The home affairs select committee released a seminal report yesterday. It is the culmination of work that started on 12 April 2016. The incidents with Naz Shah, Ken Livingstone and Jacqui Walker all came to light or took place after the inquiry was announced. Unless the committee had some great insight that the former mayor of London was due another controversy involving Britain’s Jewish community, it is hard to suggest – as some have done – that this is part of some establishment plot to undermine Jeremy Corbyn.
The report is thorough, thoughtful and is the unanimous view of the committee. This should give everyone – particularly the Labour party and the National Union of Students – cause for reflection. A sober analysis is required, not a hot-headed response.
In the most bizarre statement issued over the weekend, Corbyn’s office have come out swinging. The Labour leader ‘welcome[s] some recommendations in the report, such as strengthening anti-hate crime systems, demanding Twitter take stronger action against antisemitic trolling and allow users to block keywords, and support for Jewish communal security’ but not one in relation to how the Labour party could do better. He claims that the Labour party took an ‘unprecedented’ step in commissioning the report chaired by now Labour peer Shami Chakrabarti but that the committee had a ‘disproportionate emphasis on Labour’. Considering the leadership had to be dragged kicking and screaming to commission the Chakrabarti’s inquiry, had – with the National Executive Committee – suppressed the publication of Jan Royall’s previous report and Corbyn himself is still yet to say Livingstone’s Hitler episode was antisemitic (see the very end of the Vice News documentary) this is more than ironic. Critically they cannot have it both ways. Either the issues in the Labour party were so significant that the Chakrabarti report was needed or they were not. If the former is true, as the home affairs select committee and many others including Corbyn seem to believe, then for the select committee to not comment on what has happened in Labour would be absurd.
Corbyn’s statement tries to use the Jewish Labour Movement as a political shield to discredit the report, a claim that will fall on deaf ears as it turns out to not be true (which they would have known if the leader’s office had asked the JLM leadership) and more so when a ‘control-f’ of the Chakrabarti report will see the JLM are not mentioned once in the prose, only in the list of those who gave evidence to her inquiry. At the time I welcomed its publication and thought the report was particularly strong on language and better disciplinary processes. I also thought it lacked, among other things, recommendations on how the collective voice of Labour Jews would be taken forward by Labour. I know Iain McNicol, the general secretary, is looking to do this but the party must do it formally.
Corbyn says, Labour ‘is already acting on her recommendations’ but progress within Labour is not taking place fast enough. Many recommendations are yet to be progressed and there seems to be no timescale for when they will be. Equally, Corbyn pledged during his reelection campaign to back the JLM rule change but said nothing when it was discussed at the NEC and its passing could have been expedited. Actions speak louder than words.
Tomorrow the NEC’s equalities subcommittee meets. It should do three things: first, as I called for months ago, formally move to make the JLM a standing member of the committee. It is the only equalities affiliate in the party to not sit at this important table by rights. That must change. Second, convene a special meeting to consider the recommendation of Chakrabarti, Royall and the home affairs select committee. The subcommittee should publish which recommendations they plans to take forward and develop a plan for managing their implementation. They should also state publicly which recommendations – made by the select committee or others – they do not agree with and will not take forward. Finally, in partnership with JLM, commission training, not for random delegates at Labour party conference but the NEC itself. Some at the very top of the Labour party have a considerable blind spot to antisemitism. The NEC needs to lead the change we want to see.
———————————
Richard Angell is director of Progress. He tweets at @RichardAngell
———————————
Panorama and Dispatches both spent months trying to uncover anti-Semitism among the supporters of Jeremy Corbyn. Dispatches even had an undercover reporter working full-time. But what did they find? Absolutely nothing.
The Home Affairs Select Committee did not bother to call the brown and female Shami Chakrabarti to give evidence. But it still criticised her, anyway. Such treatment of a white man would be absolutely inconceivable. It simply could not happen.
In general, though, this report finds that anti-Semitism is no more prevalent in the Labour Party than anywhere else.
Panorama and Dispatches now need to investigate the Jewish Labour Movement, of which most Jewish Labour people, and there are a lot of them, have never heard. That Movement appoints its staff directly from the Israeli Embassy, and it subscribes to the position of the World Zionist Organization, which is a very long way indeed from the agreed policy of the Labour Party. The shameless astroturfing that is “the Campaign Against Antisemitism” also cries out to be examined and exposed.
Peter Oborne? He has done this kind of thing for Dispatches in the past.
Let’s just get on with the mass deselection of our Tory-lite MPs. There wrecking campaign just can’t go on.
There are a couple of worrying features to the report:
1. It seems to conflate being anti-Zionist with anti-Semitic. This could lead to a position where it where it is impossible to criticise Israel’s actions in building illegal settlements or blockading Gaza without being accused of being anti-Semitic.
2. It seems to focus mainly on Labour. Is there no anti-Semitism in the Conservative Party at all at any level?
3. It questions the integrity of Ms Chakrabarti without giving her the opportunity to respond. She served as CoE of Liberty for a decade without her integrity being openly questioned. Now after producing a thorough report for Labour she is traduced and her honour impugned. What a coincidence!
