15 Reasons the EHRC Report can and should be challenged

JVL has published many commentaries of the EHRC Report; so many that  we have often been asked for a guide to key points to use in argument.

We have not finished our analysis of the Report. Each time we read it we notice another problem.  In particular, our legal advisors are still trying to list all the legal inadequacies and confusions of the Report – each provisional list they give us is longer than the last. We will publish further lists of points to question as we proceed with our work.

15 Reasons the EHRC Report can and should be challenged

Starmer is trying to insist that we must all accept the EHRC Report in full and without question. No report is beyond question and this one demands it more than most.

These are just some of the main points that demand interrogation.

  1. There is no finding of institutional antisemitism in the Report nor does it provide any evidence of widespread antisemitism.
  2. At no stage does the report try to describe, how and when any Jewish member of the Party had suffered discrimination or disadvantage on account of being Jewish.
  3. Corbyn and Formby tried to fix a broken disciplinary system they inherited from McNicol and are given no credit for that.
  4. The EHRC say they read the leaked GLU report but they never asked for the emails and posts the report depended on or commented on the factionalism and sabotage it revealed. They quoted it where it helped their argument but not where it contradicted it.
  5. McNicol is given a free pass and all blame is laid at Corbyn’s door even though only two actions by Corbyn by name are cited in the report and one of those was his commitment to ending antisemitism in the Party (Report p.6).
  6. Those complained about suffered more from the poor practices than did the complainants.
  7. The Report is about a political party but totally fails to be interested in how this affected how anyone operated and ignored both factionalism and personal careerism as drivers of actions.
  8. Much is made of the three unlawful acts but each finding of unlawful activity is dubious
    • It is stretching credibility to interpret the actions of Livingstone and Bromley as acts the Party was responsible for – irrespective of whether you believe them to be antisemitic
    • Interference with the disciplinary process may be poor practice but it is only unlawful if it is detrimental to people with a ‘protected characteristic – the report does not even attempt to establish that
    • There was more training about antisemitism, not less, than any other area of harassment – except sexual harassment and the Report mis-characterises that: that training was about case management not about the nature of sexual harassment.
  9. The Report confuses education about antisemitism and training about how to handle disciplinary cases. It dismisses the programme offered by the highly regarded Pears Institute on Antisemitism on the basis of one comment by one participant (report p.92) and is contradictory about whether the Party should be delivering Education or Training.
  10. The report makes no attempt to estimate the numerical size of Labour’s antisemitism problem nor whether it had been accurately reported. It only refers to a sample of cases without describing how they had been selected or whether they were representative. Therefore, discussion of the scale of the problem and whether it had been exaggerated in no way contradicts the report nor is it proscribed by the report. The EHRC makes this clear with its reference to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
  11. The Report rests upon a notion of ‘The Jewish Community’ that is homogeneous and is alleged to take offence in a uniform manner. Despite its talk about consulting Jewish stakeholders, Jews who think differently are disregarded.
  12. The Report is elusive about the evidence it used to produce such damning conclusions.
  13. The Report grew out of an exclusive campaign about antisemitism in the Labour Party. The campaign and the Report were indifferent to any problems that Black people, people of Asian origin or any other non-Jewish group face. The campaign was also indifferent to antisemitism in other political parties.
    • There are no comparisons with how other forms of racism were dealt with; this should have been of equal concern. The Report’s Terms of Reference embraced all forms of racism (Report p. 123).
    • There are no comparisons with how other parties deal with antisemitism; without this there is no context.
  14. The unacknowledged context of the Report is deep conflict within the Party to the situation in Palestine/Israel. The whole campaign gagged Palestinian members of the Labour Party from speaking about their own experiences. The Report compounds this silencing.
  15. The over-concentration of the media on alleged Labour Antisemitism at the expense of concern about antisemitism elsewhere or discrimination against other groups produced a distorting environment for the Report; the Report neither acknowledged nor compensated for this.

Links to all JVL statements and other articles on the EHRC report

Comments (55)

  • Jack Hackett says:

    No 10 is the key one. This report is not quantitative and does not ask the question ‘Is there a major antisemitism issue in Labour?’. Of course, it was signed off by Alistair Pringle who ‘isn’t a great fan of the numbers game’.

