Labour & Anti-Semitism.

[Knotted]

Is it correct that this includes the Livingstone suspension?

Yes

 

[two sheds]

Does that mean that Corbyn as leader is guilty of expediting the cases and not expediting the cases, and interfering and not interfering?

 

[Knotted]

Does that mean that Corbyn as leader is guilty of expediting the cases and not expediting the cases, and interfering and not interfering?

It's a legalistic document. Going by LP procedures Corbyn's office should not have been interfering at all. But politically that was impossible in certain high profile cases eg. Williamson and Livingstone.

So essentially, yes.

 

[bimble]

The defensive derision from some quarters is pretty grim tbh, as are the gloating people (on my twitter) shouting we told you so take that etc. Just depressing and pointless the whole thing.

 

[JTG]

The defensive derision from some quarters is pretty grim tbh, as are the gloating people (on my twitter) shouting we told you so take that etc. Just depressing and pointless the whole thing.

Indeed. As I say, pretty unserious about what is supposed to be the central issue

 

[JTG]

It does seem... odd to me that the EHRC can find that the complaints inbox was unmonitored for long periods of time but the Labour Party also chose to pay out damages to the people who were supposed to be monitoring said inbox because the leaked report inferred that they were deliberately not monitoring it.

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Is it correct that this includes the Livingstone suspension?

Yes it does: and mixed there. On the one hand shows some decisive action, on the other a year delay. If I recall the delay might have been due to the anti-JC faction. For me, there should be a clear dividing line between events pre March 2018, when McNicholl and his entourage were shown the door, and after.

 

[Cid]

I don't want to say there weren't any problems in the LP but here is one of the examples that Labour is being held accountable for political interference in the disciplinary process.:



So they're damned for reversing the decision for not suspending Chris Williamnson. How's that for a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't?

Edit: Similar thing with the suspension of Ken Livingstone.

That still really fits in with a lack of robust procedure though. A properly implemented system would be making decisions based on investigation and objective (using objective a bit loosely of course) tests. It should be able to justify its decision on that basis, it should not be able to, or indeed feel it has to, reverse decisions based merely on public opinion.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't think it was completely absent from labour or even the tories, but I do think there was a big upsurge in it following Corbyns election and the new members joining and I don't think he did enough to counter it, whether that was because he agreed with it or because he was indecisive.

Do you really, hand on heart, believe this is a possibility, though? One of the saddest ironies of this mess is that a politician who had spent his whole political career campaigning against racism ended up being smeared as a racist when he was up against a party led by an actual racist.

 

[JTG]

Yes it does: and mixed there. On the one hand shows some decisive action, on the other a year delay. If I recall the delay might have been due to the anti-JC faction. For me, there should be a clear dividing line between events pre March 2018, when McNicholl and his entourage were shown the door, and after.

That would seem reasonable. As I recall the main point of the leaked report was to illustrate the factional nature of Labour Party administrative staff and how this was clearly a factor in delays in addressing serious complaints.
I think it reflects incredibly poorly on the Party as a whole that these complaints were not addressed in a timely manner and this leads me to believe it cannot ever be a serious vehicle for change in all honesty

 

[JTG]

Do you really, hand on heart, believe this is a possibility, though? One of the saddest ironies of this mess is that a politician who had spent his whole political career campaigning against racism ended up being smeared as a racist when he was up against a party led by an actual racist.

Precisely

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Assume now that the EHRC will investigate
the ingrained racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia & far-right links in the Conservative party.

Or maybe not.

Equalities watchdog drops plan for Tory Islamophobia inquiry

Conservative party commits to own investigation but UK’s largest Muslim body brands it a ‘facade’

www.theguardian.com

Exclusive: Equalities commissioner failed to declare Conservative Party fundraising

Pavita Cooper held a fundraising event for a Conservative MP attended by George Osborne and did not mention it to the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.

www.newsweek.com

It's a sock puppet front for the vermin regime.

 

[Badgers]

Do you really, hand on heart, believe this is a possibility, though? One of the saddest ironies of this mess is that a politician who had spent his whole political career campaigning against racism ended up being smeared as a racist when he was up against a party led by an actual racist.

100% this

 

[Knotted]

That still really fits in with a lack of robust procedure though. A properly implemented system would be making decisions based on investigation and objective (using objective a bit loosely of course) tests. It should be able to justify its decision on that basis, it should not be able to, or indeed feel it has to, reverse decisions based merely on public opinion.

Yes it does, but the report isn't making that judgement. It's condemning political interference as unlawfully discriminatory regardless of the intents of that interference and regardless of the failings of the procedures. So suspending bloody Chris Williamson was unlawful discrimination against Jews because it involved interference from the Leader's office.

 

[platinumsage]

who had spent his whole political career campaigning against racism

Had he spent his whole career campaigning against antisemitism, or just the kind of bad racism that aligned with his brand of anti-imperialism?

 

[Larry O'Hara]

Had he spent his whole career campaign against antisemitism, or just the kind of bad racism that aligned with his brand of anti-imperialism?

I don’t think JC differentiated between types of racism which Is why he was so annoyed at being called an anti-Semite. He certainly campaigned against a Jewish cemetery Closure and the very fact he was close to Jewish Voice for Labour underlines he was not anti-Semitic. What his Zionist critics didn’t like is that he talked to the wrong kind of Jews: ie anti-Zionists

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Had he spent his whole career campaign against antisemitism, or just the kind of bad racism that aligned with his brand of anti-imperialism?

Given the nature of his constituency, what do you think? What do you reckon his history of constituency work with Jewish groups has been like?

