“Code+” is likely outcome of NEC vote on IHRA examples – and puts right in a quandary

code +.png

  • NEC has been reviewing and consulting on its recently-launched Code of Conduct
  • NEC arithmetic means IHRA ‘working definition’ examples will be adopted in full, in spite of free speech issues
  • same arithmetic means that the Code’s existing caveats will be at least retained and probably strengthened to protect free speech
  • Labour members of good will should support this and invest their energy into campaigning for the right protective caveats

Some weeks ago, Labour’s National Executive Committee agreed to look further at the new Code of Conduct it had agreed on the party’s approach to the issue of antisemitism – a code that Momentum founder and NEC member Jon Lansman described as the ‘gold standard’ of political documents on the issue and certainly light-years ahead of anything put in place by other parties.

The agreement to revisit was made to accommodate the concerns expressed by some Jewish groups – and opportunistic Labour right-wingers – that the Code did not include, verbatim, all eleven examples of antisemitism that are attached to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA)  ‘working definition’ of antisemitism.

In fact, Labour’s Code includes reference to all the examples but clarifies a handful to reduce the risk of them being abused – as has already happened in Barnet – to suppress free speech on the issue of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and the Palestinians’ right to discuss their oppression in meaningful terms.

Since the decision to review, many Labour activists have campaigned hard for the Code of Conduct to remain unchanged for the protection of the rights of Palestinians – and BAME (black, Asian and minority ethnic) groups have also said that they would regard any weakening of the Code’s protections as a failure to defend the rights of all minorities equally.

Last week, the SKWAWKBOX exclusively spoke to Jon Lansman, who said that he envisaged – and would support – a revision to the Code of Conduct in which all eleven examples would be incorporated verbatim but, crucially, in which the existing Code’s clarifications regarding the examples around discussion of Israel would be retained as well, for the protection of free speech and Palestinian rights.

This blog’s discussions this week with key figures suggest that it is almost certain that the outcome Lansman foresees will be the result of the NEC vote on 4 September – and that the party’s leadership would back it.

The voting arithmetic on the NEC, with unions Unison and GMB swinging behind the adoption of the examples will combine with the intentions of enough of Labour’s member representatives on the committee to make it essentially impossible that the remaining IHRA examples will not be adopted – but similarly likely that the protective clarifications will be retained, or even strengthened as they need to be.

This shows that the party is taking seriously the concerns of those among the UK’s Jewish population genuinely worried by the fact that some examples were not included in full, while respecting and protecting the rights of Palestinians and other minority or oppressed groups.

But it also presents the Labour right and its allies with a quandary.

Do right-wingers crow at their ‘victory’ in seeing all the examples adopted in full? Or do they complain at the fact that the retention of the clarifications neuters their hope to use the examples for a mass assault on supporters of Palestinian rights among the membership (though of course it would not be expressed in quite those terms!)?

‘Code Plus’ or ‘Code Max’ looks inevitable. But it also looks like the right and intelligent response – and one that any with a genuine interest in defeating antisemitism and upholding the rights of oppressed Palestinians should support.

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.

If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.


  1. I can tell you for a fact that if Labour accept all examples and leave members open to Israeli forces all hell is going to break loose. The will first be a scrambled to search of speeches, articles and social media for references to Israel in order to make more claims of AS retrospectively. These are no my words by the world of the editor of one of the Jewish magazines attacking the party.
    No member will be safe from this it’ll be a blood bath. Momentum won’t be strong enough to stand up for members and that may collapse as a result of members leaving. Eventually they’ll nail the Leader with another coup.
    Honestly, the best thing Labour can do is face these people up and expose them for what they are, expose their links to the Tories and to right of Labour.

      1. That won’t stop them asking mate. Where have you been? it’s about keeping it going in terms where Labour can not close it down. You don’t really think this is about AS still do you? find my comment warning about giving in to Hodge and see how that turned out.

