Facepalm: And quit right -what will Jeremy Corbyn (and his supporters) have to put up with next?
The author of the Observer article I criticised so roundly earlier this week has commented after (apparently) a few corrections were made to the online version.
I can only agree with Aaron Bastani:
Off Twitter, and in the real world, the Observer have now *corrected* part of their article published over the weekend (by Sonia Sodha) that was factually inaccurate about Corbyn’s response to the EHRC.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
And I found plenty more errors. Are they going to stay uncorrected?
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Laughter: I doubt this has been Jeremy Corbyn’s reaction to the latest vain attempts to destroy his reputation, but let’s hope he gets a warm feeling from the fact that the rest of us are laughing at his detractors.
This is what I get for missing Not the Andrew Marr Show.
On Sunday, it featured award-winning human rights lawyer and former legal advisor to the Race Relations Board, Geoffrey Bindman KC, who exposed the failures of both The Guardian and The Observer to report the facts of the EHRC investigation into whether there was “institutional antisemitism” in the Labour Party when Jeremy Corbyn was leader.
So now there’s a highly-distinguished legal analysis opposing these journalists’ unevidenced opinions.
I hear the Guardian has run more anti-Corbyn drivel on its letters page. Where’s the factual accuracy? Or did that leave mainstream newspaper reporting around the same time I did?
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
“Keir Starmer was right to exile Corbyn,” she wrote. “Labour has a duty to voters, not to rebellious members.”
And: “The party leader correctly sent a signal that democracy is about winning votes, not indulging nostalgia among a minority.”
What?
Did Ms Sodha hear the same speech I did?
Starmer used the opportunity provided by the Equality and Human Rights Commission whitewashing his anti-Semitic attacks on left-wing Jews to again tar Mr Corbyn with the anti-Semitism brush, along with any Labour members who supported Corbyn’s “Scandinavian” style of socialism.
And then Starmer told socialists across the party that if they didn’t like his leadership, he wanted them to get out.
So anybody who takes his advice won’t be voting for him, then. So much for Starmer’s duty to voters and to winning votes!
I don’t see where nostalgia figures in what happened at all.
And that’s just looking at the first two paragraphs of Ms Sodha’s Observer article!
She makes basic errors of fact:
The EHRC’s report of 2020 did not find Labour responsible for “institutional antisemitism” as she claimed – indeed, it ruled that Labour was not guilty of such an offence.
Ken Livingstone – and Pam Bromley – may have been found to have unlawfully harassed Jewish party members, but both are currently (as far as I can tell) embroiled in court action against the EHRC over this claim; it is wrong for her to publicise the former without also confirming the latter.
Claims of “appalling” abuse against Luciana Berger from within the Labour Party have been debunked (although she did receive abuse from right-wing activists who had nothing to do with the party)(there are far too many examples for me to provide links here); Margaret Hodge submitted hundreds of complaints – the vast majority of which had nothing to do with Labour Party members.
Jeremy Corbyn did not accuse the EHRC of the EHRC of “dramatically overstating” the extent of antisemitism in the party “for political reasons”; he said that, in general, the scale of anti-Semitism within the Labour Party had been overstated by its political opponents.
Mr Corbyn has no reason to show contrition because he had not “presided over” anti-Semitism in his party. In fact, he worked hard to eradicate it and succeeded in reducing it until anti-Semitism in the Labour Party was far below not only that in other political parties but also well below the national average as well. Under Mr Corbyn, Labour really was the safest place for Jews. That is not true under Keir Starmer.
And let’s have a few facts that she missed:
The report said that Labour discriminated against people who had been accused of anti-Semitism in 42 of the 70 cases the EHRC examined, meaning complaints were exaggerated.
The report wrongly blamed Mr Corbyn’s Labour leadership for failing to do enough – or act quickly enough – to implement recommendations for improvements, but it also showed that this situation was quickly put right when Jennie Formby took over from right-wing factionalist Iain (now Lord) McNicol as general secretary; it was party officials working under him who had been dragging their feet.
The leader’s office was found to have interfered in several investigations – but often the prejudice was against the people who had been accused of anti-Semitism, and not against anybody Jewish.
So Ms Sodha’s claim that Starmer’s decision was “principled” and “morally correct” because Mr Corbyn hasn’t shown any contrition for the anti-Semitism he “presided over” is baloney because he didn’t preside over it – he worked hard to stop it.
Starmer’s decision therefore comes across as narrow-minded factional hysteria. Ms Sodha’s description of him as a “leader of integrity” is risible; he has opportunistically hung an unwarranted attack against an innocent man on the EHRC’s announcement.
Ms Sodha says Mr Corbyn’s “deep unpopularity in 2019 was a significant factor in Boris Johnson’s resounding victory” but fails to accurately record the reason for that unpopularity: false media reporting of issues like anti-Semitism that has clearly gone uncorrected in the mainstream media to this day.
Still, she gets one aspect of Starmer’s leadership right: he’ll sacrifice any and all principles in order to grasp power.
Ms Sodha wrote: “For Labour’s left flank… votes are not to be achieved at the expense of sacrificing their principles,” clearly implying that the so-called “moderates” (in reality, right-wingers who have very few political differences from the Tories) with happily go anywhere the wind blows if they think it will win them a few votes: “Democracy is first and foremost about winning votes.”
It’s Tony Benn’s argument about politicians being either “signposts” or “weathercocks”; a “signpost” always points in its direction of travel and you know exactly what they are, while a “weathercock” changes with the wind, meaning you can never trust them to do what they say they’ll do from one day to the next. Keir Starmer, as I’ve said before, is clearly a “cock”.
It follows clearly from this that Ms Sodha’s claim that Starmer’s “duty is to voters” is not how the current Labour leader sees his position; he reckons his first duty is to elevate himself, no matter what means he uses to do it. If he’ll sacrifice any policy position to achieve his aim (and remember, he has ditched all 10 of the pledges he made when he was seeking election as party leader), then voters cannot know what he will do and he clearly feels no duty to them at all.
She goes on to attack democracy; if members of the Labour Party can’t have equal say in the election of a Parliamentary candidate, then democracy has been betrayed. If party leaders can override constituency members in choosing who will represent them, then democracy has been betrayed. Ms Sodha denies this.
“It is fundamentally undemocratic to give the small, unrepresentative sliver of voters that constitutes the Labour party membership too much power to impose a leader that neither the party’s MPs, nor the country at large, think is decent and competent, or to impose an idiosyncratic choice of individual as a likely local MP on tens of thousands of voters,” she trumpets, unable to see the fundamental flaw in her argument.
What is that flaw? Simply that the membership of a political party describes its policies, beliefs and direction of travel – or should do so. The membership’s choice tells the voters at large what the party is about.
And – crucially – handing these important decisions over to the leadership simply gives power to an even smaller, less representative sliver of voters and must, therefore, be even more undemocratic according to Ms Sodha’s own argument.
So much for her.
The article has attracted a large amount of flak. Here’s just some of what I’ve found:
The content of this video is self-explanatory. I think it should be shown to anybody deluded enough to think that Keir Starmer’s Labour Party is now a safe space for Jews.
It’s only safe for very right-wing Jews whose allegiances belong to the fringe groups that have received the Labour leadership’s stamp of approval.
Anybody else can go hang, apparently. Isn’t that the very definition of anti-Semitism?
Have a look at the video; it’s packed with facts – I’ve already commented on the Smeeth/Anderson/whatever-she’s-calling-herself clip myself:
Shocking stuff.
More shocking because it comes with the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s seal of approval, despite having received complaints about anti-Semitism in Starmer’s Labour for years.
Which of course suggests that the EHRC is a racist organisation too.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
The Equality and Human Rights Commission’s decision to whitewash the Labour Party’s disciplinary proceedings seems doubly contradictory when one considers the words of one of that process’s victims, below.
I’m aware that what’s described below isn’t directly related to the party’s policy on anti-Semitism, but it does provide revealing information on the treatment that anybody undergoing this Kafkaesque process is facing.
