Analysis Breaking Exclusive

Exclusive: EHRC itself states that Corbyn IS allowed to express opinion on scale of antisemitism in Labour. Party has acted unlawfully

EHRC’s own report says Corbyn’s right to express the opinion he has expressed is protected under human rights law

Labour has suspended Jeremy Corbyn and withdrawn the party whip for refusing to retract a statement that the scale of antisemitism in the Labour Party was tiny compared to the impression created by the media.

The EHRC report explicitly states that Corbyn is not only entitled to exactly that opinion, but that his right to express it is protected by human rights law – and even that as an MP he has enhanced protection:

• Speech does not lose the protection of Article 10 just because it is offensive, provocative or would be regarded by some as insulting.
• Statements made by elected politicians have enhanced protection under Article 10.
• Relevant factors will include whether speech is intended to inform rather than offend, whether it forms part of an ongoing debate of public interest and whether it consists of alleged statements of fact, or of value judgment.

We also take into account how far the speech or conduct interferes with the rights of others, and the severity of impact of any measures that we might propose to take in respect of it.
Article 10 will protect Labour Party members who, for example, make legitimate7 criticisms of the Israeli government, or express their opinions on internal Party matters, such as the scale of antisemitism within the Party, based on their own experience and within the law.

It looks like Labour hasn’t read, or doesn’t care, that Corbyn was perfectly entitled to say what he did – and perfectly entitled not to retract it.

Keir Starmer’s press office was approached with this information but declined to comment except to say the decision to suspend Corbyn’s Labour membership was taken by general secretary David Evans. Despite a further request, no comment was forthcoming on the decision to withdraw the whip, which would be taken by Keir Starmer, nor on why the party is acting unlawfully according to the EHRC report.

The SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support 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 or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

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

46 comments

  1. The ‘lawyer’ jumps the gun once again. Putting the ‘pre’ in ‘prejudicial

    I despise dummkopf-schmitt, but the only thing he’s EVER had even half right is calling stammer a ‘second-rate lawyer**

    **Useless gawp isn’t even a tenth-rate lawyer; he’s neither use nor fucking ornament.

  2. Stop waffling Skwawky, Starmer and the right have thrown down the gauntlet,the question now is ,have the Left got the bottle to pick it up and have the fight the Right have been spoiling for.

    1. Ive felt for a long time a new left wing party is the only way forward, post Blair Labour is neoliberal from top to bottom and beyond reform

      1. Blairites are still there in numbers and he is lurking about at the foot of the garden,we on the left are the strength of the party so niw is the time to take back what is ours!

    2. Hmmm… ‘…have the Left got the bottle to pick it up (the gauntlet of the Right) …..?’ The question indeed of the moment. By the utterly craven response of the PLP ‘Left’ Corbyn Circle to the last four years of PLP Right (and their MSM megaphones) abuse, outright sabotage, and smears, the answer has surely got to be , ‘highly unlikely’.

      As Skwawkbox correctly states, the Corbyn ‘offending’ one liner , within his excellent detailed comment on the entirely cynical, highly selective, EHRC, ‘report’ , is specifically excluded as a reason for suspension or expulsion by the report itself. See Jeremy’s excellent comment on the dire report here: https://labourheartlands.com/sir-keir-starmer-suspends-jeremy-corbyn-from-the-labour-party/ But so what ? The entire Report , and the suspension, and the pre-prepared MSM coverage, is simply a component of a cynical four year political assassination of, firstly, Jeremy, the most actively anti-racist politician of his generation, but unacceptably for the Right and their funders, a socialist – even if only a very mild one, and the Left in the Party. The suspension shows that the Starmerites are supremely confident that they are now firmly back in control, and can see off the always craven PLP Left, and are ready to replace the subs of potentially hundreds of thousands of departing members with the Blair era Big Business funders – and their neoliberal agendas.

