EHRC found not fit for purpose in protecting black rights
JVL Introduction
The House of Commons/House of Lords Joint Committee on Human Rights has just published its report on Black people, racism and human rights.
Its devastating report lambasts the state’s “architecture” for failing to protect human rights or racial equality.
It makes it clear that the EHRC has a central role in this failure, having been “unable to adequately provide leadership and gain trust in tackling racial inequality in the protection and promotion of human rights.”
It says, further: “This Committee has long been concerned that the EHRC’s powers in relation to human rights are not fit for purpose.”
In case you missed it, the EHRC is the body that has just issued a report on antisemitism. General Secretary David Evans has warned CLPs that motions seeking to “question the competence of the EHRC to conduct the investigation” or to “repudiate or reject the report or any of its recommendations” are “not competent business”.
This article was originally published by Skwawkbox on Wed 11 Nov 2020. Read the original here.
‘Not fit for purpose’: will Starmer suspend former interim leader Harman for report criticising EHRC?
Loading article text…
which is why it was a strategic decision not to question the right of the EHRC to investigate the Labour Party from the beginning. Its purpose in accepting the bogus complaints of the CAA and JLM were or should have been obvious from the start.
Equally obvious is that Starmer saw the EHRC Report as crucial in an attack on the left. That is why he didn’t want to submit the leaked report. Its why he bought off Labour’s corrupt former staff. Once again Corbyn failed to stand back and see what was happening. The EHRC is not and never has been an anti-racist body. Its first Chair was Trevor Phillips, an out and out Islamaphobe. The Report of the EHRC is patently full of holes, insipid, and lacking in substance. But it doesn’t matter what is in it but how it is used. And Starmer is of course using it or his image of it. Hence why it is essential to ban discussion about it
There has been another blunder by the EHRC in their finding of BBC equal pay. The report found no unlawful pay discrimination against women. Then how come scores of female employees at BBC were awarded compensation for the pay disparity? Surely, EHRC have failed to reach a just conclusion.
In his post, Tony Greenstein asserts that Jeremy Corbyn ‘Once again failed to stand back and see what was happening’. How do you KNOW that Jeremy failed to stand back and see what was happening? Or, that he has done so before. Or to put it another way, what is it that Jeremy didn’t do that you think he should have done?
Tony seems to be implying that had Jeremy NOT failed to do so, there would or could have been a different outcome. Needless to say, there WOULDN’T have been, and WHATEVER Jeremy says or does in relation to the A/S claims, he is attacked and vilified and demonised by the MSM et al.
I mean what more proof does anyone need that that IS the case than the very fact that Jeremy was suspended for speaking the truth, just as Chris Williamson was last year AND that those who own and/or control the MSM have complete control of the narrative, and if they choose to do a character assassination job on someone (or the wing of a political party), nothing can stop them from doing so. Surely Tony must know this, as he himself has been attacked and vilified just like Jeremy and Chris (and Jackie and Ken etc), and there was nothing whatsoever he could do – or could have done – to stop it.
On the 29th of October Labout Against the Witch-hunt – which Tony Greenstein is very much involved in – published a statement calling for Jeremy to be reinstated which began by saying the following:
Silence on the witch-hunt should never have been an option! Appeasement does not work!
Jeremy Corbyn was absolutely right in the comments that got him suspended: “One antisemite is one too many, but the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents”.
It is a real shame that he did not say so when he could have made a real difference to the witch-hunt and the civil war in the Labour Party. Unfortunately, it was the Corbyn leadership’s silence and complicity in the witch-hunt that made his suspension possible in the first place.
So it was Jeremy’s silence – the ‘leadership’s’ silence – that led to his own suspension, and YET it was the very fact that he DID speak out that LED to his suspension! And needless to say it wouldn’t have made a blind bit of difference had Jeremy spoken out before when he was leader, as he would have just been condemned and vilified and demonised and smeared for doing so, and to assert that he could have made a difference if he HAD done so is just pure fantasy.
Since WHEN did knowing that if you try to counter or refute the lies and falsehoods and claims re A/S you’ll just get smeared and demonised and attacked again amount to capitulating and appeasement! I mean given the gravity of the claims and allegations made in the Panorama hatchet job, Jeremy and his team were FORCED to respond, and were then duly hammered by the MSM et al for doing so, and they did so knowing full well that it was a black propaganda hatchet job from the very start to the very end. And how was the LP leaked report covered by the MSM – along with quotes from the usual suspects?! Yes, it was framed so as to reflect negatively and damagingly on Jeremy and Jennie and his team!
Tony Greenstein. I agree that the party was wrong to appease the Israeli Lobby. The problem goes beyond Jeremy Corbyn. His shadow cabinet and the NEC demonstrated that they weren’t prepared to put up a fight. You only have to take a look at the capitulation of the NEC including the trade union representatives on the IHRA definition. Allan Howard. You are right about the relentless attack on Jeremy Corbyn by the MSM. You are wrong to explain this as the primary reason for the appeasement of the witch hunters.
DJ, so I just explained in my posts WHY there was no way on this planet how Jeremy (and his team etc) could ‘fight back’, and you then post a comment repeating the falsehood that he/they COULD have done. So given what I said in my two posts – ie my explanation as to why it was impossible for them to do so – could you elaborate as to how you think/believe they COULD have done. As for adopting the IHRA definition and examples, Jeremy and Co were under relentless and intense pressure from the MSM to do so, and it went on for months. The following is from a Metro article published on the 2nd of September, 2018:
Former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said that anti-Semitism within Labour is a ‘stain’ on the party.
He has also called for it to adopt the internationally agreed definition of anti-Semitism, in order to resolve a bitter row that has engulfed the party for months.
…
And further on in the article it says:
…
His comments came as Jewish leaders continue to vilify Corbyn over the controversy.
Former chief rabbi Jonathan Sacks said Sunday the majority of Jews are questioning whether Britain is a safe place to bring up their children.
The crossbench peer insisted the Labour leader must ‘recant and repent’ and that he risked engulfing the country ‘in the flames of hatred’.
‘Jews have been in Britain since 1656, I know of no other occasion in these 362 years when Jews… are asking ‘is this country safe to bring up our children’,’he told the BBC.
Now THAT’s what you call full-on black propaganda! And it was relentless right across the MSM!
https://metro.co.uk/2018/09/02/former-pm-gordon-brown-says-anti-semitism-is-a-stain-on-labour-7906387/
Allan Howard. The root cause of the appeasement as I have already stated goes beyond the actions of Jeremy Corbyn. It comes down to a political weakness in the Labour Party. Too many party members believe that the Israeli regime is a legitimate state and it is possible to achieve justice for the Palestinians without dismantling it. They are still “taken in” by the dead end of the two state solution. Many have not grasped that opposing the apartheid settler colonial state of lsrael has nothing to do with antisemitism despite what the Israeli lobby have to say about the matter.