It seems clear that the current disciplinary process is being used as an excuse for the persecution of people who have done nothing wrong at all – the example below is of a woman who gave an interview to an organisation within the Labour Party. A year later, Keir Starmer’s bully boys and girls summarily proscribed that organisation and expelled anybody who had anything to do with it – even though they could not possibly have known that it would be proscribed at the time of their own contact.
It also seems clear that the appeal process against expulsion simply doesn’t work at all – most probably because it is run by factional party members who are bent on removing left-wingers from the formerly left-wing party.
The effect on the former party members targeted by this victimisation – this persecution – is predictable: their political careers have been harmed, possibly fatally; they have been prevented from carrying out any of the good work they had been doing previously; their reputations have suffered and they have been shunned by people who were previously colleagues; and their personal life and well-being has suffered hugely.
This is a calculated, desired result. Keir Starmer wants people like Pamela Fitzpatrick to suffer.
It is now 14 months since I lodged my appeal against my expulsion from the Labour Party. I was a long standing member of the Party and at the time of my expulsion I was Chair of the Harrow Labour Group, the Labour appointed Chair of the Planning Committee, a Labour councillor
organisation Socialist appeal in May 2020 and in doing so the Party judged me to be in breach of a rule it had created over a year later. I have contacted Labour several times over the past 14 months to ask for an update on my appeal, but I have had no response or acknowledgement
This is not my desired outcome. The letter before claim sets out the impact the unlawful treatment by Labour has had on me. It has resulted in my exclusion from any political positions associated with the Party and has had a profoundly damaging impact on my political career.
members, with a majority of over 100,000. This is a committee that is very close to my heart as I have experienced abuse within the Party and am aware of many other women who have also experienced similar abuse. The position was voluntary and lasted 2 years. I have not been able
activities. This includes going to the Party Conference, any events that are organised, branch meetings, taking part in canvassing, fundraising events. These activities have taken up the majority of my time for many years, but I am no longer able to attend them.
It is uncontroversial that such treatment would also have a negative impact on a person’s personal life and wellbeing, as it has had on me. My heartfelt thanks to all those who have supported me. Solidarity really is the most beautiful of words.
Few rank-and-file party members will be in a position to take the Labour Party to the High Court and seek satisfaction via litigation.
Personally, I think Ms Fitzpatrick should invite other wronged party members to join her, and make it a class action, but that’s a matter for her.
Whatever happens in court, her story serves as an example of StarmerLabour’s authoritarian – if not totalitarian – policy: it is no longer a broad church. Members must service Starmer’s increasingly right-wing demands – or he will harm them.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Please share the image, or even tweet it to @Keir_Starmer if you like it.
Those of us who have taken to watching the anti-Semitism of Keir Starmer’s Labour Party from outside can only gape appalled at the latest announcement from the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
According to that body, it is satisfied that Labour has made enough changes to the way it handles complaints of anti-Semitism to counter the criticisms it made of how the party handles anti-Semitism complaints and will be winding up a two-year monitoring process.
But you’ll also need to be aware that since Keir Starmer took over as party leader, Labour has embarked on a programme (or should that be pogrom) of removing Jews from the party – specifically targeting Jewish people with left-wing views.
Here‘s a report from December last year, on the removal of three high-profile left-wing Jews. All anti-racists, they were accused of anti-Semitism.
Notice that, in this report, Heather Mendick commented that “her branch used to have ‘lots of active Jewish members’. All were ‘lefties’ but just one of them is still a member.”
How about the resignation from Keir Starmer’s own Constituency Labour Party of Stephen Kapos, a Holocaust survivor who the party told must choose between his duty to teach people about its horrors and Labour policy demanding he may not support a group that has been proscribed by the party (albeit for questionable reasons)?
And the Jews named in this article (which I’m aware includes some of those mentioned above).
It has been claimed that Jewish Labour members are almost five times more likely to face anti-Semitism charges than non-Jewish members.
But against this background of shockingly anti-Semitic behaviour, Starmer has issued an ultimatum to all remaining left-wing Labour members: support him or leave.
The BBC reports him saying:
“We are never going back. If you don’t like it, nobody is forcing you to stay.”
What a horrifying message for Jewish members of the Labour Party.
Starmer is saying that he will continue to purge them from their political home; to deny them a voice; to remove their identity (shades of Germany in the 1930s).
And their only alternative is to leave before they are forced out.
And that is what the euphemistically-named Equality and Human Rights Commission is praising.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has u-turned on a promise to investigate the role played by the Department for Work and Pensions in the deaths of vulnerable benefit claimants, it’s being reported.
Instead the EHRC are now asking the DWP to create new policies in relation to claimants with mental health issues and learning difficulties. Apparently the commission is using the Covid-19 pandemic as an excuse.
This Site forced the DWP to publish figures showing that thousands of people had died of unexplained causes after being thrown off benefits by that government department and I am deeply concerned by this failure to scrutinise whether the government caused these deaths.
And how many more people have died since I exposed those deaths seven years ago?
I shall be writing to the EHRC today, seeking a meaningful explanation for this u-turn.
UPDATE: Here’s what I have written to the EHRC:
“I was the writer who forced the DWP to admit that thousands of people have died after being thrown off benefits – for no established reason. I am deeply concerned that the EHRC has decided not to investigate the DWP’s role in the deaths of claimants and is choosing only to seek an agreement to better protect claimants – similar to other undertakings that the DWP has ignored in the past, causing more deaths. The DWP will never respect the human rights, or indeed the lives, of claimants unless it is forced to do so. I am writing to you to seek an explanation for your decision that I can publish to my readers. How will you defend this indefensible decision?”
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Ken Livingstone: he is appealing for donations to help him mount a judicial review against questionable accusations made against him by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
The basis in which the Equality and Human Rights Commission said the Labour Party committed unlawful harassment of Jewish people is to be challenged in court.
The long-delayed EHRC report on anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, when it finally appeared in late October last year, stated that it could find only two instances in which Labour members had broken the law – involving Ken Livingstone and Pam Bromley.
The report claims that Livingstone committed unlawful harassment in April 2016 when he pointed to a “smear campaign by ‘the Israel lobby’ to stigmatize critics of Israel as anti-Semitic, as well as being aimed at undermining and disrupting the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn,” in his defence of Labour MP Naz Shah.
The EHRC report said Shah had posted an image to Facebook “suggesting that Israel should be relocated to the United States” and a second post “in which she appeared to liken Israeli policies to those of Hitler.”
(For clarity: the first image was a satirical response to moves within Israel to forcibly remove all Palestinians from within the borders claimed by the Israeli government to neighbouring Arab states; the claim about the second was even more disgusting – the text, stating that everything Hitler did in Germany was legal, was pointing out that an act can be legal and still be wrong, as stated by the black man depicted in the image… probably the 20th century’s most-celebrated anti-racism campaigner, Martin Luther King. I notice EHRC does not appear to have mentioned that small but important fact.)
Shah admitted anti-Semitic intent in posting the images, although they are not inherently anti-Semitic in themselves. The third tweet mentioned in accusations against her – a claim that “the Jews are rallying” in response to a poll on whether Israel should stop bombing Palestinians to oblivion during Operation Protective Edge in 2014 – was anti-Semitic (it would have been accurate if it had said “pro-Israelis” instead of Jews).
Livingstone has always denied saying anything anti-Semitic. He says the draft EHRC report had not been sent to him before publication, which means he had not been given the opportunity to correct the record.
Livingstone’s defense of Shah included a BBC radio interview in which he accurately pointed out that in the early 1930s when he first came to power, Nazi leader Adolf Hitler “was supporting Zionism.” This was perverted by critics including former Labour MP John Mann into a false claim that Livingstone was saying Hitler himself was a Zionist. That was never true; his aims and those of German Zionists coincided for a brief period, that is all.
The EHRC report does not mention the radio interview comment – which was what led to Livingstone’s suspension from the Labour Party and eventual forced resignation.
Instead it states that, merely by denying that Shah’s posts were anti-Semitic, Livingstone was guilty of “unwanted conduct related to Jewish ethnicity,” which “had the effect of harassing members of the Labour Party.”
But the anti-Semitic intent of the image posts was not apparent in the posts themselves; Shah had to admit it for it to be considered true.
This Writer is less familiar with the case against Bromley so I shall not comment on it here.
In a press release announcing the launch of the case Livingstone said,
“The EHRC’s investigation into the Labour Party was a politically-motivated attack aimed at derailing Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. The Commission cobbled together a half-baked case against me, justified by a flawed legal analysis.
“This judicial review will be a vital step in correcting the record and in fighting back against a McCarthyite smear campaign which has been waged against the British Left over the past five years.”
And Bromley added,
“The EHRC Report and its dubious legal analysis will have knock-on effects for freedom of expression. The right of pro-Palestine campaigners to criticise the State of Israel and its apartheid policies is being actively suppressed.
“This judicial review will not only help to clear mine and Ken’s names, it will ensure that the EHRC Report can’t be used as a tool to bludgeon activists who dare to speak up for Palestinians.”
The judicial review is supported by the Left Legal Fighting Fund, which was set up by left-wing former Labour MP Chris Williamson, using the proceeds of a legal win against the Labour Party in 2019.
The fund is hoping to raise £40,000 towards legal costs.
Today’s (January 14) announcement must be another blow for hard-right-wing Labour leader Keir Starmer, who welcomed the report and used it to attack former leader Jeremy Corbyn.
He keeps saying he wants to put Labour’s anti-Semitism crisis to rest – but his own activities are prolonging it.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
The Empire Windrush brought many people to the UK to help rebuild the country after World War II. If it had still been in service a couple of years ago, the Tories would have been trying to use it to deport them all again.
It is ironic that the Conservative government’s own review of its behaviour in the Windrush Scandal was called Lessons Learned, considering its plan for a mass deportation to Jamaica tomorrow (December 2) shows that the Tories have learned nothing.
The Home Office failed to comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) under the Equality Act 2010 when implementing Theresa May’s “hostile environment” strategy, according to the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
Why is this not headlined "Conservatives in unlawful breach of racial discrimination laws, says EHRC"? https://t.co/mv4qxysvqq
— CrémantCommunarde#ActivistLawyer ⚖️ 🌻 ✋ (@0Calamity) November 25, 2020
May’s plan, which commenced in 2012, was originally intended to make staying in the UK as difficult as possible for illegal immigrants – people who do not have leave to remain, in the hope that they would leave of their own accord.
But the policy’s severe harm to members of the so-called Windrush generation – whose documents showing that they were allowed to stay in the UK were destroyed by May’s Home Office shortly after she took over responsibility for it in 2010 – was ignored, dismissed and disregarded, despite the fact that the Home Office was warned about it repeatedly.
Perhaps part of the responsibility for this lies in the fact that the Tory government, obsessed with outsourcing work to private, profit-making firms, told landlords, banks, doctors and employers to carry out ID checks and report people who lacked adequate documentation.
As a result, thousands of people – yes, thousands – were denied access to health care, benefits and housing, before being deported illegally.
Engagement with representatives of the Windrush generation – people who came to the UK, mostly from Jamaica, to help rebuild the country after World War Two, after the government of the day promised to allow them to settle here (see the 1948 Nationality Act) – was limited.
The EHRC report said the consequences – which have included several deaths – were “foreseeable and avoidable” and the organisation’s interim chair, Caroline Waters, said the treatment of the Windrush Generation was “a shameful stain on British history”.
Windrush Scandal A 'Shameful Stain On British History', Says Equality Commission | HuffPost UKhttps://t.co/FLxKBUHgjp
ThisCounterfire article is damning in its condemnation of the policy:
Dehumanisation and discrimination are built into the very concept of the ‘hostile environment’. For the Tories, the purpose of the policy was twofold: to divert growing anger at their austerity policies and to undercut the rise of far-right rivals like Ukip by appropriating their unabashedly dehumanising and racist ideology.
