to the number of Jews who went to the United States.
      Livingstone rejected claims that he had brought the Labour Party into disrepute and said he was not guilty of anti-Semitism, but resigned from the party and acknowledged that his comments had upset Jews and offended others. “I am truly sorry for that,” he said.
      Some of Livingstone’s critics were NOT SATISFIED with his apology for his truthful statement. Ruth Smeeth, a Labour lawmaker, described his behaviour as “grossly offensive to British Jews”. MP Smeeth’s reaction is bizarre.
      Is it anti-Semitic for Livingstone to discuss Jewish history?
      The Transfer Agreement between Hitler’s Germany and the Zionist Congress may be embarrassing for some Jews, but how is recounting history hate speech?
      MP Smeeth, the CAA and others claiming to be offended managed by ousting Livingstone to enforce their ironclad rule that CERTAIN Jewish history is “off limits”.
      War on Labour:
      Following its anti-methodology, the CAA came to the conclusion that the British Labour Party is “eight times worse than any other party”. Not 5, 6 or 8.3 but exactly 8. What “evidence” supports this “finding?”
      The British media have failed to do their job of investigating alleged incidents of anti-Semitism, and instead accept the CAA’s claims without questions.
      The CAA’s website publishes an “ENEMIES LIST” of sorts, chronicling the alleged anti-Semitism of 39 members of the Labour Party. A striking number of the CAA’s complaints address statements about Israel, not about Israel as Jews, but about the actions of the country.
      To date, about 150 members of the Labour Party have been expelled for alleged anti-Semitism and there is a backlog of cases.
      Dubious cases such as those cited here are treated by the CAA as “anti-Semitic incidents” that help the CAA feed the idea that England is rife with anti-Semitism. The British media have failed to do their job of investigating alleged incidents of anti-Semitism, and instead accept the CAA’s claims without questions.
      Fiddling with numbers’
      Fiddler on the Roof may be emblematic of Eastern European Jewish folklore but fiddling with numbers is a symptom of contemporary Zionist politics in general and of the CAA in particular. he CAA compiles and disseminates information on anti-Semitism, basing its claims on methodology that is patently unreliable.
      The “anti-Semitism audit” produced by the CAA purports to track incidents of anti-Semitism on an annual basis. The audit is a deeply flawed document, relying on data known to be unreliable and subjected to NO proper statistical analysis.
      Even the CAA’s use of the term “audit” is inappropriate. An “audit” is defined as “an official inspection of an… organisation’s accounts, typically by an independent body”.
      The CAA has no official or professional status as an auditor, nor would its methods be accepted by anyone in a position to conduct a professional audit.
      The CAA has been advised by Police Forces that comparing police reports across jurisdictions and years ‘leads to misleading results.’ The CAA’s anti-Semitism audit was heavily criticised in the Jewish media by statistics experts who noted that the CAA’s “methodology” was “flawed”, “amateurish” and “misleading”. But none of that stopped the CAA from promoting its manufactured “findings” in the mainstream media……
      The CAA based its audit on gathering data from the Police?? But the CAA doesn’t enjoy free access to police files. Instead, it uses different techniques to gather information. This haphazard “methodology” creates crucial problems:
      1. Police forces in different regions of Britain use different standards to gather data regarding hate crimes.
      2. Police forces in Britain are presently in the process of revising how they collect their hate crime records so that data from one year may show different results than data from a different year even if the number of hate crimes remains constant.
      3. The CAA basically gathers information on the volume of incidents recorded that IT CONSIDERS to be anti-Semitic. But the CAA itself is actively engaged in increasing this volume. It frequently reports incidents to the police and urges other members of the Jewish community to follow suit.
      An interested body that actively contributes to the rise of reported anti-Semitic incidents cannot also claim to be objective in its “audit” that measures the rise of anti-Semitsm.
      4. While the CAA’s audit of anti-Semitism shows a nationwide rise of 14.9% in anti-Semitic incidents between 2016 and 2017, this is based on data gathered by the CAA half of which shows wild year to year fluctuations of up to 1050 %. Such fluctuations defy any rationale.
      These statistical anomalies beg careful analysis that the CAA not only fails to apply – the CAA fails to address this drastic shift in number of reported incidents.
      The CAA’s study aggregates divergent data collected in different ways and calls that an “audit” of anti-Semitism in Britain. The flawed study was released to the British public with the help of the disgracefully gullible British media. The BBC, Sky, the Guardian and others reported the amateurish statistical “audit” to the British public WITHOUT RAISING A SINGLE QUESTION AS TO ITS RELIABILITY.
      The 2016 audit;
      In July 2017 the CAA published its 2016 annual audit of anti-Setmitic crimes in the UK. The audit’s first pages raise serious questions as to its reliability:
      On page 4 it reads: “2016 was the worst year on record for anti-Semitic crimes”, reporting a 14.9 % rise in crimes “targeting Jews” nationwide. But a few lines below, the audit states that during the same period “violent anti-Semitic crimes fell by 44.7%”. This difference in incidences appears contradictory…..
      The CAA admits that it doesn’t have an explanation for the drop in violent crimes: “We have considered various explanations; however at this point we do not find them persuasive.” (page 6). This drop occurred even though the CAA INFLATED the number of “violent incidents” by expanding the Home Office definition of violent incidents. (page 16) The CAA defined violent anti-Semitic acts as the combination of the Home Office categories of “homicide” or “violence with injury”, and the heretofore non-violent “assault without injury” and “racially or religiously aggravated assault without injury”.
      This means that the audit conveyed the good news that, even using the CAA’s inflated category, the number of “violent anti-Semitic incidents” DROPPED. Strangely, the Jewish pressure group does not write that the drop in violent anti-Semitic crime is a POSITIVE finding.
      Fishing for J words;
      Since the CAA doesn’t have an access to each police force’s records, it derives its statistics from police reports. When a police force does not flag anti-Semitic Some police forces made the CAA aware that their KEYWORDS method is not a reliable way to find anti-Semitic crime. “Not all incidents where ‘Jew’ is mentioned are anti-Semitic,” wrote the Northumbria police force. It also refers to the CAA exercise as a “fishing expedition”. The CAA ignored this caution and simply used as the number of incidents the data they had been warned were incorrect. incidents, the CAA asks that police force to conduct a keyword search of its files: <<>>
      there is more to this article, if you can stomach it.
      It is jaw dropping but extremely informative:

      • Molloy says


        Maggie, great stuff.

