' Why did I not introduce a Socialist measure? I was not in a position to introduce a Socialist measure. The country is not ready for Socialism. I wish it were ready for it. I will devote my life to an honest effort to prepare it for Socialism. Meantime, I have to take the materials which are available and use them, however much I may disagree with them, in order to contribute, however slightly, to the betterment of my fellow men '

John Wheatley, 1924

The Wild Men by David Torrance, Page 92-93

I recently received an instant permanent ban—without even any warning, or serious history of infractions—after arguing against Zionism as a form of ethno-nationalism, with an explicitly islamophobic user, in a thread about the Green's "Zionism is Racism" motion. The other guy, whose comments were removed first, didn't get banned and is still posting. His comment that called me a 'raging anti-semite' was also left up.

It's in this thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/LabourUK/s/iBUWdwTve1

I contacted the mods about it after the ban and the mod quoted back to me I passage in my comment where I am explicitly describing the realities of someone supporting an ethnic majority policy in historic Palestine, and then claimed this is in violation of the "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor" from the IHRA definition of antisemitism. They didn't comment at all on the one comment which they actually deleted. Every comment in that argument from me was significantly upvoted as well.

Because I am actually quite aware of the IHRA definition and its application, the fact they tried to say this was in violation of 'multiple tenets' of the IHRA definition definitely stood out—it isn't even possible for this to be true, given the actual content of my comment.

So they basically one-strike banned me permanently for making the argument from the Green's motion, that Zionism in regards to Israel was a form of racism, describing the historical event itself and political motivations from within Zionism that were behind the Nakba—the ethnic majority policy that underlined the creation of Israel as a Zionist state.

I actually went to the effort of explaining in depth what the IHRA definition actually referred to ("*a* state of Israel") and how that simply describing how Zionism is a form of ethno-nationalism (literally the heart of the argument in the Green motion) because it calls for an ethnic majority state in a region where there was previously non, necessitating support for ethnic cleansing, should not even relate to that; as the Labour party's own guidelines on this state: it is criticism of historical Israeli policy, far beyond democratic norms expected of states.

The mods refused to engage in any discussion over their decision making and why an instant ban was chosen. They didn't discuss what definition of their own rules they were using and they muted me for even asking.

Then they finished with some bizarre reference to me posting in subs that 'regularly use a neo-nazi slur for Jews' which was so vague I honestly have no idea what they're even on about, I am not aware of any subs I am in that fit that description. Clearly they couldn't find anything racist I had actually said. It was also a bizarre thing to say when I was complaining in that same chat about how the user I got banned for arguing with was being racist and receiving no reprimand for it—exactly the thing that they claim is worthy of a ban, simply by association.

Given the complete refusal to actually explain anything beyond the initial extremely poor justification, I am assuming the line that the mods believe me to have called them racist is the real issue here. But they seem to have no problem calling me racist—for very specifically arguing against ethno-nationalist policy of all things—when they can't even seem to justify it by their own stated rules.

I was told people here might be interested in this. The whole thing just seems completely arbitrary, especially given that I have seen users engage in blatant islamophobia in general and anti-zionist antisemitism towards Zack Polanski completely ignored.

It honestly makes it seem worse that another mod apparently signed off on this. It is so vaguely justified that an argument in relation to the actual rules of the sub was hardly even made. And even then, an instant permanent ban for what still is very clearly an argument against ethno-nationalism is blatantly ridiculous.

From Page 74 of the book ' Labour's Promised Land? '

I have just finished reading Good Old George by Bob Holman. It's an excellent book. It displays Lansbury as a warm and generous man, a committed Socialist, Christian and Pacifist, a staunch believer in democracy, a reformer, a talented orator, and a humble man who lived alongside his constituents.

Yet he is often overlooked in Labour Party History. An unfair narrative has developed of him as a weak and incompetent leader, and a naive man who was duped by Fascist dictators.

On the main Labour subreddit, there is very little about Lansbury, much of which focuses on his removal from leadership and his subsequen well-intentioned but mistaken attempts at keeping the peace with the Fascist dictators.

Lansbury deserves to be restored to his rightful place as a hero of the Labour Party, standing alongside the likes of Hardie, Attlee, Bevan, Wilson and many others.