This Once Great Movement Of Ours

[GALeftist]

This seems like a massive overreaction, though I'll admit I'm not an expert on antisemitism in the UK or the UK in general. With that being said, can someone explain to me why the EHRC has elected not to investigate Islamophobia within the Conservatives? It seems to me that that's objectively at least a large problem, if not larger than the antisemitism within Labour, and it seems that there's a vastly different standard being applied to the parties here.

[GALeftist]

To be perfectly clear, I do not think it is the influence of nefarious Jews in the UK. I think it is more likely the influence of nefarious Tories in the EHRC and/or nefarious Blairites in Labour. Once again, though, I'm not an expert on this by a long shot.

[GALeftist]

Actually, after reading the EHRC's thing, I take back what I said about nefarious Tories it was quite sensible. It seems that, as per usual, the fault lies with the Blairites. Very disappointed in Starmer, and it's hard for me to see how this doesn't badly fracture the party if the course isn't reversed.

[GALeftist]

To be perfectly clear, I do not think it is the influence of nefarious Jews in the UK. I think it is more likely the influence of nefarious Tories in the EHRC and/or nefarious Blairites in Labour. Once again, though, I'm not an expert on this by a long shot.

The EHCR are a neutral non-governmental organisation who are required to follow the law. They have to follow equality legislation & due process when making these decisions; if they hadn't then lawyers for the Labour Party, including when it was managed by Jeremy Corbyn would have challenged the decision. The Party has rightly never called into question the credibility of the EHRC & I don't think anybody on the left called it into question when they investigated the BNP in 2009.

I also realise this is a stupid hill to die on but this decision has nothing to do with Blairites in the Labour Party... as both this report & Labour's own internal report made clear anti-semitism was a major and real issue within the party including when it was not managed by the Blairites.

There is a specific incident mentioned about political interference that occured when there was not a single Blairite in any part of the top leadership of the party.

This seems like a massive overreaction, though I'll admit I'm not an expert on antisemitism in the UK or the UK in general. With that being said, can someone explain to me why the EHRC has elected not to investigate Islamophobia within the Conservatives? It seems to me that that's objectively at least a large problem, if not larger than the antisemitism within Labour, and it seems that there's a vastly different standard being applied to the parties here.

Because a statutatory investigation is basically the last weapon that they use when investigating allegations of these nature; the natural (and iirc normal course for similar events) is to work with organisations, to encourage them to change their practices & to monitor internal changes.

The chair of the EHRC is on record in 2017 saying that Labour needed to fix its processes for dealing with antisemitism yet it wasn't until 2019 that the formal investigation was launched because frankly the bottom was falling out.

This was also triggered by a legal submission; the EHCR are at their core a government body that is driven by the law & by legislation- the closest US example would be I guess a special prosectutor or Inspector General (but I might be wrong)

The EHRC said about an investigation into the Conservatives that...

We will be monitoring the review and requiring the party to provide regular updates on progress. If we are not satisfied with progress or how the investigation is conducted we will review our decision and do not rule out the use of our legal powers

Islamphobia is abhorrent, a major problem in the Tory Party & the 'acceptable form' of middle class racism (which anti-semitism was for a very long among the british middle classes, and still can be)

But I don't think it does anybody any favours to weigh it up as if it's some sort of race to the bottom.

It should be mentioned again & again that this was started because Jewish Labour Party members felt unsafe in their own party & felt it was a hostile body.

With respect to the EHRC, you are correct, I was wrong to imply that it was subject to that much political pressure; I should have researched more thoroughly before posting. Thanks for the information!

