Educational event about antisemitism stopped

An educative event which was being organised by Lewes CLP, about challenging antisemitism, has been banned by order of the Labour Party’s South East Regional Office. Mark Perryman, a member of Lewes branch (though not the organiser of the event) spoke to us in a personal capacity to explain what has been going on. 

The EHRC report was published and Jeremy Corbyn was almost immediately suspended. We had a branch meeting to discuss this. We weren’t of a mood to challenge David Evans or Keir Starmer or our Region on Jeremy’s suspension: hardly anyone could see the point of that, all that would result in is the CLP being closed down. But we wanted to state clearly that we didn’t believe that bureaucratic suspensions were the answer. Most importantly, we felt that we needed, as a branch to make clear that, in the words of the motion I put “our opposition to anti-semitism is unconditional”. As I said moving the motion: if a Muslim woman outside a supermarket in Lewes was being abused, we wouldn’t ask her position on feminism. We’d oppose the abuse.

I lived for some years in Stamford Hill, where there is a large Jewish community. If I saw a Hasidic Jew being abused in antisemitic terms, as happened quite regularly, I wouldn’t ask his or her position on Israel. I would oppose the abuse. That’s not to say that I’m not in favour of Palestinian self-detrmination. I absolutely am. But that’s not the issue there.

The problem is that the Labour Party as a broad church is not capable of giving political education – whose ideas would the substance of that education? One year Jeremy Corbyn’s, the next Keir Starmer’s? So we decided to provide what I called an educative space. People would bring their views to that space for a discussion. We were aware that people might come with antisemitic views, and we’d challenge them. So that was the idea.

Very interesting people were involved in leading on this project, Gaby Weiner, who has written a book, Tales of Loving and Leaving, about her family’s history of persecution at the hands of antisemites in central Europe; and Palo Almond, one of the few BAME officers in the entire South East Region of the Labour Party, an experienced educationalist. These two people collaborated on this, devising a programme on the history of antisemitism. This was regarded as uncontroversial in the CLP. There is a variety of views in the CLP, we nominated Keir and Angela in yhe leadership elections. Our CLP is not a part of the hard left but it sees itself as providing a space for ideas. Since 2018, we have been organising big “ideas events” which draw crowds of hundreds. We have a national reputation for this. 

Our antisemitism event was announced along with the names of the session leaders in an email to members. And then a day before the event was due to take place, another email had to be sent quoting South East Region’s directive 48 hours ahead of the session, saying that we were banned from having this educative event. So imagine you’re a member, not very involved in the ins and outs of the branch, and you get an email saying that there’s going to be a series of educative events on antisemitism, then the day before you get an email saying that they’re not allowed to take place. The clear inference of this is that the two named indivduals involved are not capable of giving education about antisemitism, or even are suspected of antisemitism! So we are up in arms about this. Again, we didn’t see the point in defying this directive, we don’t want to get suspended, but we are making every effort to contest this directive.

So now we’re stuck. We are told we can’t have a discussion about antisemitism and one is needed. We have a members-only Facebook Page, and the moderators had to remove some comments because they were antisemitic. These were what I’d call simple-minded conspiracy thinking. ‘The media is run by billionaires, lots of billionaires are Jewish’. That kind of thing. Or I’ve opened a discussion, and twice I found myself replying to people criticising Israel – criticisms I agree with – but they were using the word “Jew” where they should have used the word “Israeli”. That’s the kind of ideas that we’d want to address with an event like this.

There has been a response to David Evans’ office, we sent a considered explanation of our concerns, and a two-line answer has come back: a response essentially treating us as idiots. 

The EHRC report makes no mention at all of banning educative events amongst members. What it specifies is that there needs to be careful preparation for training staff. So people who are waving this report in our faces haven’t even read it!

Trans Exclusionary Moderate Labourism

By Ruth Cashman & Kas Witana candidates for Momentum NCG

The government have leaked plans to drop changes to the Gender Recognition Act to The Sunday Times. Changes drawn up under Theresa May’s government would have streamlined the legal process of changing a birth certificate by removing some barriers like medical diagnosis and lengthy and intrusive evidence procedure. Consultation on the updated Gender Recognition Act (GRA) closed in 2018 but the government has since dragged its feet on implementing it following a spectacular and well-organised backlash from opponents.

Labour seem to be doing their best to avoid taking a position on the issue, raising concern that previous support for changes to the GRA have been dropped. Labour’s shadow home secretary Nick Thomas-Symonds criticism of the government was to say it was wrong to announce changes to an “extremely sensitive” policy area by leaking them to a newspaper.

