Linda resigned from the Labour Party due to the adverse effect that the stress of the proceedings was having upon her. 

This is her Agreed Statement:

"Cllr Linda Lusingu has withdrawn the case she brought against the Labour Party and she will be making no further comment about it. Cllr Lusingu has resigned her membership of the Labour Party and consequently the disciplinary proceedings against Cllr Lusingu have been suspended. Cllr Lusingu now sits as an independent councillor of Barnet Council."

She now wishes to put the episode behind her. There remains a legal bill outstanding. If you are able to donate towards the settlement of this bill please give generously and please share on all your networks.

Many thanks for your support.

We are now supporting an egregious case against the Labour Party by a Black Anglo-African Labour Councillor, Linda Lusingu. Linda is a solicitor who is a long-standing member of the LP, and was a BAME officer at her CLP. Linda is fighting a complaint involving allegations of racism made against her that resulted in her ongoing administrative suspension in January 2023 and the loss of the Labour Whip at the council.

Since that time she has endured a gruelling disciplinary process which requires her to defend herself against extremely serious allegations. She has provided a detailed response refuting the allegations, so far to no avail.

Linda has been the victim of multiple hate crimes since the complaints were made against her, including having her car tyres slashed eight times, dead animals placed in front of her car and sustained bullying and harassment. The Party has not properly addressed her complaints of racism lodged in November 2021 and her report of a Data Protection Breach.

This treatment, including from the aggressive disciplinary procedures by the GLU (Governance and Legal Unit) of the LP, has caused her to suffer enormous harm to her health. She has experienced a lack of transparency, clarity and fair process in contravention of natural justice.

Part of the LP’s case is that it is inappropriate not to name check Jewish Councillors in a BAME statistic aimed at highlighting shortage of Black Women in public office. The body of the report highlights other forms of racism which the Party ignored.

Linda has identified that she has been treated demonstratively differently from other councillors who have had complaints made against them:

• One used the N- word three times at her CLP AGM. She had the whip restored and was fully reinstated while the investigation took place, continuing to serve as a Labour Councillor, including being reselected, while under internal investigation.
• Another was filmed threatening violence (Krav Maga) against a Black LP member, investigated swiftly and exonerated.
• One councillor admitted that antisemitic and racist posts had been made on his social media under his name. A formal complaint was made but he stated he had been set up and they were not posted by him. This was accepted by the NEC and his case was resolved within 4 weeks.
• A fourth councillor, was recorded using anti-black racist tropes and stereotypes at a Black History Month event and had been known to make jokes about the Slave Trade. After complaints were lodged he was not suspended, but was invited to a meeting with the NEC which accepted his apology.

Meanwhile, Linda remains suspended. She was told the NEC Panel had found a prima facie case against her in June 2023 but was not told the reasons for this decision. They still ignore her communications and have warned her not to contact them. She is now awaiting a hearing before the Independent Complaints Board (ICB) on 4 November 2024.

For these reasons Linda has taken out a civil claim against the LP accusing them of direct discrimination, victimisation and harassment, which we are supporting with legal counsel. The claim has already been served on the party and the next hearing is likely to be early next year.

These allegations would impact Linda’s career and livelihood and therefore she has to continue to fight what have been very damaging impacts on her reputation. Linda maintains that this is the worst case of anti-black racism that she has endured, having suffered bullying and ostracization in an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and offensive environment. She is fighting not only for herself but also for future generations of black women who aspire to public office.

All legal support is expensive and all previous funds raised here were spent on our previous cases so we are starting to fundraise from scratch. We know there are many calls on your pocket at this time, but we believe this case is highly deserving of our support and that you will give generously if you can. And please share on all your networks.

Thank you.

By the time you read this, the election results may well be known, it looks likely that Labour will have been elected, perhaps with a huge majority, and Keir Starmer will be our PM. He has continued to state throughout the campaign that he has changed the Party by cracking down on antisemitism and he has pledged to continue to be ‘ruthless’ in this pursuit.

He is therefore set to continue to target left wing pro-Palestinian Jewish members and others: in fact Starmer has expelled more Jews than all other Labour leaders combined.

Read some of the impact of this in Middle East Eye article of 1st July: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/uk-ive-experienced-disdain-contempt-and-dislike-jew-starmers-labour

JVL has continued to fight this targeted harassment and discrimination and we couldn’t have done it without the support of our members and other donors.

