Corbyn Suspended - A Labour Civil War?

 

Boris and his cronies must be laughing like monkeys on nitrous oxide. Yesterday, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) published its long-awaited report, which found that the Labour Party had, in "multiple areas", failed to halt and counter the spread of anti-Semitism in its ranks. Legally speaking;

"... the EHRC found Labour responsible for three breaches of the Equality Act: political interference in anti-Semitism complaints, failure to provide adequate training to those handling anti-Semitism complaints and harassment, including the use of anti-Semitic tropes and suggesting that complaints of anti-Semitism were fake or smears."

The EHRC found examples of political interference, inadequate training for full time party workers in dealing with anti-Semitism and two verified cases of harassment.

Labour has been served with an unlawful act notice, which requires the party to implement the EHRC's recommendations by 10 December or face legal action. Well might Keir Starmer describe yesterday as a black day for the Labour Party. 

The publication of the report didn't exactly make Jeremy Corbyn's day either, as the whole anti-Semitism controversy began on his watch. The report was published at 10..00am yesterday; at 10.30am, Jeremy was saying that the scale of the problem had been exaggerated. 30 minutes later, Keir Starmer said: 

"... those who believed the issue of anti-Semitism in the party had been "exaggerated" or were a "factional attack" were also "part of the problem and... should be nowhere near the Labour Party."

Starmer now says that he had previously cautioned Corbyn against such denials, but that did not stop Jezza. He repeated his dismissal on TV and, accordingly, was suspended.

All this is in the public domain, but what interests me is the way battle lines are being drawn between Corbynistas and Party loyalists. Already, social media is awash with pro-Corbyn soundbites, including posts from Corbyn himself. I have heard Corbynistas being likened to people who carry on supporting the manager of their football team, even when they have lost every game and been relegated to a lower division. Thanks to James O'Brien on LBC for that gem. They remind me of cultists who continue to follow the leader of their cult, even when that leader is exposed as a charlatan.

This not to say that Corbyn is a charlatan; he is nothing of the kind. He has been a Labour Party member for over 50 years and a dedicated anti-racist. As Labour leader, however, he made serious tactical and strategic errors. He made support for the Palestinian cause part of Labour Party policy, which alienated many Jewish voters (and those of us who thought it irrelevant to British domestic politics). He dithered his way through the Brexit debate - er...what did he stand for? During Labour's anti-Semitism trauma, he made no attempt to bridge the gap with the Jewish community, preferring to let his followers smear the Jewish community leaders in as many ways as possible. He accepted no responsibility for Labour's defeat in the last election, preferring to put the blame on the press, the Labour right-wing, the Zionist Conspiracy and Lord knows who else - anyone but himself.

It needs to be said, that had Corbyn not made that offending TV broadcast, he would not have been suspended. If he does not accept the EHRC findings, then he should challenge it within party rules and not go against his party leader's wishes. Nothing is achieved by his playing the martyr.

Back to the Corbynistas - they will now vilify anyone who, as they see it, opposes them:

"Either you're for us or you're against us." (That's a quote from a Dirty Harry film).

There will be ad hominem attacks on the EHRC members. I predict that, even as I type, someone like George Galloway will be scrutinising them for links with Israel. Keir Starmer will have an inbox full of abusive emails and social media will be ringing with denunciations of Jeremy's critics and lauding him as the Lost Leader - not the leader who lost. They might even get round to accusing me of being part of a Zionist conspiracy, despite the fact that I have never worked for Mossad. If it can proven that I did, then I will ask for back pay.

What worries me, and I'm sure worries many Labour activists, is that this controversy is creating divisions among Labour supporters of all hues. Like I said, Boris and his monkeys must be chortling with glee at the spectacle of a former Leader of the Opposition being suspended. Whatever we think of Keir Starmer, he does recognise this, and realises that Labour needs to unite, if it is to survive as a credible electoral force.

As part of my small effort towards unity, I shall not be deleting Jeremy Corbyn from my Facebook feed, nor will I block his supporters. This matter can only be resolved by constructive dialogue. As Alphonse de Lamartine said:

"Civil wars leave nothing but tombs".

Rock on, Jezza!

Free Speech Defended: Saluting Samuel Paty

 

The brutal murder of French teacher, Samuel Paty, on October 16 came as a double blow: the loss of a fellow-teacher and an attack on free speech itself. As it did when Leeds teacher Anne Maguire was killed by a pupil in 2014, my heart, and that of many others, went out to this man's family - a man slain simply for doing his job. It also called into question the vexed issue of free speech. Now, this blog is intended as a free speech forum, but people of the far right would gleefully point out that views of theirs are not welcome. Indeed they are not, but this points to a misconception that many ignoramuses have, usually expressed thus: 

"If it's all right to have free speech, then why can't we speak out against immigration, multiculturalism and the Jews?".

