Translate the following paragraphs into Chinese
An end to Labour's antisemitism controversy seems as far
away as ever
Keith Kahn-Harris
Keir Starmer’s unexpected decision to suspend Jeremy Corbyn from the Labour
party was in stark contrast to the cool and measured tone of the long-awaited
Equality and Human Rights Commission report into antisemitism in Labour, which
carefully avoided the attribution of personal responsibility. One of the
defining features of the Labour antisemitism controversy has been the intense
passions it generates. Amid this maelstrom, the EHRC intervened with the
technical language of law and institutional process. Starmer has responded with
a disciplinary action that will, at least in the short run, inflame this bitter
dispute.
Nevertheless, that coolness of tone does not take away from the force of the
report. The fact that a party that regards anti-racism as central to its
self-definition – particularly during the Corbyn years – has been investigated
for racism is shocking in and of itself. It is devastating that the Labour party
was found to have breached the Equality Act – both through harassment committed
by its “agents” and “indirect discrimination”, in the form of political
interference in complaints procedures, unclear and chaotic institutional
responses and inadequate training.
Even before Starmer’s move to suspend Corbyn, it was already obvious that the
EHRC findings were not going to be the last word on this subject. Those who
defend the legacy of the Corbyn years will seize upon the lack of direct
condemnation of Corbyn himself, and the fact that only two individuals (one of
them Ken Livingstone, who left the party under threat of expulsion) are directly
accused of unlawful harassment. That means that defenders of Corbyn can argue
that Starmer’s decision was an overreaction.
Conversely, among those who opposed Corbyn, the finding that the party has acted
unlawfully is likely to be mischaracterised by some as a top-to-bottom
condemnation. There will be others who are disappointed that the party was not
found to be “institutionally racist” – and that there was no demand for action
against Corbyn.
The scope of the EHRC’s investigation was, in fact, tightly constrained, as are
the remedies it has the power to enforce. And it is this restraint that will be
manipulated and selectively interpreted in the firestorm of responses to the
report. Even if the party complies with the EHRC’s requirements in the fullest,
speediest and most exemplary manner the report will nevertheless feed into and
exacerbate pre-existing conflicts within the party, the British Jewish
population and the wider public.
Over the past few months, there has been a dramatic change in the dominant
narrative of those who were supporters of Corbyn’s leadership. The ones who deny
that antisemitism was anything other than a trivial issue at best, and defend
expelled Labour figures such as Chris Williamson, have become increasingly
marginalised. Instead, following the leaking of an internal Labour report in
April this year, which seemed to show that attempts to act against antisemitism
in the first few years of Corbyn’s leadership were stymied by anti-Corbyn forces
in the party machinery, there has been less denial from Corbyn backers that
antisemitism was ever a problem. Rather, the argument is now: a) antisemitism
was a problem, b) the problem was an inevitable side-effect of the rapid influx
of a massive number of new members into the party (a small proportion of which,
it is argued, will inevitably be antisemitic given that a small proportion of
people as a whole are antisemitic), and c) having inherited a disciplinary
system that was not fit for purpose, the party under Corbyn was making progress
in addressing the problem and could have done so faster if its efforts hadn’t
been subverted by enemies of the leadership.
That narrative will survive the EHRC report. Corbyn’s statement today pointed
out the inadequacies of the system he had inherited and did not concede that his
leadership might have been attractive to some antisemites. Others will go
further: the EHRC itself will be criticised for its partiality and its explicit
refusal to adjudicate on the validity or otherwise of the leaked Labour internal
report, while drawing on some of its findings in a limited way. Still others
will use the EHRC report to argue that the problem was simply one of management
rather than anything fundamental to the culture of Labour under Corbyn. There
will also be attempts to draw attention to antisemitism and racism in other
political parties and accusations that the attention paid to antisemitism in
Labour has led to other racisms being neglected.
A more significant political development in the past few months has been
increasing tensions among those who have been at the forefront of accusations of
antisemitism against the party – principally formal community bodies such as the
Jewish Labour Movement on the one hand, and independent campaigning bodies such
as Labour Against Antisemitism and the Campaign Against Antisemitism (the latter
being one of the principle movers behind the EHRC complaint). The JLM has faced
significant criticism from antisemitism campaigners on Twitter: Labour’s Jewish
affiliate is accused of being compromised for not leaving the party entirely
during the Corbyn years, and for not taking an aggressive enough stance against
antisemitism then and now.
This fissure already looked likely to deepen over the question of Labour’s
response to the report. Some campaigners wanted Corbyn thrown out of the party,
alongside a wholesale purge of anyone associated with him. JLM and other
mainstream Jewish groups that have developed a productive relationship with
Starmer and wish to move forward positively were likely to come under increasing
attack from those demanding more a confrontational approach. Now that Starmer
has gone beyond what JLM asked for, those other campaigners may well claim
credit for pushing him where JLM failed.
So the publication of the EHRC report is not the end of this sorry period in the
history of the Labour party. By their very nature, legal and institutionally
focused documents of this kind cannot resolve political arguments over divisive
phenomena such as antisemitism.
Antisemitism can sometimes be fought, marginalised and even suppressed through
legal means. Individuals can be suspended and expelled. But it cannot be
understood through legalistic and institutional research alone. Rather, this
requires attention to deeper patterns in the culture. Sociologically, abuse of
minority groups cannot always be traced back to explicit ideologies: it may be
woven into the everyday realities of how people treat each other, or into the
unspoken assumptions in an organisation about what counts as “normal” behaviour.
One of the dangers of the EHRC report is that it will divert attention away from
these entrenched problems. It is quite clear that the Labour party has issues
with other forms of racism and discrimination – as well as a wider problem with
bullying and abuse that did not start with Corbyn’s election to the leadership
in 2015. An effective disciplinary process isn’t a substitute for ensuring that
disciplinary action isn’t needed in the first place.
So even if the Labour party under Starmer develops an exemplary disciplinary
process, this is just the start of the work that needs to be done. Culture
change is an incredibly difficult project for any organisation, but it is long
overdue. Labour needs to become a party where ideological disputes are no longer
prosecuted without restraint and where abuse is no longer a normative way of
responding to differences of opinion.
My fear is that the task will be ignored and marginalised in the months ahead
amid the reverberations of Starmer’s decision to suspend Corbyn. Whether or not
it was justified – and, at the very least, Corbyn was the man leading the party
when the events condemned by the EHRC took place – it is likely that wider
consideration of antisemitism and abuse will be obstructed by endless trench
warfare among those who wish to relitigate the past forever.
The best way to prevent that happening is to do what the EHRC report could not
do – highlight the voices and experiences of those who have been hurt by
antisemitism in Labour. Ultimately, behind the dense legal material there is a
human story – a story of people who have been threatened and harassed inside a
party outwardly dedicated to ensuring that no one should have such experiences.
• Keith Kahn-Harris is a sociologist and author of Strange Hate: Antisemitism,
Racism and the Limits of Diversity
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/29/labour-antisemitism-controversy-ehrc-starmer-jeremy-corbyn