The Manufacturing of Consent Over False   Anti-Semitism

I want to thank Dr Alan Maddison for help in compiling this article.

Alongside the false narrative of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party has gone the creation of false and distorted statistics.  No body is better at doing this than the secretive Zionist charity, the Community Security Trust.

It is extremely unusual for a charity to be allowed to keep the details of its trustees secret by the Charity Commission but it has managed this.  It is an extremely rich charity having reserves of over £12.3 million pounds at the end of the 2015 financial year.  I estimate that it seeks funding from half the Jewish charities in Britain.  In addition in 2015 it obtained Home Office and Community Department grants of over £6m.

It is supported by the wealthiest and most reactionary Zionist capitalists in Britain and in particular Gerald Ronson, who was jailed for a year in the Guiness fraud trial.  He is/was owner of the largest private company in Britain, Heron Ltd and is a far-Right Zionist.

The CST has historically seen its role as safeguarding the Jewish community from Jewish anti-Zionists and it has been used to eject hecklers from Zionist meetings and protect e.g. Israel's fascist foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman when he came to London.  It is known to have close links to Israeli intelligence and the Israeli Embassy, and its public spokesman Mark Gardener used to appear regularly on the media to defend Israel from 'anti-Semites' on the Left.  

His role has been superseded to some extent by its Deputy Director Dave Rich who late last year brought out a book entitled The Left's Jewish Problem Jeremy Corbyn, Israel and Anti-Semitism

UPDATE

Sir Mick Davis, Chairman of the JLC, told us that criticising Zionism is the same as antisemitism, because: Zionism is so totally identified with how the Jew thinks of himself, and is so associated with the right of the Jewish people to have their own country and to have self-determination within that country, that if you attack Zionism, you attack the very fundamentals of how the Jews believe in themselves.

However this was too blunt an approach.  The Committee therefore tried to inflate the incidence of anti-Semitism and conflate this with the upsurge in protests against Israel’s repression of the Palestinians.

In the Introduction under Key Facts the Committee report that the ‘The first half of 2016 saw an 11% rise in antisemitic incidents reported to Community Security Trust (CST), compared with the same period during the previous year.’

If true this is of course shocking but what is the reality?  In the CST’s Incidents Report for the first half of 2016 it is indeed reported that there was an increase from 500 to 557 anti-Semitic incidents.

However 133 of these ‘incidents’ involved social media, which could of course be just one individual racist tweeting something anti-Semitic.  Hardly a major incident.  These 133 incidents were themselves an increase on the 89 incidents recorded in the same period in 2015.  In other words, of the 57 extra number of anti-Semitic incidents, no less than 44 were on social media.  But there is more.  The CST tells us that:

‘The 557 recorded antisemitic incidents included 41 violent antisemitic assaults, a 13 per cent fall from the first half of 2015. None of these violent incidents were classified by CST as ‘Extreme Violence’, which would mean they involved potential grievous bodily harm (GBH) or threat to life.’

In other words there was a fall of 13% in violent anti-Semitic incidents in the first half of 2016, none of which were classified as being of ‘extreme violence’.  Looking at the January-June CST Anti-Semitic Incidents Report for 2015, one finds that there were 2 incidents of extreme violence.  So there was another, welcome drop in anti-Semitic incidents for 2016 but the HASC, through statistical manipulation, managed to dress this up as an increase.  The question is why they would do that.

The HASC Report was the subject of a scathing critique by David Plank, a former Special Advisor to the Social Services Select Committee.  He describe it as:

David Plank has put his finger on at least part of the problem.  In order to sustain the false anti-Semitism allegations that have become part of the accepted narrative in the Labour Party it was essential that the HASC produce a report showing that anti-Semitism is on the increase.  In criticising Jeremy Corbyn for the alleged increase in anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, in actual fact there has been no independent evidence of such anti-Semitism and the Chakrabarti Report didn’t manage to find any either, it is clear that this Report was motivated primarily by an animus towards Corbyn.