 If they have sufficient intelligence, they quote the master of Liberal theory, John Stuart Mill, seen above. Mill said: in "On Liberty":

“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”

Mill did say that, but a careful reading of "On Liberty" would show that he recognised that free speech has its limits, He admits that it would be wrong to make an inflammatory speech to an angry mob outside a corn-dealer's door. Hate speech directed towards ethnic or religious minorities or any such material which leads to violence or fraudulent vilification against an individual (i.e. slander or libel). would have been unacceptable to Mill (and is to most of us today).

Problems happen though, when freedom of speech impinges upon matters of religion. Many people of many faiths dislike seeing their faith mocked or unfairly (to them) criticised. In the UK, for instance, the Church of England has been a target for comedians ever since the "Beyond the Fringe" review of the early 60s. Jehovah's Witnesses receive much mild mockery from many commentators (including me) for their "prophecies" which never seem to happen. For the most part, the adherents of these faiths react with good humour, stoic silence, or serious debate. 

As we all know, this does not always happen. In the USA, some true Christian believers have carried out attacks on abortion clinics - even to the extent of murdering staff. There have been attacks by Muslim terrorists on cartoonists in Denmark, Holland and, in 2015, the Charlie Hebdo killings. The religious justification for these crimes by Jihadis is, as the BBC comments: 

"Depictions of the Prophet Muhammad can cause serious offence to Muslims because Islamic tradition explicitly forbids images of Muhammad and Allah (God)."

It's not widely known that it is only Sunni Muslims who abide strictly to this belief; Shia Muslims include images of the Prophet Muhammed in their murals.

These Islamist attacks do impact upon freedom of expression. I recall the comedian, Rory Bremner, saying some time back that jokes about Osama Bin laden might lead to comedians being shot. Intimidation by fear is worse than fear of censorship - but what becomes of us, in a free society, if we let ourselves be intimidated? This is not say that we should not be cautious elsewhere...

In 2007, Gill Gibbons, a teacher at Unity High School in Sudan was arrested for letting her class of 6-year olds call a teddy bear "Muhammad". Although there is evidence to show that her arrest was initiated by an aggrieved member of staff, and the fact that no parent had ever complained, she was thrown into a Khartoum jail for 8 days, during which she lived in fear of violence from guards and a 10,000-strong demonstration calling for her execution. To their credit, the Muslim Council of Britain condemned her arrest, and two Muslim peers flew out to plead for her release, which happened during their visit, after which she flew back to Britain.

Now, I happen to know Gill Gibbons, although I have not seen her since the 1990s, when she was married to my Head teacher at a school in Liverpool. I can only repeat what I said at the time of her arrest in Sudan - that she is a dedicated, hard-working teacher who would never knowingly offend anyone. Upon her return to UK, she said: 

'I blame myself because I shouldn't have done it...Ignorance of the law is no defence.'

That is a gracious admission, considering the way Gill was treated - but her case points to the problems that can apply to expatriates in countries governed by a different belief system to their own. It should be noted, however, that Islamists of a similar ilk to the extremists who locked up Gill Gibbons make far more offensive statements in Western countries than naming a teddy bear. Gill's actions harmed no-one, and she was acting in ignorance. The same can not be said for the Charlie Hebdo terror gang or the 7/7 bombers.

To be fair, you can suffer penalties for free speech in secular countries as well. Offend Vladimir Putin and expect a one-way ticket out of Russia. On the other hand, if you'd offended Stalin, you'd have been lucky to get out alive.

Samuel Paty broke no law. As part of a class discussion, he showed his class the Charlie Hebdo cartoons but had given Muslim students the option of leaving the room. Apparently, all but one did. The one student remaining, a girl, stayed to be offended (what a choice!) and wrote about the lesson on social media, which inspired this dedicated teacher's murder and mutilation. 

Now, there will be repercussions following this attack, as might be expected. The BBC points out that it has already worsened divisions in France. Significantly: 

".State secularism - or laïcité - is central to France's national identity. It's as important as the concepts of "liberty, equality, fraternity" that make up its post-Revolutionary motto...Curbing freedom of expression to protect the feelings of one particular community, the state says, undermines the country's unity.
But there is evidence that a growing number of people in France are uncomfortable with this argument and want the boundaries around secularism and free speech to change."

This could herald a period of conflict on this issue in France, with Islamophobes and Jihadis - extremists on both sides of the debate - seeking to inflame the situation.

But this is not exclusively a French problem. Last year, Muslim parents at a school in Birmingham protested against lessons on LGBT issues. It raises the question: how far can we accommodate dissenting voices in society without letting ourselves being intimidated and diminishing freedom of speech? If there are limits to be set on freedom of expression, at what point do we restrict those limits?

Whatever our answers, they come too late for Samuel Paty. It can only be hoped that we can resolve this matter without any more violence or murders. To Samuel's family, friends and fellow citizens, we can only say:

"Nous vous prions d'accepter nos sincères condoléances".

Repose en Paix.