Your appeal is hereby concluded…
An anti-democratic culture seems to pervade some of Labour’s traditional institutions and its official structures. Numerous stories of suspended members, officials and even whole Constituency Labour Parties bear witness to this parlous situation.
Here we report on a bizarre instance from the Cooperative Party – a close member of the labour movement family, the only other political party you can be a member of as well as of the Labour Party itself.
In brief
Shortly after being suspended from the Labour Party in December (that saga is still ongoing), JVL’s Media Officer Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi was informed that the Cooperative Party was refusing to accept her as a member because of an interview she had done with NovaraMedia.
In an attempt to deploy rational arguments to explain why her comments were not in breach of Coop Party rules as alleged, she submitted the appeal below to its General Secretary Joe Fortune. Membership Manager Shane Brogan has now replied:
“Having reviewed the case and your submission, the Disputes Committee ruled that the General Secretary’s decision was correct… Your appeal is hereby concluded and the decision to decline your membership application has been upheld.”
No reasons were given, no indication what persuasive arguments were put before the committee, no response to her request that someone – anyone! – might have the common human decency and politeness to explain their reasoning.
Wimborne-Idrissi invites readers, making allowances for the clunky transcript presented as evidence of her wrongdoing, “If anyone can see anything in the words complained of to justify this state of affairs, please do let me know. I am always keen to learn from my mistakes.”
The story
Dear Joe Fortune,
I wish to appeal your decision to exclude me from membership of the Cooperative Party based on your judgement that comments I made in an interview with Michael Walker of Novara Media in December are in breach of the Co-operative Party’s Policy on Anti-Semitism and Rule 16 which states:
“No member of the Party shall engage in a course of conduct prejudicial, or in any act grossly detrimental, to the Party.
“Such conduct shall also be deemed to include harassment, abuse or discrimination against groups and/or individuals based on age, disability, gender reassignment, marital or civil partnership status, race, pregnancy and maternity, religion or belief, sex or sexual orientation.
“Such an action may render them ineligible to be or to remain a member of the Co-operative Party. Any dispute as to whether a member or applicant is or has been in breach of this provision shall be determined by the NEC.”
I contest the suggestion that any of the statements cited are in breach of the above rules. I am 68 years old, a lifelong trade unionist, socialist, internationalist and campaigner for equality, justice and human rights. I am the granddaughter of four Jewish immigrants to England from the persecuted shtetls of Poland, Russia, Germany and Ukraine. I am insulted by the suggestion that my words or conduct could be prejudicial or grossly detrimental to the Cooperative Party; or involve harassment, abuse or discrimination against any group or individual. I am happy to discuss the evidence on which you have based your judgement in each case. I set out my view below.
- “It’s either fast-tracked to expulsion, which is possible under the current system, the one that has been heavily criticised by the EHRC. The only good thing it said, actually, was a realisation that the system is completely unfair and unjust and lacking in natural justice. It could be fast-tracked to expulsion or it could be a long drawn out suspension because while we are suspended we can play no role in the party.” …
This is a comment on the likely handling of dozens of recent suspensions from Labour Party membership, including my own. I noted in the interview that the current Labour Party disciplinary system faces heavy criticism in the EHRC report released on October 29, 2020. This was a published report, available for anyone to read and comment upon. I have read the report in some detail and my considered view is that it is an unimpressive piece of work which is however correct in highlighting the unfairness of the party’s complaints procedures.
In discussing whether I and others are likely to face speedy or long drawn out processes, I am curious as to how this can be construed as prejudicial or grossly detrimental to the Cooperative Party; or to involve harassment, abuse or discrimination against any group or individual. I would be more than happy to discuss with you the evidence on which you based your judgement.
- “We [JVL] were only founded in 2017 by Jews who had joined the Party enthusiastically when Corbyn came in as Leader at the end of 2015. Because we could see how Jewish fears and concerns, genuine, honestly held fears and concerns, were being cynically manipulated.”
This is a statement acknowledging that Jewish people have considerable fears and concerns based on centuries of persecution. It also points to the fact that such fears and concerns have been, in my view, manipulated for political ends.
You may disagree with that judgement, which I share with a great many others, Jewish and otherwise, inside the Labour Party and in wider society. But once again, there is no justification for concluding that the statement is in any way prejudicial or grossly detrimental to the Cooperative Party; or that it involves harassment, abuse or discrimination against any group or individual.
- “I mean really as a result of our experience of being perhaps the boldest defenders of Jeremy and his allies for the last couple of years, we could see straight away this was not about anti-Semitism and I think what’s happened most recently with the ratcheting up of the silencing this is no longer about, there’s no pretence really, that it’s about dealing with anti-Semitism because what we’re doing is we’re silencing critics of the Leadership over a whole range of issues.”
In this statement I am commenting on the fact that we are now faced in the Labour Party with the banning by the general secretary of discussion of a whole range of political subjects. This has been quite explicit. He has listed them, producing increasingly detailed lists of subjects embarrassing to the party leadership which are removed from agendas, silencing large numbers of party members from voicing their unhappiness with the leadership. In my interview I express my view that “dealing with antisemitism” is being used as a pretext for silencing the party membership. As a Jewish member who is herself a victim of the silencing, I believe I am well qualified to comment. The treatment of Jews who share my political perspective, far from tackling antisemitism, feels to me like itself a form of antisemitism. I have every justification for saying that the attacks on Jeremy Corbyn and the silencing of his supporters are not about antisemitism.
