By Left Horizons
Labour Party members will be forgiven for thinking that the Equalities and Human Rights Commission were set up to ‘do a job’ on Jeremy Corbyn, and they would be right. The commentary in the British press on the report speaks more about the Establishment’s loathing of a left-wing leader than any honest analysis of the EHRC report, and their assaults on Corbyn would have been the same, whatever it had said.
One would think that the report has supported the incessant drumbeat of the last five years about Labour being ‘awash’ with anti-Semitism. It was interesting what the journalist from Middle East Eye said about the press conference, attended by almost thirty other journalists, at the launch of the report. “The questioning”, MEE says in its report, “largely focused on why the report had not been tougher personally, on Corbyn. Not one journalist probed the inconsistencies, contradictions or omissions of the report.”
Members can make their own judgement
Labour Party and trade union members can download and read the report for themselves and make their own judgement, of course. But what the report most certainly did not conclude was that there was institutionalised anti-Semitism in the Party or anything remotely like it. Apart from two instances of what it deemed to be ‘harassment’ of Jewish people – and again, Party members will make their own judgement of the validity of those claims – the great bulk of its considerations and analyses were about the processes at work and the way the party dealt with complaints of anti-Semitism.
It accepted in many places that the machinery for dealing with anti-Semitic complaints was far worse in the period before Jennie Formby, a Corbyn supporter, took office as general secretary. Yet the role of the previous general secretary, Iain McNicol, who presided over Labour’s machinery before 2018, and who was an avid political opponent of Jeremy Corbyn, was not questioned. In fact, he is not even mentioned.
Many references to 2018
Reading through the report, you will find many references to the year 2018, dozens in fact. Why is this? Because this was the year when Iain McNicol finally stood down and after a hiatus of a few months with no-one in post, Jennie Formby took over the reins.
One has to picture the situation as it was when Formby took over. Many allegations were being made about anti-Semitism, including, it has been said, scores from one single person. The Labour Party was struggling to deal with the sheer number of complaints, but the Party’s submission to the EHRC explained precisely why this was the case and this submission is referred to by the EHRC. It is worth citing at length (with emphasis added in placed):
“Lack of action on complaints”
“In the leaked report, there are allegations that the Labour Party’s internal review identified ‘at least 170’ complaints in the period from November 2016 to February 2018 that were not acted on, and that the total figure was likely to be higher.”
“The leaked [Labour Party] report also says that from November 2016 to February 2018 there were only 24 notices of investigation in relation to antisemitism, and that ‘[t]his was not due to a lack of complaints … it was due to a lack of action on complaints being submitted’.
“The Labour Party told us that it was not able to confirm the number of complaints made, or action taken on antisemitism complaints, until 2018 when it started to record this data. As such, we are unable to verify whether 170 complaints were not acted on, as stated in the leaked report.
Main complaints inbox “left unmanaged”
“The Labour Party acknowledged a lack of action between 1 November 2016 and 19 February 2018. Jennie Formby told us that GLU staff only initiated 72 notices of investigation for all complaints during this period, and the leaked report says that 24 of these related to antisemitism.
The Labour Party told us that the main email inbox used as the ‘official destination’ for all complaints until February 2017 was ‘largely left unmanaged’, with very few emails being sent from it and ‘no action taken on the majority of complaints forwarded there’.
So, as an article in Middle East Eye, points out, “for two thirds of the period under investigation by the EHRC, Labour HQ and the complaints procedure were under the control of individuals not just resistant to the authority of the leadership but, allegedly, working actively to undermine it.”
We therefore had a situation where the Labour leader was desperately trying to get a recalcitrant and obstruction party apparatus – under Iain McNicol’s watch – to deal with anti-Semitism complaints, but until Formby came into office the obstruction continued. And what is the EHRC commentary about this disgraceful act of sabotage by political opponents of Corbyn, none of whom are named in the EHRC report? “Some former staff members denied these allegations of inaction.” But then they would, wouldn’t they?
Leader aimed to expedite processes
The EHRC even acknowledge that the intervention of the Leader’s office was aimed at expediting cases. “…We accept that, in some cases, the LOTO staff interference catalysed action. However, the inappropriateness of political interference in antisemitism complaints is not necessarily about the particular outcomes that it led to, but rather the contamination (and / or the perception of contamination) of the fairness of the process.” In other words, even for trying to get cases dealt with quickly and efficiently, Corbyn was guilty of a technical breach of law.
