The Diana Neslen case
JVL Introduction
We repost here an article by Haroon Siddique which first appeared as part of the Guardian’s rolling news column at 11.24 on 24th May 2022 here. You will need to scroll down to find it. We trust it will be given its own permanent url as a news story soon.
It reports on Diana Neslen’s demand for an independent investigation into what she believes was a campaign of harassment against her for tweets she posted about Israel and Zionism.
It is accompanied by two letters from Bindmans solicitors acting on behalf of Diana Neslen; one a complaint to the Labour Party detailing Bindmans concerns, the other a letter to the EHRC drawing their attention to this letter of complaint
The Diana Neslen case
Haroon Siddique, Guardian, 24th May 2022
Lawyers for an 82-year-old Jewish woman who was investigated three times in three years by Labour for antisemitism have written to the party demanding that it carry out an independent investigation into what it alleges was a campaign of discrimination against her. They suggest her anti-Zionism was a protected characteristic under the Equality Act.
Labour dropped the latest investigation into Diana Neslen, who regularly attends her local synagogue and keeps a kosher home, after she threatened to sue the party for unlawfully discriminating against her based on her belief in anti-Zionism.
The party was investigating her for tweets she posted about Israel and Zionism. Her lawyers, Bindmans, had said the investigation was unjustified and disproportionate, with the only admissible tweet being one from 2017, in which Neslen said “the existence of the state of Israel is a racist endeavour and I am an antiracist Jew”.
A new letter sent to Labour by Bindmans says the party’s governance and legal unit (GLU) has “failed/refused to properly investigate and/or address our client’s complaints under the party’s own policies on bullying and harassment”. It continues:
Anti-Zionist (or indeed Zionist) beliefs that are strong enough to justify protection under the EA (Equality Act) 2010 are most likely to be held by those of Jewish or Palestinian ethnicities, given it is those ethnicities that are likely to be primarily affected by such beliefs. Accordingly, harassment based on anti-Zionist beliefs equates to harassment based on ethnicity, and it is therefore submitted that the party has subjected our client to harassment on the basis of ethnicity.
In 2018, Labour, under pressure to act on allegations of antisemitism. adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA’s) definition of the term. The IHRA definition of antisemitism includes as an example: “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, eg by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour.”
Jewish Voice for Labour, of which Neslen is a member, says it knows of 52 Jewish Labour members, two of whom have since died, who have faced or are facing disciplinary charges relating to allegations of antisemitism.
Updated at 12.12 BST
See also:
Letter of complaint to the Labour Party (redacted)
Letter to EHRC drawing attention to the letter of complaint to the Labur Party (redacted)
Kier Starmers behaviour towards the Jewish people who are AntiZionists & others who are supporting Palestinians & their Human Rights, is extremely damaging to a once SOCIALIST LABOUR PARTY.
Its extremely shameful that people like Diane has had such dispicable treatment from a party that has lost its integrity, credibility.
Disrespect from Starmer & his Right wing traitors.
Like most people here I am appalled by the way the Labour Party is treating anyone who voices criticism of Israel or support for Palestinians, from Jeremy Corbyn down, and disgusted by the way long serving and dedicated Jewish anti-Zionist party members in particular, like Diana Nelsen, have been target with accusations of antisemitism. And of course I fully support Diana Nelsen in her battle with the Party.
I do wonder, however, about the argument that being an anti-Zionist should be considered a ‘protected characteristic’ – I’m not sure what I think about that.
First, by way of preamble, if we argue that this is the case, then it would be difficult to deny Zionists who would claim it the corollary, that being a Zionist is also a protected characteristic. What would this mean?
My informal understanding of ‘protected characterstics’ is that they include things like ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation – things that are either (a) immutable or (b) characterstics whose range of possibilities (religions, sexual orientations etc) have been judged by society to be ‘equal’ – not in the sense of literal equality but in the sense that no one possibility is better or more valid than any of the others – we are saying collectively that these are matters of personal choice and no one has any right to persecute or discrimate against anyone else on the basis of that characteristic.
When it comes to Zionism, I have so far considered this to be a primarily *political* ideology. Now, I don’t think anyone would argue that being a Tory or Labour supporter is protected characterstic. I think I should (and do, I hope) have the right to criticise someone vigorously on the basis of their political views, even if at heated moments that criticism veers into shouting, swearing, or other emphatic forms of communication that the other person might find offensive. To say that something is *not* a protected characteristic means, I think, among other things, that (a) I have the right to free speech when it comes to what I think about it, and (b) people do *not* have the right not to be offended by what I might have to say about it. In this battle of ideas, one hopes that the side with the stronger argument, whether it be support by facts or ethical considerations, should win out. This is the opposite of what we have when it comes to protected characteristics: for example, no one expects to win a battle over which is the best religion and we aim to avoid having one.
So where does this leave us with respect to Zionism? I don’t think we want to be in a place where being Zionist or anti-Zionist is just a personal choice where one option is just as good as the other. I think we want to be in a place where we can argue that Zionism has some very problematic aspects at its core, including a kind of racism that is morally indefensible, as a well as a practical manifestation that has all the terrible consequences we can see.
Defend ourselves from what Labour Party is doing we must, but to do so by resorting to this ‘anti-Zionism as a protected characteristic’ argument seems to me to be a subtle deflection from what the real problem is, which is the rot at the heart of the Labour Party. What the leadership is doing is morally repugnant and flies in the face of natural justice and socialist and humanist values, and this would *still be true* even if the issue at stake was more obviously political and not centred around something that might or might not be a ‘protected characteristic’. Perhaps I don’t have a good grasp of what a protected characterstic is. I would love to read any more thoughts on this.
Keir Starmer has led the Labour party to disrepute and shame.
The litany of cases of harassing Labour Party members for their principled advocacy of Palestinian justice and equality is a blight on the Party, especially its leadership. Perhaps victims of this ‘witch hunt might consider suing the Party for the mental anguish caused by the unfounded charges.
The re-fashioned Establishment-style Labour Party is worse than useless; also showing itself unfit to govern by its ignorant oppression of our best members.
I agree with Samer – how can political Zionism (as said in the letter of complaint) be anything other than political and not a protected characteristic – it’s not a religion or belief. It’s like adding Irish nationalism to Catholicism.
The point is that the Labour Party leadership is determining what politics are unacceptable and currently anti-Zionism and anti-NATO are out of bounds, at least for holding office if openly stated. The entire antisemitism witch hunt is built on opposition to socialist politics and not antisemitism.
About Zionism being a “protected characteristic”.
Now this concept is something I’ld never heard of
– but isn’t Zionism a persons belief ? Is it not something
similar to denomination in Christianity – and yes I
know there are Christian Zionists as a well as Jewish.
Maybe it is a case of going back to first principles?
My family’s ancestors include “recusants” – people
who refused to accept the Church of England but
persisted in the “old faith” viz Catholicism. Now
until 1829 Catholics were denied rights as citizens
(eg to vote, sit as MPs etc) but in that year
discrimination by the State was – in the most –
finally abolished. Relaxation of the laws
discriminating against Catholics had effectively
commenced after the papacy in 1766
recognised the Hanoverian dynasty – a political
decision. It did not prevent discrimination by
other citizens and although this was supposedly
for doctrinal reasons much of it was political – as was
particularly evident in Northern Ireland .
So by effectively discriminating against non-Zionists
the Jewish Community are denied their choice of
belief and not provided with their full rights. Now is
Zionism doctrinal or political or both? Well maybe
that is not for Gentiles to determine – the Haredi
Jews have a view – but surely to deny
members of the Jewish Community to make their
own decisions about the matter is to deny them
their human rights.
Sorry for such a long ramble – good luck with the
case!
The party also feels itself entitled to discipline any member who brings it into disrepute. Behavior which falls into this category can vary according to the opinion held among any one group at any one time. Thus there are those who find support for a racist state that commits apartheid a disreputable position. By this logic, it would be Starmer and those around him who are bringing the party into disrepute.
What Starmer is saying is that he is the sole arbiter of what is deemed disreputable, even when the state he favors with his support behaves in ways which openly and defiantly offend against the rights of those who live within its borders. As people of principle we are obliged to point out the contradiction between that position and the manifest truth. No political party should deny its members that right.
To many Jews both Zionism and anti-Zionism are indeed beliefs. No one should be harassed (which has a specific legal meaning) for a belief but for it to be protected under the Equality Act it must:
• be genuinely held
• be a belief and not just an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available
• be about a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour
• attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance, and
• be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not incompatible with human dignity and not in conflict with fundamental rights of others. For example, Holocaust denial, or the belief in racial superiority are not protected.
This last condition would definitely be met by a belief in anti-Zionism.
Protecting special characteristics is a problematic policy and claiming to be covered by it is a problematic defense. Who determines which characteristics are protected and which can be an open target? In an authoritarian state the characteristics protected are likely to be the possession of right-wing views to the exclusion of those on the left. Legal arguments aside, we shouldn’t need special characteristics in order to plead for what is undeniably right and fair.
Nearly daily, when reading such cases, I find it more and more difficult to support ANYTHING this Labour party stands for, they are complicit in keeping Johnson and his cabal of disgraceful human beings in government
Thank you Jenny Manson for providing clarity
via the legal definition of “belief”. It is evident
that this covers both the “political” and
“religious” – which is as well because there
are elements of both in many or most beliefs.
Since Zionism is a belief then it is plain that
so is non-Zionism -and to deny this is
plainly ridiculous.
Thus going back to my post of 28th May – to
deny individuals a choice in respect of Zionism
is a denial of their human rights.