I never said anyone on the left defends the persecution of Roma or Tibetans. I said they don't talk about it as much.
And to be clear: I don't think this is a moral failing on anyone's part. I just think that the more Israel appears to be 'singled out' (deliberate scare quotes) for lobbying, the less successful such lobbying is likely to be.
But I think these things don't get talked about as much because they're not getting the same pushback. There is no "Labour Friends of China" attracting dozens of MPs as members. No programme by the Chinese government to bring young Labour activists to China to show them how wonderful everything is. No eager journalists waiting to leap on criticism of the Chinese state as evidence of anti-Chinese racism. Condemn China over actions in Hong Kong or Xinjaing as a Labour activist and you'll hear crickets (plus why would you waste breath on something even the government are taking action over?). Condemn Israeli actions in the West Bank and you'll find your words pulled apart until someone manages to find anti-semitism in it somewhere to try and get you hounded out of the party. The left shouted loudly about apartheid too, because those in power showed little interest in doing anything about it.
The left shouted loudly about apartheid too, because those in power showed little interest in doing anything about it.
ISTR similar criticisms were levelled at the time against activism directed at South Africa.
Wow. That reads *exactly* like the stuff I hear from Israel's strongest supporters.
It reads like what it is: Justification for colonialism.
The detail of the similarity was exquisite though - the "empty wilderness transformed" by the incoming group, the oppressed group "don't really originally come from there", the "much better off than in other countries where they rule themselves" - it's all there.
Incredible stuff, "vast unexplored territories", "the blacks had no written language, no technological knowledge, no cures for infectious diseases", "a strong emerging black middle class". Heaven on earth.
Dafyd: One does just occasionally still get people who think the Chinese government can either do no wrong or at least very much less wrong than is reported in the mainstream press
I must confess, Dafyd, to having the opposite impression: that whereas the Soviet Union was able to maintain a core of support in the West, contemporary China would seem bereft of such fellow travellers. Perhaps you had in mind the backers of western-based companies benefitting from disciplined and lower-pain workers in the Sino- socialist paradise. I note the absence in these columns of any accusation that anti-Chinese sentiment is just a racist re-run of the Yellow Peril.
I never said anyone on the left defends the persecution of Roma or Tibetans. I said they don't talk about it as much.
And to be clear: I don't think this is a moral failing on anyone's part. I just think that the more Israel appears to be 'singled out' (deliberate scare quotes) for lobbying, the less successful such lobbying is likely to be.
But I think these things don't get talked about as much because they're not getting the same pushback. There is no "Labour Friends of China" attracting dozens of MPs as members. No programme by the Chinese government to bring young Labour activists to China to show them how wonderful everything is. No eager journalists waiting to leap on criticism of the Chinese state as evidence of anti-Chinese racism. Condemn China over actions in Hong Kong or Xinjaing as a Labour activist and you'll hear crickets (plus why would you waste breath on something even the government are taking action over?). Condemn Israeli actions in the West Bank and you'll find your words pulled apart until someone manages to find anti-semitism in it somewhere to try and get you hounded out of the party. The left shouted loudly about apartheid too, because those in power showed little interest in doing anything about it.
My home town of Liverpool is twinned with Shanghai. We have a rather impressive Chinese arch, which was a gift of friendship from the Chinese government in 2000. A significant proportion of the new developments in Liverpool city centre are funded by Chinese investors. Liverpool University students can participate in a year-long exchange programme at Xi'an-Jaotong University, through the University Alliance of the Silk Road. Chinese soft power and lobbying seems much more significant than Israeli to me ...
'What's your point?' I hear you say. To reiterate: I don't think condemning one bad thing means one is automatically obligated to condemn every other bad thing in the universe; even if you (generic you) ignore bad things in China because you don't give a shit about Xinjiang or Hong Kong, that doesn't magically make your criticism of Israel invalid. My point is solely that I don't think it is factually true that Israel gets more criticism from the left because it is the most egregious example of inaction on the part of those in power.
My point is solely that I don't think it is factually true that Israel gets more criticism from the left because it is the most egregious example of inaction on the part of those in power.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by inaction. As Doc Tor mentioned on the previous page, criticism of China is common in the mainstream and comes from both sides of the political spectrum, and it's rare that criticism from the left will add something particularly unique.
Israel is going to attract the kind of criticism from the left that is going to be muted - at best - from the right, namely being judged by the standards of other allies that are liberal democracies. Similarly, left critique of American adventures abroad often focus around American claims to be spreading freedom.
Israel is going to attract the kind of criticism from the left that is going to be muted - at best - from the right, namely being judged by the standards of other allies that are liberal democracies.
I rather suspect that a fair judgement of Israel by the standards of "liberal democracies" and a fair judgement of Israel by the standards of its regional neighbours might come up with different answers. Which is part of the issue, really.
If my criticism of Middle Eastern governments is even-handed, how come it's only my criticism of Israel that attracts remarks?
In my neck of the woods, there's currently a bid for the next science fiction Worldcon to be held in Jeddah. Almost the entire UK sf author crowd are like WTAF, in a way that makes a bid from Cairo or Beriut seem entirely reasonable, let alone Tel Aviv.
Israel is going to attract the kind of criticism from the left that is going to be muted - at best - from the right, namely being judged by the standards of other allies that are liberal democracies.
I rather suspect that a fair judgement of Israel by the standards of "liberal democracies" and a fair judgement of Israel by the standards of its regional neighbours might come up with different answers. Which is part of the issue, really.
If the UK government were to defend its behaviour by 'we are better than those hereditary autocrats' then even some of its friends might think that it was standing on fairly weak ground.
My point is solely that I don't think it is factually true that Israel gets more criticism from the left because it is the most egregious example of inaction on the part of those in power.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by inaction. As Doc Tor mentioned on the previous page, criticism of China is common in the mainstream and comes from both sides of the political spectrum, and it's rare that criticism from the left will add something particularly unique.
I wouldn't really count criticism in itself as action. The UK has voted for UN resolutions condemning Israel, for example this one last year, but I'd tend to agree that unless any specific measures are going to be taken against Israel off the back of it, then this does not constitute action. But a fortiori sternly worded editorials in the Telegraph about how China is jolly rotten are not action either*.
Mr Johnson is indeed taking action against China, by banning Huawei and offering Hongkongers a route to citizenship, but this is a very new development. Ms May just dithered like on everything else, and it wasn't that long ago that Mr Cameron was recommending to Her Majesty that she should have Mr Xi round for dinner one day.
* Especially when the newspaper as a whole comes wrapped in a PRC propaganda sheet a presentation on modern China for the benefit of interested investors ...
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Bump. Jeremy Corbyn has just had the Whip removed.
I was very much reminded of this yesterday, when the US government spokesman castigated the Chinese government for imprisoning tens of thousands of Uighurs in labour camps while failing to mention *checks notes* his own government imprisoning tens of thousands of black men in labour camps.
So for you, is it about in-fighting in the Labour Party? If so, then with such going on is it possible that the electorate as a whole don't want to be governed by such a party until they sort out their squabbles?
It is completely clear that Starmer is trying to put the issue to bed, precisely so "Labour antisemitism" doesn't keep claiming headlines. It's the same reason that companies often buy off people who probably wouldn't win an unfair dismissal suit - it's cheaper, and better PR, for the issue just to go away.
You can also compare Starmer's action in firing Rebecca Long-Bailey for retweeting a Maxine Peake interview that contained a gratuitous anti-Israeli statement.
We could argue about how much of this was Starmer trying to purge the left vs how much was him visibly and firmly stomping on antisemitism, but it's completely obviously a political choice - on this, I agree with @Arethosemyfeet and @Doc Tor .
This.
I'm still none the wiser on what antisemitism in the Labour party.
While I suspect the current leadership may have a heavy finger on the trigger, the statements that ‘the scale of the problem was dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party’, and ‘I do not accept all of its findings’ in response to the EHRC’s report might have resulted in suspension for anyone.
While I suspect the current leadership may have a heavy finger on the trigger, the statements that ‘the scale of the problem was dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party’, and ‘I do not accept all of its findings’ in response to the EHRC’s report might have resulted in suspension for anyone.
Despite them being obviously true and entirely reasonable, respectively?
I was very much reminded of this yesterday, when the US government spokesman castigated the Chinese government for imprisoning tens of thousands of Uighurs in labour camps while failing to mention *checks notes* his own government imprisoning tens of thousands of black men in labour camps.
What labour camps?
Privately owned prison-factories staffed entirely by prisoners who don't get paid for their work.
Ironic that Blair smirks around the world, while Corbyn is out. I could have said I would resign in sympathy, but I got out years ago. Corbyn fought more against racism, than anyone I know. But I'm weary of Labour.
Bump. Jeremy Corbyn has just had the Whip removed.
With all due respect, shouldn't the bump news item have been the Equality and Human Rights Commission report itself, with its findings, rather than Jeremy Corbyn's having had the whip removed for disagreeing with it and them? It's the report that's the actual news.
Although it's more usually at the moment Conservatives who seem to be unable to recognise the maxim, 'don't try to defend the indefensible; it only makes you look even more foolish', Mr Corbyn has reminded the world that you don't have to be a Conservative to make yourself look foolish.
I was very much reminded of this yesterday, when the US government spokesman castigated the Chinese government for imprisoning tens of thousands of Uighurs in labour camps while failing to mention *checks notes* his own government imprisoning tens of thousands of black men in labour camps.
What labour camps?
Privately owned prison-factories staffed entirely by prisoners who don't get paid for their work.
Alas, so probably are many others - but what viable alternative is there to the Ghastly Gang currently forming the *government*?
Yes, I would still vote Labour, but they are becoming right wing again, so I don't want to go near them.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
The EHRC report is available online and is pretty damning.
I don’t think JC is an antisemtite in any way but his comments this morning crossed a line and contradicted the official view as expressed by his Party leader. That wasn’t clever.
If called on for a statement by the media all he needed to say was he was a looking at the report in detail and would respond in due course.
Corbyn has always said that the right wing used anti-Semitism to attack him, and a lot of Labour members believe him. I don't know why he would suddenly suppress that.
Corbyn has always said that the right wing used anti-Semitism to attack him, and a lot of Labour members believe him. I don't know why he would suddenly suppress that.
Yes, but he's not just saying that, though, is he? He's saying that either the EHRC are full of biased right-wingers themselves, or else too incompetent to notice that the complainants are lying to them for right-wing reasons.
Corbyn, unfortunately, though his heart is probably in the right place, is blindly loyal to his friends. His motto is 'my friend's enemy is my enemy'. And that is not always a wise attitude in a politician, and certainly not in a statesman.
In the past I would have considered myself a Labour Party voter.
Now?
Nope. Mind you, living in Scotland neatly avoids that dilemma for me.
Because as it stands, what is the opposition? And what state is it in?
Today’s interviews did not exactly restore my confidence in the Labour Party. To my ears it was akin to listening to a bunch of reception kids coming in after an argumentative and a windy playtime.
Corbyn has always said that the right wing used anti-Semitism to attack him, and a lot of Labour members believe him. I don't know why he would suddenly suppress that.
Yes, but he's not just saying that, though, is he? He's saying that either the EHRC are full of biased right-wingers themselves, or else too incompetent to notice that the complainants are lying to them for right-wing reasons.
People don't have to be lying for their concerns to be exaggerated or unfounded. People can genuinely feel scared and intimidated because they've been told the threat is far larger than it actually is. People can believe things because (for example) they assume that anyone pro-Palestinian must be anti-semitic. Anti-semitism is also sufficiently insidious that if you know too many anti-semitic dog-whistles it's possible to start seeing it everywhere.
Corbyn has always said that the right wing used anti-Semitism to attack him, and a lot of Labour members believe him. I don't know why he would suddenly suppress that.
Yes, but he's not just saying that, though, is he? He's saying that either the EHRC are full of biased right-wingers themselves, or else too incompetent to notice that the complainants are lying to them for right-wing reasons.
Do you mean that he's implying that? I haven't seen him assert it. I wonder how many cases of anti-semitism are at issue here? One oddity is that with Livingstone, the leadership wanted a more severe punishment, I suppose this counts as interference.
I don’t think JC is an antisemtite in any way but his comments this morning crossed a line and contradicted the official view as expressed by his Party leader. That wasn’t clever.
And his suspension - ironically - would fall foul of the principles laid out in the report, specifically that of "Political interference in the handling of antisemitism complaints", where one of the examples provided is:
"In July 2016, the Labour Party wrote to Ken Livingstone, confirming that
administrative suspension had been imposed in relation to an
antisemitism complaint ‘after conversations between the Leader of the
Labour Party and his staff’. This clearly shows the involvement of the
Leader, then Jeremy Corbyn, and LOTO staff in the decision to suspend
Ken Livingstone."
This is one of those areas where the contents of the report have to be read alongside the executive summary.
'Only a slight touch of anti-semitism' sounds like being 'only a little bit pregnant'.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
That wasn’t my point chrisstyles. He could have just left space and time for Keir Starmer’s response as both a matter of both respect for who leads the party and a matter of information about the official Party response to the report.
It looks to me as though his suspension doesn’t relate to any specific accusation of antisemitism against him but relates to Party discipline. If the decision breaks the rules governing that he will no doubt have good grounds to appeal.