      So the gauntlet is indeed now down to the PLP Left and the ‘Corbynite’ members. What should they do ? Do they waste months campaigning to get Jeremy unsuspended – (no doubt conditional on a total grovel from Jeremy about his one line supposed ‘offence’ – because the Right want Jeremy, and hordes of Left-leaning members, GONE FOREVER) . Or should Jeremy and his ‘old comrades’ – particularly McDonnell, Abbott, Trickett, Lavery – and the other supposedly ‘socialist’ Campaign Group MPs generally finally admit that Labour is NEVER going to be a vehicle for Left advance – form a new split-off radical Left Party , initially based on the 2017 Manifesto perhaps – and hoover up , easily, a hundred thousand Left leaning Labour Party members and recently ex-members, within a few weeks ? That is what the Corbyn Circle SHOULD do – but the chances of them doing it is very slight. Such has always been the utterly craven Labour Party-obsessed politics of the Labour Left from the Party’s inception. Compared to a corrupt, careerist Right that has always been ruthlessly prepared to destroy the Party at the drop of a hat should it ever be in danger of becoming a radical SOCIALIST party – as the Right clearly showed in the 1980’s with the SDP splitters, and the last four years of ruthless sabotage. .

      1. “…form a new split-off radical Left Party , initially based on the 2017 Manifesto perhaps – and hoover up , easily, a hundred thousand Left leaning Labour Party members and recently ex-members, within a few weeks ?”

        Not *radical* left. Radical is a label the right likes to pin on those on the left whose policies would be liked by a majority of the population, had they not been put off by the “radical” label and therefore won’t even look at the policies.

        I’m not sure what an appropriate name for a new party would be… perhaps something along the lines of Social Democratic Party, the People’s Party, Social Decency Party, or Social Unity Party? Maybe others have better ideas?

        I’ve used the word social, as opposed to socialist, because like the word radical, it has been used by the right to demonize people who value people from all walks of life and wish to live in a country where Tory and Tory – Lite corruption no longer rules for the enrichment of themselves and their mates off the backs of the ordinary people.

      2. That was fine, well, written piece. The craven Campaign Group needs to called and explain a few facts to their CLP meetings. Masks? Socialist will have wear cowels and masks. I disagreed with some of your post, but there’s was more than a kernel of truth in what you wrote. ☮️

  3. It is starting to look, like Starmer wishes to have a mass exodus of members from the Labour Party. What I am more interested is in finding out what is the response from the Socialist Campaign Group of MPs.

    1. I suspect you fear what I fear Maria, that there will be no meaningful response. In my ideal situation, they would be meeting right now to decide whether to resign as a group, or do it in ones and twos.

    2. I have just rejoined because there are some people fighting back. However I might be banned as I have just criticised God Starmer over the report Who is he, the Starmer thought police? No freedom of thought in the Starmer party.

    3. Especially if they leave without voting on the NEC Ballot – allowing Starmer and Jenny’s nasty replacement greater control with fewer left-leaner elected. No accident or mistake by Starmer in that sense. Imo.

    1. I thought he was keith-jong-un??

      …Or was it keith-wrong-un? My hearing’s terrible these days.

  4. Seems like they have form in breaking the law. So the battle has commenced. We have to plan carefully and effectively. solidarity with JC!

  5. Anything that assumes that all Jews think the same, believe the same or act the same can accurately be called antisemitic. Jewish people may belong to a very wide variety of Jewish communities, Jewish synagogues, Jewish organisations or, indeed, none. That is precisely why the BoD has no right to claim to speak for the British ‘Jewish Community’. For example, Charedi Jews (I understand about 20% of the British Jewish population) do not recognise their authority and fiercely oppose the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. The BoD also can’t claim to represent the estimated half of all British Jews who happen to be secular.

    I totally agree that antisemitism must always be opposed and we all must be aware of the centuries of dreadful antisemitism endured by Jewish communities which culminated in the utter inhumanity of the holocaust.

