EHRC report investigation into antisemitism in the Labour Party

[FindTheTruth]

Published just now:

EHRC Investigation into antisemitism in the Labour Party
www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publication-download/investigation-antisemitism-labour-party

For me the reason why Corbyn had to be suspended was about process - overseeing an incompetent complaints system that ignored the majority of complaints and interfering in the process of others. This wouldn't just have affected antisemitism but also GC women's complaints or any other poor treatment/harassment/bullying/failure of process etc within the party. By effectively ignoring this behaviour it allows a toxic corrupt culture to develop which is at odds with what should be a democratic party.

@DrDreReturns

What's this got to do with feminism?

Because Jewish women exist.

@bellinisurge I’m not a TRA. What have I said that makes you think you think I am?

You say ‘shut down debate’. I would say ‘respond to a stream of abuse’

With regard to @samG76’s argument, the free speech issue . This is not simply an issue of the labour party excluding someone who disagrees with their views. It is about the about the labour party being threatened with sanctions by a statutory authority on the basis of what one of their members said. Doesn't that make it a free speech issue?

@Digeridont Apologies. That last post should have been addressed to you, not @bellinisurge

@howard97A My point is that what TRAs do (no implication that you are one) is to threaten or even actually use violence to individuals, and to try to shut down or cancel organisations. In contrast to the Labour Party, which used the EHRC’s report, based on the law, as evidence to exclude people from their party using due process.

I think there is a material difference - one I agree is chilling to free speech, the other I think is the natural consequence of disagreements due to free speech within the bounds of current law. So I do not share your view that the the two are equivalent or that one sets a precedent for the other. It could even be seen as an attempt to conflate two issues, one of which has very strong support on this board, one of which is more controversial.

On your point about legal action, its clear from the EHRC’s website that they are not threatening sanctions at this time. They say they are requiring the Labour Party to draft a legally binding action plan, which they will monitor, which in turn could lead to enforcement action. Their words are:

“Our investigation found that the Labour Party has committed unlawful acts.

We have published a report about our findings, including our recommendations for change.

The Labour Party is now legally obliged to draft an action plan to tackle the unlawful act findings we made. This should be based on our recommendations.

Once the action plan is agreed, we will continue to monitor it. If the Labour Party fails to live up to its commitments in the legally binding action plan, then we may take enforcement action.“

Taken from www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/ymchwiliadau-ac-archwiliadau/investigation-labour-party

@Digeridont Before I respond to your post can I ask you to clarify one point for me?

In my previous posts I’ve compared the ECHR investigation into complaints about anti-semitism with a hypothetical ECHR investigation into complaints about “transphobia”.

But the second paragraph of your post seems to bear the interpretation that I’m comparing the ECHR investigation into complaints about anti-semitism with “what TRAs do … to threaten or even actually use violence to individuals, and to try to shut down or cancel organisations.”

Could you clarify?

No idea why people are engaging with the blatant anti-Semites on this thread. They are no more sincere in their 'innocent' enquiries about what people meant about the EHRC investigation than TRAs are when they come on to MN to ask supposedly 'innocent' queries.

Sartre put it well:

“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

Time for the anti-Semites to return to the BNP or whatever their natural hang-out is. They don't belong on MN and they don't belong in the Labour Party either.

This from yesterday's Times.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/former-labour-leader-jeremy-corbyn-flees-westminster-for-isle-of-wight-2s9fg50l2

Pictures from his trip, which was taken despite public health advice cautioning against travel from London to areas of low infection, show him in the company of Stephen Smith, a Labour activist suspended for alleged antisemitism on social media

As one of the comments said- the Isle of Wight has a population of 100,000 yet Jeremy Corbyn manages to get a photo opportunity with the one resident kicked out of the Labour Party for anti-semitism.

Xxyzz I was giving the poster the benefit of the doubt, until their most recent post. There is no need (or way!) to further clarify my point that the EHRC, following due process and the law, is not a threat to freedom of speech. So I’ve concluded they can’t actually be seeking clarification, or even debate, and I’m out.

@Digeridont My point is that what TRAs do … is to threaten or even actually use violence to individuals, and to try to shut down or cancel organisations.

With regard to TRA action, I suspect that at some point ECHR will be persuaded to investigate feminist organizations, and will conclude that they are transphobic because according to TRA’s, GC arguments that biological males can't be women “were humiliating, denied the victims’ experience, diminished the issue, had the effect of stirring up and fuelling hatred for trans people and contributed to the creation of a hostile and intimidating environment for trans people.”
(virtually the same wording as ECHR used to describe the effect of KL’s comments on LP members.)

In contrast to the Labour Party, which used the EHRC’s report, based on the law, as evidence to exclude people from their party using due process. I think there is a material difference - one I agree is chilling to free speech, the other I think is the natural consequence of disagreements due to free speech within the bounds of current law.

Certainly, when LP excluded people from their party they used the ECHR’s report as evidence and used due process, but they knew that if they decided to reject the ECHR’s view of what was acceptable speech they would be sanctioned by the ECHR. . So whether or not you agree with ECHR’s finding, and with the consequent restriction on what KL and other LP members can say, this is surely a public issue, a free speech issue – not just an internal LP issue.

So I do not share your view that the the two are equivalent or that one sets a precedent for the other. It could even be seen as an attempt to conflate two issues, one of which has very strong support on this board, one of which is more controversial.

I repeat that my intention has been to compare the ECHR investigation into complaints about anti-semitism with a hypothetical ECHR investigation into complaints about “transphobia”. And to draw attention to the possibility that – as SugarPlumElf has put it - . the kinds of arguments used in the EHRC report could easily be used against gender critical women. …

… not to compare the the ECHR investigation into complaints about anti-semitism with “what TRAs do … to threaten or even actually use violence to individuals, and to try to shut down or cancel organisations"

I’d have been interested to know if this clarification would have affected your view that I might have been trying to conflate two issues. I guess I’ll never know.

On your point about legal action, it's clear from the EHRC’s website that they are not threatening sanctions at this time. They say they are requiring the Labour Party to draft a legally binding action plan, which they will monitor, which in turn could lead to enforcement action. Their words are:

“Our investigation found that the Labour Party has committed unlawful acts.

We have published a report about our findings, including our recommendations for change.

The Labour Party is now legally obliged to draft an action plan to tackle the unlawful act findings we made. This should be based on our recommendations.

Once the action plan is agreed, we will continue to monitor it. If the Labour Party fails to live up to its commitments in the legally binding action plan, then we may take enforcement action.

Sanctions later then, if LP don’t do as they’re told.

Time for the anti-Semites to return to the BNP or whatever their natural hang-out is. They don't belong on MN and they don't belong in the Labour Party either. Anti-Semitism is as much a part of the Left as it is of the Right, only the reasons differ.

I stopped dumping on the Right when I realised how anti-democratic it was and how much the "moral high ground" was so limiting in political debate

@Digeridont There is no need (or way!) to further clarify my point that the EHRC, following due process and the law, is not a threat to freedom of speech.

The fact that the suppression of speech was lawful, and that due process was followed, doesn’t necessarily mean that there isn’t a free-speech issue.

There are lots of historical and contemporary instances of bad censorship laws being enforced by due process; and very rarely is there universal agreement on which censorship laws are good and which are bad.

Suppose it were made illegal to misgender someone, and you found it impossible to comply, and you were convicted and fined ‘following due process and the law’.If you were a GC feminist wouldn’t you see that as a free-speech issue?

I’ve concluded [Howard] can’t actually be seeking clarification, or even debate, and I’m out.

Up to you (or @xxyzz ?)

@Digeridont Apologies for the xxyz bit. It was uncalled for

I wonder if there are several issues which are getting confused. I can see 3 main areas where antisemitism/transgender issues in Labour might relate to each other:

1. There’s the issue of bullying (name-calling, abuse, threats etc) that I hope we all think wrong.

2. There’s the issue of the Labour Party complaints system, which was a main focus of the EHRC report. (The EHRC says it discriminated against Jewish members but it seems in quite a complicated way - and whose fault this was is currently a major point of disagreement between Labour left and right.) Not clear how changes would impact on Gender Critical members of Labour.

3. Then there’s the more general principles by which people are trying to define and discipline antisemitism, and how these emerge through the EHRC report (also the Labour leadership pledges and the IHRC definition). If you read these and think of it from the perspective of the transgender debate I do think those principles could be used to repress GC speech. @howard94 quoted one passage. Other things that strike me include the way “mainstream” organisations are being given priority in Labour’s response to antisemitism (eg point 8 of the leadership pledges, EHRC references to “stakeholders”) over “marginal voices”. Well, GC voices are marginal, the “mainstream” women’s and LGBT organisations are Stonewall etc and they are all happy with (you might say captured by) genderism.

If you want an example of how antisemitism definitions can be coopted into the gender debate, to the disadvantage of the GC perspective, look at the way the LibDems have used parts of the IHRC antisemitism definition as a basis for their definition of transphobia (www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-lib-dems-transphobia-meltdown-is-complete).

It’s almost inevitable that the principles adopted in one area will be applied in another, which is why you have to look at those underlying principles carefully regardless of what you think about a particular issue.

I’m not out to upset anyone, and hope I’m wrong. But I do think there's a danger of introducing principles that could be used against unpopular opinions, if they can be argued to conflict with a minority group. And in Labour, the Greens and LibDems, gender critical voices are the unpopular opinion.

There is extreme bad faith going on in this thread in trying to draw parallels between anti-Semites = Holocaust deniers and blood libellers, people who call for attacks on Jews, etc. - on the one hand and GC women, fighting for our own rights, harming no-one, on the other hand.

Pretending that the former = the latter is base dishonesty.

Women standing up for our own rights are NOT just like anti-Semites. The people who are just like women here are Jews, not anti-Semites.

Just as women's rights to safety as we go about our own business peacefully, enjoying the protections under law as members of a protected characteristic are under attack, so are the rights of Jewish people (NB particularly Jewish women) to go peacefully about their own business, enjoying the protection under law of a different protected characteristic.

TRAs and anti-Semites would like to pretend they are the real victims here, because they do not have the freedom to remove others' rights and physically assault them.

Neither TRAs nor anti-Semites (whether they call themselves far left or far right) are victims. THEY ARE OPRESSORS.

I am absolutely SICK of the gaslighting going on in this thread.

How DARE anyone claim that the right to be anti-Semitic is some sort of sacred legal right, and anti-Semites will be oppressed if it is removed.

Such vile sophistry used in this thread.

Truly disgusting what I have witnessed in the last few years on the left, things I never thought I would see in this country.

xxyzz
Entirely agree with you.

It's not just Labour. The liberal democrats have adopted a definition of transphobia. Several people in the comments section below the article (See Jonathan Coulters comment )point out the lengthy wording directly plagarises the IHRA ‘working definition’ of antisemitism: He compares the terminology side by side. You couldn't make it up!
www.libdemvoice.org/liberal-democrats-adopt-definition-of-transphobia-65868.html

I have been a lifelong lib dem voter, both locally and at general elections. I have never voted for another party. NOT ANY MORE. Like Labour they are LOST to Wokeism.

Sorry @SugarPlumElf I just saw you had pointed out the same thing

@xxyzzThere is extreme bad faith going on in this thread in trying to draw parallels between anti-Semites = Holocaust deniers and blood libellers, people who call for attacks on Jews, etc. - on the one hand and GC women, fighting for our own rights, harming no-one, on the other hand.

Pretending that the former = the latter is base dishonesty.

Women standing up for our own rights are NOT just like anti-Semites. The people who are just like women here are Jews, not anti-Semites.

Just as women's rights to safety as we go about our own business peacefully, enjoying the protections under law as members of a protected characteristic are under attack, so are the rights of Jewish people (NB particularly Jewish women) to go peacefully about their own business, enjoying the protection under law of a different protected characteristic.

TRAs and anti-Semites would like to pretend they are the real victims here, because they do not have the freedom to remove others' rights and physically assault them.

Neither TRAs nor anti-Semites (whether they call themselves far left or far right) are victims. THEY ARE OPRESSORS.

I am absolutely SICK of the gaslighting going on in this thread.

Can I in all sincerity explain that I’m not trying to say that anti-semites are like GC women.

I am trying to say there is a danger that the the kind of arguments deployed by EHRC against anti semites at the behest of honest, opressed Jews might be used by the ECHR at the behest of dishonest, aggressive TRA’s.

I tried to illustrate this by pointing out that according to the Report (pp 205-6), Labour Party members said the effect of Ken Livingstone’s comments “was humiliating, denied the victims’ experience, diminished the issue, had the effect of stirring up and fuelling hatred for Jews and contributed to the creation of a hostile and intimidating environment for Jewish Labour Party members".

And that an ECHR report produced following complaints of transphobia by TRA’s might produce a report with the same wording, eg

“GC arguments that biological males can't be women were humiliating, denied the victims’ experience, diminished the issue, had the effect of stirring up and fuelling hatred for trans people and contributed to the creation of a hostile and intimidating environment for trans people.”

How DARE anyone claim that the right to be anti-Semitic is some sort of sacred legal right, and anti-Semites will be oppressed if it is removed.

Well, there might be different opinions about what anti-semitism is, and there are free-speech issues around its suppression.

Amid the cutting and pasting i left out this para

"In this scenario GC women and anti-Semites are cast in the same role (ie as complainants), but that is the only comparison I draw. TRA’s might say that GC women are like anti-semites but I certainly don’t."

It was meant to after the para ending ".... creation of a hostile and intimidating environment for trans people.”

Anno domini

Nice try, howard, but then you come up with this corker:

"there might be different opinions about what anti-semitism is, and there are free-speech issues around its suppression."

Actually, I think we can all tell that Holocaust denial, blood libel or incitement to violence against Jews are anti-Semitic. Yet apparently, Jeremy Corbyn and his hangers-on are blind to all three. Hence they continue to make out that Corbynites who take part in all three are just the victim of smears and should be allowed 'free speech'.

NO. Incitement to violence is NOT covered under free speech laws. Men should not have the right to claim that they want women to 'die in a grease fire' or threaten women with baseball bats. Any more than the Labour member who threatened to march on a synagogue or the supporters of actual terrorists who murder Jews should get a free pass.

Your implication that Jews should not have the right to protection under the law because someone else might try to misappropriate their rights and claim them for themselves is ludicrous. That's like saying that women should not be entitled to safe spaces because transwomen might try to misappropriate them. Jews are not responsible for what other people do with legal text intended to protect Jews. Women are not responsible for what men do in safe spaces designed to help women.

Seriously, just stop with the gaslighting.

Today is the anniversary of Kristallnacht...

Have some shame.

Is there any way to disagree with xxyzz without being anti-semitic?

I would add a number 4 to SugarPlumElf's list;

1. If people get labelled as racist/transphobic/anti-semitic/islamophobic simply for trying to discuss their doubts about the current orthodoxy then they may stop caring about the real issues that actually do affect marginalised groups.

So xxyzz and others probably think I'm anti-semitic now. Why would I worry about anti-semitism now that describes me?

I'm probably a gaslighter too. Shrug. Can't be that bad after all as I think I'm as honest as the next person.

What else have you got left to call me now I'm equivalent to people who believe in "Holocaust denial, blood libel or incitement to violence against Jews".

Congratulations, you got me bang to rights. Has that really made the world a better place?

TesselateMore - I have no idea if you're an anti-Semite or not, but find it interesting that you have chosen to express a general sense of camaradarie with anti-Semites, who are clearly the real victims in all this.

I gather that if Jews speak up about anti-Semitism, in your view, that may well lead all such right-thinking people as yourself to "stop caring about the real issues that actually do affect marginalised groups."

Good, as long as we've established that the real cause of lack of action on racism, misogyny, etc. is Jews reporting hate, then we're all happy.

I have NO IDEA why you be concerned that anyone might think you were an anti-Semite.