comment

The EHRC said Corbyn has a LEGALLY-PROTECTED right to say what he said in the first place. Shouldn’t Starmer be suspended for ‘rejecting the EHRC report’?

Starmer has now rejected FOUR aspects of the EHRC report. Since he and others say that’s ‘part of the problem’ of antisemitism, he should now be suspended himself

Keir Starmer’s decision to withdraw (not ‘not restore’) the whip from Jeremy Corbyn this morning, after it was automatically restored by the lifting of Corbyn’s supension by the unanimous decision of a (right-dominated) National Executive Committee panel last night, is a clear breach of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) report’s ban on any ‘political interference’ in disciplinary outcomes.

Starmer didn’t dare say he’d withdrawn the whip, even though the party’s rules mean that’s what he’s done, but caving to political pressure from petulant right-wingers is still political interference in a process that reached a conclusion the petulant didn’t like.

But that’s not the only EHRC stricture Starmer has broken, despite committing himself and the party to implement the EHRC report in full. The report also explicitly said – almost entirely unreported by the so-called ‘mainstream’ media, of course – that Corbyn has a legally-protected right to say what he said.

Not only that, but as an MP, his right to say so is ‘enhanced‘ under human rights laws:

There was nothing offensive in Corbyn’s observation that the media have massively exaggerated the extent of antisemitism in the Labour Party. It’s simply a fact. But even if it was offensive, his right to say it has ‘enhanced protection’.

The EHRC report on antisemitism says so in absolutely clear terms.

Starmer has ignored the EHRC in at least five ways, by his own measure:

agreed with Corbyn’s view of the scale of antisemitism on a 2019 Marr programme
• breached the EHRC’s statement on the right to free speech
• politically interfered in a disciplinary process
•breached the EHRC ruling that disciplinary processes must not be opaque or arbitrary

So that’s at least four aspects of the report Starmer has rejected. Since he and other Corbyn-haters say rejecting the report is antisemitic, Starmer himself should now be suspended – and on far sounder grounds that Corbyn was.

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.

21 comments

  1. I thought stammer was supposed to be some sort of legal ‘expert’?

    The only thing dummkopf-schmitt EVER got (half**)right was calling stammer a ‘second rate lawyer’

    **He’s not event tenth rate, the clown.

  2. As a Jew myself, I’m struggling to reconcile the old antisemitic “Jews pulling the strings” trope with Starmer’s willingness to permit JVL and the BoD to oversee Labour’s antisemitism measures and disciplinary processes; can anyone enlighten me as to why Starmer has taken this decision? I should also point out that JVL and BoD do not speak for anywhere even close to the entirety of the Jewish community, so why is Starmer allowing them to?

    1. What if the BoD & JLM really are ‘pulling the strings? What if Sir Keir Starmer really was accepting large donations from an Israeli business man & what if all three Leadership Candidates accepted instruction from BoD. What if Margaret Hodge really is Leader of the Labour Party?
      It would appear that her plan really is working. Her poodle does what he’s told & she has delivered the Labour Party into the hands of Zion. End of Jeremy; end of Socialism. Job done!

    2. Dan
      I think you mean JLM
      JVL are on our side, they saved my sanity and now I’m an honorary ‘Bad Jew’

    3. The BoD seems not to have noticed the incongruity of a Jewish organisation enabling the rise of the populist, hate-mongering far right by attacking the left.
      They must really, really want those poor Palestinian subsistence farmers’ lands – or have really, really, really selective memory loss – or both.
      Is there an English word for ‘lebensraum’ I could use that wouldn’t offend?
      Because I wouldn’t wish to offend the BoD by harking back to Nazism.
      That’s their job.

      1. Their ersatz claims of anti semitism are hate crimes and should be prosecuted

  3. Corbyn should know by now, that appeasement does not work.
    Corbyn bent over, and Starmer obliged.

  4. I thought it was JLM, the Jewish Voice for Labour were not actively invited to participate and side-lined. I stand to be corrected if wrong.

  5. This festering sore is not going to go away until the facts come out in a court case. Until then the right wingers in the PLP, the MSM and “The Jewish Community” are going to get away with their BS.

    If it wasn’t blindingly obvious before, it certainly is now: Starmer has no interest in unity with the left.

    Shame we were not allowed to deselect these fuckers years ago.

  6. Starmer should be expelled along with all the other Zionists simply because they are racists.

    Unbelievably, Zionist Akehurst is advocating that the LP adopts apartheid as its official position.

    Don’t say you weren’t warned what would happen if Zionists in the Labour Party were not dealt with.

  7. If Starmer really did say “part of the problem” [of antisemitism] he needs to choose his words more carefully to avoid putting them in the mouths of the far right.
    “The Jewish Problem” was debated to death in Europe in the 20th century – let’s not have that discussion again.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: