Prof Moshé Machover’s summary expulsion

3rd October 2017

Moshé Machover, 81-year old member of Hampstead & Kilburn Labour Party and a pre-eminent theorist, historian and activist in the Israeli Socialist organisation Matzpen over many decades, has been summarily thrown out of the Labour Party.

We reprint here a letter from the Labour Party, signed by Sam Matthews, Head of Disputes, expelling Moshé without due process – accused, charged, prosecuted, judged and sentenced in one letter and without even the apparent need for a hearing. 

A full JVL statement will be issued later today.

15 April 2020: the copy of the letter originally posted had disappeared. It has been restored today.]

Click on the images below to sharpen them





Comments (1)

  • GH says:

    I’m a bit puzzled by the statement:
    “The content of these articles appears to meet the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemism, which has been adopted by the Labour Party.”
    The point is rendered moot by the expulsion for difference reasons under Clause 2.1.4.B.

    However the letter’s assertion regarding the IHRA definition seems to be at variance with the rule change at this year’s conference:
    “The NEC shall take account of any codes of conduct currently in force and shall regard any incident which in their view might reasonably be seen to demonstrate hostility or prejudice based on age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; or sexual orientation as conduct prejudicial to the Party. These shall include but not be limited to incidents motivated by racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia or otherwise racist language, sentiments, stereotypes or actions, sexual harassment, bullying or any form of intimidation towards another person on the basis of a protected characteristic as determined by the NEC, wherever it occurs, as conduct prejudicial to the Party.”

    On checking I can find no explicit or implied reference to the IHRA definition in the rules.

    As there are important differences between the IHRA definition and the rule change, the Head of Disputes should clarify the criteria used for judging anti-Semitism.

    As it stands, there is a danger of members either falling foul of the rules because of criticism of the Israeli regime or being falsely accused of anti-Semitism…

Comments are now closed.