Corbyn has always said that the right wing used anti-Semitism to attack him, and a lot of Labour members believe him. I don't know why he would suddenly suppress that.
Yes, but he's not just saying that, though, is he? He's saying that either the EHRC are full of biased right-wingers themselves, or else too incompetent to notice that the complainants are lying to them for right-wing reasons.
People don't have to be lying for their concerns to be exaggerated or unfounded. People can genuinely feel scared and intimidated because they've been told the threat is far larger than it actually is. People can believe things because (for example) they assume that anyone pro-Palestinian must be anti-semitic.
The Conservatives, and particular pro-Israel groups, have spread this bullshit effectively.
Anti-semitism is also sufficiently insidious that if you know too many anti-semitic dog-whistles it's possible to start seeing it everywhere.
To be fair, some anti-Semites as a cover to attack Israel to attack Judaism. Distinguishing between legitimate criticisms of the state and covert racism takes actual thought. Something antithetical to politics.
That wasn’t my point chrisstyles. He could have just left space and time for Keir Starmer’s response as both a matter of both respect for who leads the party and a matter of information about the official Party response to the report.
It looks to me as though his suspension doesn’t relate to any specific accusation of antisemitism against him but relates to Party discipline. If the decision breaks the rules governing that he will no doubt have good grounds to appeal.
If we suspended every backbench MP who publicly disagreed with the party leader's stance on something there would be very few PLP members left, particularly after the last 5 years.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Oh sure. But this is hardly a run of the mill issue. And whatever rules and guidelines exist in the Labour Party constitution to cover suspension will no doubt have something to say about validity.
Oh sure. But this is hardly a run of the mill issue. And whatever rules and guidelines exist in the Labour Party constitution to cover suspension will no doubt have something to say about validity.
I have a suspicion there's a useful catch-all like "bringing the party into disrepute".
Corbyn has always said that the right wing used anti-Semitism to attack him, and a lot of Labour members believe him. I don't know why he would suddenly suppress that.
Yes, but he's not just saying that, though, is he? He's saying that either the EHRC are full of biased right-wingers themselves, or else too incompetent to notice that the complainants are lying to them for right-wing reasons.
Do you mean that he's implying that?
Yes. To be fair, he doesn't explicitly say he thinks the EHRC have exaggerated the issue. He says he is responding to the EHRC report, and then he says the issue has been exaggerated, and then he says he doesn't agree with the conclusions of the report.
I don’t think JC is an antisemtite in any way but his comments this morning crossed a line and contradicted the official view as expressed by his Party leader. That wasn’t clever.
And his suspension - ironically - would fall foul of the principles laid out in the report, specifically that of "Political interference in the handling of antisemitism complaints",
That section refers to the leadership interfering in the complaints process. It is not about suspensions per se. Mr Corbyn has not been suspended as a result of a complaint.
I think it's a fair point to raise that some of the leadership's interference in specific cases resulted in harsher punishment for anti-Semitism. The reason this is a problem is because it implies that a case that involved an equivalent level of anti-Semitism, but which was (for one reason or another) less politically embarrassing, wouldn't be seen as such a big deal.
That section refers to the leadership interfering in the complaints process. It is not about suspensions per se. Mr Corbyn has not been suspended as a result of a complaint.
Possibly, of course at this point we just don't know. I think there's still a wider point -- to which that section alludes - of political interference in the party's disciplinary procedure.
I think it's a fair point to raise that some of the leadership's interference in specific cases resulted in harsher punishment for anti-Semitism. The reason this is a problem is because it implies that a case that involved an equivalent level of anti-Semitism, but which was (for one reason or another) less politically embarrassing, wouldn't be seen as such a big deal.
It might do, and it's a fair point in the abstract, but of course this came after Livingstone's Hitler remarks for which most reasonable observers assumed he would and should face punishment.
What?! No, that is not what the article says at all. Even though I'd criticise it as being less than even coverage, it does not go that far. Not by miles.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
It's probably accurate to say that JC has a history of nonconformity. I have a soft spot for him and believe he is a man of high principle. But I do think he is an individualist, and very much his own person. More than anything else I think it is those characteristics which can put him at odds with others.
For Keir Starmer, I think his day of shame comment showed very clearly his view. He is ashamed that actions by Labour Party members had led to such a critical and revealing report. I think JC's statement was very ill-timed and what's worse it turned out to be in conflict with Keir Starmer's statement. What followed seems to me to be inevitable. There is plenty of scope for reconciliation and I hope that happens. It will be damaging to the Labour Party if it doesn't.
I think it's almost all that he doesn't spot anti-semitic dogwhistles on the left or in the context of criticism of Israeli policy, probably because he thinks anti-semitism is chiefly a phenomenon of the right. When a synagogue was attacked during the 2019 general election he had already phoned the rabbi in charge to express concern and condolence before it became a media story; Johnson by contrast only got round to condemning the attack much later in the day.
I understand that he was also rather conflict-averse and a bit indecisive which meant that he didn't prioritise disciplinary procedures for anti-semitism in the party. Also, I think it is beyond doubt that anti-semitism on the fringes of the Labour party was seized upon by people on the right who wouldn't have given two hoots for anti-semitism in other contexts, which further inclined Corbyn to underrate the importance of the problem.
Comments
But I think these things don't get talked about as much because they're not getting the same pushback. There is no "Labour Friends of China" attracting dozens of MPs as members. No programme by the Chinese government to bring young Labour activists to China to show them how wonderful everything is. No eager journalists waiting to leap on criticism of the Chinese state as evidence of anti-Chinese racism. Condemn China over actions in Hong Kong or Xinjaing as a Labour activist and you'll hear crickets (plus why would you waste breath on something even the government are taking action over?). Condemn Israeli actions in the West Bank and you'll find your words pulled apart until someone manages to find anti-semitism in it somewhere to try and get you hounded out of the party. The left shouted loudly about apartheid too, because those in power showed little interest in doing anything about it.
ISTR similar criticisms were levelled at the time against activism directed at South Africa.
Wow. That reads *exactly* like the stuff I hear from Israel's strongest supporters.
The detail of the similarity was exquisite though - the "empty wilderness transformed" by the incoming group, the oppressed group "don't really originally come from there", the "much better off than in other countries where they rule themselves" - it's all there.
My home town of Liverpool is twinned with Shanghai. We have a rather impressive Chinese arch, which was a gift of friendship from the Chinese government in 2000. A significant proportion of the new developments in Liverpool city centre are funded by Chinese investors. Liverpool University students can participate in a year-long exchange programme at Xi'an-Jaotong University, through the University Alliance of the Silk Road. Chinese soft power and lobbying seems much more significant than Israeli to me ...
'What's your point?' I hear you say. To reiterate: I don't think condemning one bad thing means one is automatically obligated to condemn every other bad thing in the universe; even if you (generic you) ignore bad things in China because you don't give a shit about Xinjiang or Hong Kong, that doesn't magically make your criticism of Israel invalid. My point is solely that I don't think it is factually true that Israel gets more criticism from the left because it is the most egregious example of inaction on the part of those in power.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by inaction. As Doc Tor mentioned on the previous page, criticism of China is common in the mainstream and comes from both sides of the political spectrum, and it's rare that criticism from the left will add something particularly unique.
Israel is going to attract the kind of criticism from the left that is going to be muted - at best - from the right, namely being judged by the standards of other allies that are liberal democracies. Similarly, left critique of American adventures abroad often focus around American claims to be spreading freedom.
I rather suspect that a fair judgement of Israel by the standards of "liberal democracies" and a fair judgement of Israel by the standards of its regional neighbours might come up with different answers. Which is part of the issue, really.
In my neck of the woods, there's currently a bid for the next science fiction Worldcon to be held in Jeddah. Almost the entire UK sf author crowd are like WTAF, in a way that makes a bid from Cairo or Beriut seem entirely reasonable, let alone Tel Aviv.
If the UK government were to defend its behaviour by 'we are better than those hereditary autocrats' then even some of its friends might think that it was standing on fairly weak ground.
I wouldn't really count criticism in itself as action. The UK has voted for UN resolutions condemning Israel, for example this one last year, but I'd tend to agree that unless any specific measures are going to be taken against Israel off the back of it, then this does not constitute action. But a fortiori sternly worded editorials in the Telegraph about how China is jolly rotten are not action either*.
Mr Johnson is indeed taking action against China, by banning Huawei and offering Hongkongers a route to citizenship, but this is a very new development. Ms May just dithered like on everything else, and it wasn't that long ago that Mr Cameron was recommending to Her Majesty that she should have Mr Xi round for dinner one day.
* Especially when the newspaper as a whole comes wrapped in a PRC propaganda sheet a presentation on modern China for the benefit of interested investors ...
For putting out this statement.
What labour camps?
This.
I'm still none the wiser on what antisemitism in the Labour party.
Despite them being obviously true and entirely reasonable, respectively?
Privately owned prison-factories staffed entirely by prisoners who don't get paid for their work.
Although it's more usually at the moment Conservatives who seem to be unable to recognise the maxim, 'don't try to defend the indefensible; it only makes you look even more foolish', Mr Corbyn has reminded the world that you don't have to be a Conservative to make yourself look foolish.
Son of a bitch.
Yes, I would still vote Labour, but they are becoming right wing again, so I don't want to go near them.
I don’t think JC is an antisemtite in any way but his comments this morning crossed a line and contradicted the official view as expressed by his Party leader. That wasn’t clever.
If called on for a statement by the media all he needed to say was he was a looking at the report in detail and would respond in due course.
The lesser of two evils, I suppose...
Sure. I was a Labour member in 1964, when we toasted Harold Wilson. Ah, as the heart grows older, it will come to such sights colder ...
Yes, but he's not just saying that, though, is he? He's saying that either the EHRC are full of biased right-wingers themselves, or else too incompetent to notice that the complainants are lying to them for right-wing reasons.
Now?
Nope. Mind you, living in Scotland neatly avoids that dilemma for me.
Because as it stands, what is the opposition? And what state is it in?
Today’s interviews did not exactly restore my confidence in the Labour Party. To my ears it was akin to listening to a bunch of reception kids coming in after an argumentative and a windy playtime.
No one came out of it sounding statesperson like
People don't have to be lying for their concerns to be exaggerated or unfounded. People can genuinely feel scared and intimidated because they've been told the threat is far larger than it actually is. People can believe things because (for example) they assume that anyone pro-Palestinian must be anti-semitic. Anti-semitism is also sufficiently insidious that if you know too many anti-semitic dog-whistles it's possible to start seeing it everywhere.
Do you mean that he's implying that? I haven't seen him assert it. I wonder how many cases of anti-semitism are at issue here? One oddity is that with Livingstone, the leadership wanted a more severe punishment, I suppose this counts as interference.
And his suspension - ironically - would fall foul of the principles laid out in the report, specifically that of "Political interference in the handling of antisemitism complaints", where one of the examples provided is:
This is one of those areas where the contents of the report have to be read alongside the executive summary.
It looks to me as though his suspension doesn’t relate to any specific accusation of antisemitism against him but relates to Party discipline. If the decision breaks the rules governing that he will no doubt have good grounds to appeal.
To be fair, some anti-Semites as a cover to attack Israel to attack Judaism. Distinguishing between legitimate criticisms of the state and covert racism takes actual thought. Something antithetical to politics.
If we suspended every backbench MP who publicly disagreed with the party leader's stance on something there would be very few PLP members left, particularly after the last 5 years.
I have a suspicion there's a useful catch-all like "bringing the party into disrepute".
Yes. To be fair, he doesn't explicitly say he thinks the EHRC have exaggerated the issue. He says he is responding to the EHRC report, and then he says the issue has been exaggerated, and then he says he doesn't agree with the conclusions of the report.
That section refers to the leadership interfering in the complaints process. It is not about suspensions per se. Mr Corbyn has not been suspended as a result of a complaint.
I think it's a fair point to raise that some of the leadership's interference in specific cases resulted in harsher punishment for anti-Semitism. The reason this is a problem is because it implies that a case that involved an equivalent level of anti-Semitism, but which was (for one reason or another) less politically embarrassing, wouldn't be seen as such a big deal.
Possibly, of course at this point we just don't know. I think there's still a wider point -- to which that section alludes - of political interference in the party's disciplinary procedure.
It might do, and it's a fair point in the abstract, but of course this came after Livingstone's Hitler remarks for which most reasonable observers assumed he would and should face punishment.
For Keir Starmer, I think his day of shame comment showed very clearly his view. He is ashamed that actions by Labour Party members had led to such a critical and revealing report. I think JC's statement was very ill-timed and what's worse it turned out to be in conflict with Keir Starmer's statement. What followed seems to me to be inevitable. There is plenty of scope for reconciliation and I hope that happens. It will be damaging to the Labour Party if it doesn't.
I understand that he was also rather conflict-averse and a bit indecisive which meant that he didn't prioritise disciplinary procedures for anti-semitism in the party. Also, I think it is beyond doubt that anti-semitism on the fringes of the Labour party was seized upon by people on the right who wouldn't have given two hoots for anti-semitism in other contexts, which further inclined Corbyn to underrate the importance of the problem.