This is a terrible failure in solidarity for our trans comrades. Not only should we campaign for changes to the GRA, but we must also go much further.  The labour movement should be looking to integrate fights against oppression and bigotry into the broader class struggle. We should support changes which make it easier, cheaper and less degrading to change our legal gender. Self-declaration helps trans people by removing some difficulties in social recognition of their identities, helping to counteract their marginalisation. We must challenge misinformation and scaremongering about single-sex spaces. It is austerity and chronic underfunding that endanger domestic violence services and refuges, not trans women. We must campaign for better provision of holistic gender identity services and trans healthcare, which are currently seriously underfunded and inaccessible. This should be provided in an NHS in public ownership, with adequate funding and under democratic control.

Unions, the Labour Party and the labour movement must organise to tackle transphobia, sexism and harassment at work and in wider society. We have signed the Labour Campaign for Trans Rights pledges as an act of solidarity and recognition that trans people in the party and in the wider labour movement are facing a sustained period of abuse and opposition to their rights and dignities. However we have serious reservations about pledges 8 and 10. We feel that these run contrary to democratic norms and in fact do very little in terms of challenging and overcoming transphobia that does exist within our movement. The problem of transphobia in the party is not overcome by expelling X transphobes but by a serious political intervention & equipping activists with the tools to educate those around them and change people’s minds on this issue.

Labour Left Porkies – Momentum needs to get its story straight on policing

By Ruth Cashman, candidate for Momentum NCG

The murder of George Floyd has sparked a global movement against police brutality and racism. Floyd’s death is not even the most recent a long line of police killings of black people in the USA. African Americans have suffered 30 police shootings per million since the start of 2015, compared to 22 per million for Hispanics and 12 per million for whites. The movement, which builds on years of Black Lives Matters organising in the US is raising politics that seemed unimaginable until recently. A majority of Minneapolis City Council has pledged to dismantle the local police department, to be replaced by “new model of public safety”. We don’t yet know what this will mean. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio had already said he would divert money from the city’s police department to social services.

Momentum rightly reacted to the global protests with support. They released a video “Spot The Difference” outlining racism in the British criminal justice system and that racist policing is not an exclusively American problem. Nothing in their reaction has acknowledged the failures of the Labour left on policing since 2017. Under the left’s leadership Labour adopted a generally “pro-police” line, including campaigning vocally to increase police numbers.

In 2017 Labour’s manifesto promised 10,000 more police officers and 500 more border guards. In 2019 the party promised to top the Tories’ police recruitment by 2,000.

In the intervening two years more police was a major campaigning demand for Labour; sometimes it seemed like its only campaigning demand. In 2019 there was a day of action against police cuts. Many left-wing policies included in the 2019 manifesto were never even mentioned before then, let alone campaigned for.

Tellingly, for instance, the party never demanded the restoration of all the funding councils have lost since 2010 until it appeared in the 2019 manifesto. More police – but not reversing the council cuts which have devastated our communities!

Under left-wing shadow Justice Secretary Richard Burgon, Labour rightly criticised prison privatisation but said nothing about the crucial issue of reducing the prison population, let alone anything more radical (it was just about hinted at the in the 2019 manifesto). Nor did it discuss ending the disastrous reality of most drugs being criminalised.

At the 2019 London Labour conference, a delegate from Haringey, a young, BME, migrant woman, spoke against a “more police” motion and was heckled repeatedly – though she gave as good as she got and, despite losing heavily, made the case effectively.

In the face of a pro-police stance from our left-wing leadership, much of the left went quiet. Some endorsed the “more police” line: most notably Momentum, who repeated promoted the demand and produced a video bracketing the police with firefighters and health workers and describing them as “heroes”. In 2017 Momentum promoted the Tory Police Cuts Calculator criticising Tories for defunding the police. In 2019 Momentum released the “You Are A Socialist” video, giving the police force as an example of socialism in action!

There is nothing wrong with changing your mind or an organisation changing its position. Hopefully the current movement will educate people on the role of state apparatus like the police in repression of working class struggle and oppression of minorities. But Momentum must be honest about its position and why has it changed. Are we the Momentum that supports the defund the police movement or the Momentum that calls for more cops on the street? Labour and Momentum activists cannot take part in and cheer on anti-police demonstrations without fighting for our party to adopt an adequate stance on crime and policing.

This is doubly important because under Keir Starmer the party seems likely to adopt even more regressive positions. His record as Director of Public Prosecutions was not good; and he has already criticised protesters for their disposal of the statue of slave trader Edward Colston.

There will be different views on the left about how comprehensively we want to see the police force as it exists transformed and/or abolished or replaced. But central to the debate needs to be the idea, at the moment largely absent from the official labour movement, that the police as they exist are fundamentally one of the problems confronting working-class people (particularly black, brown and migrant working-class people), not part of the solution.

The labour movement needs to drop the “more police” line, advocate serious measures to rein in police repression, violence and bigotry, and argue to radically transform society to at the very least radically reduce their role. Socialists in the labour movement must urgently engage with the anti-police movement now burgeoning to launch a serious debate about the demands we need.

Get in touch: info@momentuminternationalists.org