Will the Labour Party Ever Hear my Appeal?
I was not surprised when the Labour Party expulsion machine returned their attention to me after failing to achieve their purpose in several earlier attempts. I kept silent about my expulsion as I decided to give them a generous benefit of the doubt and act as though the appeal process they offered was genuine.
I submitted this appeal one year ago and have heard nothing since last May when they told me that
“The next meeting of an appeals panel will be towards the beginning of June, which is when your appeal is likely to be heard.
We will contact you if this changes for any reason. “
Given an election was called I was not surprised that the panel was delayed but, contrary to their promise, I have had no contact since despite repeated requests from me, supported by requests for action by centrist NEC member Ann Black.
I am far more concerned to document the rampant injustice of the Party’s discipline procedures than to extend my connection to a Party that causes further distress to most impoverished in our society and that is complicit to genocide and ethnic cleansing in Palestine.
MC
Mike Cushman: Appeal against exclusion – Case Reference: CAS-01489-Q9G4R
This appeal against the termination of my membership is submitted on the basis that “the findings of the NEC are flawed or tainted by bias or unsupported by the evidence.” The whole basis of proceeding against me is flawed and biased, based as it is on a deeply flawed and biased definition of antisemitism. In a racist and antisemitic fashion, the disciplinary protocols of the Party do not allow for Jewish members’ viewpoints to be expressed if they are contrary to those held by the Jewish leadership bodies. These are bodies that have disgraced themselves by being unwilling to criticise the apartheid nature of the Israeli state and are currently reluctant to denounce the massive war crimes and crimes against humanity we see being enacted in Gaza.
The termination decision is rooted in a racist and antisemitic conception that all Jews should hold the same views, particularly in this case about the nature of the state of Israel and what constitutes antisemitism. I am one of a disproportionate number of Jews who have been excluded for alleged support/membership of proscribed organisations, a disproportion that is greater for members of Jewish Voice for Labour and far greater for officers of JVL.
As David Baddiel said on Channel 4 News on 9 March, “The whole thing about racism is about people imagining that a minority all think the same way…that is never true”.
The exact basis of the decision to proscribe Labour Against the Witchhunt was never made clear but it is reasonable to assume that it was because it believed that the use of antisemitism allegations to exclude members had been weaponised; a conclusion endorsed by Martin Forde in his report. The disciplinary policy of the Party in relation to antisemitism is based on the IHRA definition. This definition has been the subject of intense controversy and powerful opposition from within Jewish communities in Britain and elsewhere.
The prime author of the definition, Professor Kenneth Stern, has heavily criticised the use of the definition as a tool for discipline and a large group of leading Jewish scholars of antisemitism have produced the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, an alternative understanding to the issues, in an effort to address its deficiencies. Any process which flows from use of the IHRA definition is inherently biased.
Martin Forde KC has recently clarified his view of the biased nature of the Party’s disciplinary processes in his statement in support of Cllr Sonia Winifred:
The problem with a lack of Indicative Sanctions Guidance is that differing sanctions can be applied on factional lines for the same misconduct. This is illustrated by the fact that the perception is that when accused of antisemitism, an apology suffices if you are seen as supporting one faction, but if you are identified as supporting the opposite faction, you will be suspended or worse.
Mike Cushman
Membership number: A044272
Rebuttal of allegations
I append my original response to the charges against me as I believe they were not given due weight by the NEC panel.
Response to allegations
I do not dispute the veracity of the examples but I do challenge the interpretation you put upon them. I am committed to the importance of open political debate in society generally and inside the Labour Party in particular. We will not develop our ideas if people are scared to speak. I am also passionate in defence of adherence to natural justice in all domains. The tragedy insufficient care and attention to fair process causes can be seen in the pain inflicted in cases from Orgreave to Hillsborough to Windrush to Horizon.
There is good evidence that allegations of antisemitism in the Labour Party have been used to suppress free speech and pursued through abuses of natural justice. You may believe I am mistaken but that we differ in our understanding is not sufficient reason for disciplining me for reasonably held beliefs. Allowing these, and the contrary views of others, into debate would, in my opinion, improve the health of Party culture and strengthen its right to lead national and local government.
