All posts by

Democracy and the Labour Party, Witch-hunts and expulsions

NEC Elections: Now democratise the party!

The election of Christine Shawcroft (pictured) as chair of Labour’s disputes panel gives some hope that Jeremy Corbyn and his allies might finally put an end to the witch-hunt, says Carla Roberts

(this article also appeared in the Weekly Worker)

The Momentum-supported candidates in the elections for the three newly-created positions on Labour’s national executive committee were always going to be shoe-in. This is good for the left as a whole – which is why we recommended a critical vote for the Momentum team of Jon Lansman, Yasmine Dar and Rachel Garnham.

As expected, it was a clean sweep for the trio, with Dar collecting 68,388 votes, Lansman 65,163 and Garnham 62,982. The closest to them came comedian Eddie Izzard, with 39,908 votes – boosted no doubt by his celebrity status and apolitical ‘naive nice guy’ unity-mongering (in reality, of course, he is firmly on the Labour right).

This Momentum victory underscores (again) the new reality of today’s Labour Party: the new mass membership is miles to the left of the Parliamentary Labour Party and the ‘old guard’: in any clean electoral contest, we will wipe the floor with the right. Which is why they fight so dirty, of course. And which is why, despite rightwingers like Tom Watson letting it be known that Jeremy Corbyn’s opponents “are no longer prepared to challenge his authority and believe he has won the right to make the changes he desires”, 1)The Guardian January 15 we do not believe a word of it.

The civil war in the Labour Party continues to rage. The ongoing witch-hunt against the left in the party proves that as much as the media panic in the aftermath of Christine Shawcroft’s election as new chair of the important disputes panel (a democratic process that was, in the words of the Daily Mail2)Daily Mail January 17, “a coup by the hard left”). Then there are the newly-raised “concerns” that Jeremy Corbyn is “too old” to become the next prime minister and, of course, the rather empty threats by “moderate MPs” to “quit and sit as independents in the Commons if they are deselected, as the left tightens its grip on the party”, as The Times warns in the aftermath of the NEC election.3)The Times January 15

The latter is not much of a threat, of course, as there is little chance that they would rewin their old seats as independents. It is more of a warning shot by the PLP majority to urge Corbyn not to go ‘too far’.

And, unfortunately, he does still listen. Both Jon Lansman and Jeremy Corbyn have firmly come out against mandatory reselection of parliamentary candidates. It is also not part of the “remit” of the so-called Corbyn review, despite some newspapers claiming the opposite. Yes, Lansman might write a supportive tweet on the rare occasion of a rightwing MP having been deselected in favour of a Corbyn supporter. But since Corbyn’s election as leader, he and his allies have abandoned the fight to enshrine this principled and decades-old demand of the Labour left within Labour’s rulebook. And that despite the fact that it used to be the key demand of the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy, in which Lansman played a leading role for many years. Now that he is finally in a position to make an actual difference, Lansman merely supports moves to raise the threshold an MP needs to be automatically reselected by the local membership and affiliates from the current 50% to 66%.

It seems Corbyn and his advisors still seem to believe that by accommodating to the right on this issue (as on many others) they will finally get their ‘party unity’ with the PLP and the right. It will not happen, comrades. Instead of openly fighting for the kind of blindingly obvious changes that are needed to enshrine the ‘Corbyn effect’ into the rulebook, they are barely tinkering at the edges.

The fact that there is a review of party rules is good, of course. But just take a look at the harmless 32 questions: anybody interested in transforming the party will tear their hair out in despair. (Nevertheless, Labour Against the Witchhunt has managed to squeeze its demand for an end to the automatic and instant suspensions and expulsions into one of the more open-ended questions. We strongly recommend Labour Party members, branches and CLPs use LAW’s submission).

Poor choice

Our comrades on the party leadership would also do well to overhaul their modus operandi when it comes to choosing candidates for important committees like the NEC. It is no surprise that only around 100,000 members voted in this election. When Jeremy Corbyn defended his leadership against Owen Smith, more than 500,000 cast their vote.

There clearly is a serious lack of enthusiasm for the three Momentum candidates. While virtually nobody knows anything about Rachel Garnham, Yasmine Dar is now primarily known for being one of the main speakers at an event in February 2017 in Manchester which “celebrated” the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran, her hair modestly covered by a hijab.4)https://order-order.com/people/yasmine-dar Most notorious is, of course, Momentum honcho Jon Lansman. Almost exactly a year ago, during the now infamous ‘Lansman coup’, he simply shut down all Momentum’s democratic structures and imposed his own constitution on the organisation without any debate.

The latest example of Lansman’s undemocratic approach is the high-handed way in which the man has just announced the dissolution of Momentum Youth and Students. Naturally, there was no transparency with this last bureaucratic move. The letter from Lansman announcing the organisation’s abrupt demise simply states that “Momentum’s constitution does not specifically provide for the continuation of the entity previously known as ‘Momentum Youth and Students (MYS)’”. He notes “with regret” that some of these young scamps have “at times … brought Momentum into disrepute” with some silly baiting of opponents and intemperate language.

So how did these three very poor candidates end up on the Labour Party NEC? As we have reported, there have been serious democratic problems in how they were chosen: On October 4, all Momentum members were invited to submit their application for the three seats. And by October 9, the lucky ones had already been selected: members were informed that a total of 48 applications had been received, which were examined by “a panel of [national coordinating group] officers”, who then “interviewed seven candidates”, before settling on four that were sent “for recommendation to the Centre Left Grassroots Alliance (CLGA)”. All within four days.

The Huffington Post reported at the time that “it is understood that Lansman was the popular choice among many.” Popular among whom, exactly? Maybe the people working in Momentum’s office, being on Jon Lansman’s payroll and all that … Momentum members at least were not asked. A meme was quickly doing the rounds, showing as first “criterion” on the application form the question, “Are you called Jon?”

Add to that the mysterious nature of the CLGA itself – essentially a lash-up of Momentum and the CLPD with right-leaning candidates – and what we saw was a dodgy backroom deal, done totally over the heads of Momentum members. As if that process had not been mocked enough, ‘Team Momentum’ is employing exactly the same method for the next NEC elections. In the summer, the whole NEC is up for re-election and Labour Party members will have a chance to elect all nine NEC members in the constituency section.

The decision has already been taken that “the final CLGA slate will include at least five women and two BAME candidates, and will improve representation in geographical regions currently underrepresented on the NEC”. Who makes these decisions? At what meetings? Well, we know.

Witch-hunt

Readers will know that Ann Black has been removed as chair of the disputes panel by the NEC, its pro-Corbyn majority increased following the election. And deservedly so: she was instrumental in keeping the witch-hunt against the left alive, voting to refer various cases of members suspended for trumped-up anti-Semitism charges to the national constitutional committee (which deals with cases that the disputes panel feels deserve closer investigation). She voted in favour of the suspension of Wallasey CLP and Brighton District Labour Party.

Black was also in favour of the early ‘freeze date’ in the 2016 leadership elections: instead of the six months of membership required by the rule book, the January 12 freeze date actually meant that members had to be in the party for almost eight months before they were given a vote in the 2016 contest, which took place between August 22 and September 21. Thousands of members who had joined in that period – most no doubt in order to support Corbyn against the ongoing attacks by the right and the entire establishment – were disenfranchised.

But we should also remember that Ann Black was firmly and uncritically supported by the CLGA at the last NEC elections. Surely, she has not suddenly become a rightwinger with Jeremy Corbyn’s election? Her blog is still being advertised on the CLGA’s rudimentary website – in fact, she is the only NEC member mentioned.17 Though that perhaps says more about the nature of the CLGA itself than Ann Black.

So does her removal signal the end of the witch-hunt? Well, we are not holding our breath. Of course, we welcome the election of Christine Shawcroft – she is undoubtedly to the left of Black. But that is not saying much. Yes, she acted as “silent witness” in Tony Greenstein’s investigation hearing more than 20 months ago and there is hope that as someone who has been on the receiving end of disputes panel decision-making herself (she was temporarily suspended from the party in 2015 for supporting the former Tower Hamlets mayor, Lutfur Rahman) she will make sure that cases are at least dealt with swiftly.

But she is also known for having voted in favour of referring Jackie Walker’s suspension on trumped-up charges of anti-Semitism to the NCC. Having been a long-standing member of the Labour Representation Committee, she split in 2012 because of the organisation’s “ultra-leftism” and helped to found a second magazine with the name Labour Briefing. 5)http://labourpartymarxists.org.uk/an-irresponsible-split The one which is now officially published by the LRC was becoming too leftwing for her and her five co-thinkers. Shawcroft has also been on the wrong side during the ‘Lansman coup’ and – in a rather pathetic effort to prove that Lansman does not run Momentum – agreed to become the ‘director’ of the Momentum company on the very day of that coup: January 10 2017.

Even worse though is Jon Lansman’s record when it comes to the witch-hunt. He matters, because he is now perhaps Corbyn’s most important ally on the NEC. In his efforts to appease the right in the party, Lansman got rid of Jackie Walker as vice chair of Momentum after she was suspended from Labour on false allegations of anti-Semitism. He has repeatedly spoken about the Labour Party’s anti-Semitism “problem” and says he is a friend of the Jewish Labour Movement. He saw to it that Momentum’s constitution – written by his lawyer son, we understand – stipulated that all those who have been expelled from the Labour Party (for example for their alleged “support” for groups like the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty, Socialist Appeal or Labour Party Marxists) are now also barred from joining Momentum.

Rhea Wolfson is another CLGA-supported member on the NEC who does not deserve the support of the left. She is a member of the pro-Zionist Jewish Labour Movement and also voted to refer Jackie Walker’s suspension to the NCC. At that meeting, she apparently gave a passionate account of the anti-Semitism she has experienced (not by comrade Walker, it should be added). But it was probably enough to swing some other votes, perhaps even that of comrade Shawcroft.

All this underlines that we must continue to offer critical support to the leftwing NEC majority from a position of political independence. We still have a long way to go to transform the party. All the more important that organisations like Labour Against the Witchhunt continue to put pressure not just on the right and the bureaucracy of the Labour Party – but also on Jeremy Corbyn and his allies on the NEC.

Yes, we welcome the election of Christine Shawcroft as chair of the disputes panel and the replacement of Ann Black. But more is needed: now that there is a clear left majority on the NEC, the witch-hunt against the left needs to come to a swift end. All NEC members should be urged to support the following demands to begin the process of democratising the Labour Party:

  1. A moratorium on any new NCC witch-hunt cases.
  2. The withdrawal of all outstanding NCC witch-hunt cases.
  3. The immediate implementation of the Chakrabarti report recommendations on Labour’s disciplinary procedures in respect of natural justice and due process.

References

References
↑1 The Guardian January 15
↑2 Daily Mail January 17
↑3 The Times January 15
↑4 https://order-order.com/people/yasmine-dar
↑5 http://labourpartymarxists.org.uk/an-irresponsible-split
Democracy and the Labour Party, Momentum

NEC elections: Good, but…

The mood music in the mainstream press was always that the Momentum- supported candidates in the elections for Labour’s National Executive Committee were a virtual shoe-in. This is good for the left as a whole – which is why LPM recommended a critical, but unconditional vote for the Momentum team of Jon Lansman (pictured), Yasmine Dar and Rachel Garnham.

It’s a clean sweep for the trio, with Dar collecting 68,388 votes; Garnham 62,982 and Lansman 65,163. The closest rightest was comedian Eddie Izard, with 39,908 – boosted no doubt by his celebrity status and apolitical ‘naive nice guy’ unity mongering (in reality, of course, he is firmly on the right of the party).

This Momentum victory underscores (again) the new reality of today’s Labour Party and will install a stable left majority on the party’s leadership. The new mass membership is miles to the left of the Parliamentary Labour Party and the ‘old guard’: in any clean electoral contest, we will wipe the floor with the right. Which is why they fight so dirty, of course.

The political hygiene of the right need not detain us long; as some of our more angular LPM comrades have summarised it, it’s clear they have the morality of “shithouse rats”. Our problem is that the left is rather less than squeaky clean itself.

As we have reported, there have been serious issues with the lack of transparency in how this Momentum NEC team was chosen: On October 2, all Momentum members were invited to submit their application for the three seats. And by October 9, the lucky three had already been selected: Members were informed that a total of 48 applications were received, which were examined by “a panel of [national coordinating group] officers”, who then “interviewed seven candidates”, before settling on four that are now being sent “for recommendation to the Centre Left Grassroots Alliance (CLGA)”. All within four days.

According to the Huffington Post, “it is understood that Lansman was the popular choice among many.” Popular among whom? Maybe the people working in Momentum’s office, being on Jon Lansman’s payroll and all that …’  A meme was quickly doing the rounds, showing as first “criterium” on the application form the question: ‘Are you called Jon?’

Add to that the ugly amalgam nature of the CLGA itself – essentially a bureaucratic lash up with right-leaning candidates – and what we saw is a continuation of the method on display in the way the organisation is run by its ‘owner’, Lansman. Almost exactly a year ago, during the now infamous ‘Lansman coup’, he simply shut down all democratic structures of Momentum and imposed his own constitution on the organisation without any debate or transparency. The latest example of his undemocratic approach is the high-handed way in which the man has just announced the dissolution of Momentum Youth and Students.

Naturally, there was no transparency on this last bureaucratic move. No announcement on the Momentum website; the letter from Lansman himself announcing the organisation’s abrupt demise simply tells us that the “Momentum’s Constitution does not specifically provide for the continuation of the entity previously known as ‘Momentum Youth and Students (MYS)’” and that he notes, “with regret”, that some of these young scamps have “at times… brought Momentum into disrepute” with some silly baiting of opponents and intemperate language.

The veteran US comedian George Burns once lamented the death of Vaudeville as, now, there was “nowhere for the kids to be lousy anymore.” Problems in a youth organisation should be treated in the same patient and generous style. It is indicative of the bureaucratic mindset of Lansman and the coterie around him – as well as a quite unseemly appetite for respectability and fear of political debate – that their weapon of first choice are bans and proscriptions.

This underlines that we must offer critical support to the leftwing NEC majority from a position of political independence. We still have a long way to go to transform the party. For example, we cannot rely on Jon Lansman to fight against the ongoing witchhunt against the left in the party. After all, his own Momentum constitution bars from membership anybody who has been expelled by Iain McNicol’s compliance unit – for example, for the crime of “supporting a political organisation other than an official Labour Group or unit of the Party”. All the more important that organisations like Labour Against the Witchhunt continue to put pressure not just on the right and the bureaucracy of the Labour Party – but also Jeremy Corbyn and his allies on the NEC.

Momentum

NEC elections: Grit your teeth and vote for Jon Lansman!

Ballot forms for the three additional places on Labour’s National Executive Committee began to be distributed yesterday. The left on this leadership body was recently strengthened with the election of the pro-Corbyn Richard Leonard as leader of the party in Scotland (the expectation is that he will probably personally fill the Scottish NEC seat created in the aftermath of the party’s 2016 conference – or, if not, at least appoint a delegate supportive of the left leadership.) The election for these extra three seats, to be decided by an all-member vote, is an important opportunity to consolidate this progressive shift on the leadership and give it a slightly more comfortable majority.

For this reason, Labour Party Marxists recommends an unconditional, but highly critical vote for the slate supported by the Centre-Left Grassroots Alliance, Momentum and the Campaign for Labour Party Democracy including a vote for Jon Lansman, the controversial ‘owner’ of the Momentum brand. It is not surprising that for some on the left, support for Lansman is hard. The pattern of nominations from the CLPs clearly shows some left comrades taking a vicarious revenge for the crass internal coup that Lansman and his close allies launched in January 2017. That, coupled with the ugly amalgam nature of the CLGA itself – essentially a lash up with right-leaning candidates – further muddies the water. (There are supporters of Manchester councillor Yasmine Dar and national policy forum representative Rachel Garnham who might well have their own reasons for not putting a tick next to Lansman’s name) there were obviously some squeaky-bum moments in in the pro-Lansman camp that have put the man’s election in some doubt.

Interestingly, the joint CLGA/Momentum/CLPD campaigning website for the NEC elections unusually enquires if supporters had voted for “the full team (Yasmine, Rachel and Jon)” or just “part of the team”. They are clearly aware of the fact that quite a few members cannot bring themselves to vote for Lansman (but the CLGA/Momentum/CLPD still wants to record them as supporters and be able to harvest their data).

We hear of lefties even agitating for a vote for Sarah Taylor instead of Jon Lansman; she is a disability campaigner and Momentum member, but without much of a profile in the party. She picked up just six nominations from Constituency Labour Parties against Lansman’s 148. It’s unlikely she would win; but she could split the vote sufficiently to allow a rightist like Eddy Izzard slip in through the middle.

No doubt, the political hostility to Lansman specifically is well-founded, given the shameful manoeuvres in Momentum. However, that must be put aside for this election. Lansman is a leading figure on the left of the party. He shares many of the flawed politics and bureaucratic practice of the wing of our party. LPM will not let-up in our political criticisms of the man anymore than we will stop criticising Corbyn and McDonnell themselves. However, in this election he and the platform he is part of should be critically supported in order that our leadership is more safely in the hands of people who reflect the views and political aspiration of our mass, left wing membership.

If you can’t beat them…

The Labour Party right remain strong in terms of the grip its tentacles continue to have on the apparatus/’civil service’ of the party. However, there is no question that it has taken some devastating hits over the past period. Take, for example, the aforementioned election of Richard Leonard and its implications for the balance of power on the NEC.

Of course, it was the right wing which managed to sneak through the anti-democratic organisational innovation at last year’s party conference that led to the creation of two new NEC seats. These would be in the gift of the leaders of the party in Wales and Scotland; both then in the hands of right wingers, of course. Times do have a way of a-changing, however. Now, Scotland has gone ‘Corbynite’. There are rumblings from Wales as the membership’s outrage grows against the leadership’s contempt for basic democracy in elections for the leader and the new post of deputy leader. (And let’s not forget that the ‘registered supporters’ category that swung so powerfully behind Corbyn in the election contest/s was another wizard wheeze of the right.)

What’s a poor right winger to do?

Well, some seem to have reached the conclusion that ‘if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em!’

Reports reach us of hard-line rightist councillors pitching up at Momentum meetings; of local Momentum secretaries who, after much nagging, have finally been given lists of Momentum members in their area only to find – yes, you’ve guessed it – rightwing councillors and dyed-in-the-wool anti-left zealots listed as members.

At the same time, worrying news comes from Sheffield where the Momentum branch has voted – by 29 to 25 votes – to exclude from Momentum membership comrades that the witch hunters in the party have excluded on political grounds.

Are we seeing a creeping ‘domestication’ on Momentum? A process of incorporation and political dissolution? If any readers have noted an out-of-place face turning up out of the blue at your local Momentum meeting or right wing councillors beginning to tout themselves as Momentum supporters, let us know! And do call them out in meetings, because others should know who has snuck in.

Anti-Semitism, Democracy and the Labour Party

“Discipline the rascals who are bringing the Labour Party into disrepute”

New interview with Israeli Jewish socialist Moshé Machover whose rescinded expulsion is a major blow the right in the Labour Party.

 

The charges against you seemed to be particularly crude and hastily thrown together. Why do you think the right responded in such an amateur, sloppy fashion? Over-confidence, or the need to score a swift high-profile scalp in the aftermath of a disastrous conference for them?

I think that the second explanation is correct; but I don’t think the sloppiness is unique to my case. The right has developed an overabundance of confidence. The slapdash manner – to say the least – that they employed to exclude, suspend or expel other members of the Labour Party convinced them that thy they were invulnerable; they thought they could get away with anything! So, they didn’t feel they even had to try to make a better job of this stitch-up.

It was a particularly bad piece of fiction, not doubt. But it would require a meticulous textual analysis to compare this letter with other letters sent to party members to establish whether they were especially careless in my case. I suspect you would find that they were just as slapdash and shoddy with most people as they were with me.

 

How important was the surge of support you received from individual party members and organisations like CLPs, etc? There have also been many rumours of disquiet at top levels of the party and anger against McNicol and his compliance unit. Was it a combination of pressure from above and below that explains your victory?

The support that people offered me was amazing. It truly astonished me … and I’m sure it astonished the witch-hunters as well! It was a major factor in their efforts to quickly wriggle out of the hole which they had dug for themselves. The solidarity offered from comrades in the movement here was wonderful; but of particular significance was the international campaign. This started in the United States and continues to grow.

The scale of this solidarity is truly astonishing. The number of signatures – and the political and academic standing of individuals who have signed up – is truly humbling, from my point of view. However, I am not so vain to think this is all about me! It’s clear that masses of people have realised that you must make a stand against this crazy witch-hunting culture. Even after my expulsion was rescinded and the news announced, very large numbers were still signing up to the international online petition in support of reinstatement and investigation of the procedure used to expel me.

I think the international support – once the witch-hunters got wind of it – was instrumental in making the leadership realise that the actions of these people were sinking the Labour Party into serious disrepute – not only nationally, but internationally.

We are talking now about a surge of support from below here. There were also quite a few rumours that leading members of the party expressed genuine disquiet about this whole fiasco. I have not been contacted by anyone from this level of the party, I have no strong evidence – however, there have been enough unconfirmed reports to assume that the idea is not totally fanciful.

 

The charge against you of “anti-Semitism” is still on the books, of course. How important do you regard it that they withdraw this accusation?

Well, if you quote a libellous accusation and you don’t distance yourself from it or express reservations, then you are complicit in the libel. I am saying “libellous” because the expulsion letter sent to me in which they cite this vile accusation was not only delivered to me; it was also sent to the local Labour Party. It was broadcast, in that sense. Disseminated.

Now this is a very serious thing! It is serious morally; it is serious legally. Of course, they have prevaricated with the ploy that this charge of anti-Semitism is based on some junk definition that they appear to set a lot of store by. Frankly, the so-called definition is a load of rubbish. It is specifically designed for abuse, not to identify genuine anti-Semitism.

Throughout the exchanges with the witch hunters, I have been clear that I reserve my right to take things further legally. However, first I require an immediate apology and retraction.

 

Where next? There was a general feeling that the witch hunters had torn off more than they could chew this time – and so it proved! But there are many comrades out there that have been suspended, expelled. Moreover, the right is in lockstep with the mainstream media in a campaign to smear the left with “anti-Semitism”. What are the next steps in the fightback? We still have some powerful resourced enemies out there!

Well, la luta continua! There is an urgent need to discipline the rascals who are bringing the Labour Party into disrepute with these scurrilous and unfounded accusations. It is a question of disciplining these individuals. This is important, but there are three additional political points.

First, the campaign to counter the ‘weaponisation’ of the charge of ant-Semitism must continue and be stepped up. This cannot be allowed to continue. The ‘achievement’ of the right has been to make it appear to the outside world that Labour is riddled with anti-Semitism. This is calumny on the Labour Party! An outrageous lie!

This must be fought and stopped dead in its tracks. As I wrote in the article back in May last year, “don’t apologise – attack!” (Weekly Worker, May 18, 2016). This vile campaign must be defeated and expunged from the party.

The second issue is this vague notion of “support” for other organisations that are deemed verboten by the party apparatus. What needs to be done here is a fundamental overhaul of the clause in the Labour Party rule book that allows these bans and proscriptions. The rule is formulated in such a way that it virtually cries out for abuse. Let me quote it to you: 2.I.4B

“A member of the party who joins and/or supports a political organisation other than an official Labour group or other unit of the Labour Party, or supports any candidate that stands against an official Labour candidate … shall automatically be ineligible to be or remain a party member …” (Rule 2.1.4b, Labour Party rulebook)

There are three things obviously wrong with this rule. First, it does not specify what “political organisation” means. For instance, it is certainly arguable that CND is a political organisation. By the same token, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign is a political organisation. Does membership of these organisations make you ineligible for membership of the party? A “political organisation” is a catch-all phrase, that is crying out for abuse.

Secondly, what does its means to “support”? For instance, when they accused me of supporting the Communist Party of Great Britain and Labour Party Marxists, I was genuinely not able to say yes or no to the charges. They have not defined what ‘support’ means, let alone shown that ‘support’ for these organisations is runs counter to the existing rules.

Certainly, I support some positions that the CPGB stands on. For example, I support the call for all unions to be affiliated to Labour: so does the CPGB. The CPGB has argued this quite forcibly against other groups on the left – and I think they are right!

On other issues, I don’t agree with them. So how can someone be expelled – let alone automatically expelled! – based on something so indefinable and nebulous?

So, we have the twin, totally undefined categories of “political organisation” and “support” as a basis for peoples’ membership of the party.

A third issue is this word “automatically”! A member is expelled without any chance to defend themselves, to answer their accusers or even know who has said what about them. This runs counter to natural justice. The word “automatically” should be deleted, in addition to the phrase “joins and/or supports a political organisation other than an official Labour group or other unit of the Labour Party”.

Of course, if someone supports a candidate against the official Labour candidate, that’s another matter. I do seem to recall that not long ago a certain Anthony Blair falling the wrong side of this rule in the general election – no action was taken, I believe! Why? Well, we all know don’t we …

Some of Labour’s rules as they exist today are scandalous. They are badly formulated: and badly formulated for a purpose, I believe – as my experience and that of many other in the Labour Party has amply illustrated.

Anti-Semitism, Witch-hunts and expulsions

Fantastic success: Moshé Machover has been reinstated!

Clearly, the mass protests against the outrageous decision to expel the well-known pro-Palestinian campaigner Moshe Machover from the Labour Party have borne fruit! The Labour movement has put so much pressure on Iain McNicol’s compliance unit that they were forced to – clearly very reluctantly – reverse their own decision. We understand left-wingers on the NEC and Jeremy Corbyn himself have also added pressure on witch-hunter general McNicol, who must now be fearing for his job. Good. The man must be sacked and the compliance unit abolished.

More extended commentary on this soon. In the meantime, check out the newly formed platform of Labour Against the Witchhunt.

Below, we publish the latest exchange between comrade Machover and “Sam Matthews, head of disputes”.

 

Letter from Sam Matthews

Dear Mr Machover,

Thank you for your letter dated 16 October 2017.

26 October 2017

Firstly, I would like to make absolutely clear that the Party has come to no decision about the content of the article. Please accept our apologies if the language in our letter of 3 October 2017 was unclear to you. At this stage, the allegations about your article remain allegations – the Party’s intention was merely to inform you of the allegations about your conduct and that they did not solely relate to a breach of rule 2.I.4.B. The Party is making no assertion as to their truth or validity and implies no guilt regarding any breach of rule 2.I.8 as this has not been subject of an investigation or hearing.

Your letter stops short of actually stating that you do not support Communist Party of Great Britain and/or Labour Party Marxists. The Party is trying to assess whether the matters of fact in this case are subject to legitimate dispute. It would be helpful when the Party comes to assess this fact if you categorically stated whether you do or do not support either of these organisations at your earliest convenience.

Yours sincerely

Sam Matthews, Head of Disputes

From Moshé Machover to the legal queries unit

30 October 2017 I refer to your letter of 26 October 2017.

  1. Your apology is wholly inadequate, as it sidesteps the matter for which you ought to apologise. Your letters of 3 and 6 October were in fact all too clear. It was perfectly clear that you included in them an allegation of antisemitism on my part, which should never have been put in the letters at all, as it is plainly otiose as far as the purpose of the letters is concerned. Moreover, by use of the words ‘apparently antisemitic article published in your name’ you lent some spurious credence to that scurrilous allegation against me. I am still awaiting your apology for this.
  2. As for your suggestion that I categorically state whether I do or do not ‘support’ (whatever that means) the organisations you name (CPGB and LPM): I find this suggestion entirely inappropriate. It carries a whiff of McCarthyism.

In any event, I have dealt with this issue in my letter of 16 October. I stated that I am not nor have ever been a member of either group, and challenged your accusations of ’supporting’ them; see points 8 – 12 in my letter of 16 October.

I reject your attempt to move the goalposts now that you appear unable to justify your unfair and improper decision of 3 October to summarily expel me. It is up to you to provide valid evidence that since I became a member of the Labour Party I gave illicit support (however that term is defined) to either or both of the said groups. I know of no such evidence.

Yours sincerely

Moshé Machover

Letter from Sam Matthews

30 October 2017

Thank you for your letter clarifying you do not support the Communist Party of Great Britain and Labour Party Marxists. The Party has reviewed the matters of fact surrounding your case and the decision has been taken to rescind your automatic exclusion from the Labour Party.

The Party remains of the view that any reasonable person looking at the evidence available in public (which includes at least one video of you speaking at an event sponsored by CPGB and LPM, 44 articles published with your permission by CPGB’s own publication and primary form of campaigning, the Weekly Worker and 17 videos of you speaking published on CPGB’s website as of 6 October 2017) would conclude that you have given support to at least one, if not both, of these organisations over a period of ten years including while you were a member of the Labour Party. Such support is incompatible with Labour Party membership, so thank you for clarifying that this was not your intention to provide such support.

The Party would like to urge you to take a cautionary approach towards any actions which appear to be clear prima facie breach of the Party’s rules in order to avoid any future misunderstandings regarding your eligibility for membership of the Labour Party.

Yours sincerely

Sam Matthews, Head of Disputes

Communication from Moshé Machover to the legal queries unit

30 October 2017

I refer to your letter of 30 October 2017.

I note that you have rescinded my expulsion from the Party. However, you fail to address the allegations of antisemitism mentioned in your letters of 3 and 6 October. Please confirm by return of email that these allegations have been withdrawn and apologise for raising them in the first place.

Yours sincerely

Moshé Machover


Anti-Semitism, Democracy and the Labour Party

Labour Against the Witchhunt

Labour Party Marxists proudly supports Labour Against the Witchhunt (LAW), which was launched on October 21 2017 in response to the expulsion from Labour Party membership of emeritus professor Moshé Machover – one of a long line of socialists, Corbyn supporters and defenders of Palestinian rights expelled or suspended on bogus charges of anti-Semitism.

LAW’S KEY DEMANDS:

  1. We demand that the Labour Party ends the practice of automatic, instant, expulsion or suspension of Labour Party members without a hearing, with no right of appeal;
    • that all those summarily expelled or suspended from membership without due process be immediately reinstated;
    • that a member accused of a breach of rule be informed of who their accuser is;
    • that a member accused of a breach of rule be given all the evidence submitted against them by their accuser;
    • that a member accused of a breach of rules be regarded as innocent until proven guilty;
    • that membership rights must not be removed until disciplinary investigations and procedures have been completed;
    • that disciplinary procedures must include consultation with the accused member’s CLP and Branch;
  1. We demand that the Labour Party reject the International Holocaust Memorial Alliance (IHMA) definition of anti-Semitism, which conflates anti-Semitism with support for the rights of the Palestinian people and with criticism of the state of Israel and its racist and apartheid policies and practices. Instead, the Labour Party should adopt a simple, straightforward, definition of anti-Semitism, such as Brian Klug’s definition: “Anti-Semitism is a form of hostility to Jews as Jews, where Jews are perceived as something other than what they are”.
  1. We demand the immediate abolition of the Labour Party’s “compliance unit”. Disciplinary decisions should be taken only by elected bodies, not by paid officials.

Steering Committee: Peter Firmin, Tony Greenstein, Stan Keable, Jackie Walker.

Anti-Semitism

Solidarity with Moshé Machover! The Labour movement speaks out

The expulsion of long-standing Israeli socialist Moshé Machover from the Labour Party (expulsion letter here) has caused shockwaves throughout the labour movement. We feature motions and statements in support of Moshé and against the ongoing witch hunt by the right in the party. 

On October 5, Moshe received a second explusion letter, which states that “These allegations [of anti-Semitism] are not subject to an investigation as you are not currently a member of the Labour Party.” They will probably be kept on file, should his expulsion based on his “clear support” for LPM be overturned. This is arbitrary, to say the least. This draft motion (in Word or PDF), taking both letters into account, is currently being discussed in a few branches and CLPs. Feel free to use and amend.

This open letter has been started by ‘Free Speech on Israel’ and has already been signed by more than 1,200 Labour Party member – add your name asap!

Labour Party branches and CLPs

Other organisations and individuals

Sheffield Hallam CLP

Motion overwhelmingly carried at Hallam CLP meeting, October 27 2017

Reinstate Moshe Machover

On Tuesday October 3, Professor Emeritus Dr. Moshe Machover was expelled from the Labour Party, based on allegations that he denies. Professor Machover is an Israeli Jew, the distinguished co-founder of the socialist organisation Matzpen, which from the early 1960s to the 1980s brought together Arab and Jewish opposition to the illegal occupation of Palestine.

This CLP notes:

  1. The first expulsion letter from the head of disputes, Sam Matthews, on October 3, focuses on Professor Machover’s article ‘Anti-Zionism does not equal Anti-Semitism’, which is described as “apparentlyantisemitic” and that “it appears to meet the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism which has just been adopted by the Labour Party.”
  2. The letter of expulsion does not quote the definition but instead says: “Antisemitism of any form – whether direct attacks or pejorative language which may cause offence to Jewish people – is not acceptable and will not be tolerated in the Labour Party. Language that may be perceived as provocative, insensitive or offensive falls short of the standards expected of us as party members and has no place in the party.” It appears to be referencing the parts of the IHRA definition that were not adopted by the Labour Party.
  3. The article in question is a scholarly criticism of Zionism as a political ideology.
  4. Professor Machover is accused “of involvement and support for both Labour Party Marxists and the Communist Party of Great Britain (through your participation in CPGB events and regular contributions to the CPGB’s newspaper)”.
  5. Prof Machover has denied all allegations, but has not been given the opportunity to challenge them.
  6. That after many Labour Party members, branches and organisations have sent in protest statements, Professor Machover was sent a second expulsion letter on October 6, which states he has only been expelled for his “clear support” for LPM and CPGB. The allegations of anti-Semitism “are not subject to an investigation as you are not currently a member of the Labour Party.”

This CLP further notes:

  1. The Chakrabarti Report found the Labour Party’s “complaints and disciplinary procedures . . . lacked sufficient transparency, uniformity and expertise” and “failed to observe the vital legal principles of due process (or natural justice) and proportionality”. Members deserve to see these principles applied in all disciplinary cases, including that of Professor Machover.
  2. This accusation of anti-Semitism will be held on file in the event that after 5 years Professor Machover was to reapply for membership.

This CLP believes:

  1. This action in expelling Professor Machover is arbitrary, lacking in basic justice and is bringing the Labour Party into disrepute.

This CLP agrees:

  1. To call for professor Machover’s expulsion to be rescinded and for his immediate reinstatement as a member of the Labour Party.
  2. To reject any McCarthyite-style move to expel members for alleged “involvement and support for” other left groups on the basis of writing articles and attending and participating in meetings. It is common practice for Labour members of all levels to speak and participate in events of other groups, and have articles published, representing their individual viewpoints, in a range of publications. Jeremy Corbyn had his own column in the Morning Star for many years.
  3. To call on the NEC to investigate the procedures followed to ensure that principles of natural justice are upheld.

This CLP further agrees:

  1. To submit this this to the next higher unit of the Labour Party (e.g. Branch to CLP, CLP to DLP).
  2. To send the motion as passed to the following:

Sam Matthews, Head of Disputes

Chair of the NCC

Chair of the NEC

Party General Secretary

The Leader’s Office

Shami Chakrabarti

Hackney South and Shoreditch CLP

The Hackney South and Shoreditch Constituency Labour Party calls upon the Labour Party’s Head of Disputes immediately to rescind the expulsion of Professor Moshe Machover, a member of Hampstead and Kilburn CLP, so that due process can take place and Prof. Machover can be given the opportunity to challenge the allegations made against him; and calls for an urgent review of Party disciplinary procedures so that such injustice is not repeated.

 Motion to be sent to Sam Matthews
cc Party General Secretary Iain McNicol; the leader’s office; NEC members

The voting was 54 in favour, 1 against, and 7 abstentions.

Hexham CLP

Emergency Motion – concerning the expulsion of Professor Moshe Machover

Background information
Professor Emeritus Moshe Machover, a member of Hampstead and Kilburn CLP, has been summarily expelled from the Party.

Prof Machover is Jewish and Israeli, the distinguished co-founder of Matzpen, the socialist organisation which from the 60s to the 80s brought together Arab and Jewish opposition to the illegal occupation of Palestine. He has been found guilty – by the Head of Disputes Sam Mathews, with no due process whatsoever – “of involvement and support for both Labour Party Marxists and the Communist Party of Great Britain (through your participation in CPGB events and regular contributions to the CPGB’s newspaper).” Prof. Machover has never been a member of either organisation.

Sam Matthews also accused Prof Machover of writing an “apparently anti-semitic article”. The article in question is a scholarly criticism of Zionism as a political ideology. Prof. Machover denies the accusations, but he has been given no hearing to challenge the allegations and his expulsion.

This CLP notes that:
The Chakrabarti Report found the Labour Party’s complaints and disciplinary procedures “… lacked sufficient transparency, uniformity and expertise” and “failed to observe the vital legal principles of due process (or natural justice) and proportionality”. It set out basic principles that the Party should follow in disciplinary cases in future.

This CLP believes that the principles recommended in the Chakrabarti Report must be applied in all disciplinary cases. They have clearly not been applied in the case of Moshe Machover. This expulsion is a worrying precedent in a party which is working to be more democratic, and accountable and to adopt disciplinary procedures based on natural justice.

This CLP therefore calls for the Labour Party’s Head of Disputes immediately to rescind the expulsion of Professor Moshe Machover, so that due process can take place and Prof. Machover can be given the opportunity to challenge the allegations made against him.

Hampstead & Kilburn CLP 

18 Oct 2017: passed overwhelmingly; 58 for, none against and 8 abstentions.
The motion to be sent to the leader of the Labour Party, the National Executive Committee (individually), the National Constitutional Committee (individually), the Head of Disputes and Professor Machover.
This CLP is outraged that:
  • Professor Emeritus Moshe Machover has been expelled from the Party.  Professor Machover is Jewish and Israeli, the distinguished co-founder of Matzpen, the socialist organisation which from the 60s to the 80s brought together Arab and Jewish opposition to the illegal occupation of Palestine;
  • the Head of Disputes has accused Prof Machover of writing an “apparently antisemitic article” according to the new IHRA definition, and further accused him of “membership or support for another political party, or a political organisation with incompatible aims to the Labour Party”.
This CLP notes that:
  •  The Chakrabarti Inquiry found that the party’s “. . . complaints and disciplinary procedures . . . lacked sufficient transparency, uniformity and expertise . . .” and called for “the vital legal principles of due process (or natural justice) and proportionality”.
  • The IHRA definition is being monitored by Camden Council to ensure that it is not used to stifle free expression and criticism of Israeli policies.
  •  Prof Machover who denies the accusations, has not been given the opportunity to challenge neither the accusation of antisemitism nor his alleged support for another party or organisation.
  • This expulsion is a frightening precedent in a party which is working to be more democratic and called for, in the words of its leader Jeremy Corbyn, ‘support to end the oppression of the Palestinian people, the 50-year occupation and the illegal settlement expansion’.
This CLP therefore calls for:
  •  Prof Machover’s expulsion to be immediately rescinded; the letter informing him of his expulsion to be immediately rescinded; and for any allegations against him to be investigated in accordance with due process to take place so that he is given the opportunity to challenge the claims of the Head of Disputes.
  • And further calls on the Labour party to protect the right of members to contribute to the political debate across numerous platforms, without expressing support for other political parties or views contrary to the values of the Labour party.

Stoke Newington Labour Party branch

Expulsion of Professor Moshe Machover

This branch notes:

  • Professor Moshe Machover, a member of Hampstead and Kilburn CLP, was expelled for writing an article entitled “Anti Zionism does not equal anti- Semitism” in the magazine Labour Party Marxist. Prof. Machover is Israeli and Jewish by origin, a long-time socialist and campaigner for Palestinian rights, and a highly respected academic.
  • The initial expulsion letter on 3 October described his article as “apparently antisemitic” and that it “appears to meet” the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism adopted by the Labour Party. However, the letter appears to reference only the parts of the IHRA definition that were not adopted by the Labour Party.
  • The expulsion was also justified through guilt by association, on the grounds that Labour Party Marxist is a front publication for another political organization. Many other Labour Party members and MPs have written for comparable journals without sanction.
  • Prof. Machover was expelled, not suspended, without the right to defend himself at the disputes meeting, a violation of due process and democratic procedure.
  • After many Labour Party members and branches protested against his expulsion, Prof. Machover received a second expulsion letter on 6 October, which stated that he was only expelled for his “clear support” for Labour Party Marxist and the Communist Party of Great Britain. It said that the alleged (ie not proven) antisemitism was “not subject to an investigation as you are not currently a member of the Labour Party.”
  • Prof. Machover regards the allegation of antisemitism as malicious and totally unfounded. He denies that he is a member of either of the Marxist organisations cited in the accusations against him. His full response can be found here: http://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2017/10/MMresponseFin.pdf
  • The expulsion of Prof. Machover was rescinded in late October following growing protests against it in the Labour Party.

    This branch calls for:

  • Moshe Machover to receive a full and public apology for his summary expulsion, for tarnishing his reputation and for abusing his rights.
  • An urgent review of Party disciplinary procedures to ensure that such an injustice is not repeated.

    This motion should be sent to:
    Sam Matthews, Head of Disputes
    Chair of the NCC
    Chair of the NEC
    Party General Secretary
    The Leader’s Office
    Shami Chakrabarti
    Plus the Chair and Secretary of all other branches of this CLP

Otley & Yeadon branch / Leeds North West CLP

Motion passed nem con November 1 2017

This Otley & Yeadon branch / Leeds North West CLP welcomes the reinstatement as a member of the Labour Party of Professor Moshé Machover.

This Otley & Yeadon branch / Leeds North West CLP notes that:
• The Chakrabarti inquiry found that the party’s “… complaints and disciplinary procedures … lacked sufficient transparency, uniformity and expertise…” and called for “the vital legal principles of due process (or natural justice) and proportionality”

• Professor Machover, who denies the accusations, has still not been given the opportunity to challenge the accusation of anti-Semitism, or his alleged support for another party or organisation.

It demands:
• That all the damaging insinuations of anti-Semitism must be publicly retracted.

• A full apology, as requested by Moshé Machover, must be published.

• That the whole system that allowed this travesty of justice, and which has brought the Party into disrepute, must be fully investigated by the NEC, and reformed, and those who instigated this damaging course of action held to account.

• That the Party establishes a clear and transparent disciplinary procedure based upon Trade Union best practice on discipline of members. Natural justice : not procedural unfairness based upon prejudice.

• That all the recent expulsions and suspensions be reviewed and must be revoked where there is no clear evidence of breach of rule.

This Branch/CLP further agrees:
To submit this motion to the next higher unit of the Labour Party (e.g. Branch to CLP).
To send the motion as passed to the following:
Sam Matthews, Head of Disputes
Chair of the NCC
Chair of the NEC
Party General Secretary
The Leader’s Office
Shami Chakrabarti
Plus the Chair and Secretary of all other branches of this CLP

 

Broomhill and Sharrow Labour Party branch (Sheffield Central CLP)

This branch calls upon the Labour Party’s Head of Disputes immediately to rescind the expulsion of Professor Moshe Machover, a member of Hampstead and Kilburn CLP, so that due process can take place and Prof. Machover can be given the opportunity to challenge the allegations made against him.

Motion to be sent to Sam Matthews – legal_queries@labour.org.uk
cc Party General Secretary Iain McNichol – iain_mcnicol@labour.org.uk
The leader’s office – petersenn@parliament.uk
+ chair and secretary of Central, Manor Castle, Nether Edge, and Walkley branches

Supporting argument

As outlined in a statement from the Jewish Socialists’ Group, Moshe Machover – a lifelong Israeli socialist, anti-racist and anti-imperialist, who has lived in Britain since 1968 – has been expelled from the Labour Party accused of writing “an apparently antisemitic article” and accused of “involvement and support for” two organisations, the Labour Party Marxists and the Communist Party of Great Britain.

The accusation regarding the “antisemitic” article references the controversial, flawed definition of antisemitism, which the JSG and many others on the left have challenged.

The article by Moshe that has been cited is a critique of the political ideology of Zionism, not of Jews. Indeed the article exposes antisemitic ideas.

As the JSG further notes, the action against Professor Machover represents a McCarthyite-style attempt to expel members for alleged “involvement and support for” other left groups on the basis of writing articles and attending and participating in meetings. It is common practice for Labour members of all levels to speak and participate in events of other groups, and have articles published, representing their individual viewpoints, in a range of publications.

According to the Chakrabarti Report, the Labour Party’s “. . . complaints and disciplinary procedures . . . lacked sufficient transparency, uniformity and expertise . . .” and failed to observe “the vital legal principles of due process (or natural justice) and proportionality”. Members deserve to see these principles applied in all disciplinary cases, including Moshe Machover’s is a critique of the political ideology of Zionism, not of Jews. Indeed the article exposes antisemitic ideas.

As the JSG further notes, the action against Professor Machover represents a McCarthyite-style attempt to expel members for alleged “involvement and support for” other left groups on the basis of writing articles and attending and participating in meetings. It is common practice for Labour members of all levels to speak and participate in events of other groups, and have articles published, representing their individual viewpoints, in a range of publications.

According to the Chakrabarti Report, the Labour Party’s “. . . complaints and disciplinary procedures . . . lacked sufficient transparency, uniformity and expertise . . .” and failed to observe “the vital legal principles of due process (or natural justice) and proportionality”. Members deserve to see these principles applied in all disciplinary cases, including Moshe Machover’s.

 

Larkswood & Valley Labour Party Branch (Chingford and Woodford Green CLP)

 This branch calls upon the Labour Party’s Head of Disputes immediately to rescind the expulsion of Professor Moshe Machover, a member of Hampstead and Kilburn CLP, so that due process can take place and Prof. Machover can be given the opportunity to challenge the allegations made against him.
Motion to be sent to Sam Matthews – legal_queries@labour.org.uk
 cc Party General Secretary Iain McNichol – iain_mcnicol@labour.org.uk
    The leader’s office – petersenn@parliament.uk
  chair and secretary of Larkswood & Valley Branch and of the CLP.
Supporting argument
 
As outlined in a statement from the Jewish Socialists’ Group, Moshe Machover – a lifelong Israeli socialist, anti-racist and anti-imperialist, who has lived in Britain since 1968 – has been expelled from the Labour Party accused of writing “an apparently antisemitic article” and accused of “involvement and support for” two organisations, the Labour Party Marxists and the Communist Party of Great Britain.
The accusation regarding the “antisemitic” article references the controversial, flawed definition of antisemitism, which the JSG and many others on the left have challenged. 
The article by Moshe Machover, that has been cited, is a critique of the political ideology of Zionism, not of Jews. Indeed the article exposes antisemitic ideas.
As the JSG further notes, the action against Professor Machover represents a McCarthyite-style attempt to expel members for alleged “involvement and support for” other left groups on the basis of writing articles and attending and participating in meetings. It is common practice for Labour members of all levels to speak and participate in events of other groups, and have articles published, representing their individual viewpoints, in a range of publications.
According to the Chakrabarti Report, the Labour Party’s “. . . complaints and disciplinary procedures . . . lacked sufficient transparency, uniformity and expertise . . .” and failed to observe “the vital legal principles of due process (or natural justice) and proportionality”. Members deserve to see these principles applied in all disciplinary cases, including Moshe Machover’s. 
 

Evidence presented in the expulsion letter sent to Prof Machover by Sam Matthews appears in the form of articles written for the CPGB paper Weekly Worker and a report of a discussion in which Prof. Machover participated.  

South West Central branch of Oxford East constituency Labour Party:

EMERGENCY RESOLUTION Moshe Machover

This branch notes that:

The 2016 Chakrabarti Report found the Labour Party’s “complaints and disciplinary procedures . . . lacked sufficient transparency, uniformity and expertise” and “failed to observe the vital legal principles of due process (or natural justice) and proportionality”.

The report’s recommendations have been adopted by the NEC.
Members deserve to see these principles applied in all disciplinary cases

This branch therefore calls upon the Labour Party’s Head of Disputes to rescind the expulsion of Professor Moshe Machover immediately, so that due process can take place and he will have the opportunity to challenge the allegations made against him.

Emeritus Professor Moshe Machover, a member of Hampstead and Kilburn CLP, was expelled from the Labour Party on 3 October. Professor Machover, 81, is a lifelong Israeli socialist, anti-racist and and campaigner for social justice in Israel/Palestine, and a distinguished academic in the fields of Logic, Philosophy and Mathematics.

He was declared by the Labour Party Head of Disputes to have excluded himself from the party by “membership or support for another political party, or a political organisation with incompatible aims to the Labour Party.”

Professor Machover denies that he is or ever has been a member of either of the organisations that have been cited [the ‘Communist Party of Great Britain’ and a group called ‘Labour Party Marxists’].

He has on occasion written for CPGB publications and spoken at their events, as have other non-members. The same principle could be used to expel prominent party members and trade unionists who have written for the Morning Star, in effect the paper of the Communist Party of Britain; or appeared on platforms and suppported events organised by Unite Against Fascism which was launched by the SWP.

His only right of appeal is to submit evidence to the same official who expelled him. He should instead be entitled to be treated according to the principles accepted by the NEC and still not brought into force.

We further call on the Labour party to protect the right of members to contribute to the political debate across numerous platforms, without expressing support for other political parties or views contrary to the values of the Labour party.

Mapesbury Branch (Brent Central CLP)

Motion passed unanimously 11th October

This branch calls upon the Labour Party’s Head of Disputes immediately to rescind the expulsion of Professor Moshe Machover, a member of Hampstead and Kilburn CLP, so that due process can take place and Prof. Machover can be given the opportunity to challenge the allegations made against him.

 

St Michael’s Branch Labour Party

Last night, St Michael’s Branch Labour Party, the largest branch in Liverpool Riverside Constituency Labour Party, itself the second largest CLP in the country by membership, voted unanimously to call for the re-instatement of Prof Moshe Machover, the noted mathematician and anti-Zionist Israeli socialist.
The conclusion calls for “Prof. Machover’s immediate reinstatement; an apology for such tarnishing of his reputation; and an urgent review of Party disciplinary procedures so that such injustices are not repeated.”

Sherwood branch (Nottingham East CLP)

Emergency Motion for Sherwood Branch LP , passed unanimously on 10th October, to be forwarded as a motion to Nottingham East CLP

Sherwood Branch Labour Party condemns the expulsion of Professor Moshe Machover, before any hearing of evidence against him, from the Labour Party.

He has been accused of ‘membership or support for another political party, or a political organisation with incompatible aims of the Labour Party’, based on him having articles published and participating in meetings.

This branch notes the expulsion has been justified though a process of guilt by association and was sparked by a totally unfounded allegation that Professor Machover, who is Israeli and Jewish by origin, wrote an antisemitic article. This allegation is based highly selective quoting from a long and closely argued article and by an extreme interpretation of the International Holocaust Remembrance Association working definition of antisemitism that “pejorative language which may cause offence to Jewish people” is antisemitic.

This branch therefore demands from the Party: his immediate reinstatement; an apology for such tarnishing of his reputation; and an urgent review of Party disciplinary procedures so such an injustice is not repeated.

And to support Mark Wadsworth and all other members suspended over similar charges.

Wanstead  Branch (Leyton and Wanstead CLP)

motion on the expulsion of Professor Moshe Machover, passed unanimously, 9th October 2017

The Wanstead Branch of the Labour Party condemns the expulsion of Professor Moshe Machover, before any hearing of evidence against him, from the Labour Party.

This original letter of expulsion addressed two things. The branch notes that the expulsion has been justified through a process of guilt by association and was sparked by a totally unfounded allegation that Professor Machover, who is Israeli and Jewish by origin, wrote an antisemitic article. This allegation is based on highly selective quoting from a long and closely argued article and by an extreme interpretation of the International Holocaust Remembrance Association working definition of antisemitism that “pejorative language which may cause offence to Jewish people” is antisemtic.

The second issue cited in Professor Machover’s expulsion letter and in the updated letter of expulsion upon which his expulsion was based relates to his membership in, or support of, the Communist Party of Great Britain and Labour Party Marxist. Professor Machover denies this.

The fact that Professor Machover was unable to defend himself at the disputes meeting is a violation of due process and democratic procedure.

The branch therefore demands from the Party that the Labour Party’s Head of Disputes immediately rescind the expulsion of Professor Moshe Machover, a member of Hampstead and Kilburn CLP, so that due process can take place and Professor Machover can be given the opportunity to challenge the allegations made against him.

We also ask that an urgent review of Party disciplinary procedures is undertaken so that such an injustice is not repeated.

The motion should be sent to:

Chair of the Labour Party
Party General Secretary (iain_mcnicol@labour.org.uk)
Leader’s Office (petersenn@parliament.uk)
Sam Matthews, Head of Disputes  (legal_queries@labour.org.uk

Queen’s Park branch of the Labour Party (part of Hampstead & Kilburn CLP), which is the branch that comrade Machover used to belong to

This branch calls upon the Labour Party’s Head of Disputes to do the following:

1) Rescind immediately the expulsion of Professor Moshe Machover;
2) Rescind immediately the letter informing Professor Machover of his expulsion.
These 2 actions should be taken because:
First, the allegations against Mr. Machover are unsubstantiated; and, second, the process through which the decision to expel him was taken seems to have him guilty until proved innocent, rather than presumed innocent until proved guilty. The letter to Professor Machover and the apparent lack of process seem both unworthy of the Labour Party and unjust.
We further call on the Labour party to protect the right of members to contribute to the political debate across numerous platforms, without expressing support for other political parties or views contrary to the values of the Labour party.

 

The Cam, Dursley and Berkeley branch of Stroud CLP notes that:

Emeritus Professor, Moshe Machover, a member of Hampstead and Kilburn CLP, was expelled from the Labour Party on 3 October.Professor Machover, 81, is a lifelong Israeli socialist, anti-racist and and campaigner for social justice in Israel/Palestine, and a distinguished academic in the fields of Logic, Philosophy and Mathematics.

He is accused by the Labour Party Head of Disputes of writing an “apparently antisemitic article” and of “membership or support for another political party, or a political organisation with incompatible aims to the Labour Party.”

Professor Machover regards the allegation about the article as malicious and totally unfounded. He denies that he is a member of either of the organisations that have been cited.

The 2016 Chakrabarti Report found the Labour Party’s “complaints and disciplinary procedures . . . lacked sufficient transparency, uniformity and expertise” and “failed to observe the vital legal principles of due process (or natural justice) and proportionality”. The report’s recommendations have been adopted by the NEC. Members deserve to see these principles applied in all disciplinary cases.

This branch calls upon the Labour Party’s Head of Disputes to rescind the expulsion of Professor Machover immediately, so that due process can take place and he will have the opportunity to challenge the allegations made against him. 

Ecclesall Labour Party branch, Sheffield

Reinstate Moshe Machover

On Tuesday October 3, Professor Emeritus Dr. Moshe Machover was expelled from the Labour Party, based on allegations that he denies. Professor Machover is an Israeli Jew, the distinguished co-founder of the socialist organisation Matzpen, which from the early 1960s to the 1980s brought together Arab and Jewish opposition to the illegal occupation of Palestine.

This Branch/CLP notes:

  1. The first expulsion letter from the head of disputes, Sam Matthews, on October 3, focuses on Professor Machover’s article ‘Anti-Zionism does not equal Anti-Semitism’, which is described as “apparentlyantisemitic” and that “it appears to meet the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism which has just been adopted by the Labour Party.”
  1. The letter of expulsion does not quote the definition but instead says: “Antisemitism of any form – whether direct attacks or pejorative language which may cause offence to Jewish people – is not acceptable and will not be tolerated in the Labour Party. Language that may be perceived as provocative, insensitive or offensive falls short of the standards expected of us as party members and has no place in the party.” It appears to be referencing the parts of the IHRA definition that were notadopted by the Labour Party.
  1. The article in question is a scholarly criticism of Zionism as a political ideology.
  1. Professor Machover is accused “of involvement and support for both Labour Party Marxists and the Communist Party of Great Britain (through your participation in CPGB events and regular contributions to the CPGB’s newspaper)”.
  1. Prof Machover has denied all allegations, but has not been given the opportunity to challenge them.
  1. That after many Labour Party members, branches and organisations have sent in protest statements, Professor Machover was sent a second expulsion letter on October 6, which states he has only been expelled for his “clear support”for LPM and CPGB. The allegations of anti-Semitism “are not subject to an investigation as you are not currently a member of the Labour Party.”

This Branch/CLP further notes:

  1. The Chakrabarti Report found the Labour Party’s “complaints and disciplinary procedures . . . lacked sufficient transparency, uniformity and expertise” and “failed to observe the vital legal principles of due process (or natural justice) and proportionality”. Members deserve to see these principles applied in all disciplinary cases, including that of Professor Machover.
  1. This accusation of anti-Semitism will be held on file in the event that after 5 years Professor Machover was to reapply for membership.

This Branch/CLP believes:

This action in expelling Professor Machover is arbitrary, lacking in basic justice and is bringing the Labour Party into disrepute.

This Branch/CLP agrees:

  1. To call for his expulsion to be rescinded and for his immediate reinstatement as a member of the Labour Party.
  1. To reject any McCarthyite-style move to expel members for alleged “involvement and support for” other left groups on the basis of writing articles and attending and participating in meetings. It is common practice for Labour members of all levels to speak and participate in events of other groups, and have articles published, representing their individual viewpoints, in a range of publications. Jeremy Corbyn had his own column in the Morning Star for many years.
  1. To call on the NEC to investigate the procedures followed to ensure that principles of natural justice are upheld.

This Branch/CLP further agrees:

  1. To submit this this to the next higher unit of the Labour Party (e.g. Branch to CLP, CLP to DLP).
  1. To send the motion as passed to the following:

Sam Matthews, Head of Disputes
Chair of the NCC
Chair of the NEC
Party General Secretary
The Leader’s Office
Shami Chakrabarti
Plus the Chair and Secretary of all other branches of this CLP

The St Georges branch of Islington North CLP notes that:

Emeritus Professor, Moshe Machover, a member of Hampstead and Kilburn CLP, was expelled from the Labour Party on 3 October. Professor Machover, 81, is a lifelong Israeli socialist, anti-racist and and campaigner for social justice in Israel/Palestine, and a distinguished academic in the fields of Logic, Philosophy and Mathematics.

He is accused by the Labour Party Head of Disputes of “membership or support for another political party, or a political organisation with incompatible aims to the Labour Party.”

Professor Machover regards the allegation as malicious and totally unfounded. He denies that he is a member of either of the organisations that have been cited.

This branch calls upon the Labour Party’s Head of Disputes to rescind the expulsion of Professor Machover immediately, so that due process can take place and he will have the opportunity to challenge the allegations made against him.

Haggerston and Hoxton West branches of Hackney South and Shoreditch CLP on Thursday October 5 2017

This branch calls upon the Labour Party’s Head of Disputes immediately to rescind the expulsion of Professor Moshe Machover, a member of Hampstead and Kilburn CLP, so that due process can take place and Prof. Machover can be given the opportunity to challenge the allegations made against him.

Motion to be sent to Sam Matthews – legal_queries@labour.org.uk

cc Party General Secretary Iain McNichol – iain_mcnicol@labour.org.uk
The leader’s office – petersenn@parliament.uk
Hackney South and Shoreditch CLP Executive for consideration at October GC meeting

Supporting argument

As outlined in a statement from the Jewish Socialists’ Group, Moshe Machover – a lifelong Israeli socialist, anti-racist and anti-imperialist, who has lived in Britain since 1968 – has been expelled from the Labour Party accused of writing “an apparently antisemitic article” and accused of “involvement and support for” two organisations, the Labour Party Marxists and the Communist Party of Great Britain.

The accusation regarding the “antisemitic” article references the controversial, flawed definition of antisemitism, which the JSG and many others on the left have challenged.

The article by Moshe Machover, that has been cited, is a critique of the political ideology of Zionism, not of Jews. Indeed the article exposes antisemitic ideas.

As the JSG further notes, the action against Professor Machover represents a McCarthyite-style attempt to expel members for alleged “involvement and support for” other left groups on the basis of writing articles and attending and participating in meetings. It is common practice for Labour members of all levels to speak and participate in events of other groups, and have articles published, representing their individual viewpoints, in a range of publications.

According to the Chakrabarti Report, the Labour Party’s “. . . complaints and disciplinary procedures . . . lacked sufficient transparency, uniformity and expertise . . .” and failed to observe “the vital legal principles of due process (or natural justice) and proportionality”. Members deserve to see these principles applied in all disciplinary cases, including Moshe Machover’s.

 

East Dulwich Labour Party branch

On Thursday 5th October 2017 East Dulwich branch in Dulwich and West Norwood CLP passed the following resolution condemning the expulsion of Moshe Machover by 20 to 0 with one abstention.
This branch/CLP calls upon the Labour Party’s Head of Disputes immediately to rescind the expulsion of Professor Moshe Machover, a member of Hampstead and Kilburn CLP, so that due process can take place and Prof. Machover can be given the opportunity to challenge the allegations made against him.

Herne Hill Labour Party branch

Emergency Motion. Herne Hill Labour Party Branch,  October 5 2017
Passed nem con

This Branch notes the NEC policy that auto-exclusions ceased following the party’s adoption of the recommendations of the Chkrabarti Report, that the Party’s policy is now to follow due process, based on natural justice, in relation to disciplinary procedures.

The proper application of this policy is pertinent to a very recent case where a long standing member of Hampstead and Kilburn Branch, MM, has been expelled without due process, having not been informed in advance of the action, not having been suspended pending investigation, and where the grounds for expulsion are not even that he is, or ever has been, a member of a proscribed organisation (he has, in fact, never been a member of the organisations cited).

The grounds are that he has attended their public meetings and has had articles published in their journals. In none of the articles cited as evidence did MM in any way advocate support for these organisations nor advocate opposition in any way whatsoever to the Labour Party.

The Chakrabarti Report, found the Labour Party’s  “. . . complaints and disciplinary procedures . . . lacked sufficient transparency, uniformity and expertise . . .” and “failed to observe the vital legal principles of due process (or natural justice) and proportionality”.

The summary expulsion this week of MM is a deeply disturbing repetition of this bad practice and heralds a serious curtailment of free speech within the Party. It sets a frightening precedent and flies in the face of a party which is working to be more democratic and accountable and to adopt procedures based on natural justice.

This Branch therefore calls for the Labour Party’s Head of Disputes immediately to rescind the expulsion of MM, a member of Hampstead and Kilburn CLP, so that due process can take place, and MM can be given the opportunity to challenge the allegations made against him in proper hearings.

 

Emergency Resolution Passed by the Bethnal Green Ward

Labour Party, 5 October 2017
Reinstate Moshe Machover
 The Israeli socialist and long-time campaigner for Palestinian rights, Moshe Machover, has been expelled from the Labour Party for writing an article entitled “Anti Zionism does not equal anti-Semitism”.

We note with great concern:

The expulsion letter from the head of disputes, Sam Matthews, describes the article as “apparently antisemitic” and that it “appears to meet” the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism which has just been adopted by the Labour Party.

 The letter does not quote the definition but instead says: “Antisemitism in of any form – whether direct attacks or pejorative language which may cause offence to jewish people – is not acceptable and will not be tolerated in the Labour Party. Language that may be perceived as provocative, insensitive or offensive falls short of the standards expected of us as party members and has no place in the party.” It appears to be referencing the parts of the IHRA definition that were not adopted at the conference.

Moshe has been expelled, not suspended, without the right to defend himself, on the grounds that the publication concerned, Labour Party Marxist, is regarded as a front publication for another political organization, even though there are many examples of Labour members and politicians writing for comparable journals.

We believe:

This action is arbitrary, lacking in basic justice and is bringing the Labour Party into disrepute.

Therefore we resolve:

1.         We fully support Moshe Machover and call for his expulsion to be rescinded and for his immediate reinstatement as a member of the Labour Party.

2.         We reject any McCarthyite-style move to expel members for alleged “involvement and support for” other left groups on the basis of writing articles and attending and participating in meetings. It is common practice for Labour members of all levels to speak and participate in events of other groups, and have articles published, representing their individual viewpoints, in a range of publications.

3.         We call on the NEC to investigate the procedures followed to ensure that principles of natural justice are upheld.

West Branch Hastings and Rye Labour Party

On Tuesday 3rd October, Labour Party member Professor Emeritus Dr. Moshe Machover was summarily expelled from the Labour Party, based on allegations which he denies. Dr. Machover is Jewish and Israeli, the distinguished co-founder of Matzpen, the socialist organisation which from the early 1960s to the 1980s brought together Arab and Jewish opposition to the illegal occupation of Palestine. Dr Machover has been an activist for decades and is an asset to the Labour Party. It is an act of self-harm to expel such a valuable member.

However, we would be demanding reinstatement for any member, regardless of their political perspective who has been treated like this because we are equally concerned that this action was taken without a clear and transparent process ‘in accordance with the principles of natural justice and proportionality”. These were within the recommendations of the Chakrabarti Review, which seem to have been largely ignored. These included looking at other penalties short of suspension and expulsion .

We demand the immediate reinstatement of Moshe Machover and a public apology. In addition we demand a clear and public assurance that no member of this Party will again be treated in such an appalling manner and that in future, any actions will be taken only following such a clear process, as outlined in the Chakrabarti Report.We are also very concerned at the apparent misuse of the IHRA definition of antisemitism to stifle free expression, including the right to non abusive criticism of the State of Israel as we had outlined in our own Rule change. We insist that the Party firmly commits to uphold the right to non abusive free speech in all its political discourse.

This motion to be sent to:

Chair of the Labour Party
Chair of the NCC
Chair of the NEC
Leader’s Office
Shami Chakrabarti

 

Kilburn Labour Party branch

This Branch/CLP is outraged that:

  • Professor Emeritus Moshe Machover has been expelled from the Party. Prof Machover is Jewish and Israeli, the distinguished co-founder of Matzpen, the socialist organisation which from the 60s to the 80s brought together Arab and Jewish opposition to the illegal occupation of Palestine; 
  • the Head of Disputes has accused Prof Machover of writing an “apparently antisemitic article” according to the new IHRA definition, and further accused him of “membership or support for another political party, or a political organisation with incompatible aims to the Labour Party” on the basis of “participation in CPGB events and regular contributions to the CPGB’s newspaper, the Weekly Worker”.

This Branch/CLP notes that:

  • The Chakrabarti Inquiry found that the party’s “. . . complaints and disciplinary procedures . . . lacked sufficient transparency, uniformity and expertise . . .” and called for “the vital legal principles of due process (or natural justice) and proportionality”.
  • The IHRA definition is being monitored by Camden Council to ensure that it is not used to stifle free expression and criticism of Israeli policies.
  • Prof Machover who denies the accusations, has not been given the opportunity to challenge either the accusation of antisemitism nor his alleged support for another party or organisation with incompatible aims to the Labour Party.
  • This expulsion is a frightening precedent in a party which is working to be more democratic and called for, in the words of its leader Jeremy Corbyn, ‘support to end the oppression of the Palestinian people, the 50-year occupation and the illegal settlement expansion’.

This Branch/CLP therefore calls for:

  • Prof Machover’s expulsion to be immediately rescinded and for due process to take place so Prof Machover is given the opportunity to challenge the claims of the Head of Disputes.

 

Holme Valley North Labour Party branch

Holme Valley North Labour Party calls upon the Labour Party’s Head of Disputes to immediately rescind Professor Moshe Machover’s expulsion, and for any allegations against him to be investigated in accordance with due process and natural justice, so that he is given the opportunity to challenge those allegations made against him.

Highams Park Labour Party Branch 

Motion passed on October 4 by Highams Park Labour Party Branch (Chingford and Woodford Green CLP)

This branch calls upon the Labour Party’s Head of Disputes immediately to rescind the expulsion of Professor Moshe Machover, a member of Hampstead and Kilburn CLP, so that due process can take place and Prof. Machover can be given the opportunity to challenge the allegations made against him.

Motion to be sent to Sam Matthews – legal_queries@labour.org.uk

cc Party General Secretary Iain McNichol – iain_mcnicol@labour.org.uk

The leader’s office – petersenn@parliament.uk

+ chair and secretary of the three other C&WG branches and of the CLP.

Supporting argument

As outlined in a statement from the Jewish Socialists’ Group, Moshe Machover – a lifelong Israeli socialist, anti-racist and anti-imperialist, who has lived in Britain since 1968 – has been expelled from the Labour Party accused of writing “an apparently antisemitic article” and accused of “involvement and support for” two organisations, the Labour Party Marxists and the Communist Party of Great Britain.

The accusation regarding the “antisemitic” article references the controversial, flawed definition of antisemitism, which the JSG and many others on the left have challenged.

The article by Moshe Machover, that has been cited, is a critique of the political ideology of Zionism, not of Jews. Indeed the article exposes antisemitic ideas.

As the JSG further notes, the action against Professor Machover represents a McCarthyite-style attempt to expel members for alleged “involvement and support for” other left groups on the basis of writing articles and attending and participating in meetings. It is common practice for Labour members of all levels to speak and participate in events of other groups, and have articles published, representing their individual viewpoints, in a range of publications.

According to the Chakrabarti Report, the Labour Party’s “. . . complaints and disciplinary procedures . . . lacked sufficient transparency, uniformity and expertise . . .” and failed to observe “the vital legal principles of due process (or natural justice) and proportionality”. Members deserve to see these principles applied in all disciplinary cases, including Moshe Machover’s.

West Hampstead and Fortune Green Labour Party branch

The following resolution was adopted nem con on 4 October 2017 by the West Hampstead and Fortune Green branch of the Labour Party, which is part of the Hampstead and Kilburn Constituency LP

This West Hampstead and Fortune Green branch / Hampstead and Kilburn CLP is outraged that:

  • Professor Emeritus Moshe Machover has been expelled from the Party. Professor Machover is Jewish and Israeli, the distinguished co-founder of Matzpen, the socialist organisation which from the 60s to the 80s brought together Arab and Jewish opposition to the illegal occupation of Palestine.
  • The Head of Disputes has accused Professor Machover of writing an “apparently anti-Semiitic article” according to the new IHRA definition, and further accused him of “membership or support for another political party, or a political organisation with incompatible aims to the Labour Party.”

This West Hampstead and Fortune Green branch / Hampstead and Kilburn CLP notes that:

  • The Chakrabarti inequiry found that the party’s “… complaints and disciplinary procedures … lacked sufficient transparency, uniformity and expertise…” and called for “the vital legal principles of due process (or natural justice) and proportionality”
  • The IHRA definition is being monitored by Camden Council to ensure that it is not used to stifle free expression and criticism of Israeli policies.
  • Professor Machover who denies the accusations, has not been given the opportunity to challenge either the accusation of anti-Semitism nor his alleged support for another party or organisation.
  • This expulsion is a frightening precedent in a party which is working to be more democratic and called for, in the words of its leader Jeremy Corbyn, ‘support to end the oppression of the Palestinian people, the 50-year occupation and the illegal settlement expansion’.

This West Hampstead and Fortune Green branch / Hampstead and Kilburn CLP therefore calls for:

  • Professor Machover’s expulsion to be immediately rescinded and for any allegations against him to be investigated in accordance with due process so that he is given the opportunity to challenge the claims of the Head of Disputes

Momentum Sheffield

At its October 25 general meeting, Momentum Sheffield unanimously agreed the following resolution:

Momentum Sheffield condemns the expulsion of Moshe Machover from the Labour Party and calls for his immediate reinstatement. We oppose all McCarthyite auto-exclusions on political grounds, which have chiefly been used to get rid of Corbyn supporters from the Labour Party.

 

Swansea Bay Momentum

The meeting on October 17 unanimously agreed the following motion.

  1. THIS MEETING NOTES THAT:

1:1 On Tuesday October 3, Professor Emeritus Dr. Moshe Machover was expelled from the Labour Party, based on allegations that he denies. Professor Machover is an Israeli Jew, the distinguished co-founder of the socialist organisation Matzpen that, from the early 1960s to the 1980s, brought together Arab and Jewish opposition to the illegal occupation of Palestine.

1:2 This expulsion was initially based on two charges.

1:3 Professor Machover was also accused “of involvement and support for both Labour Party Marxists and the Communist Party of Great Britain (through participation in CPGB events and regular contributions of the CPGB’s newspaper the Weekly Worker).” Comrades Machover denies membership of both groups.

  1. THIS MEETING FURTHER NOTES:

2:1 The letter of expulsion does not quote the IHRA definition but instead states: “Anti- Semitism of any form – whether direct attacks or pejorative language which may cause offence to Jewish people – is not acceptable and will not be tolerated in the Labour Party. Language that may be perceived as provocative, insensitive or offensive falls short of the standards expected of us as party members and has no place in the party.” This appears to be referencing the parts of the IHRA definition that were not actually adopted by the Labour Party.

2:2 Many Labour Party members, branches and organisations have sent protest statements. The response of the Compliance Unit was to send Professor Machover a second expulsion letter (October 6). This now stated he had only been expelled for his “clear support” for LPM and the CPGB. The letter stated that the allegations of anti-Semitism “are not subject to an investigation as you are not currently a member of the Labour Party.” (His membership having been summarily ended in part because he was accused of anti- Semitism.)

2:3 The content of the Chakrabarti Report that states that the Labour Party’s “complaints and disciplinary procedures . . . lacked sufficient transparency, uniformity and expertise” and “failed to observe the vital legal principles of due process (or natural justice) and proportionality”. Members deserve to see these principles applied in all disciplinary cases, including that of Professor Machover.

  1. THIS MEETING:

1:3 That comrade Machover wrote an article entitled ‘Anti Zionism does not equal anti- Semitism’. According to a letter from the Labour Party’s Head of Disputes, Sam Matthews, this article was “apparently anti-Semitic” and “appears to meet” the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism which has just been adopted by the Labour Party. The article in question is a scholarly criticism of Zionism as a political ideology.

3:1 Regards the expulsion pf Professor Machover as arbitrary, lacking natural justice and is bringing the Labour Party into disrepute.

3:2 Rejects any McCarthyite-style moves to expel members for alleged “involvement and support for” left groups based simply on them contributing articles to their journals or attending/accepting invitations to speak at their meetings. It is common practice for Labour members at all levels of the party to speak at and participate in events of other organisations, and have articles published, representing their individual viewpoints, in a range of publications. Eg, Jeremy Corbyn had his own column in the Morning Star for many years.

3:3 Calls on the NEC to investigate the procedures followed in this case to ensure that principles of natural justice are upheld.

3:4 Demands that Professor Machover’s expulsion is immediately rescinded and he is immediately reinstatement as a member of the LP.

3:5 Agrees to send the motion as passed to the following:

  • Sam Mathews, Head of Disputes
  • Chair of the NCC
  • Chair of the NEC
  • LP General Secretary
  • Shami Chakrabarti
  • Secretaries of Swansea CLPs

Camden Momentum – motion 1

Motion Calling for Reinstatement to the Labour Party of Professor Machover

Passed with only one abstention at MM Camden’s meeting 9 October 2017

Momentum Camden Notes that:

  1. Professor Emeritus Moshe Machover is the first person accused of antisemitism to be expelled following the newly implemented Labour Party rule change, and following the Labour Party’s partial acceptance of the IHRA definition of antisemitism. Prof Machover is Jewish and Israeli, the distinguished co-founder of Matzpen, the socialist organisation which from the 60s to the 80s brought together Arab and Jewish opposition to the illegal occupation of Palestine. His expulsion without any due process was as a result of an accusation which remains anonymous.
  2. The Head of Disputes has accused Prof Machover of writing an “apparently antisemitic article” according to the new IHRA definition, and further accused him of “membership or support for another political party, or a political organisation with incompatible aims to the Labour Party”. In a second letter the Head of Disputes, under attack for his accusations of racism, denies that antisemitism was involved, saying that it was only Professor Machover’s membership in or support for another party. In professor Machover’s own words, “I am not, and never have been, a member of the organisations cited in the expulsion letter.”

Therefore Momentum Camden:

  • Calls on Momentum’s National Coordinating Group (NCG) to demand the immediate reinstatement of Professor Machover’s Labour Party membership and for due process and natural justice to be implemented in accordance with the recommendations of the Chakrabarti Inquiry, affording Professor Machover the opportunity to refute the charges.
  • Calls on Momentum members to pass resolutions in whatever CLPs they belong to, demanding reinstatement and due process for Professor Machover.

Camden Momentum – motion 2

Motion demanding a more democratic consultative process inside Momentum

Passed overwhelmingly by Momentum Camden on 9 October 2017

Momentum Camden Notes that:

  1. Momentum’s National Coordinating Group (NCG) unilaterally decided to support a rule change at the Labour Party conference initiated by the right wing Jewish Labour Movement and modified by the NEC on “Conduct Prejudicial to the Party” with particular reference to protected groups. Like the NEC, the NCG made the decision without consultation with those same protected groups inside Momentum and without consultation with Momentum’s local groups.
  2. Immediately following that newly-implemented rule change actively supported by Momentum, Professor Emeritus Moshe Machover, a Jewish Israeli, was expelled from the Labour Party with the letter of expulsion noting that he had written an “apparently antisemitic article” according to the new IHRA definition, and further accusing him of “membership or support for another political party, or a political organisation with incompatible aims to the Labour Party”. The source of the accusation of antisemitism remains anonymous. In professor Machover’s own words, “I am not, and never have been, a member of the organisations cited in the expulsion letter.”
  3. Momentum’s NCG was elected by barely a third of the membership of Momentum at the time, and less than one quarter of the present membership. Once elected the NCG chose as their chair a person who has never stood for, nor been elected to, the NCG by the membership of Momentum. He is a member of the NCG based on his appointment by “Left Futures”.
  4. Momentum has been at the forefront of the fight for a more democratic Labour Party that respects and reflects the will of the vast majority of its members.

Therefore Momentum Camden:

  • Calls on the NCG to institute immediately a consultative process with the more than 170 local groups and 30,000 members, and with those sectors named in the Labour Party rule book as facing particular discrimination, before making any more sweeping policy decisions.
  • Calls on Momentum groups to support Momentum Camden’s call for a more democratic, consultative process within our own organisation by making their views known to the NCG.

Merseyside Pensioners Association

The motion below was passed unanimously at a well attended (45+) Merseyside Pensioners Association meeting today, 11 October:

Re: the expulsion of Moshe Machover from the Labour Party

“We, the member of The Merseyside Pensioners Association wish to protest strongly against the expulsion of Professor (Emeritus) Moshe Machover from the Labour Party on the grounds that he allegedly made anti-semitic remarks in an article in a publication of a Marxist group, of which he is not a member. We understand that Moshe is a lifelong Marxist and socialist and, therefore, would reject all forms of racism. We understand that he wrote articles critical of the actions of the Zionist settler-colon state of Israel, of which he is a citizen. We believe that such criticisms cannot be construed as anti-Semitism, which can be properly defined as dislike and/or mistreatment of Jewish people simply because they are Jews.

We believe such treatment of Moshe Machover brings the Labour Party into disrepute. He is a distinguished, world-famous mathematical logician, and has contributed, with an Israeli comrade, to the development of deeper understanding of Marxian economic theory by applying ideas from physics. This has created a new branch of Marxian economics, ‘Econophysics’, which has many followers, especially in Germany and other parts of Europe.  We also believe that he and his Israeli comrade also helped to found the Arab-Jewish socialist party in Israel, called Matzpan.

We, therefore, believe that being a Marxist and writing articles critical of Zionism are no grounds whatsoever to expel anybody from the Labour Party. We therefore demand that comrade Machover is immediately reinstated in the Labour Party and an appropriate apology given to him for his treatment.”

 

Jewish Socialists’ Group statement in support of Dr Moshe Machover

Dr Moshe Machover – a lifelong Israeli socialist, anti-racist and anti-imperialist, who has lived in Britain since 1968 – has been expelled from the Labour Party.