    1. No rule applies retrospectively? This will not stop them searching for posts accusing and asking for endless apologies . If we don’t apologise and retract they will accuse us of AS. I am not sure if I am strong enough to say ‘No comment’

  2. I think I prefer the rewritten version, though the whole IHRA definition is poorly worded.
    The test should be whether the new definition would posthumously brand Holocaust survivor Hajo Meyer as an anti-Semite or not for robustly criticising Israel. If it does, then it’s no good, IMO.

    1. Yes, That’s exactly it Dave G. I was pretty numbed when a little while back J.C. effectively disowned Hajo Meyer – under all of the calamitous pressure that surrounds him – and like Jonathon Cook (thanks for the link to his heartbreaking and honest analysis, as well as your other links Maria) I felt I could hardly blame him. But what a fitting testimony it would be if we were to adopt the Hajo Meyer principle as the standard.

      Endlessly caveated examples – where does it all end? As Maria says below: “what a f*ing mess”

  3. May I suggest that the NEC consult with the membership B4 ‘agreeing’ anything. They may be surprised @ the depth of feeling against adoption of ‘any’ code or ‘any’ definition of AS. Freedom of speech is worth protecting, Je suis Charlie Ebdo.

  4. As the author is aware of how the IHRA code is abused he could always present a revised version. Any new code should not apply retrospectively if it may be open to abuse.

    1. He shouldn’t have written it in the first place and certainly NOT made it public! I refuse to accept his climb down to save face. He knew exactly what it would lead to… he is a Prof, a highly intelligent man.

      1. Maria, Kenneth Stern,the author, didn’t write the definition to be used as a stick to beat people with. He wrote it as a tool to collect statistics on anti-semitism, and he has spoken out against this other use, saying that it will stifle free speech, and mentioning cases in which it already has. It’s a “working” definition ie not set in stone. It’s the IHRA, in a completely different organisation, which decided to make it THE definition which they think everyone should use.

  5. Ah, clarifications, clarifications, clarifications to try and neuter egregious examples… what a “f ing” mess.

  6. I think that sounds like good compromise. If we can still criticise Israel then I have no problem with it. Can we introduce a similar one for Muslims that has the same riders on Syria, Iran and Pakistan please! And can we campaign for the Conservative party to adopt both.

  7. Is it not a fact that the working definition and its examples have failed every legal challenge to date – and whether fact or not shouldn’t it and its examples be tested in English law before being adopted wholesale – especially in circumstances antithetical to rational debate?
    I’m sure many of us value freedom of speech enough to risk prison.

  8. This is not going to be allowed to happen. I have already written to all members of the NEC with the JVL template. If they imagine they cannot away with this, they are in for a fight.

    1. Have you seen this?

      “The misnamed Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) has stated that its goal is the eviction of Jeremy Corbyn from public life.”

      “To this end, the CAA has referred the Labour Party to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) alleging ‘institutional antisemitism’.”


      I wonder if bowing to pressure to adopt the full IHRA and examples, with ‘clarifications’, is related?

  9. The party should not have touched the IHRA “definition” with a ten-foot bargepole. The Oxford dictionary’s definition of “anti-Semite”, modified for the abstract noun, gives “hostility to, or prejudice against, Jews”.

    This nonsense should have been faced head-on and refuted. We have a leader who has opposed racism for half a century. We have far more Jewish MPs than would be expected. If Jewish Labour MPs matched the proportion of Jews in the population, there would be one Jewish Mp. If the figure matched the proportion of Jews who vote Labour, there would be none.

  10. Dear NEC OMOV ,,,, give us the MEMBERSHIP the right to vote once and for all on this highly contentious issue.
    That would be democracy within our party ,,,, YES ??

  11. Need a code which confirms opposition to anti-Semitism but also allows members of Labour the freedom to criticise the Right wing Israeli Govt when needed.
    The brilliant Human Rights lawyer, Nuara Erakat, perhaps summed up the current situation in Israel well in a recent CBS interview (see You Tube) “Hamas is a scarecrow and the majority of Palestinians don’t want them” and “Israel unlike most countries in the World will not allow the Right of Refugees to Return because it wants to maintain its religious, ethnic and economic supremecy.”
    As Hope Not Hate has reported US Billionaires Far Right Barbarians are to pour millions into the Far Right (and individual Barbarians) around the World including here (is this declared and legal?) but it will be Labour and the Trade Unions plus diverse working people who will be on the front line in standing up to them.
    Let’s hope that we don’t have to only rely on progressives from other countries to speak out as we become constrained by diverse Right Wing UK voices who at this moment in time perhaps play a dangerous game?
    JC4PM and Diverse Working People of the World Unite!

