Jennie Formby responds to the Chief Rabbi
JVL Introduction
We welcome Jennie Formby’s response to Ephraim Mirvis which details the steps Labour has taken to overhaul its outmoded, arbitrary, unfit-for-purpose disciplinary system which dated from the epoch of Blairite centralisation and bureaucratisation of the Party machine.
It shows clearly quite how grotesquely unfair are the accusations that Mirvis, gleefully aided and abetted by the mass media, has flung around.
Formby’s response, though, does beg some questions such as whether the new system gives sufficient protection to those unfairly (and sometimes maliciously) accused of antisemitism.
We will no doubt return to this discussion in the new year.
This article was originally published by Jewish News on Wed 27 Nov 2019. Read the original here.
OPINION – Jennie Formby: Chief Rabbi can criticise, but here’s why he’s wrong
Writing exclusively for Jewish News, Labour’s General Secretary responds to Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis’ scathing criticism of Jeremy Corbyn in the Times
Loading article text…
“As previous publications of our figures have made clear, complaints relate to a small minority of party members, about 0.1%.”
It would be nice to know what proportion of those accused under the present Kafkaesque procedures themselves identify as Jewish, and how this compares with the proportion of members of the Labour Party who identify as Jewish. I shall doubtless be returning to at least the first of these questions after the election.
On another matter: in the link below, you have to listen for all of 5 seconds to find out how to pronounce “Epstein”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i0KmOUKBHM
Very interesting to read this detail of the extensive work behind the scenes. Has it all been sent to Rabbi Mirvis and the Jewish Chronicle?
Rita , And all daily papers,and BBC.
I agree with Jenny Formby in everything she says with the exception of her refusal to allow criticism of zionism.
Zionism is an ideology and an essentially contestable concept, as are all ideologies.
Ideologies are not static. They evolve over time.
Zionism today is clearly a racist supremacist ideology.
The non-Jewish variants are even more extreme.
How can that not be open to criticism?
When people like the Chief Rabbi refer to institutional antisemitism in the Labour Party and accuse Jeremy Corbyn or his supporters as being antisemitic, the unspoken issue is that of Israel and its actions against Palestinians. Those Jews who insist that Israel is central to their Jewish life will always regard criticism of Israel and Zionism as antisemitic even when made by other Jews. Zionism is a political philosophy of settler colonists and is not accepted by many Jews. the Labour Party should not proscribe comments and debate on the issue as long as there is no expression of hatred of Jews and the party leaders should state this publicly. Our party should express solidarity with Palestinians and oppose the Zionist expansionist project. While I welcome much of what Jenny Formby states there is still a danger of interpreting too widely some of the IHRA definitions which many people including its author say is ‘not fit for purpose’
Why doesn’t anyone mention the fact that Rabbi Mirvis studied in an illegal settlement? (Yeshivat Har Etzion, in Gush Etzion, from 1976 to 1978). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephraim_Mirvis
It is Rabbi Mirvis who owes an apology, to the Palestinian people.