Challenging Labour’s extraordinary claims – reposted

Because of problems linking to the letter at the centre of this story, we are reposting the article afresh. It now includes a full and correct download link.

We have a Crowdfunder to help with our legal costs. All help is much appreciated:

The Labour Party seems to believe that its complaints handling process is now sorted, in line with EHRC recommendations, and that there is no need for further EHRC monitoring.

We strongly believe that this is not the case: the complaints handling process is still inadequate and there are no grounds for ceasing to monitor it.

Our lawyers have thus written once again to the EHRC:

• to draw its attention to ongoing problems with the Labour Party’s reporting on its complaints-handling process;
• to reiterate – and update – complaints that Jewish members are treated differently from others when it comes to dealing with complaints; and, as a result of these problems,
• to urge the EHRC to continue to monitor the Party’s implementation of its Action Plan.

You can download our letter here.

In particular, the Party’s reporting last May, on its successful clearing of 99% of the backlog of complaints cases bears no relationship to our experience and our information. A large proportion of complaints involving JVL members, including those which date back to before May 2021, have not been resolved. In addition there is now a new backlog of cases.

Similarly, differential treatment of Jews remains a major issue.

We provide the EHRC with two annexes:

The first contains a detailed analysis to the effect that Jewish JVL members are 33 times more likely to be investigated for allegations of antisemitism than other Party members and 43 times more likely to be subject to a case involving complaints of antisemitism.

The second shows that where JVL members are the complainants, there has either been no response from the Party or an unsatisfactory outcome, such as a refusal to investigate. Since some of these named do not want their names published we are not making this annex public.

But in the letter we refer to four of our members who have experienced appalling treatment. These are the cases of Stephen Marks, George Wilmers, Diana Neslen, and Michael Howard. [Spoiler alert: as we write this news has just come in of Stephen’s expulsion! We will report on this separately soon and will be writing further to the EHRC on this injustice.]

In the EHRC response to us in August 2022 this year, it was confirmed that “where it is appropriate and necessary”, the EHRC will raise individual Party member complaints that concern allegations of a systemic nature with the Party as part of the monitoring process. It was confirmed in particular that this approach had been applied in Diana Neslen’s case, and we intend to pursue it in other egregious cases.

One of the examples of delay given in Annex 2, and one of the examples of a new backlog, concerns Andrew Feinstein, a former ANC MP before moving to Britain more than a decade ago. Andrew has not had a reply since 20^thDecember 2021 when he submitted a detailed response and rebuttal of items contained in a Party Notice of Investigation (citing for instance his criticism of the Israeli State). Proud of his anti-racist work and his work on Holocaust education, his submission included the text of a speech he had delivered in the South African Parliament when introducing a motion on Holocaust Remembrance.

He also included the names of various individuals as witnesses “to speak to my life-long antiracism and my work against antisemitism”, including Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a member, or members, of Nelson Mandela’s family, Justice Albie Sachs, former Constitutional Court Justice, and Holocaust survivors with whom he has worked (including his 92-year old mother’s Holocaust-survivor cousin who has worked as a Holocaust educator), Gill Marcus, former Minister in the SA government and others. In February, not having heard back, he asked again in what form to submit testimonials, and had to report, sadly, that Desmond Tutu had died in the meantime.

Andrew also wrote in his response:

President Mandela expressed to me that a person is either opposed to each and every form of racism or is part of the racism problem. It is on this basis that I will continue to speak out against all racism and discrimination, including antisemitism, Islamophobia, anti-black racism and all other forms of discrimination contained in the Labour Party rules.

Despite sending several reminders, Andrew still awaits a response…

In addition, we would like to draw attention to the case of Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, JVL’s media officer, suspended on the eve of the Labour Party conference. Prior to that she had been allowed to run as an NEC candidate and was successful in that campaign, her suspension timed for just before she would have taken her place on the new NEC.

Since our letter was sent to the EHRC, Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, too, has been expelled.

Here is part of Naomi’s immediate response

While celebrating my 70th birthday on December 15, I heard from friends that Jewish Chronicle reporter Lee @lmharpin was claiming confirmation from “multiple sources” that I had been expelled from the Labour Party.

Confidential email to me says my “membership of the Party stands terminated”. An NEC panel concluded I had “in its opinion, demonstrated the type of support for REIST (sic), LIEN and LAW prohibited by Chapter 2, Clause I.5.B.v of the Rules.”

So, details of internal disciplinary cases continue to be leaked to external media in breach of @UKLabour rules. Naomi is contesting the expulsion and we will post a fuller account of this case too in the next day or two.