    In Europe, this long history of antisemitism inspired Theodor Herzl, the founder of Political Zionism, to hold the First Zionist Congress in 1897. At the time, many Jewish people rose up in protest and accused the authorities of antisemitism because the Zionist proposition that Jews formed a separate nation implied they were aliens in their German home.

    Just because it is possible that an anti-Zionist can also be antisemitic, it does not follow that an anti-Zionist is by definition an antisemitic racist;
    * many Jewish individuals and Jewish organisations oppose Zionism,
    * anti-Zionism is a political not a racial perspective,
    * most Zionists are Christian,
    * anyone promoting the idea of a ‘Christian homeland’ giving Christians superior status would, quite rightly, be condemned.

    Jewish people should feel safe (indeed celebrated!) wherever they live but Zionist racism MUST be resisted and doing so is not antisemitic despite what Israeli Zionists, the BoD and many other establishment organisations and individuals assert.

    Yet, with the founding of Israel in 1948, racist Zionism became a matter of state policy supported by the west. Perhaps this support was partly motivated by antisemites who did not want thousands of Jewish refugees settling in the west.

    On 10th November 1975, the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution 3379 by a vote of 72 to 35 which “determine[d] that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination”.

    Anyone who researches the 1948 Nakba should be horrified at the extreme anti-Palestinian racism involved. The systematic destruction of hundreds of Palestinian villages, the creation of hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees let alone the bloody carnage ruthlessly meted out to Palestinian men, women and children. Palestinain Muslims, Christians as well as Palestinians of no faith were brutalised. Israel was thereby founded on racist violence and this racist violence has continued for over 70 years.

    Many Jewish people had lived peaceably in Palestine for centuries and this should have been allowed to continue after the 2WW. It was not acceptable in 1948 for European antisemitic racism which Jewish people had endured to be used to justify anti-Palestinian racism.

    I have Jewish heritage but cannot accept the UDI of 1948 which so violently established a racist state. Many other non-Jewish and Jewish individuals and organisations agree.

    The 2-state solution is no alternative to Israel’s current path of creating a, so called, ‘Greater Israel’. The 2-state solution is a distraction which enables Israel to steal more and more land. It is time for liberal Zionists to abandon the goal of Jewish–Palestinian separation and embrace the goal of Jewish–Palestinian equality.
    https://jewishcurrents.org/yavne-a-jewish-case-for-equality-in-israel-palestine/?fbclid=IwAR2mLtA2lCsA9P1CeUBUL87Rh-fXvbzS15sI6jx5tDphCkSCirxcxOQwRno

    A single SECULAR state is the sole sustainable solution. Equal rights for all from the river (Jordan) to the (Mediterranean) sea!

    1. I agree with David, and Tsarist Prussian leaders in the late 19thC were wise to the tactic of divide and rule as they set the peasants against their Jewish neighbours (blaming them for all their ills) as the first rumblings of revolution were stirring and tragically this led to pogroms and flight. This was the context in which some Jewish thinkers came up with ideas in the East of Europe which became known as Zionism – everyone hates us (no they don’t) – but we are special (no you are not that is “The Zionism of Fools” – you are equal). Perhaps what we have all witnessed is A TRIPARTITE ATTACK? Richard Silverstein, American academic, argues it is “An attack on Jewish Diversity” with Right Wing Jewish groups wanting one dominant narrative – total and uncritical support for Israel, and if you don’t agree with that you don’t count. Secondly, unsurprisingly the Right Wing media piled in as some of its tax dodging owners would have had to cough up under a Corbyn Govt. And thirdly Right Wing Labour MP (opportunists – they couldn’t beat Corbyn on ideas – they are devoid of them) so they joined the bandwagon. James Stern-Weiner in an excellent study (2019) showed that AS was tiny in Labour but it was being addressed. And meanwhile Far Right USA billionaire Barbarians are funding Far Right groups and individuals around the World and it will be the Left who continue to confront them when the Left’s critics are often nowhere to be seen?.Justice for Palestinians and Peace to All in the region.