  12. Reading this I get the distinct impression spin is back. For anyone to believe that if the NEC/Corbyn gives way one more time that this will end they are kidding themselves. This is NOT about AS and never has been.

  13. The Guardian had an article* on the IHRA row in which five prominent members of the Jewish community were asked their views. One of them, a lawyer and professor called Sir Stephen Sedley, said:

    “This is why, whatever criticism the IHRA’s “examples” may seek to suppress, both Jews and non-Jews in the UK are entitled, without being stigmatised as antisemites, to contend that a state that by law denies Palestinians any right of self-determination is a racist state, or to ask whether there is some moral equivalence between shooting down defenceless Jews in eastern Europe and unarmed Palestinian demonstrators in Gaza.”

    I’m with Stephen Sedley on this. If the Labour definition allows both of those points to be made, then I’ll be fine with it. But if, as I suspect, both of those arguments would be outlawed by the Labour definition (or by what I would see as being the incorrect interpretation of the IHRA examples), then I would oppose it.

    *Guardian article – https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/27/antisemitism-ihra-definition-jewish-writers

    1. With you on this too and let’s note that this is the liberal MSM – The Guardian – one of those rare moments when the shoddy bias of the news desk was balanced out, just a little, by the opinion pages.

    2. Let me make my own position clear; that I do not think accusing the Israeli government of racism in its overall attitude and actions regarding the Palestinian People is anti-Semitic and shouldn’t be conceded in our Code. But defending the use of comparison’s and equivalences between Israeli actions and the targeted Nazi genocide of six million Jews (amidst many millions of other groups, from the disabled, gays, gypsies , etc,) ? This has been an over- casual meme of the Left for far too long – and is not only historical garbage as a useful model for analysis – but feeds into a multi-layer deep ideology of quite definitely anti-Semitic memes originating with the Far Right Holocaust deniers and justifiers.

      Why don’t we just NOT use the Nazi analogy at all when quite rightly condemning Israeli crimes against the Palestinians ? It trivialises what happened in Europe in WWII . If the mass displacement using violence of one enthic group from their ancestral lands is always associated with Nazism, then modern Poland, partly sitting squarely on the ancient German region of East Prussia, after millions of ethnic Germans were deported West in 1945, has been a “fascist state” since 1945 ! But it isn’t useful as an analysis is it ? The modern USA , and Australia, and New Zealand, and Tasmania, were founded on the mass displacement of their native peoples , including mass genocide (total genocide in Tasmania) . But how useful is the term “Nazi” or fascism in explaining them ? The underlying “dog whistle” memes behind using the term Nazi or fascist for Israel or its actions are directly related to demoting the WWII Jewish holocaust from its true status as one (by no means the only – eg, the Turkish genocide of Armenians after WWI) of the truly monstrous crimes in human history , unjustified by the actions of any groups of Jews (eg “Jewish bankers”) . A crime that directly led to the mass movement of refugee Holocaust survivors to Palestine, the displacement of the Palestinians, and the formation of the current Israeli Jewish state – originally as a “lifeboat state” . Without the Holocaust the dreams of political Zionists for a distinct Jewish state would never have happened. And that this state did happen ISN’T because of “Zionist collaboration with the Nazis” , but because over a thousand years of endemic “Christian” European prejudice and oppression and periodic pogroms of its Jewish minority finally boiled over into the “Final Solution” total Holocaust as the logical outcome of the co-option of this ancient scapegoat ideology by Nazism (as a sub-type of fascism) during the profound capitalist crisis of the 1930’s .