We continue to pay for legal support – if you can donate to help with our legal fees please do so and please share widely.

Thank you.

While we consider that we have a strong legal position to pursue a claim against the Party we have decided to withdraw our claim with Oxford County Court regarding Stephen Marks's case on the grounds of Stephen’s ill health, particularly given the inherent risks associated with litigation.

We are disappointed by the Party’s conduct towards Stephen to date, which includes lengthy delays and / or failures to respond to his attempts to engage with the Party. This has added greatly to the distress that Stephen has felt in respect of the disciplinary proceedings. However, we are pleased to note that the Party did concede to Stephen that:

a. the Party has never found him to be antisemitic; and
b. the Party has recognised that anti-Zionist beliefs can be protected under section 10 EA 2010.

The accusations of antisemitism were particularly distressing both on a personal level and given the public backlash, as those accusations had attracted adverse comments on social media.

It is therefore particularly important that he is able to publicise the Party’s concession that it had never considered him to be antisemitic.

The Party has confirmed that they agree that the claim be dismissed with no order as to costs. Nevertheless, legal support is expensive and we still need funds to cover those costs.

Please donate if you are able to and please share widely.

Our lawyers have written again to the Labour Party to follow up on  our preliminary concerns about various breaches of the Equality Act 2010 which we raised back in August 2023 and for which we only heard back from the Party in in  December 2023! We have sent a copy of this redacted letter to the EHRC pointing out the lack of transparency within the Labour Party’s processes.

Our lawyers have informed the Party that they have ignored, misinterpreted or misunderstood our evidence of unlawful discrimination and harassment.

We point out that they have failed to:

• consider the lengthy delays Jewish members have experienced in response to their appeals;
• take into account that 28 out of the 29 complaints of antisemitic abuse made by Jewish members were not investigated;
• provide any explanation to mitigate the punitive conduct towards Stephen Marks, Pam Blakelock and the late Michael Howard. Nor have they engaged with concerns raised regarding misquoting Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi or the lack of action taken to Diana Neslen’s complaints of receiving antisemitic abuse and the lack of any response to Diana’s complaint of bullying and harassment by the Party;
• inform Andrew Feinstein for more than 2 years that they were not pursuing his investigation, for which the delay amounts to punishment akin to disciplinary action;
• explain how Richard Kuper was disciplined for a statement suggesting that antisemitism in the Party was exaggerated thereby “doubting the findings of the EHRC” when his statement was made 2 years before the EHRC investigation even started.

Our letter also points out that our submitted statistical data regarding increased likelihood of Jewish members being investigated and excluded for antisemitism was on the conservative side rather than being self-selective as the Party states. Our explanation of these statistics reveals that, from all the information available, Jews are being discriminated against (hugely) in all aspects of Labour’s disciplinary action.

We have requested clarification of who any third party complaints relate to and have pointed out that they need to explain their decisions not to investigate our members’ complaints.

Our letter reminds the Party that our overriding aim is to have them change the practices leading to unlawful treatment of Jewish members, since these practices undermine the Party’s proper commitment to the elimination of antisemitism.

We will continue to challenge the Labour Party on their mistreatment of our members. An update on Stephen Marks’ case will follow later this month.  

Here is a link to the very significant victory for the protected belief argument in David Miller’s employment law case:

https://www.rllaw.co.uk/rahman-lowe-secures-landmark-victory-in-employment-case-for-professor-david-miller-against-bristol-university/

Legal advice is expensive and we know that there are many financial pressures, but please donate if you are able to and please share widely.

John McDonnell has again put it to Keir Starmer that as leader he should take responsibility for the shockingly harsh impact of the Party’s disciplinary treatment on many Jewish Labour Party members accused of antisemitism.

This is evidenced by a legal challenge citing breaches of the Equality Act in relation to Stephen Marks (see a previous update).

We continue to challenge the Labour Party on its unjust treatment of members. We are still awaiting a reply to the pre-action  letter on behalf of JVL on Stephen Marks’s experience of direct discrimination and harassment.

We are also responding to the Labour Party on the wider case of Jews like us being targeted for so called ‘antisemitism’ and will let you know more about this soon.

So far McDonnell has not received any response to his email. See his letter below.

