State Collusion: Jewish Extremist Escapes Trial for Religious Assault on Galloway

From the Jewish Chronicle: – which appears to be the only paper to have covered this. Will the left media make an issue of it, I wonder? Don’t hold your breath!

It appears that Neil Masterson, who admits this disgusting, violent attack on free speech of an elected representative, is not to be tried for the religiously aggravated component of the assault he has admitted upon the Respect MP George Galloway on 25th August.

Since he was heard by eyewitnesses screaming that Galloway was ‘Hitler’ and an ‘enemy of Judaism’, most reasonable people would conclude that he should be tried for the religiously-aggravated aspect of the assault. It is clear that such utterances signify a religious motive, just as much as those Islamic extremists who carry placards saying ‘behead those who insult Islam’.

In principle, there is no difference between Masterson and the two Islamic fanatics who attacked the soldier Lee Rigby with knives and meat cleavers in Woolwich. The idea that punching someone repeatedly while screaming that they are an enemy of ‘X’ religion is ‘borderline’ is a sick joke.

But the state bends over backward to get this violent extremist off the hook with a reduced sentence. This reflects the fact that he is a fascist with state backing, in support of a cause – the brutalisation of the Palestinians – that the racist British state is supporting. Masterson is an extra-parliamentary enforcer for Israeli terror in Britain. One could say that he represents a violent adjunct of the ‘Friends of Israel’ factions that dominate all three of the major political parties in the UK.

H/T Gilad Atzmon

A Jewish carer has admitted punching and kicking George Galloway, leaving him with a broken rib.

Neil Masterson pleaded guilty to causing the Respect MP actual bodily harm, at a hearing at Isleworth Crown Court today.

A charge of religiously aggravated assault against him was dropped.

A former civil servant and BBC manager, Masterson , 39, ran at Mr Galloway while the MP posed for pictures with two members of the public in Notting Hill, west London on August 29.

Masterson, who converted to Judaism, punched the MP repeatedly and then kicked him in the face after he was knocked to the ground.

Masterson then pushed away another man who tried to intervene.

Mr Galloway spent a night in St Mary’s Hospital Paddington following the attack.

During an earlier hearing in September, prosecutor Douglas Adams quoted Masterson as saying he “carried out the attack because he felt the victim was an enemy of Judaism”.

Mr Douglas said that Masterson told the police: “I didn’t want him to think I’m scared, Galloway is antisemitic and I am Jewish.”

But at today’s hearing, prosecutors decided there was insufficient evidence to proceed with a charge of religiously aggravated assault.

Instead Masterson was re-arraigned on a new charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm against Mr Galloway, to which he pleaded guilty.

Prosecuting lawyer Michelle Nelson told the court: “We have decided the religious aggravation element is borderline, very borderline, and we don’t wish to proceed with this charge. We will be offering no evidence.”

Dressed in a black T-shirt with a poppy pinned on it, Masterson stood calmly in the dock as he was told by Judge Aidan Marron he would not face trial.

He was remanded in custody until December 5 when he will be sentenced.

Masterson, of Campden Hill, Kensington, is a full-time carer for a woman who suffers from Crohn’s disease.


  1. Stephen Diamond

    Do you actually support “hate crime” laws, Ian? (I see them as antidemocratic.)

    [Nor do I see how this is an attack based on religion. It was a protofascist attack based on Galloway’s politics, not his religion. Applying the law unfairly to political enemies is no different from favoring state bans on them.]


  2. Ian

    I don’t have a strategy of demanding more and more refined ‘hate crime’ laws from the bourgeois state, which is a bankrupt strategy that leads in strange directions. But neither am in favour of agitating against the more straightforward ones, e.g. laws forbidding racial discrimination, or criminalising violence with a racist or other related reactionary motive. Those are social gains for the oppressed, which benefit the working class. They would also be criminalised under a workers state.

    Galloway’s attacker justified his attack by saying that Galloway was an “enemy of Judaism”. Which is deluded and absurd, but it is a religious motive. This law rightly criminalises attacks on grounds of non-religion, as well as of religion. And he openly stated that was why he did it. There would have been nothing unfair about applying this law to him .. he said it!

