The EHRC Report Into Antisemitism in the Labour Party - A Reply by The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign.

Dear Reader, "It is better to content oneself with other more modest and less exciting truths, those one acquires painfully, little by little and without shortcuts, with study, discussion and reasoning, those that can be verified and demonstrated." Primo Levi: The Truce. p 397. Those responsible for The EHRC report into antisemitism in the Labour Party would have done well to have had Primo Levi's sentence printed on its first page and followed his sage advice word for word. Under it the EHRC needed to have stated clearly what they understood antisemitism to be and how it applied that understanding consistently when reaching what should have been carefully reasoned decisions in each and every one of the 70 cases it claims to have investigated. The British public got neither. Being a report into antisemitism there needed to be a clear statement as to what the EHRC take that to be. However, the first time The IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism is mentioned is on p 27. It is also described as being The IHRA Definition of Antisemitism something which it is not. It isn't discussed until Annex 3. And then in a limited way. In Annex 3 the EHRC say they, "explain: when the Labour Party is responsible for the conduct of its agents, and the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism and its impact on our investigation." The key word, "Working" has again been dropped. To restore lost confidence the EHRC need to explain why they use the two interchangeably and to acknowledge Prof Stephen Sedley's observation that it fails the first test of any definition in being indefinite. (1) The IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism states, "Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities." "A certain perception." One can see what Prof Sedley means. The EHRC continue with, "The IHRA also provides illustrative and contemporary examples of antisemitism. Some concerns have been raised about aspects of the IHRA approach." "Some concerns?" This is hardly an honest appraisal of the huge controversy surrounding the resurrection of the IHRA working definition from the dustbin of history. Kenneth Stern's reasoned criticism of it is a good place to start. After all he wrote it (2). Others expressing far more than just, "some" concerns are; Independent Jewish Voices Canada (3) and Anthony Lerman (4) Why has the EHRC chosen to gloss over/downplay the issue of the fierce controversy surrounding the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism? Perhaps Kenneth Stern provided the answer when he said, "Rightwing Jews are weaponising it." This is the Jewish author of the Working Definition expressing far more than just, "some concerns" as the EHRC would have us believe. But why is the EHRC taking such a shortcut? And how does it affect the EHRC report? The report's biggest failing is that it does not do what it demands of the Labour Party. On p5 they state, "we have not seen all of the evidence on which the conclusions in the leaked report were based." Yet when it comes to the vast majority of the 70 cases the EHRC "investigated" we too - the public - have not seen all of the evidence on which the EHRC investigators base their judgements. The truth of the matter is that we hardly see any evidence at all. Only three cases are discussed in any sort of detail. They are those of: Ken Livingstone, Pam Bromley and Chris Williamson. But in the latter's case it is unclear as what exactly he is supposed to have done wrong. His name is mentioned. Holocaust Denial is mentioned as is supporting un-named suspended members. But what the exact link between Chris Williamson and antisemitism is - is never clearly stated. This simply isn't good enough. On p7 of the report it says, "We found that the complaints process was not properly resourced and those responsible for it were not trained to the necessary standard." (7) On p10 the EHRC criticises Labour for, "unclear decision-making by the NEC and NCC." But where is the clear decision making in 67 of the cases they spent 18 months investigating? It is conspicuous by its absence. We don't know who said what. However we do know where it was said - 59 of the cases were about allegations of antisemitism on social media. We know absolutely nothing about these cases. Were the un-named individuals who wrote the IHRA report, "trained to the necessary standard?" Or was it a conscious decision by the EHRC to deliberately withhold the information? Or both? The EHRC could have followed its own advice and anonymised the data as it demanded the Labour Party do. It didn't. Given that we have been provided with NO information on the bulk of the cases determined or how decisions were arrived at, it is safe to say the EHRC were themselves were not trained to the necessary standard. Because a necessary standard according to them requires clear, reasoned, transparent and consistent decisions. Decisions that be verified and demonstrated. On p9 we're told there was, "a lack of a clear and fair process for respondents." But where was the EHRC's clear and fair process when arriving at its decisions? The 68 remaining cases should have been presented like those of Ken Livingstone and Pam Bromley. Why weren't they? P10 and the complaint here is that there was, "poor record-keeping: this was evident in 62 of the 70 files in our sample." Yet in the vast majority of its cases there are no records at all. Just invisible people who have allegedly done invisible things. No small truths here that have been reasoned, demonstrated and verified. Only 2 out of the EHRC's 70 cases meet their own exacting standards. Or 2.8%. P13 and the EHRC say, "Rebuilding trust and confidence in antisemitism complaint handling The Labour Party must rebuild trust and confidence that antisemitism complaints are handled independently, lawfully, efficiently and effectively." But has the EHRC itself handled all 70 cases, independently, lawfully, efficiently and effectively? Apart from the 2.6% we don't know. Where's the evidence? They appear to have effectively buried it. They expect Labour to have in place, "what will be considered an appropriate sanction for different types of proven antisemitic conduct" and yet offer no examples of what that might entail. Each case could have been provided with just such an example. It is a failing of this report that they weren't. We discuss trust in the EHRC later in our reply to the report. The similarity with how Ombudsman Services:Property, "investigated" complaints is remarkable. What confidence can the public have in the EHRC when it has failed to clearly demonstrate, "proven antisemitic conduct" in the bulk of the cases it investigated? Legally, the Labour Party will be expected to, "Collect, analyse, and publish quarterly data." Once again we should like to ask, where is the analysis of the data the EHRC collected when compiling its report? How many cases of antisemitism have there been in total since 2015 and how did the EHRC's investigators categorise them? Of the 70 cases "investigated" by the EHRC how many were of Holocaust Denial? How many were ones of calling Zionists - "Zios?" We don't know because they don't say. The media are adamant - antisemitism is everywhere in the Labour Party. Yet in the EHRC report it was found it in 2.86% of cases. They also say, "We also highlighted the range and volume of antisemitic conduct across the complaint sample". (p32) Range and volume? Where? We've read the report twice and we can't find that information. It isn't collated in one place. There is no Annex dedicated to a statistical breakdown and analysis of the range and volume of antisemitic conduct the EHRC discovered. This is not efficiency. It's as if what little evidence they have found has been scattered around the report in order to confuse the reader. Perhaps that's what they mean by efficiency? P28 and the EHRC is at pains to stress that, "Suggesting that complaints of antisemitism are fake or smears. Labour Party agents denied antisemitism in the Party and made comments dismissing complaints as ‘smears’ and ‘fake’. This conduct may target Jewish members as deliberately making up antisemitism complaints to undermine the Labour Party, and ignores legitimate and genuine complaints of antisemitism in the Party. These comments went beyond simply describing the agents’ own personal experience of antisemitism in the Party." We have every confidence that Primo Levi would have wanted to verify that claim by resorting to a careful study of the evidence. The only problem is - The EHRC don't provide it. They have provided little or no data on who made the bulk of the complaints. For example - did these complaints of antisemitism come from lots of individuals or a small group? Given the enormity of what is at stake such an omission is beyond careless. P30. The EHRC claim, "Some of the unwanted conduct took place on social media." But according to the EHRC's own figures 59 of the 70 cases, "took place on social media." That's 82.49%. By our calculation that isn't, "some." That's "most." Why are the few statistics that were made available by the EHRC for scrutiny being distorted in this way? They, too, are shortcuts. But not to the truth. The report is constructed around sentences like this one, "An effective complaints process must be fair, impartial and transparent. Decisions on complaints should be made through specified formal processes, based on a fair and objective assessment of the facts." (p42) But we have no real idea as to how the EHRC arrived at its decisions. Instead we are expected to take what they say on trust. Shortcuts can also take the form of shadowy figures offering their unsubstantiated insights eg, "one former GLU staff member described Thomas Gardiner as ..." (p48) And, "although we have seem some evidence ... does not appear ... as extensive, systematic.." (54) This is a report paid for by the taxpayer. We need to know: who is the person - what is the evidence? We felt tempted at this point to claim that, "an EHRC panel member has told us - off the record - that the EHRC report was..." but as we hold the memory of Primo Levi in such high esteem, we didn't. We believe there are currently 166 Panel Members of the EHRC. They're named in alphabetical order. Yet the EHRC report doesn't say who was responsible for writing what is in it. Why the secrecy? As a regulator funded by taxpayers' money surely the public have a right to know who it was who carried out the first investigation of a British political party by a regulator with a Commissioner, Pavita Cooper, who donated money to the Conservative Party. A Regulator who decided not to investigate Boris Johnson's blatant Islamophobia or that of his party. (5) Then there's the remarkable revelation on p93 concerning The Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism. The EHRC are highly critical of the Labour Party and its attempts to secure antisemitism training, "The Labour Party said it had been more complex and difficult for it to procure antisemitism training than sexual harassment training, and that discussions with the Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism (at Birkbeck) in spring 2018 ‘stalled later that year because of pressure applied on the Institute’. No further details were provided to us." What is extraordinary is that The Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism should cave-in to, "pressure" and that the EHRC should make no attempt whatsoever to ascertain who applied that pressure and why. This was supposed to be a consistent, effective and fair investigation into antisemitism not a cover-up Birkbeck University of London's susceptibility to, "pressure." One of the charity's quoted in the EHRC report was the CST. Its Head of Policy is Dave Rich who is also an Associate at The Pears Institute for the Study of Antisemitism and an author of a book on Jeremy Corbyn and left antisemitism. The EHRC could have asked him who applied the pressure and why Birkbeck's courses aren't up to much. We did but got no response. The course Birkbeck (University of London) did provide was described as being unsatisfactory. Not a good day for the values of academic freedom or Birkbeck's ability to get the job done. We would recommend Durham University every time. The EHRC, having not troubled to ask any difficult questions, came to the conclusion that the Labour Party had committed unlawful discrimination in not providing adequate training from courses that didn't exist. In his testimony to Congress and on the subject of the IHRA Working Definition, Kenneth Stern asked it to, "Imagine a definition designed for Palestinians. If “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist” is antisemitism, then shouldn’t “Denying the Palestinian people their right to self-determination, and denying Palestine the right to exist” be anti-Palestinianism? (6) With study, discussion and reasoning surely we should be able to arrive at a civilised conclusion? anti-Palestinianism - why not? anti-Leftism - why not? He also believed adoption of the IHRA Working Definition on Antisemitism would "chill" free speech. And he was right. Chillingly, the EHRC have now ruled that some speech is now unlawful harassment and therefore illegal. In truth, the EHRC report took too many shortcuts and did not demonstrate an ability to arrive at fair, reasoned decisions in the vast majority of the cases it investigated in its sub-standard report. A bit like the Ombudsman Services:Property ombudsman. Primo Levi would have been less-than impressed with both organisations. In Conclusion: At the start of the EHRC's investigation into antisemitism in the Labour Party we contacted all but 5 of the then EHRC panel members starting with Adam Wagner (Doughty Street Chambers / Visiting Professor of Law Goldsmiths University / CAA charity and presenter of the file to the EHRC) to ask them: * Do you believe in universal Human Rights? * Do you believe the Palestinian People have the same Human Rights as their Jewish brothers and sisters? * Do you believe the Palestinian People should have the same right of return as their Jewish brothers and sisters? A sort of Hippocratic oath for barristers. Not a single EHRC panel member was prepared to climb the barristers' barricade, wave the banner and proclaim the need for universal Human Rights. We also asked the EHRC to investigate the CAA charity for its petition stating that Jeremy Corbyn was an antisemite and unfit to hold any public office: was this charitable work? What about his human rights? What about the presumption of innocence until proven guilty? (Now that Sir Starmer has said Jeremy Corbyn isn't antisemitic we would expect him to now be asking the same questions). And the CST charity for its hate-speech. One blog claimed all new members of the Labour Party "slither" and some cause a "stench" and asked: wasn't this discriminatory? Harassment? And how did it promote community harmony? We did not get a reply. Trust the EHRC? As for the impartiality of the EHRC we believe that was compromised by its refusal to investigate Boris Johnson and the Conservative Party's truly shocking Islamophobia and by its failure to consistently, effectively and fairly account for the antisemitism it claimed it investigated in the Labour Party. Steve Gilbert - The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign. 1) Prof Stephen Sedley Defining Anti-Semitism London Review of Books 3 May 2017. 2) Kenneth Stern: I drafted the definition of antisemitism. Rightwing Jews are weaponising it." Fri 13. 2019 The Guardian. "Armed with a [legal] determination that effectively says campus anti-Zionism is antisemitism, these professors will correctly see themselves at risk when they ask their students to read and digest materials deemed anti-Zionist, whether the writings of leading 20th century Jewish thinkers who were skeptical of Zionism, such as Hannah Arendt and Martin Buber, or of contemporary Palestinians. […] My fear is, if we similarly enshrine this definition into law, outside groups will try and suppress — rather than answer — political speech they don’t like. The academy, Jewish students, and faculty teaching about Jewish issues, will all suffer." Testimony of Kenneth Stern, original author of the text adopted for the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism, given before the United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary Hearing on Examining Anti-Semitism on College Campuses, November 7, 2017 3) Independent Jewish Voices Canada: How Not to Fight Antisemitism. A Critique of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition of Antisemitism. 4) Antony Lerman: Labour should ditch the IHRA Working Definition Altogether. Open Democracy. 5) Newsweek 15 June 2010. 6) See 2 above.