Labour’s unjust disciplinary processes

JVL Introduction

Your web editor writes:

On 5th November 2021 I received a Notice of Investigation from the Governance and Legal Unit of the Labour Party.

It gave me fourteen days to respond to an unclear allegation made by a party or parties unknown to me about an article I had written almost four years before.

For a number of reasons I requested a four-week extension to the deadline. I was granted only two “due to our investigations process”.

My response was submitted on 1st December. Apart from an immediate, formal acknowledgment of receipt, I’ve heard nothing since.

That was three months ago. “Our investigations process” seems to include holding people in suspense for unspecified periods of time.

Enough is enough. Justice postponed is justice denied.

I have decided to publish the letter I received and my response to it, questioning both the demand that I should frame charges against myself since GLU seems unwilling to do so; and that I should keep this preposterous investigation confidential, largely in my interest.

Here is a PDF of my Notice of Investigation (NoI)

Much of what is in it is repeated in my response below, but it worth reading the original to get the full flavour of how the GLU operates.

Here is my response to the NoI, emailed to the GLU on 1st December 2021

Dear GLU

As you are aware, I responded to your initial “notice of investigation” on 11th November making a number of points:

• I said I found it difficult to write to an institution, not to an individual acting on its behalf. But as no individual had signed the communication I had no choice.
• I highlighted elements of my background as a Jew in South African where I opposed apartheid from a young age. I pointed out that I spent many formative years in the South African Zionist movement which I saw then as compatible with my growing antiracist commitments; and that my grandfather had been President of the Federation of Synagogues.
• I said I found the suggestion that I am might be undermining the Party’s struggle against racism – and against antisemitism in particular – as beyond belief and that I intended to contest it in the strongest possible terms.
• I requested an extension of 4 weeks so I could come to terms with the accusation (if such it is) against me, offering personal reasons to justify that extension.
• I assumed you’d have no trouble granting it as the one-off publication referred to as “evidence” against me was now four-years old so there seemed little sense of urgency about it.

You saw fit to give me 2 of the 4 weeks extension I had requested. The time that has elapsed since I received your initial email has done nothing to assuage the anger and sense of betrayal, I feel that you should ever have sent me such a letter in the first place. I make this point as I understand the Labour Party has a duty of care to all its members, not just complainants. I take the expectation of stress that you seem to expect your investigations to create in those on the receiving end – as expressed in the provision of the Samaritans’ phone number on the webpage you refer me to – not as an indication of how much you care but how little.

Let me be clear, I in no way object to the Labour Party investigating potential breaches of its rules. Indeed, I see you as obligated to do so. But the first rule of any such investigation should be to tell the “accused” what the complaint is.

My first response, therefore, is to demand that you either tell me what I am accused of doing or drop the investigation. Until you do that, I can see nothing to investigate and therefore nothing to respond to. Your letter seems to be an attempt to get me to incriminate myself with regard to an unspecified antiracist act you allege I might – or might not – be guilty of. This approach would seem to contradict rules of natural justice, presumptions of innocence and the right not to incriminate oneself, a cornerstone of English legal and moral codes, and I refuse to participate.

You should have no difficulty in telling me what you might wish to accuse me of, since you already appear to have determined that “this case may be suitable for the use of NEC disciplinary powers under Chapter 1 Clause VIII.3.A.iii* and Chapter 6 Clause I.1.B**”

Let me spell out my request in more detail:

You cite 13 lines of text from an article published in Red Pepper on 8th November 2017. You say that, based on what is contained in this extract, my conduct

a. may reasonably be seen to demonstrate hostility or prejudice based on race, religion, or belief; and / or

b. may reasonably be seen to involve antisemitic actions, stereotypes and sentiments; and / or

c. undermines the Party’s ability to campaign against racism; and / or

d. makes mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions:

And you provide a single item (Item 1) stating that “Mr Kuper (the Respondent) wrote an article dated 8 November 2017, stating”:

“Ever since February 2016, accusations of antisemitism have been used as a weapon against leftwing forces in the Party, spurred on by such organisations as Jewish Labour Movement and Labour Friends of Israel an organisation linked to Israeli officials who spent serious money lobbying – and according to some, bribing – British MPs.