You may disagree with that view, but – as in points 1 & 2 above – I have seen no evidence that it is in any way prejudicial or grossly detrimental to the Cooperative Party; nor does it involve harassment, abuse or discrimination against any group or individual.
- … “The silencing we’ve seen it happening, we knew what was going on, we tried to alert people to it, but the sensitivities about the way the anti-Semitism issue was constantly wheeled out as a justification for not hearing certain people. It’s become like you know the character in Harry Potter, he who shall not be named, Voldemort, sorry I said it. There are people like Jackie Walker, like Chris Williamson, like Marc Wadsworth, a whole number of others who have been consigned to outer darkness with the shadow of antiSemitism hanging over them, although they are not anti-Semites and have done nothing that justifies that claim in our view.
This is a factual statement regarding the elimination of a number of individuals from the record of recent Labour Party history in a manner reminiscent of the airbrushing of dissidents from Stalin era Soviet photographs. The people I mention have been appallingly maligned, the evidence against them concocted, lies about them repeated many times by journalists and other commentators making no effort to corroborate the allegations. I know these people and I know the facts. In the interests of truth and justice, I would be more than happy to share the information, which is available to anyone who takes the trouble to investigate. In Jackie Walker’s case, for example, she is a Black Jewish anti-racist socialist whose story has been told in a film which is free to view online.
As with the other statements you have cited, I do not accept that anything here can be interpreted as prejudicial or grossly detrimental to the Cooperative Party; nor does it involve harassment, abuse or discrimination against any group or individual.
- “This is now used a means of silencing a whole swathe of the political left and that pretext that making Jews feel uncomfortable, for which we must read making a section of Jews with a particular political agenda uncomfortable, is now a reason for giving up the right to the freedom of speech and democracy in the Labour Party.”
This statement refers almost verbatim to directives issued by the general secretary of the Labour Party, David Evans, in which he said on December 3:
I am aware that other motions (including expressions of solidarity, and matters relating to the internal processes of the PLP) are providing a flashpoint for the expression of views that undermine the Labour Party’s ability to provide a safe and welcoming space for all members, in particular our Jewish members. Therefore, all motions which touch on these issues will also be ruled out of order.
And then on December 9:
our responsibility to double down on anything that may cause members to continue to feel unwelcome and unsafe must take precedence over our rights at this time.
With these directives Evans has stated clearly that the presumed sensitivities of some Jewish people override the rights of all other party member. No consideration is given to making the party a safe and welcoming space for me and hundreds of others like me whose sensitivities are entirely disregarded.
I regard this as a dangerous position to take which stereotypes Jewish party members, using them as a justification for depriving other members of their rights. Saying so is not in any way prejudicial or grossly detrimental to the Cooperative Party; nor does it involve harassment, abuse or discrimination against any group or individual.
- … “I don’t know what you think but when Angela Rayner said that she will suspend thousands and thousands if necessary – what do you think is meant by that necessary? Necessary for what? And it is not necessary for dealing with genuine anti-Semitism to expel thousands of members of this political party. That is clearly absurd.”
In this statement I am questioning an utterance by the deputy leader of the Labour Party suggesting that there should be mass expulsions from the party. I am speculating on the reason for making such an extraordinary assertion, and expressing my view that expelling thousands of members could not possibly be necessary for the purpose of dealing with antisemitism. I believe it is absurd to suggest that “thousands and thousands” of Labour Party members are such died-in-the-wool antisemites that they deserve to be expelled en masse. I am expressing a perfectly reasonable point of view that most reasonable people would find quite moderate and acceptable.
I do not believe there are any grounds for suggesting that my statement is in any way prejudicial or grossly detrimental to the Cooperative Party; nor does it involve harassment, abuse or discrimination against any group or individual.
- “Is it necessary to appease the Board of Deputies of British Jews, well the Board of Deputies of British Jews may well be pleased with what is going on, but I don’t think they are the people that the current leadership of the Party are trying to please. I think they are trying to please those who do not wish to see socialism high on the political agenda in Britain and I think that was always the agenda.”
In this statement I ask the question why Angela Rayner thinks it might be necessary to expel thousands of Labour Party members. I say that the Board of Deputies of British Jews cannot be blamed for her making such a statement. Even though the BoD may be pleased about it, I do not think it is primarily the BoD who the party leadership is trying to satisfy. I am doing the opposite of blaming Jewish organisations for the attacks on socialists in the Labour Party. I am explaining that the main reason for the attacks is in order to demonstrate that the party leadership is cracking down on socialists and is therefore no threat to the established order in society.
This is what I believe to be the case. You may disagree with me but there is nothing in this statement that is prejudicial or grossly detrimental to the Cooperative Party; nor does it involve harassment, abuse or discrimination against any group or individual.
That concludes my appeal which I trust will have set your mind at rest that nothing in any of my statements can be construed as breaching the Co-operative Party’s Policy on Anti-Semitism and Rule 16.
I look forward to taking up full membership of the Cooperative Party very soon.
Best wishes,
Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi
1 comment:
Disgusting ! Where I live, in the recent past, we have had Zionists call some of our Jewish comrades ; " Self Hating Jews ". ???
My reply to that always was, : " I imagine during the 1930's the Nazis had similar insults against anti Fascist Germans, like maybe " self hating Germans ?
Post a Comment