    1. Agreed Ludus57: He has acted illegally and the party’s procedures continue not to meet even the most rudimentary requirements of natural justice – therein lies the real LP scandal.

  6. Now now are you telling me that a man who is a Human Rights lawyer doesn’t know much about Human Rights? That like saying that such a chap would be completely indifferent to a State torturing or arbitrarily killing people.

  7. I’m so upset by this. Membership money has been used to for this coup against Corbyn and that’s not what I paid my subscription for. By this coup they have put disabled people’s lives in danger by not having a labour government. Does this mean we could take this further? They willingly hindered the election, stealing our money to do so, and making many many disabled and sick persons lives worse & not to mention the deaths caused by covid

    I agree that kier wants us to all jump ship. My immediate reaction was to cancel my membership but I’ve hesitated.

    Skwawkbox do you think you could ask Starmer how come he was so quick to comment on this report snd yet we are still waiting on his lengthy statement regarding the labour leaks report? I want answers and journalists are the only ones able to get them.

  8. Article 10 ridden roughshod & no defence against criticism of Israel. I wonder why Julian Assange is not walking free in this land of Freedom of Expression & Opinion. Any form of alleged anti-Semitism soon to become law.

  9. EHRC Report calls for approval & involvement of ‘Jewish Stakeholders’. Could that be the same organisations who made the original complaints (JLM & CAA). EHRC adoption of the McPhearson Principle ensures that all complaints must be racist if the complainant deems it so…………therefore anti-Semitism is in the eye of the beholder.

    1. Yes Steve Richards, i heard someone poss from CAA use that term ” ‘Jewish Stakeholders’. ”

      To me THAT is Antisemitic. The decision of the few to lump people like some homogeneous mass. Same with BAME, X community, Y community and even more sinister – “community leader” as if anyone elected them. Yet ironically we DID elect Jeremy THREE times, but he is not given the status of “stake holder for us”.

      QUESTION: Who elected the Board of Deputies? Do they represent the almost infinite variety of views in one synagogue? Let alone the whole country?

      ALSO, this very week desperate people lost their lives trying to cross treacherous waters to come here. Apparently £21k was paid to come here. The court case is on now re the truckload of Vietnamese souls who lost their lives trying to come here. What obscene vulgar crassness for people as fortunate as we are to spout theatrics of bags packed to leave “because we feel so abused”?

      Tell that ti the relatives of the dead migrants this year alone, trying to cone here. Diane Abbott had more abuse than all other MPs combined for DECADES. Has anyone ever heard her bleat about wanting to flee from this country?

      How many black people, especially young black men, harassed daily? How many murdered by the police? Have we heard the MSM give them unchallenged hours to moan about how afraid and threatened they feel? This very morning i hear a tiny bit of LBC where the host brought in the atrocity in Nice today as if it represented all Muslims. Pure racism to me.

      I normally skip that particular odious host, but today it was on in another room before i could switch it off. The host was brazenly disgustingly brow beating the callers as usual who were defending Jeremy. But the racism to the millions of Muslims seemed acceptable. Would any of the MSM hosts treat Harold Shipman, Phillip Green, Epstein or any other as indicative of millions of people?

      All along these strands need to be untangled from the get go and sustained assertively on the MSM. It is not easy, especially with shrieking and attempted bullying from a few, plus other things to do.

      But the idea that we can have some Nirvana with the same naive, amateur operation is for the birds. There is no perfect space or group of people to form a perfect party. Acting the same or failing to act in the same way will NEVER bring a different result other than being forever protesting for crumbs.

      Yes Starmer is bad news. Said so before. I was stunned when he was allowed into cabinet. He walked out and was welcomed back. Yet today i heard a caller say this evening that suspending Jeremy was “the last straw”. To me that indicates our Achilles heel. Low expectations. Low demands. Expecting that somehow a serpent could change its nature. That caller was really expecting that sone good would come from Starmer. I feel sure Jeremy did too.