That’s right – the Tories under Theresa May adopted a deliberately racist ideology. And the policy of dehumanising victims was taken directly from the Nazi playbook, as Jews know very well from bitter experience.
Counterfire continues:
The lives of migrants and ethnic minorities are routinely exploited and endangered for the political gain of those in power in this way. This is not recognised in the EHRC report, which is only able to recommend a set of vague rectifications that rely heavily on the government’s good will, such as the recommendation for the Home Office to ‘prioritise and act early’ on its Equality Act duties.
The Home Office under current Home Secretary Priti Patel has made a public commitment to avoid any similar events occurring.
So it is strange that Ms Patel is determined to force as many as 50 more people out of the UK – including another member of the Windrush generation – in a specially-chartered flight tomorrow:
NEWS: And it's officially confirmed. The @ukhomeoffice are planning a pre-Christmas mass deportation of Black British residents to Jamaica on 2nd December. Despite #COVID19 risks they think that they have capacity to deport 50 people on the flight. #Jamaica50@DetentionActionpic.twitter.com/lC7AcxDzig
Immediately after it was revealed that the flight was taking place, no fewer than 82 BAME celebrities wrote to six airlines known to have carried out such flights, begging them to reject contracts to carry out any more. It is not known which airline has been engaged to carry out tomorrow’s flight.
Signatories included the author Bernardine Evaristo, model Naomi Campbell, historian David Olusoga and actors Naomie Harris and Thandie Newton, as well as lawyers, broadcasters and NGO chiefs. Leading Windrush campaigners including Michael Braithwaite and Elwaldo Romeo also signed.
Black public figures urge airlines not to carry out Home Office deportation | Home Office | The Guardianhttps://t.co/6xjYnWZTwN
And now – better late than never – 70 MPs and peers have also written to Patel, demanding that the flight must be cancelled:
The Government is doing little more than pay lip service to righting wrongs and correcting injustices. I’ve coordinated a letter asking @pritipatel@ukhomeoffice to #StopThePlane and stand alongside nearly 70 MPs and peers calling for Wednesday's flight to be cancelled #Jamaica50pic.twitter.com/eV2DPtMo4l
The letter, co-ordinated by Labour’s Clive Lewis, states:
You have previously committed to ‘righting the wrongs’ concerning the Windrush scandal. But eight months after the Windrush Lessons Learned Review was published, the recommendations have still not been fully implemented, it adds.
“Planning a pre-Christmas deportation flight demonstrates that the Home Office has so far failed to learn any lessons.”
The letter also highlights the threat posed by Covid-19 to anybody being forcibly deported:
“The conditions of deportation, such as shackling detainees to ushers for long journeys in potentially cramped conditions, risk exposing people to the virus,” the letter reads, adding that Black people are already at an increased risk of contracting coronavirus.
And there is the more tangible threat of deportees suffering harm or death at the hands of the authorities when they arrive at their destination:
“We know that five UK deportees were killed between 2018 and 2019. Some people in detention have scars from past abuse in Jamaica, or siblings who have been murdered.”
Strangely, Labour leader Keir Starmer has not signed the letter – nor have 12 of his front benchers. They are: Angela Rayner, Anneliese Dodds, Nick Thomas-Symonds, Lisa Nandy, Ed Miliband, Jon Ashworth, Rosena Allin-Khan, David Lammy, Jess Phillips, Rachel Reeves, Wes Streeting and Yvette Cooper. Are we to conclude that these MPs approve of the Tories’ racism?
On the other hand, one of the signatories is former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn:
Let us not forget, as you get outraged:@JeremyCorbyn was one of the few who voted against the act that led to the Windrush Scandal – a ‘shameful stain on British history’.
Such a bastard, eh? Or, maybe, not the man the MSM & anti-Corbyn mob have led you to believe him to be. pic.twitter.com/7tqZVYRCb6
— Frank Owen's Legendary Paintbrush (@WarmongerHodges) November 25, 2020
There is absolutely no doubt that the Conservative government’s racist deportations of people who have every right to remain in the UK should stop. This Writer also has absolutely no doubt that they won’t.
