Five years to correct “imagined antisemitism” error

In March 2019 the Guardian published an article which accused the Labour Party of “institutional antisemitism”.

Written by the human rights barrister Adam Wagner, the opinion piece was emphatic:

When people look back on Labour and Jeremy Corbyn’s response to antisemitism, the question is unlikely to be whether the party became institutionally antisemitic, but when.

Wagner declared an interest — he had been “instructed by the Campaign Against Antisemitism … to persuade the EHRC [the Equality and Human Rights Commission] that it is time for it to step in”.

He did not tell Guardian readers that the EHRC could not make a finding of “institutional antisemitism” — the concept does not legally exist.

Wagner said Labour was “stacked with people who make a joke of any claim to impartiality”.

One of these was Stephen Marks, a member of the pro-Corbyn organisation Jewish Voice for Labour. Wagner complained that he sat on Labour’s National Constitutional Committee, which handled antisemitism complaints, despite:

… him having referred to … complaints as “imagined” …

This was incorrect.

Wagner was referring to an article written by Marks in which the words he used were “actual or imagined” antisemitism complaints.

Wagner knew he’d made a mistake — either deliberately or by accident — within a few weeks after publication.

For five years he did nothing to correct the error. Nor did the Guardian.

Last month, after Press Gang contacted Guardian editor Katherine Viner, the paper finally took action.

It added a note to the online version of the piece:

This article was amended on 19 April 2024. An earlier version said Stephen Marks referred to Labour party antisemitism complaints as “imagined”. He referred in a blog to “actual or imagined antisemitism”. The article has been amended to reflect this.

The piece itself was changed from

This is despite him having referred to … complaints as ‘imagined’ …

to

This is despite him having suggested some complaints could be imagined …

Stephen Marks is unimpressed. He told Press Gang this evening:

It seems to me that Katherine Viner has ducked the issue. She talks of an “amendment” instead of admitting what is now clear — Wagner edited my words to make me look like an antisemite.

What was wrong in saying Wagner made a serious mistake and that the Guardian now apologises?

The Guardian said it wasn’t aware of Wagner’s mistake until Press Gang pointed it out.

High bar

Wagner’s Guardian article was published on the day the EHRC confirmed that it believed Labour might have unlawfully discriminated against “people because of their ethnicity and religious beliefs”.

This was an important milestone in the antisemitism scare.

Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL) complained to Wagner’s regulator, the Bar Standards Board. It claimed Wagner had breached the barristers code by effectively prejudging the EHRC investigation.

It said that the way he had edited Stephen Marks’ comment was also a breach of the code.

In May 2019 the Bar Standards Board rejected JVL’s complaints.

A spokesperson said Wagner was allowed to comment on issues he was instructed on.

On the barrister’s editing of Marks comments, the Board decided it:

… is not apt for further investigation … Whether a statement is defamatory is a matter for the court.

Wagner later commented on this:

Low bar

A year after JVL’s complaint was rejected, the Bar Standards Board considered a complaint from Wagner.

He was complaining that another barrister, Daniel Bennett, was responsible for a series of tweets about him.

At the time, both Bennett and Wagner were tenants at the Doughty Street chambers in London.

Both were Jewish and on opposing sides of the Labour antisemitism debate.

Among the tweets Wagner complained of was one concerning Stephen Marks:

[Adam Wagner] thinks Stephen Marks is the wrong type of Jew. Remind me, who is supposed to be the antisemite here?

The Bar Standards Board decided to investigate.

A disciplinary tribunal decided that Bennett had “behaved in a way which was likely to diminish the trust and confidence placed in him …”

He was reprimanded and fined £500.

Bennett, who had already apologised, left the Doughty Street chambers and now practises in Bristol.

Missing declarations

Although Adam Wagner made his connection with the Campaign Against Antisemitism clear in his Guardian piece, he did not declare his friendship with EHRC board member Alasdair Henderson.

Henderson was the lead commissioner on the Labour antisemitism issue.

Wagner and Henderson had been tenants of the same chambers between 2010 and 2018. Henderson had been a frequent contributor to Wagner’s Human Rights blog.

Each followed the other on Twitter — Wagner referred to Henderson as “Ally”.

