No need to worry about the IHRA definition – it can’t possibly be abused…

Early days yet. Steve Reed, Shadow Minister of Communities and Local Government, told the BoD earlier in the year that he would ask all Labour councils to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism, with all its examples. Has anyone in the current leadership criticised Williamson’s pressure on universities to adopt the same? Next it will be incorporated in the party’s rules. And then?

David Evans is reported as having made the original decision to suspend Corbyn within minutes and without consulting anyone inside Labour except a lawyer. There must surely have been senior advisors within Labour whom Evans could lawfully consult before taking such a big, risky decision … but seemingly he didn’t. So Evans is now out on a limb, knowing that Starmer’s best option to protect his own job may well be to encourage Evans’ resignation.

In these circumstances, I can quite understand why Evans might feel his own best option is to SCARE the opposition to him into retreat. The scare tactics aren’t working. If Starmer intervened more actively to support Evans it seems likely that doing so would be at significant cost to the Labour leader without necessarily being of much use to Evans.

I think Evans may lose his battle. Eight out of the 12 union affiliates oppose what Evans has done … and the unions are important sources of party funding and organisation. Already 73 CLPs (out of the 648) have resisted the Evans instructions – these CLPs are scattered across the UK and it seems probable their local examples will “seed” yet more resistance.

I appreciate that members of the PLP are under enormous pressure but failure to respond to this even in the most general terms would be unforgiveable. Will no one be brave enough to issue a statement supporting charitable work with Palestinian children? There comes a stage when the leadership will find it difficult to escape accusations of callous bigotry.
The killing of a thirteen year-old on Friday would provide a suitable reason for someone, anyone, to remind her/his constituents of the problems facing children under Occupation.

Evans is not fit to have the position he holds, he has obviously been bought and paid for. Same as Starmer and the rest of his cronies. They must be kicked out of the Labour Party.

The article doesn’t make clear whether David Evan, or his officers in London Region ruled the motion out of order or whether it was the Chairs of the meetings. Either way it is clearly racist and needs to reported – though as I write this I am unclear to whom. At least a complaint to the Party. Offence doesn’t come into it.

I think more and more legal challenges are necessary to force decisions based on the IHRA to be overturned.
Palestine Solidarity Campaign, have taken legal advice and surprise, surprise they are told the Council have acted illegally, full details below….
“We have taken legal advice and have been informed that the decision was unlawful. Most fundamentally, the Council’s decision constituted an unlawful interference with the freedoms of expression, assembly and conscience combined with a misapplication of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism”. https://www.palestinecampaign.org/psc-responds-to-ihra-being-used-to-shut-down-big-ride-for-palestine-event/

“In particular, any interference in the rights of freedom of expression and assembly must be justified in a manner that is “convincingly established” and those rights protect not just information and ideas that is regarded as inoffensive, but also those that may “offend, shock or disturb the State or sector of the population”. And while public authorities should, of course, restrict or prohibit those events that meet the test of being “a direct or indirect call for violence or as a justification of violence, hatred or intolerance”, the issues at play in this case are not, in our view, matters that in any way meet this test or that even should “offend, shock or disturb”. As indicated, the concerns raised by your officers in your email exchanges regarding possible violations of the IHRA are that on the website references are made to the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and comparisons between South African apartheid and Israel’s oppression. These are narratives endorsed by a wide range of historians, human rights monitoring bodies and political commentators” More on legal opinion in link above..

Further to my reply to Paul Smith since the Labour party is an unincorporated Association its members are not protected by the Human Rights Act, whereas a Labour controlled Council is a Public body subject to the whole of the Human Rights Act.

What happens when criticism of Israel or the accusation that Israel is an apartheid State & therefore a racist endeavour becomes illegal & defined as ‘hate speech’. Oh the irony! The ground is being prepared.