Priti Patel’s record marks her out as a vicious racist who delights in dehumanising and tormenting others.
It is sad to see that she faces no opposition from the so-called Opposition front bench.
But we should remember that the people who have opposed this obscenity are those who have been vilified by the Tory Establishment and their lackeys in the mainstream media. They have lied to us; they are not to be trusted.
And we need to find better ways to oppose them.
Have YOU donated to my crowdfunding appeal, raising funds to fight false libel claims by TV celebrities who should know better? These court cases cost a lot of money so every penny will help ensure that wealth doesn’t beat justice.
Vox Political needs your help! If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers) you can make a one-off donation here:
Here are four ways to be sure you’re among the first to know what’s going on.
1) Register with us by clicking on ‘Subscribe’ (in the left margin). You can then receive notifications of every new article that is posted here.
And do share with your family and friends – so they don’t miss out!
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Angela Rayner (here with her boss Keir Starmer): hypocrites – and very possibly anti-Semites without acknowledging it.
Note to Sienna Rodgers at LabourList: the headline on your report is wrong. It should have read Angela Rayner is a big ol’ hypocrite.
In the article, Rayner states that the findings of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s report on anti-Semitism in the Labour Party are not open to debate:
There’s no debating what the EHRC said.
LabourList also reported another statement she made to the Jewish Labour Movement’s conference – insultingly held on the International Day of Solidarity with Palestinians – that she and Keir Starmer attended rather than support the Palestine solidarity event:
If I have to suspend thousands and thousands of members, we will do that.
The two comments are mutually exclusive. The report clearly states that
We have concluded that the practice of political interference was unlawful… The Labour Party should… implement clear rules and guidance that prohibit and sanction political interference in the complaints process.
Her threat to suspend thousands – a warning that the leadership is planning to purge the party of anybody who dissents against its dictatorship – is itself political interference in the process, as it is an attempt to suppress complaints by members against the actions of the leadership of which she is a member. Therefore she is not only debating the legitimacy of the EHRC’s finding; she is ignoring it altogether.
Remember that this is all about the attack on Jeremy Corbyn by Keir Starmer, party general secretary David Evans, and others at the very top of the Labour leadership including Rayner herself, despite the fact that she once said this:
She is a hypocrite. She has revealed her true colours. She cannot be trusted. She should be ejected from her position of power.
This will be hard because the Labour Party leadership has a well-known track record of rejecting any complaints against its own members and friends, no matter how well-justified they may be.
But we have all seen this behaviour and we are talking about it:
Big from @AngelaRayner as she seems to back suspending ‘thousands and thousands of members’ for wanting to demonstrate support for Jeremy Corbyn having the whip returned.
This whole thing just shows the duplicity and shiftiness of those at the top of the Labour Party.
David Evans explicitly stated the disciplinary process against Corbyn is now over. What we now have is leaders doing the precise opposite of what the EHRC asks for, interfering. https://t.co/mK5JOtVyxZ
Yes, it's 'totally unacceptable' to say precisely what the EHRC report says you can say, and which you have the freedom of speech to say, and which is obviously and provably true, in case it upsets some right-wing bigots.
If this is what @AngelaRayner has said it is dishonest. CLPs are debating whether the whip should be reinstated to Jeremy Corbyn: that is about democratic procedure not antisemitism
Genuine Q: have any CLPs passed motions against EHRC report or that antisemitism isn't a problem? https://t.co/HryXTRFAWm
Could Rayner clarify what, if any, powers she has to suspend "thousands of members" and how her doing that conforms with the EHRC recommendation of an investigation and disciplinary process free of leadership intervention? https://t.co/0ekPF64aj3
Because they ain't listening to us, that's for sure. 😒
— MerryMichaelW 🎗 😷 #T & T #BlackLivesMatter #BDS (@MerryMichaelW) November 29, 2020
With one side of her mouth she spits vitriol at Corbyn for his comments in which he said the EHRC report should be implemented, & with the other she outright defies the EHRC report criticism of political interference in disciplinary cases, saying she'll personally suspend 1,000s! https://t.co/KTOd6IQtIE
“It is not legitimate for the leadership to influence, make recommendations or make decisions on complaints.. The Labour Party needs to restore confidence in the independence of its complaints process”—EHRC
"If I have to suspend thousands & thousands of members…”—Angela Rayner https://t.co/vYzG1G8urK
A disgraceful way of approaching political debate here from Angela Rayner. She is talking about conducting a purge, let's be clear about that: there is no other way to describe this. https://t.co/ff2BJAxw5c
The Labour leadership are now deliberately shitting all over the recommendations of the EHRC report that they've used as an excuse to attack and vilify Jeremy Corbyn (despite the fact he said the EHRC recommendations should be implemented!).
