"It is better to content oneself with other more modest and less exciting truths, those one acquires painfully, little by little and without shortcuts, with study, discussion and reasoning, those that can be verified and demonstrated." Primo Levi: The Truce. p 397.
Those responsible for The EHRC report into antisemitism in the Labour Party would have done well to have had Primo Levi's wonderful sentence printed on its first page followed its sage advice word for word. Then there needed to be a clear account of what the EHRC understood to be antisemitism and how applied that understanding consistently when reaching its carefully reasoned decisions in each and every one of the 70 cases it investigated. The British public got neither.
Being a report into antisemitism there needed to be a clear statement as to what the EHRC take it to be. However, the first time The IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism is mentioned is on p 27. It is also described as being The IHRA Definition of Antisemitism something which it is not. It isn't discussed until Annex 3. And then in a limited way.
Here the EHRC say they, "explain: when the Labour Party is responsible for the conduct of its agents, and the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism and its impact on our investigation." The key word, "Working" has again been dropped. To restore lost confidence the EHRC need to explain why they use the two interchangeably and to acknowledge Prof Stephen Sedley's observation that it fails the first test of any definition in being indefinite.
The IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism states, "Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities." One can see what Prof Sedley means. The EHRC continue with, "The IHRA also provides illustrative and contemporary examples of antisemitism. Some concerns have been raised about aspects of the IHRA approach."
"Some concerns?"
This is hardly an honest appraisal of the controversy surrounding the resurrection of this IHRA working definition. Kenneth Stern's reasoned criticism of it is a good place to start. After all he wrote it (1). Others expressing far more than just some concerns are; Independent Jewish Voices Canada (2) and Anthony Lerman (3)
Why has the EHRC chosen to gloss over the issue of the fierce controversy surrounding the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism? Perhaps Kenneth Stern provided the answer when he said, "Rightwing Jews are weaponising it." This is the Jewish author of the Working Definition expressing far more than just, "some concerns" as the EHRC would have us believe. But why is the EHRC taking such a shortcut? And how does it affect the EHRC report?
The report's biggest failing is that it does not do what it demands of the Labour Party. On p5 they state, "we have not seen all of the evidence on which the conclusions in the leaked report were based." Yet when it comes to the vast majority of the 70 cases the EHRC "investigated" we too - the public - have not seen all of the evidence on which the EHRC investigators base their judgements. In fact we hardly see any evidence at all.
Only three cases are discussed in any sort of detail. They are those of; Ken Livingstone, Pam Bromley and Chris Williamson but in the latter's case its unclear as what exactly he is supposed to have done wrong. His name is mentioned. Holocaust Denial is mentioned as is supporting un-named suspended members. But what the exact link between Chris Williamson and antisemitism is never clearly stated. This simply isn't good enough.
On p7 of the report it says, "We found that the complaints process was not properly resourced and those responsible for it were not trained to the necessary standard." (7) On p10 the EHRC criticises Labour for, "unclear decision-making by the NEC and NCC." But where is the clear decision making in 67 of the cases they spent 18 months investigating? It is conspicuous by its absence. We don't know who said what. However we do know where it was said - 59 of the cases were about allegations of antisemitism on social media. We know absolutely nothing about these cases. Were the un-named individuals who wrote the IHRA report, "trained to the necessary standard?"
Given that we have been provided with NO information on the bulk of the cases determined or how decisions were arrived at, it is safe to say the EHRC were themselves were not trained to the necessary standard. Because a necessary standard requires clear, reasoned, transparent and consistent decisions.
On p9 we're told there was, "a lack of a clear and fair process for respondents." But where was the EHRC's clear and fair process when arriving at its decisions?
The 68 remaining cases should have been presented like those of Ken Livingstone and Pam Bromley. Why weren't they?
P10 and the complaint here is that there was, "poor record-keeping: this was evident in 62 of the 70 files in our sample." Yet in the vast majority of its cases there are records at all. Just invisible people who have allegedly done invisible things. No small truths here that have been reasoned, demonstrated and verified. Only 2 out of the EHRC's 70 cases are satisfactory. Or 2.8%.
P13 the EHRC say, "Rebuilding trust and confidence in antisemitism complaint handling The Labour Party must rebuild trust and confidence that antisemitism complaints are handled independently, lawfully, efficiently and effectively." But has the EHRC itself handled all 70 cases, independently, lawfully, efficiently and effectively? Apart from the 2.6% don't know. Where's the evidence? They appear to have effectively buried it. They expect Labour to have in place, "what will be considered an appropriate sanction for different types of proven antisemitic conduct" and yet offer no any examples of what that might entail.
What confidence can the public have in the EHRC when it has failed to clearly demonstrate, "proven antisemitic conduct" in the bulk of the cases it investigated?
Legally, the Labour Party will be expected to, "Collect, analyse, and publish quarterly data." Once again we should like to ask, where is the analysis of the data the EHRC collected when compiling its report? How many cases of antisemitism have there been in total since 2015 and how did the EHRC's investigators categorize them? Of the 70 cases "investigated" by the EHRC how many were of Holocaust Denial? How many were of calling Zionists - "Zios?" We don't know because they don't say.
The media are adamant - it's everywhere. Yet in the EHRC report it was
They do say, "We also highlighted the range and volume of antisemitic conduct across the complaint sample". (32) Range and volume? Where? We've read the report twice and we can't find that information. It isn't collated in one place. There is no Annex dedicated to a statistical brake-down and analysis of the range and volume of antisemitic conduct. This is not efficiency.
P28 and the EHRC is at pains to stress that, "Suggesting that complaints of antisemitism are fake or smears. Labour Party agents denied antisemitism in the Party and made comments dismissing complaints as ‘smears’ and ‘fake’. This conduct may target Jewish members as deliberately making up antisemitism complaints to undermine the Labour Party, and ignores legitimate and genuine complaints of antisemitism in the Party. These comments went beyond simply describing the agents’ own personal experience of antisemitism in the Party." We have every confidence that Primo Levi would have wanted to verify that claim by resorting to a careful study of the evidence. The only problem is - The EHRC don't provide it. They have provided little or no data on who made the bulk of the complaints. For example did these complaints of antisemitism come from lots of individuals or a small group? Given the enormity of what is at stake such an omission is beyond careless.
P30 the EHRC claim, "Some of the unwanted conduct took place on social media." But according to the EHRC's own figures 59 of the 70 cases, "took place on social media." That's 82.49%. By our calculation that isn't, "some." It's "most." Why are the few statistics that were made available by the EHRC for scrutiny being distorted in this way? They, too, are shortcuts.
The report is littered with sentences like this one, "An effective complaints process must be fair, impartial and transparent. Decisions on complaints should be made through specified formal processes, based on a fair and objective assessment of the facts." (p42) But we have no real idea as to how it arrived at its decisions. We are expected to take what they say on trust.
Shortcuts can take the form of shadowy figures offering their unsubstantiated insights eg, "one former GLU staff member described Thomas Gardiner as ..." (p48) and "although we have seem some evidence ... does not appear ... as extensive, systematic.." (54) This is a report paid for by the taxpayer. Who is the person what is the evidence?
We ourselves feel tempted at this to claim that, "an EHRC panel member has told us - off the record - that the EHRC report was..." but we hold the memory of Primo Levi in too high an esteem.
We believe there are currently 166 Panel Members of the EHRC. They're named in alphabetical order. Yet the EHRC report doesn't say who was responsible for writing what is in it. Why the secrecy? As a regulator funded by taxpayers' money surely the public have a right to know who it was who carried out the first investigation of a British political party. The report is highly critical of the antisemitism training the Labour Party has made available to its members. But is this criticism fair and is it being directed at the right culprits? The report reports, "The Labour Party said it had been more complex and difficult for it to procure antisemitism training than sexual harassment training, and that discussions with the Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism (at Birkbeck) in spring 2018 ‘stalled later that year because of pressure applied on the Institute’. No further details were provided to us."
"No further details were provided to us."
So why didn't you go searching for them - this is an investigation after all?
This revelation is remarkable for a number of reasons. How can such a prestigious Birkbeck University institute cave into "pressure?" And more importantly, who applied the pressure? And why? One thing is for sure - the pressure certainly helped the EHRC arrive at its judgement that, "We find that the failure to provide adequate training to those handling antisemitism complaints was unjustified and indirectly discriminated against Jewish Labour Party members."
Perhaps the Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism (Birkbeck University) isn't so prestigious after all. Apparently the course it did provide was, according to the EHRC, inadequate.
1) Kenneth Stern: I drafted the definition of antisemitism. Rightwing Jews are weaponising it." Fri 13. 2019 The Guardian.
"Armed with a [legal] determination that effectively says campus anti-Zionism is antisemitism, these professors will correctly see themselves at risk when they ask their students to read and digest materials deemed anti-Zionist, whether the writings of leading 20th century Jewish thinkers who were skeptical of Zionism, such as Hannah Arendt and Martin Buber, or of contemporary Palestinians. […] My fear is, if we similarly enshrine this definition into law, outside groups will try and suppress — rather than answer — political speech they don’t like. The academy, Jewish students, and faculty teaching about Jewish issues, will all suffer." Testimony of Kenneth Stern, original author of the text adopted for the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism, given before the United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary Hearing on Examining Anti-Semitism on College Campuses, November 7, 2017
2) Independent Jewish Voices Canada: How Not to Fight Antisemitism. A Critique of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition of Antisemitism. 3) Antony Lerman: Labour should ditch the IHRA Working Definition Altogether. Open Democracy.
This rule says that members must not engage in conduct ‘which in the opinion of the NEC [National Executive Committee] is prejudicial, or in any act which in the opinion of the NEC is grossly detrimental to the Party’.8 (34)
The Labour Party provided us with a second code of conduct from 2018. This refers to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism (see Annex 3 for more details) and contains ‘guidelines’ with examples of conduct ‘likely to be regarded as antisemitic’, which are partly taken from the IHRA examples. However, this code of conduct is not in the Labour Party Rule Book or available on the Labour Party website. The Labour Party also has a code of conduct on the use of social media. This does not refer to antisemitism, although it does refer to race and religion. It focuses on ‘abusing someone online’ and encourages reporting of ‘abusive behaviour’. We explain this code in more detail in Chapter 8. The Labour Party says that the Governance and Legal Unit (GLU) (which is the unit within the Labour Party responsible for handling complaints), the NEC and the NCC now take into account the Chakrabarti report and the IHRA definition of antisemitism and examples. (34)
Meaning of political interference An effective complaints process must be fair, impartial and transparent. Decisions on complaints should be made through specified formal processes, based on a fair and objective assessment of the facts. (42(
In this chapter, we look at whether the Labour Party’s complaints process has enabled it to deal with antisemitism complaints antisemitism efficiently, effectively and fairly. (58)
Example In 2016, a member was suspended with no details about the underlying allegations. Despite requesting this information on several occasions, the member was not informed about the specific allegations until months later. Following an application for an injunction to allow the member more time to prepare for the disciplinary proceedings, the High Court held that the Labour Party’s approach to the timing of the NCC hearing was procedurally unfair and granted an injunction. The member was later expelled. Example A member was alleged to have made antisemitic comments during a parliamentary candidate selection process and in emails with other members of their Constituency Labour Party. The member was never given any details about the allegations despite repeated requests for them during the 2018 investigation. The member resigned before the complaint was finally determined. 63) Who are these people / phantoms
Lack of guidance to the NEC and NCC We expected the NEC and NCC to be equipped with guidance to lead them through the decision-making process, including guidance on how to: • assess what may or may not be antisemitic conduct • judge the severity of antisemitic conduct • decide on sanctions (we explain the position on sanctions in Chapter 7), and • give reasons for the decisions made.
Recommendations The Labour Party must rebuild trust and confidence that antisemitism complaints are handled independently, efficiently and effectively. To do this, the Labour Party should: • Publish a comprehensive policy and procedure, setting out how antisemitism complaints will be handled and how decisions on them will be made. This should include published criteria on what conduct will be subject to investigation and suspension, and what will be considered an appropriate sanction for different types of proven antisemitic conduct (we cover sanctions in more detail in Chapter 7). (74)
We recognise these concerns. However, we consider that the Labour Party should publish anonymised information about the outcomes of antisemitism complaints, beyond the information it already publishes, to increase transparency and public confidence in the process. We make a recommendation about this below. 79
Imagine a definition designed for Palestinians. If “Denying the Jewish people their right to selfdetermination, and denying Israel the right to exist” is antisemitism, then shouldn’t “Denying the Palestinian people their right to self-determination, and denying Palestine the right to exist” be anti-Palestinianism? Would they then ask administrators to police and possibly punish campus events by pro-Israel groups who oppose the two state solution, or claim the Palestinian people are a myth?