      Too many people feel that the label “Labour” is enough, never mind the contents. There are STILL one too many who feel that an outfit led by Starmer is something worth effort. I stated here long before that we should not leave the party with some pipe dream of forming some new one. We should be working “night and day” to return the loyalty Starmer showed to Jeremy. INTELLIGENTLY. Strategically. Not tossing about words that have ZERO impact on the electorate.

      Out of decades of frustration at blatant injustices, i suspect that some, out of feeling defeated and hopeless resort to pipe-dreams or using words which they feel would cause hurt. To me that is useless and achieves not a jot. Worse yet it gives ammunition to say ” you see what i mean”. That defeated frustrated culture achieves zilch. That is my view.

      Similarly appeasing the likes of Starmer. I hope this episode is proof that it does not work in a macro setting. Just as running an economy is not like running a household, similarly quelling argument / strife / calming things with a fog of silence at the dinner table, is not the way to radically transform any public organisation.

      One has to be clear, upfront an untangle things. That cannot be done in short funny quips. Humour is great but we who need to take charge of OUR party and OUR country need DEEP swift reflection, DISCIPLINE, strategy, DYNAMIC action, PREPARATION especially for the unexpected.

      And, rebut lies from the get go. Don’t hope they will just disappear in some miraculous transformation of wicked obscene liars. They have infested the party. They were smart enough not to leave. Surely we can at least grow and learn that. Learn that they won’t just change. I’ve tried to say much of this before and keep questioning myself. But today proves that Einstein was right.

      No wonder Tories have won most elections with a handful of member. We have been stitched up and provide the sharp needle and catgut. We must change and we can. It just takes reflection in a quiet place and the scientific method. Think, could we be wrong in our approach, methods, appeasements? Will acting without rigorous determined DYNAMIC strategy produce a different result?

      Even now, this very minute Hodge is on LBC. ALL day that lot have been arguing their case. Other than a few callers, not a single member of the so called Socialist group has been on defending Jeremy. I’ve not heard a single Union leader either… not even a deputy.

      A few weeks ago even Burgon, i supported and spoke at our nomination meeting in his favour. He won on first prefs. Yet even him has been spouting the sewage of wanting to see Starmer as PM as if that is some success. Until we change that culture of pathetic acceptance which cripples us, we are losers for ever.

  10. A “world class” “forensic” human rights lawyer becomes party leader and suspends his predecessor from the Party for expressing his opinion on the scope and tone of MSM reporting on Labour’s AS issue. JC also cites the hard numbers of AS cases to support and quantify his position and record.

    The human rights lawyer suspends his party membership for doing so even though, as Skwawkie points out, “The EHRC report explicitly states that Corbyn is not only entitled to exactly that opinion, but that his right to express it is protected by human rights law – and even that as an MP he has enhanced protection EHRC report pointing out that”.

    Sir Kier is demeaning himself, not Jeremy Corbyn. David Rockefeller and those trilateral billionaires must be wondering whether they are wasting their money on Sir Kier Rodney Starmer.

  11. My mother was a devout, God fearing Catholic woman, who was deeply offended by ‘Father Ted’. Nothing made her more angry & upset!

      1. Could you imagine a Jewish version of Father Ted? Set in Golders Green, Rabbi Cohen (one of the three Cohens in the Fountain) enjoys a nice cup of warm tea with……………would anyone dare; not even Channel 4?

  12. It is surely now time to start a new party. Labour has shed any pretence to being either a real voice of the people or a socialist entity.

  13. “thirdly Right Wing Labour MP (opportunists – they couldn’t beat Corbyn on ideas – they are devoid of them) so they joined the bandwagon.” SPOT ON. And they admitted that during the leadership elections when they lost repeatedly to Jeremy.

  14. Starmer is Bang to Rights on this. He’d have to plead guilty,he has no choice. It must be rather embarrassing for a QC who specialised in criminal law. Sorry; ought to be embarrassed.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: