"Free Palestine, Vote Labour"


By richmillett
March 24, 2010
Share

Last night’s meeting in Parliament arranged by Friends of Al Aqsa was due to be about Israel’s building in east Jerusalem but turned out to be a party political broadcast for the Labour Party.

The three Labour MPs that spoke mainly turned their guns on the Conservatives.

Martin Linton, Labour MP for Battersea (majority – 163 votes):

“There are long tentacles of Israel in this country who are funding election campaigns and putting money into the British political system for their own ends. Now there are a number of Conservatives who have a very good record on this issue, I am not saying it’s a simple party political issue, but you must consider over the next few weeks, when you vote and when you make your constituents aware, of the attempt by Israelis and pro-Israelis to influence the election in this country and you must draw your own conclusions from that. If they get the message that trying to buy a Conservative victory, what’s more trying to buy Conservative support for Israel, is successful then they will carry on doing it. If they can see that it is not going to work, then they will desist. It is important for not only this country but also for the future of the Middle East that the result of the election in this country does not send that message.”

For full piece see:

www.richardmillett.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/free-palestine-vote-labour/

COMMENTS

moshetzarfati2 (not verified)

Wed, 03/24/2010 - 17:10

Rate this:

0 points

Rich, I'm surprised at you. All the parties are the same. Take Tim Archer, the Tory parliamentary candidate for Poplar and Limehouse, who has quite close relationships with the extremist Islamic Forum of Europe’s headquarters, the East London Mosque. He is due to appeari at an IFE event on 30 March at the East London Mosque whose purpose is to attack “media smearing of Muslim organisations”. That conclusion is as follows: Mr Archer is perfectly willing to allow himself to be used as a pawn by Islamists if he thinks there might be a few votes in it.
Other speakers include Bob Lambert, the former head of the Met’s Muslim Contact Unit; Oliver McTernan, director of “Forward Thinking;” and that celebrated figure, "Gorgeous" George Galloway – who owes the IFE, in his own words, “more than I can say, more than it would wise for me to say.” Nobody, interestingly, from the Labour Party.


Jon_i_Cohen

Wed, 03/24/2010 - 17:18

Rate this:

0 points

Arafat and the dream of Palestine, An Insider’s Account
By Bassam Abu Sharif
Anyone read this?
They know it themselves, that's all it is ever going to be - A Dream!


Jon_i_Cohen

Wed, 03/24/2010 - 17:19

Rate this:

0 points

And in the words of the song "Dream on"!


mattpryor

Wed, 03/24/2010 - 17:21

Rate this:

0 points

Martin Linton is my MP, I have written to him previously to express my views. For some reason he didn't write back!

Checking his parliamentary interests it also seems that Labour Friends of Israel paid for him to go over there recently too.

Wonder what that was all about.


richmillett

Wed, 03/24/2010 - 17:27

Rate this:

0 points

I was only writing up last night, specifically, Moshe. If a Conservative was there i'd have said the same.


mattpryor

Wed, 03/24/2010 - 18:00

Rate this:

0 points

My mistake, Martin Linton was my old MP. Current one is Malcolm Wicks who is the guy that was sent off to Israel by LFI.


Yvetta

Wed, 03/24/2010 - 19:01

Rate this:

0 points

There's a nasty antisemitic cartoon from either La Libre Parole or Der Stuermer that depicts a Jewish oligarch with tentacles ... Linton's words are redolent of some despicable imagery.


Jonathan Hoffman

Wed, 03/24/2010 - 19:29

Rate this:

0 points

These meetings blatantly breach the Public Order Act:

PUBLIC ORDER ACT

Acts intended or likely to stir up racial hatred

A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if –

(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or

(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.


richmillett

Wed, 03/24/2010 - 20:20

Rate this:

0 points

Are you sure, Jon? It is an interesting point. I just thought privilege applied in the confines of the two main debating chambers and when parliamentary committees are in session but not to any old public meeting. And does privilege apply to every law?


Jon_i_Cohen

Wed, 03/24/2010 - 21:11

Rate this:

0 points

"Parliamentary Privilege"; the "Law of the Land" does not apply on site in the HoC - that is why they have these meeting there.
I have been in correspondence with the Seargent At Arms, (the man responsible for booking the meeting rooms in the HoC) over the meetings sponsored by Corbyn earlier in the month - this was their answer.
In other words they can do and say what they like on the "premises".


Jon_i_Cohen

Wed, 03/24/2010 - 21:15

Rate this:

0 points

Yes absolutely Rich, no sitting MP can be held to account for any breach of a civil law, regardless, just so long as what is said is within the "walls"of the House Of Commons, the chamber, meeting rooms and grounds.
If they held these meetings anywhere else WE would be within our rights to call the Police.


Jon_i_Cohen

Wed, 03/24/2010 - 21:18

Rate this:

0 points

"Friends of Al Aqsa", isn't he the character in the new Baddiel film "The Infidel"?
What a joke!, can't wait for "Friends Of Bin Laden" to be set up!


Jon_i_Cohen

Wed, 03/24/2010 - 21:20

Rate this:

0 points

Sorry guys, but if you can't have a laugh, (at their expense), with all this b*****k* going on it'll drive you nuts!


Jonathan Hoffman

Wed, 03/24/2010 - 21:52

Rate this:

0 points

I am surprised by the Sergeant's response. I think he's wrong.

According to Erskine May, "privilege" only applies to "Parliamentary Proceedings".

Public meetings within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster are not "Parliamentary Proceedings", since they could be held anywhere.


moshetzarfati2 (not verified)

Wed, 03/24/2010 - 22:28

Rate this:

0 points

Actually, Jonathan is right. Priviledge applies only to proceedings, not meetings.


Jon_i_Cohen

Wed, 03/24/2010 - 22:59

Rate this:

0 points

Even though I was pleased to read moshetzarfati2 agreeing with Jonathan Hoffman; I am sorry to say you are both wrong; this is the section from the regulation governing MP's behaviour:-

"In the United Kingdom, it allows members of the House of Lords and House of Commons to speak freely before those houses without fear of legal action on the grounds of slander. It also means that members of Parliament cannot be arrested on civil matters within the grounds of the Palace of Westminster"


moshetzarfati2 (not verified)

Wed, 03/24/2010 - 23:31

Rate this:

0 points

I think Jon that means the rozzers can't come barging in to feel an MP's collar. They have to wait with the cuffs till the MP is off premises


Jonathan Hoffman

Thu, 03/25/2010 - 00:13

Rate this:

0 points

That was why there was the fuss about the Damian Green arrest.

MPs can be found guilty of a civil offence committed at a public meeting within the Palace of Westminster. But they can't be arrested for it while they are there.

I don't think you're right Jon


Yvetta

Thu, 03/25/2010 - 08:17

Rate this:

0 points

The Reader in Jewish Studies at a certain Midlands redbrick is a Friend of Al Aqsa, and writes articles/book reviews in its publications demonising Israel. Its tentacles are long, eh?

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.

RICHMILLETT ON TWITTER

    LATEST COMMENTS