Well, it had been expected, but the Labour party’s National
Executive Committee (NEC) voted
to formally adopt all of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)
examples of defining antisemtic behaviour, yesterday. Four
of the examples are controversial because they could, and are, used to
close down criticism of Israel, labelling it as ‘antisemtic.’
I say expected, because there has been a steady trickle of
trade union leaders and senior Labour party figures, such as John McDonnell the
shadow chancellor and Emily Thornberry, shadow foreign secretary, who have been
calling for the party to do so. A caveat will apparently be inserted to
‘clarify’ that criticism of Israel and defending the rights of Palestinians, is
allowed.
According to ITV’s
Robert Peston, the wording of Labour's antisemitism working group statement, put to
the NEC yesterday, was as follows:
"We recommend that we adopt the IHRA in full with all
examples. This does not in any way undermine the freedom of expression on
Israel or the rights of Palestinians. We re-invite the organisations to
re-engage in consultation on the Code of Conduct". It looks like
something along these lines will be issued as separate guidance.
Jeremy Corbyn’s longer clarification statement was not
approved by the NEC for inclusion in the guidance, and so was withdrawn.
The pressure has built all summer with the drip, drip of stories,
accusing various Labour party members, from the leader downwards of antisemtism.
The right wing media, started this off by digging around on social media and
archive news stories for alleged antisemitic behaviour, but Labour
right-wingers have seized the opportunity to smear the current leader of the
party by feeding these stories almost daily.
It is understandable in the circumstances, that Labour
should want to draw a line under this damaging episode, which has effectively
stopped the party from pursuing policy ideas and attacking the incompetence of
the Tory government over Brexit negotiations and much else. But will
yesterday’s decision to adopt all of the IHRA examples really put the issue to
bed? I very much doubt it will.
I have to say that the Labour leadership has not handled the
situation well at all. Things should have been nipped in the bud, much earlier.
It struck me that Corbyn, in particular, seemed irritated by the accusations
and action has been too slow, with only a few cases of alleged antisemtism
investigated and fully dealt with. The case of Ken Livingstone dragged on for
what seemed like forever, until he finally decided to quit Labour, so as not to
be a ‘distraction.’
The row over the IHRA examples, came on the back of numerous
allegations against Labour party members and it is arguable that this particular
issue would not have arisen, without what had gone before. But that doesn’t
excuse the behaviour of the right-wing media, egged on by the pro-Israel lobby
and aided and abetted by right wing Labour MPs, for the purposes of damaging
Corbyn and the left of the Labour party more generally.
Which is why I say, I doubt this will be the end of the
matter. Margaret Hodge said even before the adoption of the IHRA examples, it would
not be enough (even without a caveat presumably), but that Corbyn is ‘the
problem.’
There will probably be another fight over the exact wording
of any caveat, but more broadly, adopting the examples, is likely to lead to
more members of Labour being accused of antisemitism, with the definition now widened. Surely, this was the strategy all
along from the Labour right? They are like the Tory Brexiters, the more you concede,
the more they want.
The same people by and large, who have been at the forefront
of accusing others of antisemitism, Margaret Hodge, Frank Field, Stephen Kinnock,
Wes Streeting, I could go on, are the same as those who took part in the failed
chicken coup in 2016.
Then they thought they could cynically use the Brexit vote
to oust Corbyn as leader, as they reasoned many of his new, younger supporters
are pro-EU. They failed to remove Corbyn, but have bided their time until some
other event occurred or was concocted, which they could use to at least damage
Corbyn, if not remove him altogether.
The Green party is set to debate adopting the IHRA examples
as its definition of antisemitism next month in Bristol at its autumn
conference. Will the Greens cave in too? I think there is strong possibility
that they will, although I hope not. We will be making a rod for our own backs
if we do, just like Labour has.
My understanding is that the IHRA statement was adopted by the old NEC. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I wonder if the new NEC will overturn the decision. As for the IHRA examples,I very much hope Greens will resist the pressure to adopt them. I do not regard justified criticism of Israel as antisemitic.
ReplyDeleteNita Sanghera, UCU vice-president and president-elect.
ReplyDeleteI am writing to ask for your support for the open letter below. As UCU president-elect I’m deeply concerned by the mounting pressure on trade unionists to adopt the IHRA definition and examples and feel it is crucial that there is a broad response to this from across the labour movement. In UCU we are particularly concerned about the threat that the IHRA definition and examples poses to academic freedoms, but I feel this is a much bigger issue which concerns the whole of the trade union movement.
see http://greenleftblog.blogspot.com/2018/09/pressure-on-trade-unionists-to-adopt.html
Yes, the decision could be overturned by the new NEC, but that seems unlikely to me.
ReplyDeleteGreens should certainly NOT adopt the IHRA definition. The 'examples' include various kinds of political statement about Israel - we all know by now what they are. Particularly since the government and several London borough councils (and probably councils elsewhere) adopted the full definition, the bureaucratic imagination has been captured by the fear that such and such a speaker or meeting might express views that could be determined to be anti-semitic and the subject of complaints or counter-protests...oh yes and these might involve 'incidents' or even violence. So the meeting or speaker gets banned. E.g. Camden banned an International Women's Day event by a local Palestine - link- twinning group which was booked for a concil run commnity centre. This is why it's important to assert a positive right to criticise Israel (or any other state for that matter) and make it clear that criticising a state is not insulting or discriminatory against its dominent ethnic group - the majority of whom in this particular instance don't actually live in the stat3e being criticised and never did. As for M. Hodge's árgument that the actual or potential victims should determine what constitutes racism against them, where is the consensus amongst Jews? I could introduce her to a few dozen of my friends who have been working hard to oppose the IHRA definition. Anne Gray
ReplyDelete