  • Kevin Harrison says:

    The EHRC report was always just going to be another attack on the left of the labour party .

  • Dissected and corrected welcome delivery of truth looking forward to seeing more thank you 👍👌👋

  • Andrew Hindley says:

    A very good piece of work!! Congratulations!!

  • Hazel Davies says:

    JVL produce consistently sane and accurate analyses. It is a scandal that Starmer refuses to consult them.

  • Dr Sweetpea Smart says:

    Has this analysis been forwarded to any newspaper? There is at least one that I think might be interested.

  • Dr David Lowry says:

    This is the kind of forensic examination the Sunday newspapers (minimally) should have done. The media coverage of this issue- from liberal Channel Four News to right wing Daily Mail and Torygraph -has been frankly abysmally and distressingly biased. Well done JVL for doing this.

  • Harry Law says:

    How can Rayner et al say it is not about numbers, of course it is about numbers, the poll about what the the general public’s perception of Labours anti-Semitism problem [according to the academic book ‘Bad news for Labour’ was 34%. Whereas the number of members expelled from the Labour party in 2018 was 10 the number of Labour party members expelled in 2019 was 45.
    https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/13434_20-Statistics-Report-No-Place-For-Antisemitism.pdf
    The total membership around this time was approx 550,000.
    This works out at 0.01% of the total membership. Jeremy Corbyn said the accusations were exaggerated and Angela Rayner agreed with him and told BBC’s Newsnight she agreed with him… “I believe that the statement around the small numbers and to suggest that it is a small number in the Labour party WHILST THAT MAY BE TRUE is completely unacceptable to not understand the hurt and the distr END. https://skwawkbox.org/2020/10/31/video-rayner-admits-what-corbyn-said-was-true-but-it-was-unacceptable/ Telling the truth in the Labour party is now an expellable offence.
    Now Starmer is telling everyone including the JVL, Denialism or minimizing the numbers should be nowhere near the Labour party. I think this autocrat should be nowhere near the Labour party.

  • Stephen Latham says:

    Excellent summary. I hope the JVL will formally write to the EHRC on each of these points and except a reply?

  • Graham Jones says:

    For goodness sake pack it in! I have joined the Labour Party because of Keir Starmer. The left are totally out of touch. The party for 10 years have been a secretive clique. Jeremy Corbin was so indecisive and unpopular – let’s get rid of the Tories. I have EVERY faith in Sir Kier!

  • Lynne Edwards says:

    Thank you for clarifying the report and setting it out in an impartial but analytical way, that has been missing from the main stream media reports!

  • Margaret West says:

    Grahame Jones – so what do you find “out of touch” about the
    article?

    I must say too I find it strange that the Labour Party are “secretive” –
    about what for example? In particular JVL are desperate to get
    their point of view across to the general public via the MSM.

    Just asking ..

  • Mary Davies says:

    Forensic. Well done.

  • Adrian Chaffey says:

    I’ve read quite a bit of comment, but have only just started on it myself. Provisional thought: there’s clearly quite a bit wrong with it. But I do also wonder whether the first response to the report has been wrong and a bit flat-footed, conditioned by years of defensiveness, fear, and an unthinking acceptance the mainstream framing of the report as utterly damming.

    Because try as they might the EHRC haven’t actually found that much wrong. The charge against Labour was that it was institutionally anti-semitic. This was the basis on which the enquiry was initiated. But the report really doesn’t support that narrative. Indeed when you get down to the granular detail the political interference in the disciplinary process turns out as often as not to the detriment of those facing complaints rather than the reverse. What should also be striking is the number of cases they examined (around 70 from memory) and the number they seem to have had concerns about – 2. They trawled about and actually found rather little.

    So I wonder whether a more intelligent response might have been along these lines?: we welcome the fact that the EHRC has not found that the LP is not institutionally anti-semitic, we are pleased that they have found there has been considerable progress in the way complaints are dealt with, we always considered the charge to be wholly ill-founded, and, just as suggestions in parts of the press that LOTO posed an existential threat to Jews, to be politically motivated.

  • Constant reader says:

    Are “Jews” and “people claiming to be victims of sexual harassment” comparable categories for the purpose of establishing discrimination? The report is agumentative rather than forensic when it says: “The Party has shown an ability to act decisively when it wants to, through the introduction of a bespoke process to deal with sexual harassment complaints. Although some improvements have been made to the process for dealing with antisemitism complaints, it is hard not to conclude that antisemitism within the Labour Party could have been tackled more effectively if the leadership had chosen to do so.” How hard did they try not to conclude? Are they really saying that “the leadership” had unlimited scope to choose whatever processes they thought fit? There’s no acknowledgment at all of the political constraints imposed by the raging factional conflict in the party. This alone means the conclusions can hardly be taken seriously.

    There is no examination of the circumstances and procedures under which the sexual harassment provisions were introduced.

    The airy dismissal of Livingstone’s Article 10 rights lacks any forensic depth and without Livingstone the entire edifice of the report would collapse. Could the findings against the Labour Party be founded entirely on the statements attributed to a councillor in Rossendale?

    The use of the concept of agency, borrowed wholesale from commercial/contract/employment law, is gobsmackingly sweeping and can only be deployed in the report on the basis that the Labour Party doesn’t contest it.

    There needs to be a detailed comparison of the executive summary, with the body of the report. Is the former exaggerating the latter? For example, the summary speaks of “a culture within the Party which, at best, did not do enough to prevent antisemitism and, at worst, could be seen to accept it.”

    “A culture … could be seen” — seen by whom? Shapeless blether.

    Flimsy hardly covers it.

  • Roshan Pedder says:

    Much needed and brilliant summary of the extensive reporting on the subject. Thank you so much.
    As to Graham Jones’ fatwa to “for goodness sake pack it in” – not at all surprised he is a Starmer supporter – same authoritarian tone with the same message that we should all slink away quietly into the ether. We will not! This is a struggle for justice not just for Corbyn, but for Palestine and the Labour party itself.

  • Paul Wimpeney says:

    Rule number one when considering a question: define the terms.
    Nowhere does the EHRC “report” do this: Antisemitism? The Jewish Community? Public Concern? Common Values of Tolerance? (Did anyone whisper ‘Windrush’?)
    Even so, the tone is admonitory: the Sunday School teacher is wagging a finger – “The Labour Party must …. ” Caroline Waters is a leading figure in “Faith in Business”. What do those of us who lack this in any of its meanings do?

  • John C says:

    Pity that this sort of point by point consideration of what the EHRC report actually said was pre-empted by the sanctions which the party leader and/or general secretary precipitously and gratuitously bestowed on his predecessor. Massive own goal.

  • Jon Grunewald says:

    The EHRC report fails to quote the emails sent to members from LOTO and his various statements to the press, all of which condemned antisemitism, thus giving the impression that nothing was said and that antisemitism was condoned.

  • Dr ALAN MADDISON says:

    Very good summary of key points of contention.
    Of course numbers are relevant. It is surely important that the ‘illegal harassment’ involves only two members, aside from the qualitative issues.

    Also what exactly was meant by relentless claims of a widespread antisemitism in Labour? Logically the required evidence to confirm or refute this damaging claim will be quantitative?

    The perceptions of 34% members facing antisemitism allegations did not come out of thin air, nor it seems personal experience, but continued propaganda from BoD, JLM, CAA and many anti-Corbyn PLP.

    Shouldn’t these people be held to account for the unnecessary distress they caused, when the latest figure is only 0.24%?

    These gross exaggerations facilitated the election of Tory Govt criticised by two UN reports for its racism. Then by the EHRC for its illegal ‘hostile environment’ and a structural racism that results in many deaths, not just allegedly offensive comments.

    Just to finish off with some more numbers. We estimate about 3% of Labour members may be antisemitic, but a recent Hope not Hate survey showed 57% of Tory members were Islamophobic. Is it not strange that the EHRC investigated Labour antisemitism, but not Tory Islamophobia?

  • To some extent I have to agree with Graham Jones. We should Pack in analyzing and trying to justify our position. WE are the unjustly accused and as such the accusers MUST, in British law, prove THEIR point. It is not our task to prove innocence!
    Of course if Mr Jones has joined the Labour Party because of Starmer then although Mr Jones wishes to “get rid of the tories” he is clearly one of them.
    His remark– “Corbyn was so unpopular” confines Mr Jones to the ranks of the gullible half wits who read The Mail, The Sun, The Telegraph “ad nauseum”. Does not Mr Jones have the wit to realize that Corbyn was ONLY “unpopular” because these ghastly periodicals TOLD the public to think that “Jeremy Corbyn is unpopular.” Unpopular with whom? Corbyn was only unpopular with the writers of these articles and the dull sheep who believe what they are told, again and again!
    (Footnote.) ” Ad nauseum” which I may have misspelled, as I am not a scholar, is Latin for “on until sickness” or perhaps vomiting!

  • Iqbal Sram says:

    The report ignores the fact that Ken Livingstone was actually disciplined by the LP. Ken Livingstone made no reference to Jews. The reference was made to the Zionist movement in Germany. I assume the Councillor in question was also disciplined by the LP. The report fails to look into the political and ideological world view of the Campaign Against Anti Semitism and JLM. The report fails to explore whether or not Zionism is a protected characteristic. Further it is not clear from report whether Jews should be regarded as a race or essentially be defined on the basis of religion.
    In relation to harassment it is very doubtful whether the threshold for establishing harassment was actually met by what Ken Livingstone said. Ken Livingstone was not interviewed by the EHRC. Neither was JC.
    EHRC was established by the Labour Government against the wishes of Black people at the time.

  • john hall says:

    Both Ms Smeeth and Joan Ryan have stressed that their beef is with anti-Zionism. I heard one Jewish Male MP state that members would not call him a “dirty Jew”, but a “dirty zionist”. Zionism – in its modern human-rights-abusing, settler-colonial manifestation is principally a Christian-driven thing with about 8 million in the US Christian Union for Israel, ( motto: “For Zion’s Sake I will not keep Silent”. Christian Zionist, Vice President Mike Pence must have had great input into “Trump’s” “Peace Plan” which would have formalised further Palestinian dispossession.
    Anti-Zionism which, according to Joan Ryan in her article for the Jerusalem Post of 7 Nov, “was central” to Labour’s “antisemitism crisis” is not and cannot be described as “antisemitism”. It follows that anti-semitism in the Party was exaggerated and quite probably “dramatically ” so as stated by Corbyn. He has NOTHING to apologise for.

  • Anonymous member says:

    I have to cite a HUGE issue that by total lack of investigatory arse covering by the EHRC, and through deliberate and stubborn ignoring by the Party, has got right on my wick…

    The sexual harassment policy of the Party is absolute crap. Moreover, the Party has numerous cases of sexual assault with cast iron evidence, some that have been through the justice system, where years later, the perpetrator is STILL an active member. Cases have been swept under the carpet, goal posts changed, etc depending on who made the complaint, who was involved etc. THIS needs to be investigated covertly by someone.

  • Rosemary Franczak says:

    Adrian Chaffey makes an excellent point. It is far too late of course to give out his strikingly intelligent messaging, particularly when the Guardian, Freedland, Elgot et al went for amplifying criticism by the EHRC of Labour on the day. I am not sure in the swirl of politically biased opprobrium, any welcoming of the moderate EHRC findings would have been noticed.

  • June Simmons says:

    Brilliant. I’d only add that the EHRC isn’t only deaf to Palestinian perspectives, but also to voices of non-Palestinians linking similar harsh inequalities under imperialist powers. Importantly, the LP is stuck on a convoluted definition of antisemitism despite the original author’s rejection of such purpose.

  • Helen Richards says:

    1. How can this reach a wider audience than those of us who regularly read these pages?
    2. Is there any redress? Can the report be legally challenged?

  • Voirrey Faragher says:

    Thank you JVL – I look forward to the detailed analysis. I expect you will be noting some of the useful comments above which it is heartening to read.