      And lastly, the poster, “rob” who claims that adopting the unmodified IHRA definition will mean “The Israeli Govt rules not only the USA but the UK too ! is knowingly or unknowingly , dredging up that ancient anti-Semitic meme claiming that “the Jews control whole countries from behind the scenes” . For goodness sakes, Rob, the Russian billionaire gangster oligarchs, and Saudi billionaire oil oligarchs , also have huge influence on UK and US policy – but they don’t “rule the UK or USA” any more than “Jews” – (because that is what is meant here by “the Israeli Government” even if unintentionally – such is the depth of the “dog Whistle” anti-Semitic memes within our culture).

      Until we on the Left grasp how often we DO fall into using expressions and analysis rooted , not in socialist theory, but borrowed from anti-Semitic ideology, we will never get to grips with this issue and see off the cynical Right’s use of it against us in our Party – none of whom have ever fought racism in their political lives.

      1. Useful points by JP and I have always avoided these terms myself but it is amazing how much you can learn from history and from reading Left Wing razor sharp journals such as the excellent New Left Review – latest issue – in the 17thC Latin America was populated by about 60m from indigenous groups but with the arrival of the Spanish and Portugese Imperialists (Western Christians to a man) and with their genocide (and much disease which locals couldn’t cope with) this was reduced to 6m!
        Or perhaps Verso (2016) and Tariq Ali – the greatest genocide in the 20thC was in the Congo in about 1910 when the (once again Western Christians to a man) Belgian Imperialists slaughtered 10-12 million!
        Have you ever heard of this and if not why not?
        And do we take a Western-centric view of World history with the lives of those in less developed countries being seen as of less value and Ali wondered was a main point our focus on the Halocuast due to the fact that the Holocaust happened in the cradle of Western Christian Civilisation – NOT BY US to those seen as “inferior” in places WE ‘discovered’ (but had actually always been there before our ‘magnificent arrival’) but the Halocaust was BY US TO US!
        But as left wing democratic socialists the lives of every diverse working person in the World should be of equal value!
        So Labour: ONE just declare we are opposed to anti-Semitism and Racism in all its forms; and we are against discrimination towards LGBT communities, the Disabled, People with learning disabilities, and those with mental health difficulties etc. etc. – WE STAND FOR EQUALITY!
        TWO – we support the Right of every Labour member to criticise the actions of ANY Government in any country in the World.
        THREE – And Labour hereby makes a pledge with our allies in the trade unions to stand on the front against the Far Right Barbarians if they are to ever re-emerge AND WE INVITE ALL DIVERSE WORKING PEOPLE TO STAND WITH US!
        Diverse Working People of the World Unite!
        (Footnote, as someone when born who they tried to call a Christian – I am now an agnostic but respect every human beings’ religious choice or choice not to have a religion; we only find out the truth or don’t when we kick the bucket! I may have perhaps given past Christians in the past a bad time (they perhaps knew no better) so call me a Bad Christian but one of my favourite lines in the Bob Marley song ‘No Woman No Cry’ is: “Oh observing the hypocrites, Yeah!”

      2. I think you make some excellent points, most of which I agree with, but I also think it has to be said that it depends on what period of the Nazis you’re referring to.

        Hajo Meyer’s attack on the Israeli government wasn’t that it was carrying out the end product of the Nazi regime, the Holocaust, but that there were parallels to the earlier Nazi period beforehand, the 1930s. His warning was that if Israel followed that path, then where would it lead to? This was particularly hurtful for him due to his experiences of Nazism. I think that such comparisons are valid in context, and although I do think it’d be problematic for me to say what he said, someone who is Jewish and experienced the Holocaust deserves the right to say that without the claim that they’re anti-Semitic. Context is everything. Still, yeah, you’re right than wantonly throwing out the Nazi comparisons is falling into dangerous territory that we on the Left should never stray into.

        Personally, I feel that using comparisons to Nazis is unnecessarily insensitive (understatement alert), even if there can be some validity in showing some of the parallels. Even then, as you say, it can be historically unhelpful. I’d rather use the generally more accurate term Apartheid to describe current Israel.

        BTW, I don’t agree at all with implementing the IHRA, because I don’t see why any form of anti-racism should be given the appearance of being elevated above other forms of anti-racism. Yeah, I do get the history of anti-Semitism, but I still see that as part of the wider racial intolerance that needs tackling. That also includes intolerance and disregard to Palestinians, which the Blairites seem happy to tolerate. Fine anti-racists they are…

      3. NO the point I tried to make is that the Israeli Govt under Natau does indeed have a large and malign influence in the decisions and hence policies made by the USA and UK Govt.
        One only has to look at the lack of any real criticism from the UK Govt or the USA over the latest atrocities in Palestine.
        I agree that the rich and powerful elite in whatever form ( oligarchs or who else ) also have an influence , BUT that was not the topic of debate here on the effects of the IHRA and more so of any future changes to it that may well make any criticism impossible of the State Of Israel .

        My original comment was and is not a reflection on the Jews or their county BUT the apartied Govt of Israel , that at present rules it , and I am very angry at you jpenney , trying via your twisting of what I said to try and paint me as AS.
        I am not and if you read and actually reproduced my text I didn’t say anything about the Jews ruling the UK or the USA that is what you have concluded and if you have mistakenly assumed that’s what I meant then you are quite wrong , my criticism is aimed at the Govt of Israel .
        I thought that , that distinction was very clear in my original ,( now deleted comment by SB ) so there is no other evidence for others reading this to make their assessment.

        I reject your censorship SB and your argument jpenney and indeed stand by my original criticism of the Govt of Israel and its malign influence on the UK Govt and USA , perhaps I should have used influence and not ruling but that is a nuance in semantics that I don’t care to mince with especially when the results are dead Palestinians.

      4. I’m afraid that “rob’s” indignant defence of his earlier crass statement (now removed) that adopting the unmodified IHRA definition will mean :

        “The Israeli Govt rules not only the USA but the UK too !

        saying he only meant;

        “the Israeli Govt under Natau (sic) does indeed have a large and malign influence in the decisions and hence policies made by the USA and UK Govt.”

        And that this is only “a nuance in semantics” ! illustrates perfectly the all too common insensitivity (other than to their own overblown sense of unchallengable purity of motive !) and blindness of too many on the Left to the historical deeply culturallly embedded “dog whistle” multi-layer “ideological narratives” of anti-Semitic ideology. A constant anti-Semitic narrative has always been ( in pre-capitalist Europe too ) the sinister “behind the scenes manipulation of society by “the Jews – “the money power” “. There is in fact a big difference between simply claiming “undue influence” by the Israeli government over US and UK policy , to claiming that the Israeli Government “rules not only the USA (immediately resonates with the “Jew-run America” meme – a recurrent Nazi meme ), but the UK too. Why can’t you grasp this at all , rob ? It aint just a “nuance of semantics” , comrade !

        Even in the late 19th Century European socialists recognized that “anti-Semitism was the socialism of fools”. We on the Left need to recognise the deeply embedded anti-Semitic narratives embedded in our European culture, and be a lot more careful with our word usage and the narratives we adopt to understand the Israeli/Palestinian tragedy.

      5. @ Jpenny

        Regards to accepting the original unmodified IHRA without the added Labour examples and clarifications , that is not , and never has been what I am in favour of , and the original IHRA was not even mentioned in my original statement ( your assumptions again ) .
        I am in favour of accepting what is on the table now , That IS the modified IHRA as far as I am concerned , with the clarified examples as supplied by Labour , that allow for criticism of the State of Israel , exactly the same as Len McCluskey and Unite are backing , and I am against any further alterations as postulated by SB and the code + option , one hopes that make things clear .

        @ Jpenny
        OK Comrade ? , lets say we agree to disagree over the use of language and in response to your comment regarding my indignation then having someone who knows nothing at all about me , to claim that I am AS would make most people pretty indignant .

        Now I have taken the time and trouble to explain the honest thrust of my comment and have accepted your criticism of my use of “Rule” rather than “Influence” . You may well be better educated than me in the semantics of such words but I stand by my original intent and that is not to accept the original IHRA without the amendments and clarifications made by Labour , that allow for criticism of the State of Israel ,that is what the original topic was on about.

        As regards to your comment “Jew-run America” meme – a recurrent Nazi meme ), but the UK too. Why can’t you grasp this at all , rob ? It aint just a “nuance of semantics” , comrade !”

        Yes I grasp it thank you very much ! and as I have said and accepted the criticism of my use of “Rule” rather than influence .I utterly resent your conflation with what I have said with the Nazi , I find that , and them utterly repugnant.

        However do you accept that accepting the full IHRA without the Labour examples and clarifications will stop effective criticism of the State Of Israel , which is the goal of the Govt of Israel , and this is the point that my comment was aimed at ,, about the Israeli Govt “ I dare not use the R word here” influencing the UK and USA Govts.
        If Labour accepts the full unaltered or clarified IHRA then it will have in essence capitulated to the Govt of Israel and it will stifle any future criticism , see the debate elsewhere on SB re code + for further concerns .

        Does all this anger and debate stop the killing ? NOPE

        Anyway I have said all I am going to say , no doubt you have your opinion and I have mine , you are not my judge or jury as I would not assume to be yours and certainly not knowing a thing about you would not level a charge of AS ,,,, comrade.

      6. As Finkelstein has said, in order to deflect attention from bad PR eg the clearly racist and apartheid Nation-State Law, we are witnessing, once again, a malicious and concerted campaign to make “the Jews the victims and not the Palestinians” aided, abetted and exploited by those in the PLP who, for a range of motives – none of them pleasant – wish to destroy its current position from within.

        Yes, Jewish history (and especially the current situation) does make a “special case” for an NEC code of conduct that explicitly addresses Jewish issues – in order to support, guide and protect all people of “good will” (Skwawk B) and good “intention” (NEC) too – Jews, non Jews and most especially members of the LP.

        No, Jewish history does not, in my view, make “a special case” for those Zionists who have chosen to adopt a position that persecutes Palestinians and I cannot accept the fallacy that in history there is some kind of hierarchy of suffering with some injustices less worthy of consideration than others, as your “truly monstrous” is at risk of suggesting.

        You make the point that it isn’t “useful” to make comparisons with Nazi Germany. I take it that your choice of the word “useful” suggests that you don’t believe that such a comparison is A.S. per se. For me, the NEC code of conduct? is more emphatic and more sensitive about this. Let’s look again at the so called “full” IHRA and the crudely peremptory and dismissive way in which it deals with this sensitive area:

        “ j. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”

        Imagine the chaos and mischief that Berger and others can create with this!

        Now Compare the IHRA document with the much more measured and indeed fuller” paragragh from the NEC code of conduct:

        “Discourse about international politics often employs metaphors drawn from examples of historic misconduct. It is not antisemitism to criticise the conduct or policies of the Israeli state by reference to such examples unless there is evidence of antisemitic intent. Chakrabarti recommended that Labour members should resist the use of Hitler, Nazi and Holocaust metaphors, distortions and comparisons in debates about Israel-Palestine in particular. In this sensitive area, such language carries a strong risk of being regarded as prejudicial or grossly detrimental to the Party within Clause 2.I.8.”

        Of course it was always understood by the NEC that there was room for further debate and improvement. The ensuing witch hunt, resulting in what feels like a collapse of principles, doesn’t feel good to me. However, the latest from SB seems to be saying that, for example, the above clause will remain. So, I shall sit on my hands and hope that we avoid a travesty.

      7. “Why don’t we just NOT use the Nazi analogy at all when quite rightly condemning Israeli crimes against the Palestinians ? It trivialises what happened in Europe in WWII”.

        Quite right. We should use the apartheid analogy instead.

      8. ‘jpenney’ Apart from the entirely uncalled for criticism of ‘rob’ your post contains many errors, I will mention just one.

        “……..the displacement of the Palestinians, and the formation of the current Israeli Jewish state – originally as a “lifeboat state”. Without the Holocaust the dreams of political Zionists for a distinct Jewish state would never have happened”

        What an ignorant comment to make, it was not a “lifeboat state” it was a land grab and it shows either an inherent Zionism or a worrying lack of historical knowledge. The formation and founding of Israel had zero to do with the holocaust, the two were entirely unconnected and is the excuse Zionists often use to try and deceive the uninformed.