The EHRC report noted that “Throughout the period we investigated, there was political interference in the handling of antisemitism complaints – as part of a wider practice of LOTO involvement in disciplinary cases that were deemed ‘politically sensitive’, as well as a distinct practice in March–April 2018, when all antisemitism cases were referred to LOTO”. What it does not say is that this was the period when the Party had no general secretary, but the press and right-wing Labour MPs were demanding that Corbyn ‘deal’ with anti-Semitism complaints.
The Macpherson principle
It is worth noting another point being made by the report, and, again, a change introduced by Jennie Formby. “We note”, the EHRC report says, “that the Macpherson principle was first articulated in the Stephen Lawrence inquiry report published on 24 February 1999, more than 20 years ago, and it is surprising that the Labour Party did not adopt it before 2018”.
There are two points to be noted here. The first is that it goes unremarked (again) that this deficit in the system – the failure to apply the ‘Macpherson principle’ – was due to the previous Party leadership and general secretary. But the second is that this reference by the EHRC to Macpherson is actually mistaken in law.
After the judge-led public inquiry into the murder of Stephen Laurence and the subsequent police investigation, there was a belief in some quarters that Mcpherson, the inquiry judge, came to the conclusion that whether or not there had been a racist incident was determined by the perceptions of the victim. But in fact, that is not correct, and if it was, it would fly in the face of natural justice, as if an accusation was enough to determine guilt.
Sabotaged investigation system
As an article on the website of Jewish Voice for Labour points out,
“MacPherson did not propose that perceptions should be the basis of determining whether or not there had actually been any racist behaviour. It would obviously have been unacceptable to do so since perceptions of racist behaviour can be mistaken just like any other perceptions…”
Other than a technical breach of the law for the interference in Iain McNicol’s half-cock and half-sabotaged ‘investigation’ system, there is very little in the EHRC report that damns the prevailing political climate in the Labour Party. The EHRC investigated seventy complaints and reported that, “…we found two indirectly discriminatory practices”. In a “significant number of other complaints we looked at”, the report says, there was either
* not enough evidence to show that the Labour Party was legally responsible for that conduct
*the conduct was by an ‘ordinary’ member of the Labour Party, whose conduct the Party could not be legally responsible for under equality law, or
*we were not satisfied that evidence of the harmful effect of the conduct was enough to outweigh the freedom of expression rights of the individual concerned. [emphasis added]
Those accused not given a fair hearing
In fact, there is considerable evidence in the commission report that those who were accused of anti-Semitism were not given a fair hearing or allowed due process. We quote here four specific examples from the report
Example 1:
A member was alleged to have made antisemitic comments during a parliamentary candidate selection process and in emails with other members of their Constituency Labour Party. The member was never given any details about the allegations despite repeated requests for them during the 2018 investigation. The member resigned before the complaint was finally determined.
Example 2:
A member was alleged to have made antisemitic comments on social media and at a meeting. The Labour Party did not tell the member which meeting this related to or what they were alleged to have said. The member was not told the identity of the complainant, despite specifically requesting this in late 2017 with reference to the Chakrabarti report.
Example 3:
A member was sent a notice of investigation, which referred to comments they were accused of making that might meet the definition of antisemitism. The member was not told what those comments were said to be, when they were said to have made them, where, or to whom they were alleged to have been made.
Example 4:
The NCC’s decision, in March 2019, to expel a member did not contain any detail about the decision-making process or the reasons for reaching its decision. This is despite the hearing proceeding in the member’s absence after the member and their legal team left at the start.
No party member would object
One of the recommendations in the EHRC report runs as follows: “The Labour Party must rebuild trust and confidence that antisemitism complaints are handled independently, efficiently and effectively”. No reasonable Labour Party member would object to this. But it must be said that despite the clear evidence to the contrary – the four examples cited above are typical experiences of suspensions and expulsions – the deficit in Labour’s processes does not lie in how it treats those who make complaints, but in how it treats those about whom complaints are made.
In fact, the EHRC “identified concerns about fairness to the respondent [the person being complained against] in 42 of the 70 sample files.” And yet, despite this, there is a very real sense in which the EHRC report leans heavily towards those who make complaints and far less towards those about whom complaints are made, despite the failure of the Party to treat them fairly.