  • Colin Lomas says:

    Thanks JVL for helpful critique of EHRC report. Let’s hope it will be widely used to counteract the relentless anti-Corbyn campaign within the party.
    When will Starmer realise that BoD and CAA will never stop asking for more apologies and exclusions – or rather when will he admit to this as he knows it already.
    Observe that in the century from the founding of the Labour party to Corbyn becoming leader, it would be impossible to find a single reference – in newspapers, books, TV, radio, political speeches etc – to anti-Semitism existing at all in the party.
    The four broadcasts in “The Lobby” in 2016 identified the source of the now endless stream of anti-Semitism accusations against party members, and it was Netenyahu telling Israel ambassador in London Mark Regev to coordinate a campaign against Corbyn, knowing that the Mail, Express etc and sadly the BBC would always report all accusations without, of course, any investigation into whether the accusations were justified.
    Netenyahu will be satisfied that Palestine-Israel conflict is now completely invisible on the UK political agenda.

  • Ian Kemp says:

    Brilliant first class analyses. all the media The PLP Starmer James Obrien LBC Hodge et al all should read and understand this very objective analyses. Including Mr Graham Jones who does not seem to read or get over his prejudices.

  • It is good that JVL has made a concise list of the shortcomings of the EHRC report. However, I do not share the authors’ admiration for the Pears Institute, whose Director, David Feldman, expresses his views in this article: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/08/education-labour-antisemitism-party-keir-starmer. He waxes at length on the existence of “a reservoir of antisemitism” in British society, which looks like a rationale for Israel advocates to endlessly impugn the motives of those who criticise Israel, and engage in witch-hunts. Clearly some British people hang on to underlying prejudices, but there is no reason to highlight these above prejudices towards other minorities.

    I notice Feldman makes a big play on Staetsky’s finding that a large minority of the population, more than 30%, will readily agree with (one or more) negative and stereotypical ideas about Jews. I find this reasoning to be logically flawed, because if you read Staetsky’s paper you will see that these are not objectively tested measures of antisemitism, they are simply ideas that Jews typically perceive as antisemitic, regardless of whether they reflect antisemitic motivation. I find a much more reliable indication of the problem to be be Staetsky’s figure of 5% of adults who hold 5 out of 8 these ideas, and where there can be little doubt about motivation.

  • Dr Rory Allen says:

    In some ways, the EHRC report vindicated Corbyn, though you would hardly think so from the way it has been spun. Out of (presumably) thousands of Labour Party office holders, just 20 were found to have been involved with antisemitism, a fraction of a percent of the total. Among ordinary Labour members who were not office holders, the report said: “The documents they provided to us included information about more than 220 allegations of antisemitism within the Labour Party, dating back to 2011.” As a proportion of the total membership this is around 0.05 percent.

    There has been a good deal of misinformation about the Survation report into public perceptions of antisemitism within the Labour Party, but I have looked at the raw figures (available online) and among those who had any opinion on the matter (over a third of the sample), the median figure for the prevalence was 28%. We can infer from this that one in three people thought that the Party had a serious antisemitism problem.

    Was the scale of antisemitism in the Party exaggerated? If you think that 28% is significantly bigger than 0.05%, and if you believe the EHRC report, I don’t see you have any alternative but to agree that it was. Of course, if you think the actual numbers don’t matter or if you reject the report, then you will come to a different conclusion.

  • John Wattis says:

    Please can we find a way to peace with justice. The Tories and their supporters will be laughing all the way to the next election if we cannot resolve this in a comradely way. The opposition Jeremy Corbyn faced because of his unashamed socialism was wrong; but it is equally damaging if we continue to fight amongst ourselves. I think we will need to come together to find a way to peace with justice; it may take a while and may be difficult when feelings run so high but it is essential that we try to find ways to make a just peace and that both sides hear and understand the other’s concerns. Call me naive, if you like but this is my hope.

  • Michael Ingham says:

    Thank you for these clarifications, which only serve to emphasise how cynical Starmer, Evans and gang are in using all Jewish people in the U.K. to represent the views of the pro-Netanyahu lobby groups. Starmer and gang are wrecking the Labour Party by twisting truth and misrepresenting people’s sensibilities on racism and antisemitism purely for their own devious political ends. These hypocrites need to be challenged. This article does precisely that. Congratulations on doing such a “forensic” job on pseudo-Tory Starmer and the rest of the Blairite conspirators. Let’s not forget it was the Tory upper classes in this country who were the biggest apologists for Nazism in the 1930s and Johnson who has employed crude racist stereotypes in his discourse to date.

  • Ndaizivei Scholastica Esnathy Paul says:

    I find the analysis informative and educational. I hope in future JVL and BAME Labour can establish working relations on all forms of antiracism in the Party. I am currently a CLP BAME Officer.

  • Harry Law says:

    When the EHRC talk about the “Jewish community” they refer to a homogenous group, Keir Starmer does the same thing, example 11 in the IHRA states that it could be anti-Semitic “Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel”. The IHRA condemns such conflation because people of Jewish origin, wherever they may live, do have minds of their own and have differing opinions on the actions of the Israeli state. The EHRC and Starmer are in breach of example 11 [IHRA].

  • Marie Dickie says:

    It’s such a relief to read considered and balanced analysis of these issues. Though both in terms of the inadequate nature of the EHRC and because LP is not addressing the real basis of the disputes within it, I cannot even consider rejoining

  • Jamal El Kheir says:

    I am appreciative and grateful that JVL is doing such a thorough analysis of the report, and highlighting its failings and omissions. Corbyn and Formby are not the problem, they are the establishment’s problem. Thank you.

  • Harry Law says:

    john Hall, “Anti-Zionism which, according to Joan Ryan in her article for the Jerusalem Post of 7 Nov, “was central” to Labour’s “antisemitism crisis” is not and cannot be described as “antisemitism”.
    I agree John, similarly Maxine Peake’s article in the Independent newspaper was an allegation against the Israeli state, in particular its security services, these were not anti Semitic allegations, RL Bailey lost her job and Maxine Peake could lose her career because the “forensic lawyer” Starmer falsely accused them of anti Semitism.

  • steve mitchell says:

    May I remind Mr Jones that hundreds of thousands of members joined the Labour Party when Corbyn became leader. Not dozens or hundreds not even just thousands. Journalists such as Peter Oborne , firmly on the Right have described the character and political assassination of a decent ,honest MP ,perhaps the least likely person in the country to be a racist of any stripe . Oborne descibes the plot as a national disgrace .In my view there can be no Labour unity until the truth is revealed. There is a huge amount of evidence pointing to a well organised ,well funded plot to oust Corbyn . Real economic change had to be prevented at all costs and all support for the Palestinians had to be outlawed. Our own members have rendered our Party impotent for the foreseeable future with help from a foreign power

  • Doug says:

    John Wattis ‘peace with justice’
    Inadvertently hits the nail on the head, we need to sit down with Red Tories and negotiate the division of assets,
    So in the interests of peace with justice, let them leave and set up the centrist party

  • Stephen Richards says:

    Complaint unanimity of compliance in MSM, but will make more sense when the term ‘Anti-Semitism’ is replaced by ‘Socialism’. Does it matter who owns & controls MSM? Is the relationship between the 4th Estate as Guardian & Protector of Freedom of Speech & Democracy under question?

  • David Bull says:

    Thank you for this short analysis. Any questioning of a flawed and biased report was hereto classed as being equivalent to antisemitism. The report was designed to stymie a Corbyn led Labour party, distract from left wing policy, and ensure Labour’s defeat in the upcoming election. It was a political hatchet job.

  • Edward Hill says:

    Reason 11: “The Jewish community”. It seems unfair to blame the EHRC (or even Keir Starmer?) for repeating a term that appeared previously in the leaked GLU report, which was evidently intended for the attention of the EHRC as a statement in Jeremy Corbyn’s defence. The fourth paragraph of the GLU report refers to causing “great pain to the Jewish community” and those last three words are used a further fifteen times.
    Reason 4. It is surely unrealistic to expect the EHRC to have probed into circumstances behind a report that was never officially submitted by the Labour Party.
    Reasons 3 & 5. The GLU report may have been factually accurate, but in its selection of facts it was inevitably also factional. Unless or until it is validated by the report of the Forde enquiry, it may be better to focus on those faults in the EHRC report that do not relate to it.

  • Jane Clarke says:

    Thank you for this – what I thought might be the case but did not know.

  • Harry Law says:

    Will Corbyn’s proposed legal action look at his initial suspension, who complained? Who was the complaint made to? Since only the NEC or a panel delegated by the NEC are competent to suspend how could the NEC convene a meeting in so short a time [impossible]. The rule book does not allow the General Secretary [or Starmer] to suspend a member, also because both are Political officers the Equality Commission report states they should be nowhere near disciplinary cases. Since Corbyn was suspended very shortly after his comments on the report it was impossible to follow the correct procedures therefore all the officers involved in this debacle were acting ultra vires and the whole disciplinary process against Corbyn should be overturned as invalid’.

  • Eric Goodyer says:

    What I object to most is this concept of a ‘Jewish Community’ as if we are a single amorphous group, all with the same opinions. Such a view is racist, and denies us our right to individual views and personal freedom. I repeat as I have before that I do not support Corbyn, I am here because I am a Jew and have the right to have my voice heard. Not a single iece of evidence has been presented that shows the Labour Party is anti-semitic.

  • michael craig says:

    An excellent deconstruction and analysis of the report!
    @ John Hall. I found your comment very enlightening, and I hope you won’t mind if I make use of it on social media.

  • Look. The problem with this bloody report is that you are over analysing it and in so far as you do that you miss the wood for the trees.

    1. The Report is superficial by any standard. The mere fact that at no point does it define anti-Semitism is telling.

    2. For a report that makes accusations of harassment it is strange that it finds no victims of harassment. Legally the reports definition of harassment is simply untenable.

    3. It is clear that the authors of the report engaged in what might be said to be political reverse engineering, i.e. they reached their conclusions and worked back from them.

    4. The key questions are all political, such as:
    i. By what authority did the EHRC even think of investigating the Labour Party when it ignored much clearer evidence of anti-semitism in the Tory Party.
    ii. Given that the EHRC is a non-governmental department, dependant on the government for its very survival, it was completely inappropriate for it to investigate a political party.
    iii. The nature of the EHRC should have been called out from the start.
    iv. Following on from that Corby, yet again, made a serious error in not confronting the EHRC with its assumptions and biases rather than going along meekly with it.
    v. The EHRC of course ignored the political context given the politicised nature of the EHRC itself.
    vi. In the light of all the recent allegations of EHRC racism itself, leaving aside the present crop of allegations, then the EHRC was unfit to investigate anyone.

    There is one other point no one seems to have picked up on.

    Starmer did his best to ensure that the EHRC Report was as bad as possible, e.g. not officially submitting the leaked report. Despite this the EHRC Report is quite anodyne. The reason Starmer does not want any discussion is precisely because it would become even clearer that the Report was not the weapon he believed it to be. Starmer bought off the corrupt staff precisely in order that they couldn’t then be criticised by the EHRC. It’s also why he’s running scared of the Forde Report, despite its rigged composition.

    In summary the Report can only be understood politically not by poring over its text.

  • Hanna Khamis says:

    Great first step. The definition if harassment on page 22 is also so vague that almost any statement or action that a member of any community finds to be offensive to themselves as a member of that community could be deemed to be harassment. In which case, how any Party prevent occurrences, without totally silencing every member that could be conceived to be an agent?

  • Chris Friel says:

    Another problem with the EHRC report is that fails to address any evidence (which it did receive) that some instances of so-called antisemitism were indeed fake, and used by pro-Israel trolls such as Gnasher Jew. Some Twitter handles have been created just for this purpose such as the now banned @MycroftusN. More generally, the report failed to address the influence of these pro-Israel lobbyists on social media.

  • Chris Friel says:

    Another issue worth consideration is the close links between fellow barristers, (co-bloggers and friends on Twitter) Alasdair Henderson and Adam Wagner. The latter worked for the CAA who brought the complaint against the LP while the former led the investigation. Henderson was appointed by Penny Mordaunt who had tweeted about the original anti-Corbyn demo (opposed by JVL) after MuralGate.

  • Martin Mackarel says:

    Excellent analysis of how the media twisted the whole issue

  • David Roger says:

    Just to say this is immensely useful when you see celebrities like Joan Bakewell on Have I Got News For You saying Corbyn broke the law . When I complained the BBC replied the EHRC showed Labour broke the law on antisemitism and therefore as Leader of the Party it is fair to say Corbyn broke the law personally !

  • Alan Marsden says:

    The dodgy pedigrees of the lead complainants to the EHRC (JLM and CAA)
    DOES NOT BEAR SCRUTINY AND SHOULD BE HIGHLIGHTED.

Comments are now closed.