We know there are many important claims on your funds at this time, but it is vital that the conflation by the Labour Party of criticism of Israel and anti-Zionism with antisemitism is exposed and the EHRC informed each time of Labour's unfair and unjust disciplinary processes. So please donate towards these legal actions if you can and share on all your networks.

Sent: 18 December 2023 11:57
To: STARMER, Keir <[email protected]>
Subject: Treatment of Jewish Members of the Party

Dear Keir,

You may recall that I wrote to you on 22th July expressing my concern at the treatment by the party of Jewish members, in particular the members of Jewish Voice for Labour, (JVL). This was further to the findings of the Forde report that you commissioned.

In my correspondence to you and David Evans I wrote the following:

“I am strongly recommending that, as part of demonstrating the seriousness of the Party’s intent to address the Forde Report’s concerns, both of you should address the treatment of the group, Jewish Voice for Labour, by the Party.

The treatment of this group and many of its members by the Party has been disregarding, disrespectful, at times uncaring, even brutal, and, some have argued, has amounted to discrimination. ………………..

The Report (by Martin Forde KC ) has evidenced that the Party’s disciplinary procedures have been used to target specific individuals for factional purposes. Shockingly the Report confirms that this has been used to exclude people from a ballot, in other words, for ballot rigging purposes. ……………..

The evidence of the disproportionate number of members of JVL being disciplined, suspended and expelled from the Party must add to the Forde concerns that the Party’s disciplinary process has not been fair and has indeed been open to abuse for factional purposes.”

Your response to my email was to refer it to the General Secretary on the basis that the disciplinary procedure was an independent process that you had no role in as leader of the party.

I find that difficult to accept because as leader of the party you clearly have a role in ensuring all the party’s activities and procedures are fair and above board and you are also a member of the National Executive Committee, which is charged with the management of the party and its behaviour and processes.

I am writing to you again as regrettably matters have moved on and I have been informed that a legal action has commenced against the party specifically concerning the treatment of a Jewish party member, who is a member of JVL.

I have attached a copy of the letter of claim that has been sent to the Labour Party, which has been published.

I am sure that like me, you will be concerned about the impact of the party’s action on the health and wellbeing of Stephen Marks, who has been an active and dedicated member of our party for so many years.

My view is that the party should do all it can to avoid damaging Stephen Marks’ health any further and therefore should address the worrying issues raised in the letter from Bindmans.

My fear is that there are others who have suffered similar health problems as a result of their treatment at the hands of the party.

I have expressed my concerns to you on several occasions about the use of the party’s disciplinary procedures on party members and indeed on members of the Parliamentary Labour Party.

I recommended that you invite Martin Forde KC to investigate once again the party’s treatment of its members and the role and impact of the disciplinary process.

In view of the strong concerns expressed to you by so many members recently and in the light of this threatened legal action I believe that this approach is even more necessary and urgently needed.

I would welcome your views therefore on how you intend to proceed.

Yours,

John

Our letter to the Labour Party regarding the treatment of Stephen Marks was sent in December and the claim lodged in Oxford County Court. We are still awaiting a reply from the Labour Party. Meanwhile you may be interested to read these two articles on the case:

The Middle East Eye (MEE) article stated:

“Marks is claiming discrimination against Labour on the grounds that its handling of his case failed to take into account his Jewishness and his anti-Zionist beliefs. His lawyers argue that both should have been considered “protected characteristics” – of race and philosophical belief – under UK equality law.

The letter describes Marks as a “lifelong antiracist campaigner” whose views had been shaped by his “awareness of what happened to his family and other Jewish people in the Holocaust” and his experience as a student at Jerusalem’s Hebrew University.”

It goes on to say:

“Marks told MEE he believed his case had important implications for the party because of current internal divisions over Starmer's refusal to back a ceasefire in Gaza.

Marks said: “Across the country there is a clampdown on people who reject the Starmer line on the ceasefire and that extends far beyond people who could be described as Corbynistas.”

Read the article here:

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/jewish-man-expelled-labour-claims-discrimination-over-repellent-antisemitism-accusation

The Morning Star (MS) article stated:

“Labour is set to be rocked by claims of anti-semitic discrimination after a former long-standing member accused Sir Keir Starmer’s leadership of “amplifying” prejudice against Jews.”

Stephen told the MS that: “Labour could be playing with a ticking bomb with this. If I were successful it would be a tremendous blow against the Starmer leadership.”

“I think obsessively identifying all Jews with Israel does amplify anti-semitism. I don’t accept that it was anti-semitic under Jeremy Corbyn but I think that it’s actually behaviour that in effect stereotyping all Jews in relation to Israel is anti-semitic. I think the long-term impact of the Gaza situation will be one of the factors which changes the context in which people see this.”

Read the article here:

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/long-standing-labour-party-member-accuses-sir-keir-of-amplifying-prejudice-against-jews

We know there are many claims on your pocket at this time, but if you are able to donate then please give generously and please share on all your networks.

Thank you.

We are supporting a civil claim against the Labour Party by Jewish JVL member Stephen Marks for damages arising out of his suspension on 13^th July 2021 which culminated in his expulsion from the Party on 19^th December 2022. A copy of this notice has also been sent to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).

Stephen’s case was included in our submission to the EHRC where we notified them of the trend of disciplinary action in the Labour Party which had affected JVL members disproportionately (see prior updates).

Stephen has been an active member of the Labour Party for over 40 years, having been GC delegate and Political Activities Officer in Hampstead and Highgate CLP in the 1980s and was elected as an Oxfordshire County Councillor between May 1993-97, during which time he became deputy leader of the Labour Group on the Council. In March 2019 he was elected Policy Officer for Oxford Labour, a post he held until March 2021. In 2018 Stephen stood for election in the National Constitutional Committee (NCC) and was re-elected for a three-year term in 2019.

His notice of administrative suspension was based on 3 allegations:

• On or around 9 July 2016, he signed an open letter titled “Labour Jews to Chuka Umuna – Stop using antisemitism smears against Corbyn”;
• On 11 April 2017, he signed an open letter titled “145 Labour Party members say ‘I am Jackie Walker’”; and
• On 4 April 2018, he posted a petition to Facebook titled “Anti-Semitism: Open letter to Jeremy Corbyn and the left on the NEC”.

At the time Stephen was suffering from several medical conditions, made worse by the stress of these allegations and suspension. He had been given 14 days to respond and both he and his wife wrote to the Party requesting an extension due to his health but received no response.

On 23 August 2021, Stephen submitted written representations challenging his administrative suspension in which he wrote:

“I find it quite extraordinary that I am being asked to defend myself against baseless and completely unfounded accusations of being a Jewish antisemite.”

On 19 December 2022, over 15 months later, the National Executive Committee (NEC) Panel issued a Notice of Outcome of Investigation: Expulsion from Membership of the Labour Party. The letter gave him 14 days to appeal the decision (until 2 January 2023).

Stephen emailed an appeal on 6^th January 2023 but was informed 6 months later that his appeal had been unsuccessful.

He has two relevant protected characteristics: being Jewish and his anti-Zionist beliefs, which constitute a philosophical belief within the meaning of s10 of the Equality Act. The grounds of claim comprise direct discrimination and harassment.

Stephen remains shocked and distressed by his treatment, being astonished that the fact that he is Jewish appears to have had no part in the Labour Party’s decision-making. His suspension and expulsion have had an enormous negative impact on his life, as he has no longer been able to take part in his regular Party meetings and political activities carried out over 40 years.

By bringing this civil claim, Stephen is seeking an admission of liability and immediate reinstatement as a member of the Party with an apology for alleging that he is antisemitic. He is also seeking damages for breaches of the Equality Act as well as for the pain, suffering and humiliation caused, including the exacerbation of his medical condition due to the stress.

This is the link to the letter on behalf of JVL sent to the Labour Party (redacted).

The Party is being given one month to respond and we will update on their response.

We know there are many claims on your pocket at this time, but if you are able to donate then please give generously and please share on all your networks.

Thank you.

Our lawyers have sent a letter on behalf of JVL to the Labour Party, outlining and evidencing the discriminatory treatment of Jewish members; it has been sent as a formal complaint and receipt by the Party has been acknowledged.

It is an extensive body of work, with 4 annexes attached:

• members’ personal statements about the impact of disciplinary actions taken against; them which, in many cases, are experienced as harassment on the grounds of being Jewish;
• a statistical analysis of the disproportionately larger number of Jews than non-Jews who have been subject to disciplinary investigation and to expulsion or auto-exclusion;
• details of appeals made by Jewish members against punitive sanctions; and
• details of the Party’s response to complaints of antisemitism made by Jewish members.

Within the letter we draw attention to certain breaches of the Equality Act 2010.

We point out that the Party has misconstrued criticism of Israel as antisemitism and that a disproportionately large number of Jewish members have been disciplined and accused of antisemitism: for asserting their views on the Party’s handling of allegations of antisemitism, and for their criticisms of the State of Israel. It is illegitimate to restrict the free expression of Jewish views on Israel and on Zionism. Also, we are deeply troubled by the Party’s restriction of the right of all members to be able to discuss freely issues such as Zionism, Israel, and advocacy campaigns for and against Israeli policies. Such restriction is contrary to Article 10 of the EHRC and to the Party’s own rules.

The Party has failed to understand the diversity of opinion among British Jews, and the significant differences of views on Zionism along with in many cases a connection with Israel which have long been a feature of Jewish history. This has manifested in the Party engaging solely with Zionist organisations, rather than consulting a wide range of representative members of the Jewish community as to their differing views on what constitutes antisemitism.

This is reflected in the Party’s approach of requiring members to undertake ‘antisemitism training’ as a penalty for breaches of the membership rules. It should be noted that this training was much criticised in the Forde report for its failure to take into account views other than those of the Zionist organisation, the Jewish Labour Movement.

Many have suffered harassment in the Party’s failure to respond to representations by Jewish members and to investigate antisemitic abuse faced by Jewish members. It has delayed and, in many cases, failed to act in responding to appeals and objections made by Jewish members in response to their disciplinary investigations. For example, the Party never responded to the appeals lodged in March and April 2021 against the punitive suspension of the late Michael Howard, despite several reminders. As a result, he died in November that year “with the stain of anti-Semitism on his memory.” (statement by his wife, Dee Howard)

We ask the Party what steps it intends to take to resolve these issues and to change these unlawful practices which undermine the Party’s proper commitment to the elimination of antisemitism.

As a matter of courtesy we have also sent a copy to the EHRC and we will be inviting the EHRC to consider the Party’s response to this complaint in the light of their commitment to the EHRC requirements following its investigation.

As ever, legal advice is expensive so we are asking again that you donate if you can and please share on all your networks.

Thank you.

We are now seeking further legal advice relating to what we see as the Labour Party’s bullying and mistreatment of several Jewish members, including three of the original LA4J members: the late Mike Howard, Jonathan Rosenhead and Diana Neslen.  Sadly they are not on their own in this mistreatment but it demonstrates the indefensible nature of the Party’s disciplinary processes. While many members have been unjustly accused of antisemitism, as discussed in our previous updates, these individuals have themselves suffered from the particular targeting of Jews - see our latest stats. For Jews to be accused of antisemitism which they and their families have suffered from is additionally distressing, insulting, hurtful and stressful.

Mike Howard sadly died on 11 November 2021.  In February of that year, he had been suspended from the party for 18 months. Astoundingly the Party concluded that Mike, a Jew, was hostile to Jews:

“The Panel determined that your conduct was in breach of Chapter 2 Clause I.8; in particular, it can reasonably be seen to demonstrate hostility or prejudice based on race, religion or belief.”

The Labour Party never responded to his appeal despite several reminders and never acknowledged notice of his death or made reference to the unheard appeal.  From his wife, Dee, also later expelled from the Party:

“During those months of suspension he was troubled by this terribly inhumane, un-socialist, experience he had right up until his deathbed. He was being betrayed, merely because he was trying to defend the oppressed Palestinians instead of the warmongering Israeli State. Labour has always in the past stood with the oppressed, rather than the oppressor, but for some reason, the rules he was suspended under seem to reverse that decision…Both sets of his grandparents escaped the pogroms in Russia and Poland, making their way across Europe to seek the safety of Britain. Mike himself suffered from anti-Semitism at school in the predominately Jewish East End of London. He was ‘The fat little Jew boy’ to his bullies… He was still suspended till the day he died with the stain of anti-Semitism on his memory. He didn’t hate Jews as Jews, or hate himself, just the state of Israel, who tried to pretend that they represented ALL Jews. Well they didn’t represent Mike, as he was a caring Socialist…”

Jonathan Rosenhead was filmed in 2019 speaking at a public meeting entitled “Corbyn, antisemitism & justice for Palestine” and received a notice of investigation (NOI) 7 months later, apparently following a complaint. Following several responses he received a Reminder of Conduct that simply stated:

“The Panel found that you had engaged in conduct which may reasonably be seen to demonstrate prejudice or hostility based on race. The Panel concluded that this conduct incompatible [sic] with the Members’ Pledge, the NECs Code of Conduct: Antisemitism, the NEC Code of Conduct: Social Media Policy, and in breach of Rule 2.I.8 of the Labour Party Rules.”