Let us be clear about this. There is a body of opinion in the Labour Party calling for an external and ‘robust’ system for investigating claims of anti-Semitism. By ‘robust’ what they mean is that any charges of anti-Semitism must be accepted as legitimate and valid, by default. In other words, if a Party member is accused, they are guilty until they can prove themselves innocent. That is what is meant by ‘fast-tracking’ and ‘robust’ investigations. They mean no investigation at all. This might fly in the face of natural justice, but it is the view of the right-wing of the Party.
Board of Deputies ‘ten pledges’
When the Board of Deputies of British Jews asked Labour MPs to accept its ‘ten pledges’ to fight anti-Semitism earlier this year, number 5 read as follows: “Any MPs, Peers, councillors, members of CLPs who support, campaign or provide a platform for people who have been suspended or expelled in the wake of anti-Semitic incidents should themselves be suspended from membership.” That is an outrageous breach of natural justice, of course, and it wouldn’t even apply to criminal cases, where anyone can express an opinion as to ‘guilt’ or ‘innocence’ whatever a court has decided.
We know that, on the flimsiest of social media evidence, one individual made scores of complaints about anti-Semitism, without even checking if the ‘perpetrators’ were members of the Labour Party. Any organisation accused of improper conduct – it doesn’t even have to be a political party: it could be an allotment association or a chess club – has the right to first of all check to see if the accusations look like bona fide complaints or not. But, apparently, that simple right is not afforded to the Labour Party.
Natural justice is not wanted by right wing
What would seem to be a process of natural justice and reasoned investigation is precisely what the right wing of the Labour Party do not want, and it is echoed by anti-Labour opinion outside. For them, any complaint of anti-Semitism has to be taken on face value and assumed to be proven.
There is now a fight on inside the Labour Party, not just around policies and programme, but even for freedom of expression. Referring to the European Convention on Human Rights, the EHRC report says, “Article 10 will protect Labour Party members who, for example, make legitimate criticisms of the Israeli government, or express their opinions on internal Party matters, such as the scale of antisemitism within the Party, based on their own experience and within the law”.
Yet Keir Starmer and other Labour MPs are apparently not prepared to abide by this, having said that those – like Corbyn – who suggest that anti-Semitism in exaggerated for factional reasons are “part of the problem”.
Objectivity and impartiality
Labour Party members have got legitimate and serious doubts about the referral to the EHRC in the first place, and to the ‘objectivity’ and ‘impartiality’ of that body. The gross exaggerations of anti-Semitism – a ‘tidal wave’ (senior Labour MP) and an ‘existential threat to Jews’ (three Jewish newspapers) – are in sharp contrast to the experiences of most Labour members, including many Jewish members who support Jeremy Corbyn. The problem now is that we are not allowed to say these things.
The Party right wing will want the EHRC report to be taken as the final word on the issue, and it may even be their pretext – they are certainly looking for one – to ignore the content of the Labour report that laid bare the sabotage, by parts of the Labour apparatus, of the 2017 general election campaign.
The tide of charges of anti-Semitism have been from the beginning a political campaign to undermine Corbyn and the left. The radicalisation of a party, with the greatest membership of any party in Western Europe, posed a serious threat to the establishment and the establishment have fought back. The head-bangers on the extreme right of the Party would rather see the Tories in office and the Party destroyed than see a radical Labour government in office. Had it been 1945, they would have opposed the reforming government of Clement Attlee and Nye Bevin. That is the real meaning of the anti-Semitism campaign against Corbyn.
Kafka would be proud
Given the terrible history of the Jewish people in the twentieth century, what worse charge could be thrown at any Labour activist than being ‘anti-Semitic’? But to accuse the right and opponents of Labour of ‘weaponising’ anti-Semitism in this way is itself risking accusations of anti-Semitism. The motto of the right wing is “you must agree with us. If you don’t, you’re an anti-Semite”. Kafka would be proud.
We are not holding our breaths for the EHRC investigation into racism, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia in the Tory Party – because it won’t happen. We must not be cowed by this new threat of a purge of Party members: we must fight back. Of all parts of society, it is the labour movement and the Labour Party – and specifically its left wing – that has the proudest and the longest tradition of opposing racism and anti-Semitism. The one-sided EHRC report will not change that and we should not be deflected from our struggle for socialist ideas, democracy and freedom of debate inside the Party.
November 2, 2020
