Yesterday, Jeremy Newmark of the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM) issued a statement via the organisation’s website that he was ‘heartened’ that JLM’s proposed rule change regarding hate-incidents had been accepted by Labour’s NEC (National Executive Committee) for the party’s imminent annual Conference.
At the same time, NEC member Darren Williams put out a brief report on the NEC meeting via his Facebook page, which said this about the rule-change:
[W]e approved an NEC rule change on dealing with prejudiced views and behaviour that avoided the more draconian approach favoured by the Jewish Labour Movement.
This has understandably created some confusion among Labour members about the facts of the matter and what would be put before Conference. The SKWAWKBOX is pleased to be able to clarify the matter for its readers.
Below, obtained exclusively by the SKWAWKBOX, is a briefing note issued by Shadow Attorney General Shami Chakrabarti to the NEC for its discussion of the rule change. It shows the originally-proposed wording in the left column and the final version that was approved by the NEC in the right-hand column. Areas that were amended in the final version agreed by the NEC are highlighted in red:
The ‘Hastings’ version of the rule that was favoured by some activists was not passed forward by the NEC, as it was felt that the JLM rule in its amended form is more in keeping with the recommendations of the Chakrabarti Report.
The briefing adds the following explanatory notes:
The two outstanding concerns regarding the wording of 18/07/2017 are with the following phrases (highlighted in red above):
1. “was motivated by”:
i.) The inclusion of motivation in the rule book wording would inhibit not enhance the ability of the Party to bring disciplinary proceedings, removing discretion from the NCC in these matters and would therefore fall significantly short of the recommendations made (and accepted) in the Chakrabarti Report.
The requirement to prove motivation raises the threshold to a criminal legal level and risks making disciplinary cases more difficult to progress. Under the Party rules it should be sufficient that a member is found to bring the Party into disrepute, regardless of their motivation. By including motivation in the offence, a defence is offered to any member who has publically expressed prejudicial views. The Chakrabarti Report argued for the Party to have a lower tolerance threshold than that required by law as Labour should be seen to set a gold standard. It should not be easier to expel a member from a golf club for the expression of prejudicial views, than a member from the ‘party of equality’.
ii.) By including motivation, not only would this limit the ability of the Party to bring
disciplinary proceedings, but would lay it open to potential defamation cases where the Party finds a member in breach of this rule. This would act as a disincentive to act and is a step away from a ‘zero-tolerance’ environment.
2. “The NEC shall not have regard to the mere holding or expressions of beliefs and opinions”
Without some kind of caveat this text implies that genuine and sincere beliefs are acceptable excuses for racism, discrimination and other forms of prejudice. In essence, this stand-alone text negates the rule that goes before it and is therefore defective. The addition of a qualifying caveat has been suggested by the Party’s lawyers, subsequent to the NEC meeting in July and been incorporated into the proposed wording, agreed by the JLM and Shami, as above.
The proposed wording, as agreed with the Jewish Labour Movement is designed to address these concerns and represents a broad consensual position. The hope is that this wording provides the best opportunity to pass this rule change with unanimous consent at the NEC meeting tomorrow.
As with any compromise, it’s unlikely that anyone will be 100% happy with the final form, but this is the version that has been sent forward by the NEC for debate and vote at the Conference, which begins on Sunday.
The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.