Dr Moshe Machover – a lifelong Israeli socialist, anti-racist and anti-imperialist, who has lived in Britain since 1968 – has been expelled from the Labour Party accused of writing “an apparently antisemitic article” and accused of “involvement and support for” two organisations, the Labour Party Marxists and the Communist Party of Great Britain.The accusation regarding the “antisemitic” article references the controversial, flawed definition of antisemitism, which the JSG and many others on the left have challenged: http://www.jewishsocialist.org.uk/news/item/fight-antisemitism-and-defend-free-speech

Moshe Machover has been a friend of the Jewish Socialists’ Group for more than 30 years. He has spoken at JSG meetings, written for Jewish Socialist magazine, and participated in campaigns for social justice with us. We know him as an outstanding and sophisticated thinker and analyst, a fighter for human rights and social justice, and a consistent opponent of all reactionary ideologies and actions.

The JSG is not affiliated to the Labour Party but we have strongly criticised the right wing-led campaign to smear left wing activists as antisemites http://www.jewishsocialist.org.uk/news/item/statement-on-labours-problem-with-antisemitism-from-the-jewish-socialists-g

The Labour Party has a duty to take action against genuine examples of antisemitism and other forms of racism and bigotry. In line with the Chakrabarti Inquiry, however, we:

  • favour education rather than heavy-handed disciplinary measures
  • expect transparent, fair and just process with regard to complaints against members
  • support Shami Chakrabarti’s desire to encourage respectful free speech within the Party.The JSG chooses to support individuals suspended or expelled from the party on a case by case basis.

In this case we fully support Moshe Machover and call for his expulsion to be rescinded and for his immediate reinstatement as a member of the Labour Party.

The JSG recognises the article by Moshe Machover, that has been cited, as a critique of the political ideology of Zionism, not of Jews. Indeed the article exposes antisemitic ideas. The JSG rejects any McCarthyite-style attempt to expel members for alleged “involvement and support for” other left groups on the basis of writing articles and attending and participating in meetings. It is common practice for Labour members of all levels to speak and participate in events of other groups, and have articles published, representing their individual viewpoints, in a range of publications.

Solidarity with Moshe Machover!

 

Brighton and Hove UNISON Local Government Branch

The following resolution was passed unanimously.It will go to UNISON regionally and nationally as well as to Brighton & Hove Trades Council.

Motion on the Expulsion of Moshe Machover from the Labour Party

 

“This branch deplores the decision to expel Emeritus Professor and distinguished mathematician Moshe Machover from the Labour Party for alleged ‘anti-semitism’.

 

Moshe is an Israeli citizen of Jewish heritage who has been a life-long critic of Zionism and of Israel which he has defined as a ‘settler/colon state’.

 

He is a life-long socialist and committed opponent of all forms of racism.

 

We consider this expulsion to be an example of attempts to re-define anti-semitism so as to include all critics of Zionism and of Israel.

 

We call on UNISON to support the demand for Moshe’s expulsion to be rescinded.”

 

We further call for an end to all suspensions and expulsions from the Labour Party on the basis of people’s political views or membership of political groups.

 

No expulsions should take place without an investigation and hearing before the National Constitutional Committee.

 

We call for the recommendations of the Chakrabarti Report concerning natural justice and transparency to be implemented immediately.

 

 

Kevin Ovenden: Everyone should stand up for Moshe Machover

The nasty witch-hunters nested in Labour’s national apparatus ought to have bitten off more than they can chew with the outrageous expulsion of Moshe Machover.

Anti-racists, supporters of Palestine and longstanding socialists in Britain will know him mainly through his lifelong socialist commitment and opposition to the apartheid structure of the Israeli state, forged out of his experiences being born and growing up there.He was a founder of Matzpen, the revolutionary internationalist socialist group in Israel.His publications and writings on Israel-Palestine, often with Akiva Orr and Jabra Nicola, remain seminal.

“The Class Nature of Israeli Society” is a must read for anyone trying to understand the Palestinian struggle and zionism from an internationalist and anti-imperialist standpoint – or at all, I would say.

But perhaps less well known on the left is that Professor Machover is a highly distinguished mathematician and logical philosopher.I don’t know the undergraduate curriculum these days, but his primer (with Bell) “A Course in Mathematical Logic” was a set text (excuse the pun) on the Mathematics and Philosophy course in Oxford 30 years ago.

He has made major advances in set theoretic logic. As Professor of Mathematics at the University of London he contributed enormously to the development of the department at King’s College and other campuses.

There is a far wider body of opinion than even the considerable pro-Palestinian sentiment in Britain and its labour movement who will be nothing short of incensed at this expulsion. That his son Daniel is also a well regarded human rights lawyer expands the field further.Mathematicians and logicians are not often the most political of people. But they are usually rather good at distinguishing bogus arguments from truth and sound reasoning.

I am confident that the campaign to overturn this decision will reflect the breadth of opposition to it

.From Aberdeen to Bristol it ought to be taken not just to left political layers, but into every department of mathematics, philosophy and logic. Indeed, beyond Britain.And with a clear message back to the Labour leadership regarding the Blair-era bureaucrats who are disfiguring Labour: The Philistines are upon you. Reason in revolt now thunders.

Free speech on Israel: Article by Mike Cushman

Professor Moshé Machover has been expelled from the Labour Party without a hearing because he spoke on the wrong platform and wrote for the wrong newspaper. What was the Labour bating paper he wrote for and incurred the wrath of Party apparatchiks? Was it the Daily Mail, trailing its history of love-in with fascists, no. Was it one of Rupert Murdoch’s papers with their tradition of lies and distortions of the Party, no. It was, according to the letter Moshé received on 3 October, an on-line paper you have likely not heard of, the Weekly Worker, a paper so powerful and so toxic that, like poison ivy, any brush with it is fatal. Moshé also had the effrontery to speak at the 2016 Communist University . Since the mainstream press and think tank symposiums are generally closed to radical thinkers and writers we must all find whatever outlets we can to try to spread our ideas and educate our colleagues. It is the content of what we say and write that should be judged, not its venue. The complaint against Moshé states

Your involvement and support for both LPM [Labour Party Marxists, claimed to be a front for the Communist Party of Great Britain in the letter] and the Communist Party of Great Britain (through your participation in CPGB events and regular contributions to the CPGB’s newspaper, the Weekly Worker) is documented in Section 3 of the attached evidence. Membership or support for another political party, or a political organisation with incompatible aims to the Labour Party, is incompatible with Labour Party membership.

Chapter 2.I.4.B of the Labour Party’s rules states:

“A member of the party who joins and/or supports a political organisation other than an official Labour Group or unit of the Party or supports any candidate who stands against an official Labour candidate, or publicly declares their intent to stand against a Labour candidate, shall automatically be ineligible to be or remain a party member, subject to the provisions of part 6.I.2 of the disciplinary rules”.

You are therefore ineligible to remain a member of the Labour Party and have been removed from the national membership system. You are no longer entitled to attend local Labour Party meetings.

Return to Cold War thinking

The Labour Party’s International Department used to be almost entirely populated by cold-war warriors in times gone by. It seems that such predilections remain alive in Southside with its talk of Communist Front organisations. While the rest of us read le Carré for relaxation, some in the Labour Party seem to read him for instruction.

Even worse that the talk of Fronts are the lessons taken from the US House Un-American Activities Committee of the forties and fifties, where Richard Nixon made his name, with its pattern of Guilt by Association. Can we expect Professor Machover to next be granted absolution by naming names in front of the NCC, the Labour Party body responsible for discipline, to give them a cast-list for the next act of their expulsion drama?

We are even more disturbed when we examine the incident that prompted this forensic acuity by the Party: an article written by Moshé, ‘Anti-Zionism does not equal anti-semitism’ in the newspaper of the Labour Party Marxists. The letter does not state what part of this closely argued examination of the historical record was alarming but they state:

These allegations relate to an apparently antisemitic article published in your name, by the organisation known as Labour Party Marxists (LPM). The content of these articles appears to meet the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, which has been adopted by the Labour Party. Evidence relating to these allegations can be found in Section 1, overleaf.

Antisemitism of any form – whether direct attacks or pejorative language which may cause offence to Jewish people – is not acceptable and will not be tolerated in the Labour Party. Language that may be perceived as provocative, insensitive or offensive falls short of the standards expected of us as Party members and has no place in our party.

Manufacturing Antisemitism

These paragraphs follow a familiar pattern of Party allegations: they refer to an article, or a tweet or a Facebook post, but they do not explain how the text is, in their view, antisemitic. It would appear from attacks on this article elsewhere by Zionist attack dogs that the section that attracted their ire was the relationship of parts of the Zionist establishment to the Nazis in the thirties. According to Dave Rich of the Community Security Trust:

Simultaneously, another Jewish anti-Zionist, Moshe Machover, was also putting the boot in: this time a Nazi jackboot belonging to Reinhard Heydrich, one of the primary architects of the Final Solution. Machover wrote a special “Anti-Zionism does not equal anti-Semitism” article for Labour Party Marxists to distribute at the Conference, which quoted Heydrich making “a friendly mention of Zionism”. This, despite the notorious Nazi’s quote beginning with the words “National socialism has no intention of attacking the Jewish people in any way”. This is the depths that some Jewish anti-Zionists will reach, just to savage their Zionist co-religionists.

Words ripped out of context, as even a cursory reading of the ‘offending’ article will show. The passage in full reads:

Heydrich himself wrote the following in an article for the SS house journal Das Schwarze Korps in September 1935:

National socialism has no intention of attacking the Jewish people in any way. On the contrary, the recognition of Jewry as a racial community based on blood, and not as a religious one, leads the German government to guarantee the racial separateness of this community without any limitations. The government finds itself in complete agreement with the great spiritual movement within Jewry itself, so-called Zionism, with its recognition of the solidarity of Jewry throughout the world and the rejection of all assimilationist ideas. On this basis, Germany undertakes measures that will surely play a significant role in the future in the handling of the Jewish problem around the world.

In other words, a friendly mention of Zionism, indicating an area of basic agreement it shared with Nazism.

Of course, looking back at all this, it seems all the more sinister, since we know that the story ended with the gas chambers a few years later. This overlap is an indictment of Zionism, but the actual collaboration between the two was not such an exceptional thing, when you accept that the Zionists were faced with the reality of an anti-Semitic regime.

Moshé has written elsewhere that for any historian the facts must come first and the moral judgement after. The Zionists appear only to want convenient facts made available, and the facts are allowed or disallowed on the basis of the a priori moralism. We may observe this is an approach to history also shared by Michael Gove. Gove was excoriated by a brigade of reputable historians where he tried to see this as a basis for the school history curriculum. We would expect Labour Party employees to have a more reliable moral and intellectual compass than Gove. Sadly, reasonable expectations evaporate when you come within sight of Southside.

More Misuse of the IHRA Definition

Our catalogue of alarm has at least one further item. The Party thought-police have extended their interpretation of the IHRA (mis)definition of Antisemitism beyond our worst nightmares. According to the letter “pejorative language which may cause offence to Jewish people” is antisemitic. Well I find the pejorative language that the Party has used about Professor Machover to be deeply offensive to me as human being but also as a Jew and consequently I demand that all those involved in drawing up and agreeing this letter to expel themselves from the Labour Party forthwith. This demand may have little evidential basis but it has no more and no less than their letter of excommunication.

The implications of such an interpretation are horrendous. It is true that many British Jews find criticism of Israel’s record offensive. This is their right no matter how distorted we perceive the worldview that affords such a reaction. How far we should indulge a view that excuses the suppression of Palestinian rights is a political judgement that Labour Party officials have got very, very wrong. The Party’s responsibility, as a Party that places a high value on Human Rights in Britain and internationally, is to engage with those who jump to offence mode to help them find a more justice-based reaction to words and events.

Add your voice against Moshe Machover’s expulsion

Many local Labour Parties are adopting resolutions condemning Moshé’s expulsion, many more should do so. We have allowed too many messengers to be shot. We must not allow Moshé to be one more. Free Speech on Israel  will be part of that fight.