When Henderson was appointed to the EHRC in May 2018, Wagner tweeted “Congrats to Alasdair who is a friend and former colleague” and “I can tell you that @allyhenderson will be excellent”.

Henderson did not declare his friendship with Wagner in his EHRC declarations of interest.

In August 2021 the campaign group Truth Defence complained to the EHRC that this was a breach of its EHRC’s governance manual.

Truth Defence pointed to the section of the manual which stated that “close personal relationships” were among those that could cause a conflict of interest. The section said that the:

… key issue is whether there is a reasonable risk, to a fair-minded outsider, that the situation could undermine public trust in the Member or the Commission.

The Commission rejected the complaint:

We are fully satisfied that the necessary conflict checks were in place and that no further action was … required.

The EHRC told Press Gang commissioners “are not required to declare interests which are not of a professional nature …”

(In the course of researching this issue, Press Gang also discovered that, for two years, Henderson had failed to declare his directorship in a company called Faith in Public.

Faith in Public — founded by the Liberal Democrat politician Tim Farron — says it aims:

… to inspire Christians to engage effectively in politics, regardless of party, and to communicate the gospel message.

After Press Gang asked questions about this, the commission said Henderson:

… has previously declared his involvement with Faith in Public Ltd. Its omission from the record was purely an internal administrative error and has since been corrected.)

Mystery …

There is one final question mark over Wagner’s Guardian article.

How did the piece coincide with the news that the EHRC was considering a formal investigation into Labour’s handling of antisemitism?

The paper says Wagner’s piece:

… was offered to the Guardian on the morning the EHRC announced its investigation. Although some opinion pieces are planned in advance, many are commissioned, edited and published on the same day in response to the latest news.

The fact that Wagner’s piece was posted at 2.45 in the afternoon appears to support this.

The backstory reveals a more complicated picture.

The previous evening the anti-Corbyn Jewish Labour Movement (JLM) held a meeting to debate whether it should leave Labour over the antisemitism issue.

This was a major news story — eventually the JLM opted to stay.

That same evening someone inside the EHRC tipped off journalists that the commission was likely to launch an investigation into Labour.

In fact, the commission had no plans to make any announcement at the time — the evidence suggests that it was bounced into making a statement as a result of the leak.

At 11.06 pm, the Jewish Chronicle published an article, marked “Exclusive,” stating that the EHRC would announce that it was minded to investigate Labour.

Three minutes later, at 11.09 pm, Guardian reporters Dan Sabbagh and Helen Pidd published a similar piece.

Since it is unlikely that the Guardian reporters could have prepared the report on the back of the Jewish Chronicle piece, it appears that both had been tipped off separately.

The Guardian piece makes it clear that their source was from within the commission.

The EHRC did not answer questions about the leak.

Adam Wagner denies any involvement. He wouldn’t answer questions directly but his barristers’ chambers issued a statement on his behalf.

Mr Wagner did not discuss the EHRC Labour investigation with Alasdair Henderson whilst it was ongoing.

The first that Mr Wagner knew that Mr Henderson was in any way involved in the investigation was on the day the report was published [29 October 2020] when he saw him speaking at a press conference.

Ends

RECOMMENDED

Article

Isabel Hilton ‘It’s an arms race’: is the west ready for Chinese EVs? Prospect, 2024

An absorbing account of how China’s electric vehicle makers stole a march on Western carmakers. Rather than compete with conventional petrol / diesel manufacturers like Volkswagen, the country opted to create a brand new electric car industry. The result is that China is now poised to dominate the world EV market, outstripping even Tesla …

Book

Nils Melzer The Trial of Julian Assange: A Story of Persecution Verso, 2022

This is no ordinary book — Nils Melzer is the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Torture. He came late to the Assange story but his book details what he calls the “criminalisation of investigative journalism”. He says Assange has faced grave and systematic due process violations, judicial bias, collusion and manipulated evidence. He has also been the victim of constant surveillance, defamation and threats. Melzer believes the case sets a dangerous precedent — when telling the truth becomes a crime, he says, censorship and tyranny will inevitably follow …

…

CORRECTIONS  Please let us know if there are any mistakes in this article — they’ll be corrected as soon as possible.

RIGHT OF REPLY  If you have been mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let us have your comments. Provided your response is not defamatory we’ll add it to the article.

Press Gang is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.