Editor’s introduction
Britain’s Labour Party is set to expel yet another member for voicing opposition to Zionist racism and Israeli apartheid.
Pete Gregson, chair of LAZIR – Labour Against Zionist Islamophobic Racism – and veteran campaigner for justice for the Palestinian people, has been given the red card by the party’s Disputes Team, which is riddled with Zionist racists – members of the so-called “Jewish Labour Movement”, a pro-Israeli apartheid body embedded within the Labour Party.
Below is his response to the Disputes Team which he has also sent to the Labour Leader’s Office, all 39 members of the party’s National Executive Committee (NEC) and its Complaints Team. His final submission to the Disputes Team is in the embedded document at the end of this page.
Text of Pete Gregson’s submission to the Labour Party Disputes Team
I write to complain about the 50 questions that were put to me a week ago by the [Labour Party] Disputes Team, demanding an answer within 7 days. They seek confidentiality, but the Legal and Governance Unit, of which they form part, breaches confidentiality whenever it suits. My suspension from the party was broadcast to the Jewish News a week before I knew of it.
There are big problems with the Disputes Team. The [BBC] Panorama programme that slated Labour about bogus anti-Semitism did not reveal the most important problem: that we are still riddled with fifth-columnists at HQ.
These people, clearly from the JLM [Jewish Labour Movement], do not favour a Labour government under Corbyn and are doing their best to expel leftie Labour activists like me. They support apartheid in Israel; they have not a care about how much their questioning reflects a bias; not once do they acknowledge Israel’s racist nature. By siding with that racist colony so enthusiastically, they betray the most appalling Islamophobia.
They cannot comprehend how much they undermine Labour’s commitment to social justice. They undermine our ability to combat racism. They are utterly in breach of the rulebook. In short, one wonders not only why they are in Labour but why they have been recruited into this most sensitive area of Labour investigations, that of anti-Semitism, when they exhibit such flagrant support for the Zionist creed.
I disagree with Corbyn’s statement that the Labour Party must be a home for Zionists. In the same breath, almost, he says we must support the Palestinians also. Yet Zionists are relentlessly expansionist for yet more land from Arabs in the Middle East, in addition to what they have already stolen from Palestine. They will never accommodate the Arabs and give them equality, for by definition their state must be Jewish. That means, to them, that Jews always must rule and all other ethno-religious groups must lose out. Corbyn’s position is therefore contradictory. He cannot support Zionists in Labour, for that means supporting racism and the ubiquitous Islamophobia they peddle.
I hope the complaints team will investigate how many of the Disputes Team are in the JLM and reflect upon the pro-Zionist nature of that body. I hope they see we must replace these racists with non-racists for without such a rational action we shall face many more attacks from within. Our Labour Party can no longer tolerate this bogus anti-Semitism, for it risks promoting real antagonism against Jews.
For every time one challenges a Zionist, they retort that they are a Jew. But that is an insult to proper Jews. As Rabbi Cohen says in my attached statement to the Disputes Team [see document below],
Judaism is an ancient, ethical, moral, compassionate and religious way of life. Going back, as stated earlier, thousands of years. Whereas Zionism (the movement and concept that begat the State of Israel) is a nationalistic, harsh, inconsiderate, secular and racist way of life, barely 120 years old, a totally new concept. It is totally incompatible with and diametrically unacceptable to Judaism on grounds of religious belief and religious humanitarian grounds.
So, there you have it. These Zionists are incompatible with Judaism. Let’s see the back of them.
View in Full Screen1EdinburghRef: L1156630Case no: CN-085731stJuly 2019DearLabour PartyDisputes Team,I am responding to your letter of 24 July 2010. In it, you request I keep the correspondence private, inorder, as you put it “toprotect the rights of all concerned”.Since you aretheteam of people withinLabour who have been charged with scrutinisingthe utterances ofmembers who have spoken out about the bogus anti-Semitism that has bedevilled this party since Corbynwas elected leader, it is difficult to see how your rights in any way need protecting.Your names appear onnone of the correspondence; only mine does.Youhave submitted 50 questions for me to answer, across 19 sheets of A4, in a timescale of 7 days. This isan unreasonable request, but I am putting aside the needs of my family andcampaign workin order tomeet it. But the nature of the questions I am called to answer suggest that it is my rights that needprotecting far more than yours.I refer of course to therights of freedom of speech as enshrined in theUniversal Declaration of HumanRights Articles 18–21, which sanctions the so-called “constitutional liberties”, with spiritual, public, andpolitical freedoms, such as freedom ofthought, opinion, religion and conscience, word, and peacefulassociation of the individual.Surely,Labour cannot deny these rights?Yet it is this right that I believe you in the Disputes Team are attacking.Much of the evidence you havesubmitted suggests an attempt to take away my freedom of speech through intimidatory questioning.Amazingly you quote the Data Protection Act 2018 when you call for confidentiality in your letter, but thisis an act that youyourselves breach with impunity.TheDisputes Teamformspart of the Governance and Legal Unit,whichI consider to havelittlerespect forconfidentiality. The Unit last wrote me in a letter dated 13thMarch, but which I did not receive until the16th, to saythat my Party membership was being suspended.At this point I was in dispute with the Jewish News over their article of the 11th March, (seehttps://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/union-member-sacked-for-saying-shoah-was-invented-or-exaggerated-loses-appeal/) in which they had stated I was suspendedfrom the Party; I had written tothemandcomplained to IPSOabout theirstatement, which I believed was false and scandalous.But five days after their article was published, I received the letter from yourUnit stating thiswas trulytobe the case–that Ireallywas suspended-with ademand that I keepthis news confidential.It issomewhat brazen, I believe,for you in the Disputes Team to be seeking confidentiality when yourLegalUnit’sdisciplinarydecisions are being passed onto the Jewish press almost a week before I hear of them.This is not only a breach of confidentiality but a breach of the GDPR. I wrote to the Party’s Complaints unitabout this on the 19thMarch; this was theseventhof my letters to theComplaintsUnit and was, like therest, ignored.27RiversdaleGroveEH125QS2I have complained to theInformation Commissioner’s Office (ICO)about your conduct, andin early Junethey wrote to you asking you address my disclosure concern as soon as possible. It is nowthe end of July.Itrather feels to me thatwhilstyou are enthusiastic about censuring Party members,you areunwilling torespond to complaints indicating that you have broken the law.That you care so little about breaches,thatyou ignore all complaintsabout them,does not suggest that you take the matterof confidentialityseriously. In light of the above, your request to keep our correspondence privateall seems rather one-sided, don’t you think?I reiterate.Given thatthe Legal Unit has, by its actions, indicated that it cares nothing about confidentialityand is so brazen that it point-blank ignores communications from both myself and the ICO seeking someredress or even an acknowledgment of complaints about confidentiality breaches, it seems nonsensical foryou to continuecalling for confidentiality when your Unitsingularlyrefuses to understand its obligationson the same.In summary,I consider it unreasonable for you to seek confidentiality on thecornucopia ofallegations inyour letter, some of which are so ridiculous as to beggar belief.The nature and volume of the questions levelled betray enormous bias in your team in favour of Zionistviews, views which are abhorrent in that they condone racism.The Partyrulebook is clear on the dangers of the Disputes Teaminsupporting such racism. I refer you totheCode of Conduct: Antisemitism and other forms of racism. It notes the Labour Party is an anti-racistParty yet it allows an openly racist body to affiliate to it, the JLM. The tone of your questions suggest somesympathy with this racist Zionist group andthat is what concerns me the most. The rulebook is clear that“Labour will not tolerate racism in any form inside or outside the party” yet I detect by the nature of yourquestions that you are only concerned with bogus anti-Semitism and unconcerned withthe torrid racismthat the JLM supports, in its unflinching support for the racist colony in the middle east which calls itselfIsrael.If the Disputes Team are tohave any kind of respect within the Party it is imperative that you pursue theracists inthe JLM, rather than those who campaign against their inclusion. That the fact thatone does nothave to be either Jewish or a member of the Labour Party in order to join the JLM is something which doesnot seem to concern you. This body even tells peoplenot to vote Labour; they passed a resolution that inan election they would not support any Labour candidate who accepts Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, and putthis into practice by not supporting Labour in the Peterborough marginal.Yet your allegations appear very much to have been written by someone in the JLM, so ridiculous many ofthem are.I would like you todisclose the namesof those in the Disputes Teamand their interest inIsrael/Zionism–for if they are members of the JLM or the Friends of Israel, presumably there is anobviousconflict of interest. It seems to me that their support for the JLM reads clearly in the questions that havebeen submitted to me. I would rather be quizzed by the JVL (they are least require their full members to beJewish.) If the Labour Party considers that Jews are best suited for acting for the Prosecution, then theyneed to appreciate that any racist can become a Jew if they do the appropriate studyingand declarations.And I feel that the questions I have been set betray anti-Arab racist views,for they betray unquestioningsupport for racist Israel.I therefore consider that it is in the wider interests ofthe Labour Party to expose the nature of thequestioning. The recent Panorama programme has left many wondering why there are so many Zionistsharboured in our HQ.It therefore behoves me to actin the wider interests of the Party to expose the letteryouwrote to me on the 24th. It will help inform fellow Labourmembers who, like me,seek toroot outracist sympathisers in the Disputes Team.3It is for this reason too,thatI cannot support your request to keep our correspondence private. For by sodoing,I would be abrogating my duties as a Labour member were I to ignore the stricture in the above-mentioned code of conduct item that says “Any use of language which….undermines Labour’s ability tocampaign against any form of racism, is unacceptable conductwithin the Labour Party.”I do believe that the Disputes Team’s behaviour,in supporting bogus anti-Semitism claims,is underminingLabour’s ability to campaign against thetorridracism experienced by millions of Palestinians on a dailybasis by Israel,racism which is supported by Zionists in the UK. As such I consider the Disputes Team’sdetermination to targetanti-apartheid campaignersforinvestigation to be unacceptable conduct. It simplyundermines our ability to campaign against racist Zionism.Iam therefore copying this whole matter to theParty’sComplaints Unit, as well as publicising it as widelyas possible, as I believe the Disputes Team itself to be acting against the i