It is unfortunate that a House of Commons committee gets involved in issues within a single Party in this way. It just brings suspicion about the true motives. It is especially a problem for Chuka and Winnick who are now made to look as though they are being used by Conservatives. Since more than 99% of the population do not get the subtleties of parliamentary cross committees, these Labour individuals are going to find it very difficult to shake this charge off..
The author seems to make the mistake of many novices in commentary is thinking that the leader has to deal with everything:
“Corbyn himself is still yet to say Livingstone’s Hitler episode was antisemitic”.
My personal view is that the leader ought not be distracted with this sort of thing. There are all sorts of comments made by all sorts of eccentrics and we should not have our leader diverted. There are a number of appropriate internal organisations to address these matters and a whole Party of well qualified people to serve on them.
You forgot to mention that the committee found no evidence that there was a higher level of antisemitism in Labour than in other parties. This seems to have been overlooked by the BBC and other MSM as well. This in turn seems to point towards Progress & Ummuna colluding with the right wing press in an attempt to smear Corbyn. It may also, ironically, lead to charges of the Israeli state influencing U.K. media and politics such that any criticism of Israel is hysterically labelled anti Semitic – this perception of covert manipulation is a keystone of anti semitism. The conflation of anti Zionism and anti semitism is a dangerous and ultimately self defeating strategy and should be abandoned forthwith.
As far as Progress goes, I see you as the right wing equivalent of the Militant infiltrators of the 80s, and firmly believe you should either accept the mandate of the membership or leave the Labour Party. It’s our party, not yours.
Looking at these frankly extraordinary responses to your article Richard it’s clear that the cognitive dissonance, paranoia and denial of the Corbyn left knows no bounds.
Problem? What problem? Deselect the Blue Labour MPs. It’s all the despicable media’s fault. Oh, and stop distracting the Dear Leader. He’s so sweet after all.
And my personal favourite. The Jewish Labour Movement is a covert society drawn directly from the Israeli Embassy. A secret Jewish conspiracy to subvert democracy, working for a World Jewish society or some such.
Problem? What problem?
There are three issues here and they all show a failure of leadership by the Party and especially by Jeremy Corbyn. First, I must declare an interest. I am Jewish and have been in the Party since the 1970′. I have never known a time when I have felt so let down by the Party Leadership as I see my racial background viciously attacked. This just would not have happened prior to last year.
The first of my three issues is that ever since the six-day war in 1967 the left have adopted the Palestinian cause and been a major critic of Israel’ defence and foreign policies. Fair enough. I have been a critic of Israeli Governments, especially those led by the right. However, this pro-Palestinian position has morphed into being anti-Israel.
Many British Jews, probably most, whatever views they have about different Israeli Governments have a strong belief and love for the state of Israel. To my parents generation (yes, they are still alive) it is a miracle that we have a Jewish state after 2,000 years of pogroms, violent death and persecution. So, if one of the two major parties competing for power adopts an anti-Israeli position then Jewish floating voters cannot and will not vote for that Party no matter how much they agree with its economic and social policies.
The second issue is that Jeremy Corbyn, instead of attacking the Select Committee findings should take action against those, and they are largely his supporters, who practice anti-semitism. All we get from Jeremy is words. Words are cheap. I want to see action.
The third issue is the Chakrabarti report itself. What a waste of time and money.
I’ll just give you the first three recommendations and then I’ll point out what is wrong with them.
1. Epithets such as “Paki”, “Zio” and others should have no place in Labour Party discourse
going forward.
2. Critical and abusive reference to any particular person or group based on actual or perceived
physical characteristics cannot be tolerated.
3. Racial or religious tropes and stereotypes about any group of people should have no place in
our modern Labour Party.
Recommendation 1 – The word should is pathetic. The word should be “must”.
Recommendation 2 – Again the word cannot is weak. The words should be “will not”
Recommendation 3 Again it is that word should. Surely the word is will.
As I said a waste of time and money and since its painful birth which saw Ruth Smeeth attacked has produced no change.
I accept Jeremy Corbyn is the leader of the party but until he acts on anti-semitism I will continue to criticise him. The first duty of a Leader is to lead and show what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. Jeremy, by default, has allowed the virus of hatred of an ethnic group into the Party. Until he deals with it effectively we will all be diminished by it as a Party and as a movement.
In this article, Richard Angell states (and not for the first time):
“Corbyn pledged during his reelection campaign to back the JLM rule change”.
This is not entirely accurate. Rather than a pledge to back the rule change (which Angell implies was not honoured), what was actually said was:
“Yes, it will be going to Conference, and it follows on from the general anti-racism statement I proposed to the National Executive some months ago which was actually unanimously agreed by the NEC.”
http://labourlist.org/2016/09/corbyn-pledges-conference-vote-on-tackling-anti-semitism/
Indeed, the JLM rule change was sent to Conference, where it was noted by delegates and will be debated next year.
http://labourlist.org/2016/09/jewish-labour-win-conference-backing-for-clampdown-on-anti-semitism/
Barry’s comments seem to confirm the fuller account provided here:
http://azvsas.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/manufacturing-consent-on-anti-semitism.html