— CrémantCommunarde#ActivistLawyer ⚖️ 🌻 ✋ (@0Calamity) November 29, 2020
There isn't thousands and thousands of antisemites in the party, @AngelaRayner . Corbyn was allowed to comment on the EHRC. He was allowed back to the party. If you fancy to play "I'm the dictator's best mate" go for it. But you showing who you really are and ppl won't forget it https://t.co/HxdFMpammj
And organisations that formerly wanted Rayner’s support and endorsement are now rejecting her. To be honest, I don’t know if the following tweet was connected with what she said on LabourList, but I anticipate that this is the soft footfall that precedes a stampede:
What a massive let-down and huge sell-out @AngelaRayner turned out to be. Please remove your support from the LGBTQ+ community Angela. The oppressed stand with the oppressed, we don't stand with apartheid committing states, and we don't stand with traitors who ignore that.
Oh, and by the way, Labour is not completely irredeemable. Members across the UK did come out in support of Palestine, unlike their treacherous leader and deputy leader. Here’s a tweet from Wales:
Well done to all across Wales who have taken the time to express solidarity with the Palestinian people, who continue to live in dire, oppressive circumstances under a brutal, right-wing Israeli government. 👇✊#palestineday#EndApartheid#StopAnnexationhttps://t.co/F85HpIQeXE
Let’s remember that Rayner – and her vile boss Starmer – are saying that they are taking all this action against the good members of their own party because of hurt, harm and injury done to Jewish people in the UK.
What about the harm done to Jewish people who agree with the viewpoint Rayner, Starmer and the others are attacking?
Genuine question @AngelaRayner@Keir_Starmer will you meet urgently with representatives of the many Jews who support Corbyn and think you are getting this disastrously wrong? If not, why not?
By the way THESE Jews feel you are injuring THEM. Don’t these Jews count Keir, Angela? https://t.co/HeU48hgIbo
That’s right. These Jews feel that Rayner, Starmer and the others are attacking them. And Rayner, Starmer et al treat them as though they don’t even exist.
Isn’t that attitude a little… you know… anti-Semitic?
Finally, Labour’s deplorable leaders need to acknowledge that this confrontation between them and party members arose because the EHRC found that the leadership had been interfering in investigations of anti-Semitism complaints in order to make it seem that there were more anti-Semites in the party than was the case.
A court found only last week that the process of investigating accusations against This Writer – me, Mike Sivier – was perverted in order to produce a false finding against me.
Labour failed to follow its own investigation procedure. It did not adequately inform me of the nature of the allegations against me (in fact, the party changed those claims as it went on, in order to ‘fix’ the result), and a party officer leaked false claims about me – including a lie that I was a Holocaust denier – to The Sunday Times (which subsequently had to publish a lengthy correction).
And I’m not the only one who has suffered this treatment. The EHRC report found that, of the investigations it examined, no fewer than 60 per cent suffered from bias calculated to discriminate against the respondent – against the person accused of anti-Semitism.
Where are the apologies for lying and smearing us? I still receive abusive messages accusing me of anti-Semitism, even now. It may be that I will continue receiving them for the rest of my life. The Labour Party is to blame for that. Where is the contrition? Where is the apology for that?
By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. This includes scrolling or continued navigation. more information
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.