nterests of the Party. You areundermining the Party’s ability tocampaign against the vile racism practised against the native people in acolony that we the British created and have supported for far too long.Israel is the only openly apartheidcountry in the world and Labour should not be attacking those who campaignagainst its racist laws andthose in the UK who support that racist state.It is one which we in Labour have supported for far too long.If we have any interest in securing peace in the middle east it is time we in the Party stood together againstracistZionist sympathisers. Which I am sorry to say, clearly includes members of the Disputes Team.Too many of the questions deny the equal worth and humanity of the Arab victims of Israel.It is time for the Party’s NEC to reflect that if, by tolerating the presence of Zionists in the Disputes Team,they have become complicit in encouraging the very anti-Semitism they seek to oppose. For there is nodoubt that Zionists, in their fanatical support for Israel, and their determination to claim to be Jewish whensochallenged,stoke the fires of anti-Semitism. If we really care about Jews in the UK, we must stamp outracist Zionism. And that challenge begins in Labour.Ifthe IHRA definition had not been adopted would this investigation even be taking place?My detailed answers toyour questionsare below.I have included the evidence you submitted in supportof these allegations at the end, from page 57 onwards.Yours sincerely,Pete GregsonPlease respond to these questions to the email address outlined inyour letter within 7 daysof the date on page 1.1) Please see the evidence attached overleaf.[now beginning at page 57].The Party has reason to believethat these areyour Social Media accounts. Please can you confirm this is the case?They are.2) The Party further has reason to believe that you posted or shared the content seen in Items1-15yourself. Please can you confirm this is the case? If not, each individual piece ofevidence is numbered so please specify which of the pieces of evidence you are disputingposting or sharing?Some of these items I did not post.4Item 1a:YesItem 1b:This is the link to Ian Fantom’s article . I posted the link to it, but not the article itself. When Iposted thelink to thearticle I did so herehttps://www.change.org/p/to-chair-of-labour-s-nec-andy-kerr-labour-members-declaring-israel-is-a-racist-endeavour-call-on-nec-to-abandon-full-ihra/u/24328623in asection headed “Other News”Here is what I said“Also see the article “UK’s Labour Antisemitism Split” byIan Fantom here. Ian organisedthe Keep Talking group that filmed my talk in the last but one update. (But I must say I think theKollerstrom article he mentions is quite toxic).”Item 1c:This is the Kollerstrom article referred to above.I did not post this.This is afrankly astonishingexampleof the Disputes Team mischievouslytrying to create “guilt by association”.Items 2-15:YesItem 13) Please can you confirm that you created and wrote the text for thispetition?I did4) Item 1b is an article by Ian Fantom, titled “UK’s Labour Antisemitism Split”–this is accessedvia a link inthe text of the petition in Item 1a. This article states as follows:“The focus of our group had not been on Israel, orZionism, and we tacitly agreed amongstourselves not to deal with the Holocaust issue, because that was so taboo in the UK that anyonslaught from the Zionist lobby could completely derail us from our main topic, which was falseflagterrorism and causes ofwars. In fact, my colleague, Dr Nick Kollerstrom, author of manyinvestigativebooks, including ‘Terror on the Tube’, had been targeted in a witch-hunt for aliterature review he wrote on‘The Auschwitz “Gas Chamber” Illusion’ and a comment about aswimming pool at Auschwitz, since deleted.I defended Nick Kollerstrom’s right to investigate thattopic, and to write about it freely, though I myselfhad no knowledge of the topic, and so no viewson it. That was the seminal incident that led to Keep Talkingbeing set up.”Please explain the reason for sharing this article?I assume the Disputes Team are familiar with my post athttp://www.kidsnotsuits.com/tony-greenstein-and-john-porter-the-spat/where I cover this topic ad nauseum. As I explained to Labour Against the Witch-hunt (who have chosento expel me because of my having posted a link to this piece), I posted the articlebecause of what it says about Herzl. I cite you here what Ian saysof this:“Until 1960 only sanitised versions of his diaries had been published, according to Herzl’s wishes. When theComplete Diaries werepublishedtheyremained obscure, until recently whentheywereposted on theInternet. Now it is clear that Herzl was actually advocating a resurgence in antisemitism against the‘poorJews’in order to advance the causeof a military invasion of Palestine sponsored by the‘rich Jews’.Such anengineered resurgence is in evidence today, and furthermore, Herzl’s antagonism towards democracy andSocialism illustrates how the‘poor Jews’were being used when they en masse supported democratic andSocialist causes. A return to Socialism under Jeremy Corbyn, following Tony Blair’s‘Third Way’,would not betolerated. Membership in Parliament of Labour Friends of Israel was declining, and that, I was suggesting,was behind the current witch-hunt in today’s Labour Party.”