I did not support Labour Against the WitchHunt with whom I have, for this purpose irrelevant, political differences. We do however have points of agreement and I was pleased to be able to use the opportunities they gave me in instances where our views overlapped to promote my, not their, views on matters of concern. You will not find me on the record, or for that matter off the record, as having supported LAW as an organisation.
Because of the fear induced by overstated allegations of antisemitism in the Labour Party and elsewhere, platforms for advancing arguments around freedom of speech on Palestine and Israel are highly restricted. I am not able to pick and choose and reject invitations provided by the few organisations and venues who have the courage to host them. It is important to recognise that I am not being investigated for anything I have said or any views I am assumed to hold, only for whom I am alleged to support. This is guilt by association, a tactic that had its natural home in the US House UnAmerican Activities Committee and should have no place in the Labour Party
For the record it is not my view that the Labour Party is free of antisemitism. We exist within a society that is pervaded by discriminatory and prejudiced beliefs and these beliefs infiltrate our Party. However, it is my view, based upon my own observation and considerable well validated research by others, that antisemitism is neither the most significant problem of bigotry facing the Party nor is the Party the locus of the greatest problems of antisemitism. The disproportionate attention paid to it, both by our enemies but sadly also by some elements inside our Party, has played a major part in denying our country the Labour Governments it desperately needs; a view that is validated by the findings of the Forde Report. The EHRC in their report on our Party explicitly stated that expressing an opinion on “the scale of antisemitism within the Party” is covered by Article 10 of the ECHR.
If it is your view that advancing arguments for free speech and natural justice are incompatible with membership of the Labour Party I think it says more about an erosion in the morality and integrity of the Labour Party than it does about me.
I also find the way you have pursued this allegation distasteful. The way you have substituted one claim with another suggests you have decided a priori to pursue me because I am a vocal and well known Jewish anti-Zionist. You appear to have scrabbled around for anything to aid this pursuit. You have gone back to 2018 and presented nothing more recent than 2021, all of which was available to you before the previous allegation. The three to six year delay suggests that my membership of the Party has not been a threat to our electoral chances or reputation, otherwise you would have taken more urgent action.
It’s a brilliant letter but sadly I fear that those running Labour are beyond any appeal to their consciences.
Where next?
Horrendous but not a surprise!
Final straw for me was not extending child allowance pst 2nd child, but it could have been any of their ‘austerity’ measures targetting the poor.
I did vote for the obnoxious Sackman rather than let in a Tory. I regret
BUT what political options is there?
I support propotional representation on European model of arge constituenceis with, say 6 MPs. But that is not a political party
What are others doing
But where next
Altogether well said. Mike.
The ‘Labour Party’ as reconquered by its minority establishment, with the eager assistance of the establishment mass media and the otherwwise worse than useless establishment Labour MPs, is a complete disgrace in all ways.
You are better out of that nightmare. I left the hollowed-out Labour Party a few years ago, simply by ending my membership subscription. I am better off for it of course. Just about all of the local activists, the regular attendees and doers, have gone elsewhere. The Labour Party led by Jeremy would have won my constituency at the last election. We still have a Conservative. The current Labour Party, which is of course really Conservative in everything but the name which it is shaming, probably prefers this.
The malicious twisting around of so-called definitions of antisemitism and racism are obviously deeply distressing for those directly disadvantaged by the horrific change in what was once our Labour Party, now itself a bastion of crude prejudicial racism and real antisemitism as has been observed.
Well said Mike, I would love to hear their response to your well argued case but I doubt if it will ever happen under Starmer, especially as more people realise that their whole stance on Antisemitism was just a way of gaining control of the party. They certainly weren’t doing it to protect Jews as their disproportionate investigations and expulsion of Jewish members shows.
Only a year’s wait, Mike? I was expelled in 2021 and am still waiting for a response to my appeal.