        Have we had words before about prolixity?!

        If youse ever near Hartpury (Glos) nice PH lovely garden, do let me know.

        ¡No pasarán!


      • Dear Maggie. I reblogged this article and also your comment(at the bottom and in blue italic) but without divulging your name. I did, however, suggest anyone who enjoyed your comment as I did refer to the article link repeated under your words.
        If you have a blog, any chance you might reveal it?
        Very best, Susan O’Neill:)

        • Maggie says

          Thank you Susan,
          it is really good to have positive feedback. I think it is so important to share the ‘information’ far and world wide, because we all KNOW that something isn’t right, but could never actually put a finger on when and how it all went wrong, even though I have been studying History and Geo Politics for hundreds of years. :-))
          Then I discovered this article and EVERYTHING FELL INTO PLACE..

          I will no longer stand back and let good men and women be vilified unjustly.
          It is a case of ”if the cap fits wear it” and the witch hunters wear very big caps.

      • mark says

        In France, youngsters have been prosecuted for wearing BDS T shirts.
        In the US, Zionist organisations are currently trying to sneak through Congress legislation hidden in other Bills making support for BDS illegal and punishable with 20 years’ imprisonment and/ or $250,000 fine.
        Ordinary Americans seeking welfare payments after being made homeless in recent hurricanes, were required to sign undertakings not to support any BDS action to obtain any assistance.
        A lot of the figures produced showing “horrifying epidemics of anti Semitism” are highly dubious. In the case of the US, it includes 163 bomb threats to synagogues/ Jewish centres made by a young Jewish man in Israel who has since been prosecuted. It also includes similar threats from a black man who was trying to frame a girl friend who had jilted him out of revenge. A young Jewish woman university student complained that her campus accommodation was being daubed with anti semitic graffiti. The university put a hidden camera in place, and the woman was caught spraying graffiti on her own accommodation.
        There was a similar “horrifying epidemic” in France, where Jewish graves were defaced and damaged in cemeteries. The offender was eventually caught and found to be a young Jewish man.
        Many of these reported incidents are politically motivated hoaxes designed to suppress criticism of Israeli criminality and atrocities. Others are just cases of inadequates and pathetic losers with spray cans gaining some kind of vicarious importance and feelings of power by stirring up trouble and hysteria.

    • Molloy says


      A big welcome too to songwriter, unwittingly, for the BNP, Florenc$e Welc$h.

      You’re not really a supporter of George, are you?

      The British Empire paid bully boys were renowned for, using bottles, anally raping men and woman with bottles in Kenya. Early 1960’s, look it up if you will.

      Great lyrics, Florence. Not.

      And shame on you for simultaneously insulting BAME people.

      The UK public await your justification and denial.


    • BigB says

      Kill him? As in “Ali, bomaye!” chanted before the Rumble in the Jungle?

  14. harry stotle says

    Find me a single clip of George Galloway discussing political issues that does not emenate fairness, decency and a pugnacious intelligence, and I’ll bet his detractors have to search long hard to find it.
    Quite simply he remains is a beacon of light, and perhaps a symbol of what our politicians could be like if they actually gave a moments thought to those outside the Westminster bubble, financial world or special interest groups.

    I can’t add to anything further to David Lindsay’s withering assessment of the abysmal Jess Phillips except to say I doubt if she could evicerate neoliberals deep in the heart of the US establishment with quite the same panache that George Galloway did.

    By the way George Galloway is seeking contributions for an expose of the David Kelly case (via twitter) – if he reaches his target and the film is anywhere near as good as the one he made about Blair it should be a doozy.

  15. Molloy says


    David — Excellent piece. Agreed x million.

    No room in Birmingham for any relative of Herman Flash Goerring (will spell check that laters!).

    What an insult to women Jess is! So sad.


  16. I’ve just shared this widely on social media with the following words: “A lot of people think David Lindsay if off the wall, a lot of people think George Galloway is off the wall too but frankly there are too many snippets of common sense and calling out the Emperor’s New Clothes here for me not to post this! As somebody who has already been expelled from the Labour Party under the Ian McNicolo regime, I don’t run that risk. Liberate Birmingham Yardley from Jess Phillips by any means necessary!” I am also somebody who fought the right-wing Labour machine in County Durham and won.

  17. Okulo says

    George Galloway certainly has the gift of the gab but he is also vey reliant on his loud voice and mute button to win arguments. I have been a big fan but despite sharing his opinion on many things, including Brexit, there are many topics on which he is ignorant and unwilling to listen and as such, he shares a great deal with Jess Phillips. On balance, I suppose I’d rather see the back of her even if it means that it is more difficult to avoid George Galloway; she is beyond awful. I pity any men, particularly white men, in her constituency who turn up to her surgeries.

    • bc says

      If it meant you would have to hear more from George Galloway it would mean having to hear more truth than you would hear in a hundred years of listening to 90% of Labour’s current Mps and their allies.


Comments are closed.