Of course there is some antisemitism in the Labour Party; there is antisemitism in wider society, and even with its history of anti-racist campaigning, the Labour Party is not immune from the ills of society. Such prejudice has no place in the party. Antisemitism is a form of racism, prejudice, hostility and discrimination against Jews because they are Jews. It is totally unacceptable and action needed against any who express it in word or deed (though generally, I would argue, the aim should be educational not punitive, except in the case of the most hardened of racists). But attempts in recent years have been made to wider this definition to include certain criticisms of Israel ‘that go too far’ and most – not all – cases of alleged antisemitism concern Israel in some way or other. This muddying of the waters around what constitutes genuine, unacceptable prejudice obscures the real mission of rooting out antisemitism from the party. It is a cynical attempt to suppress dissent, and not really an attempt to tackle bigotry.”

I would be grateful if you spell out specifically

a) What in these lines “may reasonably be seen to demonstrate hostility or prejudice based on race, religion, or belief”

b) What in these lines “may reasonably be seen to involve antisemitic actions, stereotypes and sentiments”

c) What in these lines “undermines the Party’s ability to campaign against racism”

d.) What in these lines “makes mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions”.

Could you also clarify the status of the “and/or” at the end of each of the a., b., and c. points. This is vagueness personified. Do I have to have fallen foul of all 4 points you make or just any one of them?

As you have failed to specify what I am accused of this looks like a fishing expedition, an attempt to sew confusion rather than a serious attempt to get to the truth of anything as serious as an allegation of racism.

My second response is to object to the way you raise the issue of confidentiality. My objection is framed in both narrow and broad terms.

a) In narrow terms, as it relates to me:

You say this: confidentiality is “vital to ensure fairness to you”. On the contrary, it does the opposite. It means I cannot freely share personal information about what is happening to me and how I feel about it with family (apart from ‘close family’ – who are these?) and friends. I am supposed to dissemble when anyone asks how I am and say “just fine”, or “couldn’t be better” or whatever the Party approves as acceptable – if dishonest – answers to the most trivial, but vital, of social questions from passing acquaintances etc, asked of me dozens of times on a busy day.

Nor, in these narrow terms, can I see how it benefits the complainant since the complainant – contrary to rules of natural justice and the recommendations in the Shami Chakrabarti report, adopted by the Party – is anonymous. While I understand the need to protect complainants in certain cases (e.g. sexual harassement) I cannot see any argument that could reasonably apply in these circumstances.

You ask that I keep “all information and correspondence relating to this investigation private, and that [I] do not share it with third parties or the media, including social media.” It is expressed as a polite request which I take it means I may accept or reject it. But you continue:

“If you fail to do so, the Party reserves the right to take action to protect confidentiality, and you may be liable to disciplinary action for breach of the Rules.”

Until you can offer a reason for confidentiality the best reason I am able to conjure up is that you are aware that publicising this case, in all its absurdity, might bring the Party into disrepute by publicising the fact that it is acting disreputably.

I notice, though you do not draw particular attention to it, that a new Code of Conduct which you refer me to has apparently just been published perhaps in response to the legal action of the LA4J group last summer. Circumstances are now allowed in which confidentiality is not quite what you seem to assert it to be in your letter to me.

I may now “make disclosure” of the investigation “for the purpose of and in order to obtain legal advice, medical or social support, or support from close family members, trade unions… without threat of disciplinary action for breach of the Rules”.

But I fear this “relaxation” only adds confusion. Apart from having no inkling of where you draw the limits of who count as “close family members” in today’s world of incredible diversity in people’s choices as to how they define such matters, there is no way I could enforce the rule to confidentiality upon them.

And there is a remarkable lack of parity. The very powerful Party is able to give out information to correct false accounts (“The NEC or any national officer acting under the NEC’s or the General Secretary’s delegated powers may disclose the fact of a disciplinary investigation to third parties if it is necessary to do so in the Labour Party’s interests”); the much weaker “accused” – me – is not accorded a similar right e.g. to correct misreporting of my case (as may well happen should certain parties get wind of it).

b) My objection to the confidentiality demand is also more general.

How, if justice is to be done – and seen to be done – can it occur in the dark? How can anyone learn from the experience of fighting racism in the Party and the wider society, if alleged cases of racism are kept secret? Unless we are clear about the substance of the presumed antisemitism how can anyone know what to avoid? Why has the Party adoped an extensive Code of Conduct (‘The NEC Code’) relating to antisemitism if it is not, publicly, to form the basis of determination of breaches of the Code?

You seem to consider antisemitism as something about which nothing can be done expect expunging it by removing any tainted individual from polite society (e.g. the Labour Party). Should you take this approach to racism generally – and I understand the Party to be clear there is no hierarchy of racisms – there is really no polite society left. We know that anti-Black racism and Islamophobia are widespread in British society (more prevalent, incidentally, than antisemitism according to all research evidence). We have just seen the deeply engrained racism present in English cricket. Even Keir Starmer, you will recall, referred himself for unconscious bias training in July 2020 after an awkward faux pas on the issue of Black Lives Matter. (What was the outcome of that training by the way? – couldn’t we all learn from what Keir Starmer learnt?)

And if Keir Starmer believes that he can learn and change, why is this not also the approach to all accused of any form of racism? Zero tolerance may be an easy mantra but any attempt to turn it into reality runs the risk of ending up in a state of permanent purge.

In my experience – and having seen some published examples of purported antisemitism in the Party – few would seem to reach the threshold of a deep-rooted, “self-evident” antisemitism expressed as hatred of Jews, Holocaust denial, and the like. But such cases did exist and I understand were dealt with firmly – and correctly – by the NCC.

In fact a summary of my views on the matter is included in the 13-line extract from the article you cite where I say:

“Of course there is some antisemitism in the Labour Party; there is antisemitism in wider society, and even with its history of anti-racist campaigning, the Labour Party is not immune from the ills of society. Such prejudice has no place in the party. Antisemitism is a form of racism, prejudice, hostility and discrimination against Jews because they are Jews. It is totally unacceptable and action needed against any who express it in word or deed (though generally, I would argue, the aim should be educational not punitive, except in the case of the most hardened of racists).”

I await your charge(s) against me with interest and will respond fully when I know what to respond to.

Yours,

Richard Kuper
Labour Party member no L1409556 in good standing,

PS:

For the record, your evidence in full consists of this:

i. Item 1 – Mr Kuper (the Respondent) wrote an article dated 8 November 2017, stating,

“Ever since February 2016, accusations of antisemitism have been used as a weapon against leftwing forces in the Party, spurred on by such organisations as Jewish Labour Movement and Labour Friends of Israel an organisation linked to Israeli officials who spent serious money lobbying – and according to some, bribing – British MPs.

Of course there is some antisemitism in the Labour Party; there is antisemitism in wider society, and even with its history of anti-racist campaigning, the Labour Party is not immune from the ills of society. Such prejudice has no place in the party. Antisemitism is a form of racism, prejudice, hostility and discrimination against Jews because they are Jews. It is totally unacceptable and action needed against any who express it in word or deed (though generally, I would argue, the aim should be educational not punitive, except in the case of the most hardened of racists). But attempts in recent years have been made to wider this definition to include certain criticisms of Israel ‘that go too far’ and most – not all – cases of alleged antisemitism concern Israel in some way or other. This muddying of the waters around what constitutes genuine, unacceptable prejudice obscures the real mission of rooting out antisemitism from the party. It is a cynical attempt to suppress dissent, and not really an attempt to tackle bigotry.”