        The plan to colonise Palestine and drive out the indigenous population was begun at the Basle Congress in 1897, the motion presented was “Zionism seeks to establish a home for the Jewish people in Palestine” i.e. the intention to colonise Palestine was driven by Jewish Nationalism NOT the holocaust, long before WW2 or even WW1

        Your comment is a travesty from start to finish and I why Steve Walker approved it can only lead one to speculate.

  14. No idea why one minority should be treated as more important than another minority. I’d rather a clause that protects all from racial intolerance. That all racial intolerance, throughout the world, is equally condemned. That there are no safe havens for racism in the world.

    The IHRA is being used as a means to defend Israel’s racist policies against the Palestinians, so should be opposed by anyone who’s opposed to racism and oppression. Failing to do that and allowing Israel to sweep these people under the carpet shows that you’re tolerating racism. Labour needs to hold firm and not give in to this racist pressure.

  15. Meanwhile Islamophobia ramps up with mosque windows being smashed and women abused. I don’t feel the membership want to make any more compromises or apologies on this vastly exaggerated fuss.

  16. I’ve amended this comment for cause. Stephen, please don’t post this kind of comment again.

  17. Looks more like capitulation to me. Dissapointed. There has to be a moment when we say enough is enough.

    1. Correct, there is absolutely no doubt it is capitulation and two of my posts saying so have been censored. Mick McGahey said “they’ll stop chasing when you stop running”

      1. Agreed well said and a very trueism from Mick McGahey .The RW will not stop and will use /abuse any topic , to get to the end result , the ousting of JC and the Socialists in Labour .

  18. Oh my goodness me!! all this because a certain section of the Labour Party are desperately trying to constantly undermine Mr Corbyn’s leadership with the sole aim of removing him, aided & abetted by the other parties and virtually all the so-called MSM. Meanwhile it’s business as usual for the tories a they go on their merry way transferring wealth from the poor to the rich entirely unopposed.

  19. This needs at least a discussion at Conference, perhaps via a Contemporary Motion, if not a membership vote.

    Particularly when considered alongside the facts laid out in this Twitter thread (which do not seem to be facts one can find in what passes for the fourth estate these days):


    The Government itself is on record as not adopting this definition as are a number of other organisations and institutions. This is a dangerous road to go down because the evidence suggests the name of the game here is to provide a pretext for a witch hunt against the mass movement of the membership. The examples are legally vague and all the clarifications in the world will not prevent their misuse. As the Conference saying goes “the words are the words.”

    If adopted it puts the Party in a position in which sooner rather than later it could face a legal challenge from below

    1. “This is a dangerous road to go down because the evidence suggests the name of the game here is to provide a pretext for a witch hunt against the mass movement of the membership.”

      Agree. The possible witch hunt is only a step creating divisions, chaos and trash LP media fodder towards the real goal of all the right wing forces aligned against a possible left wing government, disruption of Israel’s colonial impunity and British foreign policy agenda… removal of Corbyn.

  20. There are roughly 15 Jewish MPs for every black and Asian MP based on the respective demographics. Remind me again which group is the victim of institutional prejudice.

    1. Norman Finkelstein’s article says some uncomfortable things – some would say they reproduce ‘memes’. Well worth reading. http://normanfinkelstein.com/2018/08/20/finkelstein-on-corbyn-mania/

      At the risk of repeating myself, with each retreat/apology/adaptation from Corbyn’s team, the morale of the right is strengthened, and ours is weakened. You can’t fight a smear campaign by acknowledging non-existent guilt.

      1. John, thanks for the link to a great article that should be read by all. I love the Jewish humour and cultural self awareness (generalisation alert!) of writers like Finkelstein – UK based David Rosenberg is another.

        No risk – your point can’t be made too often.

    2. “You don’t have to be black to be expelled – but it helps”
      Jay Blackwood Jewish Dissident Blogspot, 7 August 2018 (Article also in JVL)

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: