Labour must be unequivocal in the message it sends
members: that antisemitism has no part in the movement,
says Labour Against Antisemitism
Paul Waugh’s article on
Wednesday on HuffPost, which includes the
leaked 13-point
recommendations for tackling antisemitism drafted
by the party’s antisemitism working group and sent to the
NEC last week, offers a first glimpse into how the party
plans to deal with what has been described as new General
Secretary Jennie Formby’s priority number one.
While Labour Against Antisemitism welcomes some of the
proposals in this document, such as increasing the
frequency of NCC panel meetings and making cases more
anonymous to avoid political bias, it still falls well
short of a workable framework that will deliver noticeable
reductions in Labour antisemitism.
The proposal, presented by a team including shadow attorney
general and Momentum
founder Jon Lansman (neither of whom have spotless track
records in this area), makes no reference to how
antisemitism will be understood or defined. Inevitably
without this there will remain confusion about how cases
are judged as antisemitic or not. Markedly absent is any
mention of the IHRA Working Definition of
Antisemitism, which Labour’s NEC adopted in full in
December 2016 but from which has attempted to
backtrack away in recent weeks. The document also says
nothing about how decisions will be reached as to whether
cases are referred to the NCC panel, or who will make these
decisions - except that they will be made in the General
Secretary’s Office. Bearing in mind Jennie Formby’s
owntrack record on
dealing with antisemitism and the way serious cases of
antisemitism have been referred for training rather than
for more severe sanction, this is an area of significant
concern.
Furthermore, no mention is made of expulsion in the list of
possible sanctions. This seems to contradict ’s promise made
in December 2017 of
zero tolerance for antisemitism in the . That is wholly
unacceptable. The needs to be clear and
unequivocal in the message it sends its members: that
antisemitism has no part in the Labour movement and that
racists will be removed.
Such a half-hearted attempt to get to grips with the
antisemitism crisis raises the question of what the actual
objective is of this proposal? As the Barnet election
results showed there is very little trust or
goodwill towards the Labour leadership from the Jewish
community and it feels unlikely that there is enough
commitment here to address that problem. This proposal
certainly goes nowhere near satisfying the demands set
out by the Board of Deputies and Jewish Leadership Council
before their meeting with Mr Corbyn last March. They may
accept that these recommendations at least show goodwill,
but they should be wary to venture any stronger support.
If Labour wants to avoid a repeat of the defeat in Barnet
and of the Enough is Enough and CAA rallies, then they will
need to begin proving – through unambiguous actions – that
they have listened: and that means member expulsions. It
remains to be seen whether Mr Corbyn has the commitment and
the integrity to take that step, risking as it will the
wrath and fury of his own core support. The decision is his
to make, but he should beware that history is rarely kind
on those who indulge in, excuse and apologise for racial
hatred.
We will be watching.