Judaism, antisemitism , anti-Zionism and natural justice in the Party

JVL Introduction

In response to helpful comments on the original draft motion we posted, it has been tightened up and a revised version is posted here.

We are not suggesting that the motion be prioritised with a view to getting it discussed on the Conference floor, but feel this is a good opportunity for raising important issues at branch and CLP levels.

Comments (12)

  • Geoffrey Bindman says:

    In the third paragraph under “Conference notes” the words “in the IHRA definition” should be omitted. The distinction between antisemitism and criticism of Israeli Government actions is not made explicitly in the definition. More accurately it is a consequence of the fact that criticism of Israeli need not involve hostility to Jews. There is really no need to bring the IHRA into this point.

  • S H says:

    Note to all sane people and especially the rotten biased lazy corrupt British media that negative views on Israel are NOT anti semitism. STOP THE BLOODY WITCH HUNT NOW

  • Barry says:

    About time…

  • Stephen Taylor says:

    Seems a very moderate set of proposals but sadly will probably not be enough to solve the problem of Labour Party members whose primary political allegiances are not to the Labour Party, socialism or working class.

  • Gilda Holzman says:

    I would love Harrow East CLP to adopt this motion for Conference, but we have already adopted a motion, so I don’t think we can act on this.

  • Lucy Wallis says:

    Excellent. Have forwarded on to colleagues.

  • Jessica Leschnikoff says:

    Hello all,

    I would add to this that un-elected Labour Party staff also should not seek to pre-judge disciplinary cases, or comment on the statements or actions of Labour Party members who are subject to disciplinary action.

    Too often, leaks have come from those not elected by members or mandated to speak for them by the Parliamentary Labour Party.

    Leaks have to be stopped: when they occur, they have to be traced back to those who should be made accountable – not publicly if possible, but firmly and confidentially.

  • Angela Edmunds says:

    I agree wholeheartedly with this motion, clarity is much needed as this issue is preventing the legitimate day to day business of the Party. We need to be concentrating on winning an election.

  • Piroska Markus says:

    Sounds good. Will forward it to others in the Labour Party and in Momentum.

  • Jonathan Rosenhead says:

    Jessica you are quite right. But there is a 250-word limit, and so a limit to what can be put in. We are right on that limit,

  • John Bowley says:

    I agree with the proposed conference notes and model motion, which could be tuned up a bit as suggested. I too deplore the appalling biased British media and soft right Labour Party members who are actually working against the Labour Party.

  • Jim Denham says:

    “the problem of Labour Party members whose primary political allegiances are not to the Labour Party, socialism or working class” … OK just tell us, where do these people’s allegiances actually lie, Stephen?

Comments are now closed.