This manufacturing of an atmosphere of hysteria and false panic over anti-Semitism is tied to an attempt to redefine what a racist incident is, by deliberately misinterpreting the conclusions of the MacPherson Report into the Police’s racist inquiry and handling of the murder of Stephen Lawrence.  Remember that Stephen Lawrence was the victim of a racist murder.  We now have the appalling vista of Zionists and imperialists using the findings of an Inquiry into racism to justify their attacks on anti-racists who criticise Israel, the world’s only official apartheid state.

Hate Crimes and Racist Incidents – How the Establishment Uses the Language of Racism to Protect Racism

The CPS’s Racist and religious crime – CPS prosecution policy explains ‘What we mean by racist or religious crime’ by reference to the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report which was published in February 1999.  According to the CPS, the Lawrence Inquiry defined a racist incident as:

“˜... any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person."
The CPS state that ‘We accept this definition.’ And it goes on to say that ‘We define a religious incident as:

At first sight this seems bonkers.  How can a racist crime, or indeed any crime, be decided on the basis of the victim’s perception alone?  Racism, like sexism or any form of discrimination, is not a subjectivity existing independently of the actual evidence.

What the CPS and the State, encouraged of course by Britain’s Zionist lobby is trying to do is to distort and decontextualise the findings of the Lawrence Inquiry.  The Lawrence definition of a racist incident was directed at forcing the Police to record the perceptions of the victim if s/he though they had been the victims of a racist attack.  It didn’t therefore mean to say that the attack was, automatically to be treated as proven or fact.  It applied to the Police’s own attitude to a possible racist attack in view of their blind disregard of the circumstances of Stephen Lawrence’s murder.
Is it seriously suggested that all allegations of rape are to be treated as fact?  If so why bother with a trial.  It is a trite fact that supporters of the Israeli state and Zionism consider that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are one and the same thing.  According to this logic, anyone who opposes Zionism is automatically an anti-Semite.  And because, according to the spurious logic of the CPS, it is for the ‘victim’ of racism to define a racist incident, an expression of opposition to Israel or hostility to Zionism can be counted as anti-Semitic if someone who is Jewish says they are racially offended!
Historically anti-Semitism was treated as hostility or violence to Jews as Jews.  Today it is treated as a form of hostility to Israel and its founding ideology, Zionism. 

According to the CPS’s ‘logic’ any Jewish Zionist who feels that an expression of hostility to Zionism or Israel is ‘anti-Semitic’ is entitled to declare that s/he is a victim of a racist incident.  Of course a Jewish anti-Zionist is likely to disagree, so it is not so much as the victim’s ‘perception’ so much as the politics of the ‘victim’ that counts.  Indeed one can go further.  A Zionist who is not Jewish may feel that they have been the subject of an ‘anti-Semitic’ incident and this too is to be treated at face value.

Shami Chakrabarti was faced with this dilemma, when Zionists in the Labour Party started alleging that the MacPherson Inquiry gave them carte blanche to define any expression of hostility to Israel as ‘anti-Semitic’.  In her Report she found that:


In other words the CPS’s definition of a racist incident as being dependent on the perception of the ‘victim’ is seriously misleading, not least as a statement of law.  An incident should, in the first instance, be recorded as racist if the victim declares that they believe it to be so, but that is only the starting point.  An allegation of racism has to be investigated and subject, if there is sufficient evidence, to a trial.  An allegation or ‘perception’ of racism is the beginning not the end of the matter.

Hate Crimes & the Depoliticisation of Race

In terms of what were termed ‘hate crime’s then the following figures provide some context for anti-Semitic hate crimes.

 

 

Even assuming that the CST figures of 557 for the first half of 2016 are correct, making approximately 1,100 for the whole of 2016 if the second half of the year mirrors the second half, that mean that just over 2% of hate crimes were anti-Semitic.  Bearing in mind that 24% of these incidents were on social media.  Anyone can post a thousand hateful tweets and create a complete statistical absurdity.  In terms of actual person to person anti-Semitic incidents it would appear that there are about 800 incidents.  But even then, given that the CST is an overtly Zionist organisation, there is good reason for believing that what it sees as anti-Semitic is in fact a reaction to Israel’s crimes and that any anti-Israeli comment is likely to be classified as anti-Semitic.

 

In terms of the seriousness of such offences, even anecdotal evidence suggests that anti-Muslim racial incidents are of a far more serious nature than comments about Mohammad or social media tweets.  They involve firebombings of Mosques, the murder of individual Muslims and attacks on Muslim premises, not least by the far-Right. 

Below are statistical tables taken from the Office of National Statistics.

 Source : Overall Crime to March 2016

If you feel this doesn’t tally with your experience of life in Blighty in 2016, you aren’t alone. There is a great disparity between the handwringing over hate crime and what Britain is actually like. The open racism even I can remember in the 1980s has all but vanished. Racist chants at football matches are a distant memory. Hard-right, foreigner-bashing parties may be thriving on the Continent, but they are dying over here. The likes of the BNP and EDL have withered due to lack of interest. This is a British triumph.

It’s not vainglorious to say that Britain is the most tolerant country in Europe, perhaps the world. In France, for instance, a national news-making hate incident is the attempted burning down of a mosque, which happened last month in Toulouse. In Britain, it is somebody shouting something nasty on a bus.

It’s almost impossible to argue reasonably that Britain is a bigoted country where ethnic minorities are somehow kept down. On the contrary, they are now more likely than whites to hold top jobs (doctors, lawyers, chief executives). More than a million Londoners voted for Sadiq Khan in May, giving him the largest direct mandate enjoyed by any individual in British history — not bad for the capital of a nation in which, according to Lady Warsi, it has become ‘socially acceptable’ to despise Muslims.

Yes, the statistics are scary, and nobody should downplay the hurt caused to those who are attacked and abused. The number of hate crimes recorded by the cops has grown year by year. Six years ago, there were 42,255; in 2014-15, there were 52,528.

But these figures need to be taken with a fistful of salt. There is something wrong with the way we report and measure hate crimes in this country. The numbers do not necessarily speak to any objective spread of hate in modern Britain. On the contrary, what the BBC calls an ‘epidemic’ is a product of the authorities redefining racism and prejudice to such an extent that almost any unpleasant encounter between people of different backgrounds can now be recorded as ‘hatred’.
Consider the Brexit aftermath. The police say that 3,192 reports of hate incidents were received in the last two weeks of June, and 3,001 in the first two weeks of July. Apparently that constitutes a rise of 48 per cent and 20 per cent respectively on last year’s levels of incidents. But can we engage in some scepticism here? Many of these incidents (the police can’t at the moment say how many) were reported through True Vision, a police-funded website that allows anyone anywhere to report something they either experienced or witnessed, anonymously if they like. No evidence is needed. Everything is instantly logged as a hate incident. This inevitably presents a warped view of reality.
Already, two infamous post–Brexit ‘incidents’ have been debunked. It was widely claimed, for instance, that an attack on a tapas bar in Lewisham, south London, was a hate crime; actually, police say it was a burglary. A photo of four boneheads in Newcastle holding a banner saying ‘Stop Immigration, Start Repatriation’ was widely shared as evidence of xenophobia. But Geordies have pointed out that those idiots have been holding up that banner every weekend for ages, long before Brexit.

Beyond the post-Brexit hysteria, it’s incredible how subjective the idea of ‘hate crime’ has become. The police and the Crown Prosecution Service first agreed a common definition of hate crime ten years ago and started measuring national hate-crime levels in 2008. A hate crime, the police say, is ‘any criminal offence which is perceived, by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by a hostility or prejudice towards someone based on a personal characteristic’. They monitored ‘five strands’: crimes driven by prejudice based on race, religion/faith, sexual orientation, disability, and gender identity.

The police’s ‘Hate Crime Operational Guidance’ now stresses that the victim’s perception is the deciding factor in whether something is measured as a hate crime. No evidence is required. ‘Evidence of… hostility is not required for an incident or crime to be recorded as a hate crime or hate incident,’ the guidance says. ‘[The] perception of the victim, or any other person, is the defining factor… the victim does not have to justify or provide evidence of their belief, and police officers or staff should not directly challenge this perception.’ So you don’t need actual evidence to prove hate crime, just a feeling. The police are discouraged from asking for evidence. This is reflected in the policies of individual constabularies. So the ‘Hate Crime Procedure’ of the Surrey Police says ‘apparent lack of motivation as the cause of an incident is not relevant as it is the perception of the victim or any other person that counts’. No clear hateful motivation? Doesn’t matter. Record it as a hate crime anyway. Indeed, even when nothing hateful was said to the victim of a crime, still the police must record the incident as a hate crime if the victim perceives it to be so. The police guidance gives the example of a gay man being ‘sworn at and threatened’ by an assailant who said absolutely ‘nothing… about his sexual orientation’. If this gay man ‘perceives that he was targeted [because] he is openly gay’ then the police must ‘record this as a hate crime based on sexual orientation’. Think about this. If any gay man is shouted at in the street, by anyone, about anything, with no mention of sexuality, that can be recorded as an anti-gay hate crime. There’s no need for any proof whatsoever that anything anti-gay in sentiment was said or even intimated.

The unhinged subjectivity of the hate-crime definition becomes even clearer on the issue of what is called ‘secondary victimisation’. This is when a victim of an alleged hate crime feels that the police are not being sensitive enough and thus compound the ‘hate’ he or she has experienced. The police guidance says ‘secondary victimisation is based on victim perception, rather than what actually happens. It is immaterial whether it is reasonable or not for the victim to feel that way’. Again, this sanctification of perception over ‘what actually happens’ has trickled down into hate-crime policies of local constabularies. So the ‘Hate Crime Policy and Procedure’ of Greater Manchester Police says that if a hate-crime victim feels indifference from the police, this ‘victimises them a second time’ and ‘whether or not it is reasonable for them to perceive it that way is immaterial’. Truth, then, is ‘immaterial’.

In a world obsessed with evidence-based public policy, it is odd that a new crime category which explicitly eschews evidence in favour of emotion is subjected to such little scrutiny. And it gets worse: the prosecution of a hate crime doesn’t actually have to prove that hatred was the motivation. The CPS states: ‘The prosecution does not… need to prove hatred as the motivating factor behind an offence.’ The CPS says any crime that involves ‘ill-will, ill-feeling, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment, or dislike’ on the basis of a ‘personal characteristic’ could be a hate crime. So unfriendliness can now be criminal. Next time you read about a hate-crime epidemic, bear that in mind.

Burglaries and robberies are often recorded as hate crimes. According to the Home Office, of all the hate incidents in the Crime Survey for England and Wales, 8 per cent are burglaries. And 1 per cent is bicycle theft. A racially motivated bike theft? You might think stealing is just about stealing, but if the victim thinks his stuff was nicked because he’s foreign, gay or trans, then it is recorded as hate crime.

The ‘Hate Crime Operational Guidance’ demands ‘increasing the reporting and recording of hate crime’. It specifies that success should not be measured by a reduction in hate-crime levels, perhaps because this will give people the impression that community life in Britain is getting better, and we can’t have that. ‘Targets that see success as reducing hate crime are not appropriate,’ it says, as this won’t ‘motivate managers’ to ‘promote positive recording’ or ‘increase the opportunity for victims to report’. So ‘success’ has one meaning only: creating evidence to suggest the problem is getting worse. The police are incentivised to find hatred, because their goal isn’t to tackle crime so much as to create a public impression of mass hatred.

Why are our authorities so willing to push this deceptive agenda? Why is our country determined to see itself as bigoted? It’s because creating a panic about hate crime gives officials and others a sense of purpose and history. But the squalid search for, and exaggeration of, hatred is dangerous and, to use a word so popular on social media, divisive. It is a slur on the white working classes to claim that what they think and say — on immigration, Europe, life in general — is racist. Such a perception convinces minorities that they should live in fear. It spreads anxiety and silences discussion. It rips Britain apart.

According to one leftie online magazine, Britain now evokes ‘nightmares of 1930s Germany’. But this doesn’t square with the reality of our country today, and you shouldn’t believe it. The hate-crime epidemic is a self-sustaining myth — a libel against the nation.