With respect to the "nefarious Blairites," that was in part an (admittedly poor) attempt at humor, so sorry about that. For the record, I do think that antisemitism is a problem within Labour, regardless of how much it was played up by the Tories; in the words of Corbyn, "one antisemite is one too many." Jewish people in Labour, and indeed anyone at all, should absolutely highlight any discrimination in the party. I also don't want to turn it into some sort of racism Olympics where one party or another gets a pass. I guess, then, my point is twofold:

1. Why are Labour and the Conservatives (and left vs right parties in general) held to such drastically different standards when it comes to discrimination? I think the issue here is basically two things. Firstly it's often sort of assumed that the Conservatives will be at least a little racist, where that same assumption is not made for Labour. This assumption, if it is as widespread as I suspect, is particularly galling to me for obvious reasons. Secondly, as you stated, I think in the West there's a general tolerance for Islamophobia which urgently needs to be stamped out. To your point about the EHRC's statement, it seems that many Muslims still express reservations about that internal investigation; Harun Khan, the secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, called it "a facade to hide the hundreds of incidences of Islamophobic bigotry we have identified in its ranks." I'm not 100% sure Khan is correct here (though I'll admit that I distrust the party of Boris Johnson on this immensely), but it reflects the general attitude that Islamophobia appears to be of secondary concern to these bodies and the public in general.

2. Why was Corbyn suspended? This seems dumb to be both from an electoral and moral perspective. Electorally, Corbyn has a sizeable base, and I guarantee that such a public scorning of him is certain to alienate that base. Morally, this is a horrible way to close the book on bigotry within the party. Labour, like any organization, will need to continue grappling with these issues for the foreseeable future; one needs look no farther than Rosie Duffield to see evidence of this. This move sends the exact wrong message, which is that purging Corbyn and people like him will heal the party moving forward, negating any continuing responsibility or vigilance Labour needs to have. This is obviously unprovable, but I would be shocked if ideological concerns from Labour's centrist wing did not at least inform Corbyn's suspension.

EDIT: I also forgot to mention that, from what I was able to read of the report, it doesn't even seem like Corbyn himself was personally culpable, so it also seems that his suspension was unwarranted from that perspective.

[GALeftist]

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/labour-suspends-senior-jvl-official-after-deeply-unpleasant-meeting-1.509331

Looks like Labour suspended a senior Jewish Voice for Labour official, although it's unclear to me what the rationale is. Surely they realize that disciplining a Jewish person for antisemitism is not great optics, right?

[GALeftist]

So it seems like I've seen a lot of news about Labour attempting to triangulate on a variety of issues, most recently with its refusal to support self-ID for trans people but also with the two-child cap, Starmer attempting to get Khan to back off on ULEZ, etc. However, being American, I'm sure that my news is likely to skew more left-leaning and more outrage-filled. I wanted to ask those more knowledgeable than my ITT 1. is my perception warranted and 2. if so, why Labour is moving so far to the right when it's so far ahead anyway? It seems to me that, if there is a time for triangulation, the time for it would be in the face of a close election and certainly not when you're likely to win in a blowout.

[GALeftist]

Oh f-ck off

https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1684134885458608130

This is beyond the pale. All but a straight up transphobic dogwhistle. At this point, unless my MP was one of the 11 Labour MPs who voted against the usage of Section 35 or had otherwise taken a strong and unambiguous stance in favor of trans rights, I would be leaning towards voting LibDem (or SNP/Plaid Cymru/whatever). I understand that the Tories are running the country into the ground and it's important to get them out, but at some point you have to draw a line and say that a firm stance against bigotry is not negotiable. Very sorry today for all British trans people; I am thinking of you all.

[GALeftist]

No, he's just clumsily responding to a gotcha question that he hates being asked with a tautology. I can guarantee that there isn't a single subject that he would less like to talk about by this point.

The adoption of 'adult human female' as a form of wording is absolutely a internalisation of GC categorisation though.

Not just that – "adult human female" was originated and popularized by Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, aka Posie Parker, who advocates for a world in which gender transition is completely abolished and whose events are so famously rife with self-avowed Nazis (who she proudly allies with!) that she is effectively a far-right provocateur herself. I don't know if Starmer knew this context at the time, but he sure does now. With any other group, parroting a dogwhistle like this would be, at best, grounds for an immediate and lengthy apology.

EDIT: FWIW, I think this is also true of Albanese – I am disappointed that he gave the response that he did and further disappointed that he did not denounce the individual who popularized his language.

[GALeftist]

https://twitter.com/ChuckGrassley/status/1697693257621442620

Man.