Some examples dating back to the 1980s detailed here:

Jewish historian recalls when Jeremy Corbyn saved a Jewish cemetery… from Margaret Hodge's council | The Canary

And if you think that's a bit biased, how about the Spectator's take?

Is Jeremy Corbyn really anti-Semitic? | The Spectator

You could just have looked that up for yourself, you know.

 

[tim]

Do you really, hand on heart, believe this is a possibility, though? One of the saddest ironies of this mess is that a politician who had spent his whole political career campaigning against racism ended up being smeared as a racist when he was up against a party led by an actual racist.

You can accept the political realities in Palestine and Lebanon and stand in solidarity with the ongoing struggle without going on about: "Our Friends in Hamas"; and "Our Friends in Hezbollah". He was too willing to line up alongside reactionaries.

 

[gosub]

 

[Cid]

Yes it does, but the report isn't making that judgement. It's condemning political interference as unlawfully discriminatory regardless of the intents of that interference and regardless of the failings of the procedures. So suspending bloody Chris Williamson was unlawful discrimination against Jews because it involved interference from the Leader's office.

I've skim read the section and not quite sure what you're getting at. They are arguing that the fact the process can be interfered with is discriminatory. It may seem a bit weird to use Williamson's suspension as part of that, but it has an actual high court ruling attached to it, along with the legal arguments and scrutiny that that entails. They are not arguing that Williamson's suspension is specifically discriminatory against Jewish people, they are using it as an example to show that the procedure is open to political interference.

 

[Idris2002]

Does that mean that Corbyn as leader is guilty of expediting the cases and not expediting the cases, and interfering and not interfering?

History's greatest monster.

 

[JTG]

Starmer and even Margaret bloody Hodge very careful to sidestep any discussion of JC.

They do know that any move against him would split the party far more than Gapes and co fucking off last year could have dreamed of

 

[Larry O'Hara]

MI6 Rogue? Aren’t they all?

 

[Badgers]

Starmer and even Margaret bloody Hodge very careful to sidestep any discussion of JC.

They do know that any move against him would split the party far more than Gapes and co fucking off last year could have dreamed of

Yup.

JC being Labour and them not means that they have to play games

 

[JTG]

Yup.

JC being Labour and them not means that they have to play games

The CLP of my Labour held marginal with a wishy washy right wing MP would struggle to campaign at all should they lose even more members as a result of expulsions. Especially as the absolutely massive membership of the relatively safe seat next door is already in sharp decline post-Starmer

 

[gosub]

MI6 Rogue? Aren’t they all?

Is a curious comms channel, was the origin of tweet that said Trump had had a stroke, which Trump responded to, but nobody talks about that. Has QAnon as bunkum (agree) but then says there is no such thing as deep state...though been throwing tweets in directions for enough months that it must have survived some Caeser's thumb at some stage. Though the bookshop is new

 

[Knotted]

I've skim read the section and not quite sure what you're getting at. They are arguing that the fact the process can be interfered with is discriminatory. It may seem a bit weird to use Williamson's suspension as part of that, but it has an actual high court ruling attached to it, along with the legal arguments and scrutiny that that entails. They are not arguing that Williamson's suspension is specifically discriminatory against Jewish people, they are using it as an example to show that the procedure is open to political interference.

Well I suppose any process can be interfered with theoretically, so I'm not sure that would even be a legitimate complaint. The wording is very much pointing towards actual interference and criticising the leader's office actions and the potentially discriminatory problems with procedures as a by product of that interference.

We consider that this role requires the leadership to adhere carefully to the Party’s formal complaints procedure, and to be seen to do so, rather than permitting it to interfere in decisions about individual complaints.

In summary, we find that LOTO’s involvement in individual antisemitism complaints was not within the Labour Party’s complaints process, and was therefore not a legitimate approach to determining complaints. The process has resulted in a lack of transparency and consistency in the complaints process. It has created a serious risk of actual or perceived discriminatory treatment in particular complaints. It has also fundamentally undermined public confidence in the complaints process.

I find all this quite weaselly in the report. Nobody but nobody is complaining about the discrimination against Jews as a result of the suspension of Williamson and Livingstone.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

You can accept the political realities in Palestine and Lebanon and stand in solidarity with the ongoing struggle without going on about: "Our Friends in Hamas"; and "Our Friends in Hezbollah". He was too willing to line up alongside reactionaries.

I quite agree that many on the left are too willing to go along with reactionary and authoritarian governments around the world. But this obsession with the word 'friends' is more than a bit over the top. We have Facebook 'friends', who we may not get on with at all. MP's talk about their 'honourable friends', who may well be political and personal enemies. Winston Churchill (a nasty bastard) proclaimed he was a 'friend' of Stalin (another nasty bastard). One word, taken on its own, says very little, and it is indicative of the lack substance to these allegations that people resort to this example so much.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I find all this quite weaselly in the report. Nobody but nobody is complaining about the discrimination against Jews as a result of the suspension of Williamson and Livingstone.

So if I've got this right (sorry, I'm not going to read it), the report ends up criticising Corbyn for taking action against anti-Semitism when he perceived that the party processes had failed. And that action is itself evidence of the danger that complaints might be treated in an anti-Semitic manner.

I'm almost impressed. Kafka would be proud.

 

[bimble]

i should ban myself from the internet for the rest of today, this sort of thing seems to be everywhere, again. If this report was supposed to help anyone in any way at all i cant see it, it looks like everybody feels vindicated, on both sides of the argument, so maybe that's great and they can all shut up about jews again asap.