    No prizes for guessing what would have happen if some Muslim had similarly attacked a pro-war politician and justified it on grounds that the victim was an ‘enemy of Islam’! They would have thrown the book at them. That is why letting Masterson off for this was an act of pro-Zionist racism, and amounted to state collusion with the criminal.


  3. Stephen Diamond

    The argument for hate-crime laws exactly parallels the argument for banning fascists; as does the counter-argument against hate-crime laws. The latter is that if the ruling class is allowed to engineer thought crimes for the right, it will do so for the left (and has done so in other ways already). [Only a racist can commit violence for racist reasons. To compound an ordinary crime by the ideology behind it is different only in degree from a ban.]

    Hate-crime laws are the legal expression of multiculturalism, which in turn is a major symptom of the Zionification of the ruling class. I hope it won’t sound rude when I say you won’t get anywhere with your insights into Jewish chauvinism on the left if you can’t connect them to concrete practices and positions.


  4. Ian

    Both the attack on Galloway and the failure to charge his attacker according to the crime he admitted committing were acts of Jewish or pro-Jewish chauvinism. My critique of what is sometimes called multiculturalism is not that it is wrong to suppress racists and the like, but that the official variety is a hypocritical fiction. Yes, the bourgeois state will twist any and every law that contains any gain for the working class and use it against the working class in the most inventive ways. But that does not change the fact that, unlike immigration laws, for instance, laws that ostensibly racist violence coincide with things that the working class in power will do with gusto as correct in principle.

    This is actually a very important case, because in the real world, the reality is the opposite of what Stephen describes. It was the Zionist-influenced ruling establishment that let Masterson off from the more serious charge. This was a prima-facie case as to why official anti-racism is a lie, and the state is as racist as ever. I would argue that the underlying motive for Masterson’s attack was actually racist – it was against Galloway because he is seen as an outspoken ‘Arab-lover’. I argued this in one of my recent polemics against the Weekly Worker. In February, a bunch of rabid Jewish racists openly taunted Galloway on BBC Question Time about this assault, hardly anyone from the establishment even objected to their behaviour.

    This is a more powerful indictment of official anti-racism and official multiculturalism than any formal and purist objection to polemics like mine, which precisely point out the hypocritical and false nature of their their laws and their application. If you have such a purist view, then the contradictions this engenders are less important than the pure principle. But in my view, the contradictions are precisely why the bourgeois state is not to be trusted. And this is a prime example.


  5. Ian

    Depends which state is doing it and why. Would you condemn the existing state and demand their freedom if it did? Doubtful. But these laws do not ban fascists. They criminalise violence with a racist or bigoted motive. I actually do not care about the freedom to engage in such acts. I would suppress them myself. And it is obvious that the failure to use the law against Masterson, who openly admitted his motive, exposes the pro – Jewish racism of the state. This is where the repetition of abstract truth fails. Including about the state. This concretely exposes the nature of the state.


  6. Stephen Diamond

    I actually do not care about the freedom to engage in such acts. I would suppress them myself.

    Remarkably short-sighted! (Even cravenly Opportunist.) The ruling class uses hate-crime laws to criminalize “holocaust revisionism” and hatred of Zionism. (See )

    We have a very basic difference here. I don’t want the capitalist state busting racist workers! Racism must be debated like everything else. Communists are extreme democrats.


  7. Ian

    We are not talking about debate, but acts.

    Did not the early Soviet state shoot people, e.g. Black Hundreds, who did similar things? Was that wrong? I don’t think so.

    With regard to ruling class mendacity about who is ‘racist’, we expect that. Only anti-racist consistency can defeat that politically.

    Yes, racism must be debated with those in the working class influenced by it. That does not contradict using force to suppress hardened, violent racists.


  8. Pingback: Batley and Spen – we need an independent working-class candidacy – Trotskyist Faction: Socialist Fight

Comment on the above

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s