The following year he received a second NOI citing three things that he had said or written. When he challenged their evidence he received a revised NOI that deleted one of the 3 original alleged transgressions but added another one.   Finally in December 2021 he received a notice of suspension. He was told that he could not attend any party meetings until 1 June 2023 and that he would be “required to complete a specified training course following this period of suspension.

Outrageously Jonathan understands that this required training will be in antisemitism,  Apart from his own experience, Jonathan has a particular expertise and interest in this area and, as a member of JVL’s education group, delivers educational workshops on how to recognise and understand antisemitism, This ‘required training’ is therefore particularly insulting. 

He submitted an appeal in January 2022 and has had no acknowledgement to date.

Follow this link for a short video (abridged interview with Heather Mendick) of Jonathan discussing his background and his views on antisemitism training / education: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqQBHuQ2jBE

And this link is for the full interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2UqLfeLGcA

Diana Neslen, a Jewish woman in her 80s, has been subjected to ongoing abuse and harassment by the Labour Party. Following the sudden death of her husband of 51 years and while still recovering from cancer surgery, she was shocked to receive a reminder of conduct letter from the labour party accusing her of antisemitism for posts critical of Israel and of those who chose to use the antisemitism slur to attack critics of Israel. Clearly someone had been researching her social media posts with malicious intent.

The following year she received another letter while shielding alone at home and extremely vulnerable and anxious.  This was a NOI for ‘conduct grossly prejudicial or detrimental to the party’. Two of the posts had already been addressed in the previous reminder of conduct and two were not valid as they had been made prior to her rejoining the party.  “I felt harassed and targeted. To me it seemed an abuse of process.  I had already written to the party telling them of my status as an orthodox Jew but clearly this had no impact on them.”

In February 2021 the NEC found her in breach of the code of conduct on Antisemitism and other forms of racism for 3 social media postings.

Not content with their abuse and harassment of an elderly Jewish woman, the Party doubled down and in August 2021 they sent a further NOI, again incorporating some of the same social media posts and including again posts made prior to her rejoining.  Her solicitor wrote accusing them of harassing her on grounds of protected belief.  Grudgingly the Labour Party withdrew their NOI.

She finally submitted a formal complaint to the Labour Party in May 2023, attaching a letter from her solicitor:  

• “…on the basis that they have engaged in ongoing discrimination, harassment and bullying against our client in breach of the Party’s own policies as well as the Equality Act 2010 (“EA 2010”). “

Despite reminders, there has been NO response from the Labour Party.

In addition, Diana’s own complaint to the Party of antisemitism against herself was dismissed. A local member and 3 local councillors had publicly attacked her on social media, repeating untrue allegations published in the Jewish Chronicle. “These 4 gentiles had the temerity to accuse me of antisemitism when what they were doing was in my view exhibiting gross antisemitism themselves. It was a nasty abusive smear campaign which left me shaken and distressed. “

The targeted offences against her as an individual Jew were not considered worthy of censure. Diana states:

“This was a lesson to me namely that the labour party is not a safe place for Jews like me because there is no protection when we are pilloried in the public arena.  The experience left me feeling bruised, bullied, and abused by the party, which seems to use antisemitism as a factional battering ram to attack those on the left particularly those whose views on Israel - and in favour of Palestinian rights - are not in concert with the leadership’s present position. By so doing they undermine the fight against antisemitism and all other forms of racism.”.

Legal advice is expensive. Please donate if you can and please share widely

We continue to challenge the ongoing harassment and bullying of left wing Jewish members with allegations of antisemitism. This targeting is increasingly being perceived by those on the receiving end as a form of antisemitism in itself as they appear to be being picked out disproportionately because they are Jews:  Left Wing Jews, or ‘The Wrong Sort of Jews’.

We are seeking further legal advice from lawyers on developing our next steps. The author of the LP Forde Report has suggested that the LP has failed to implement reforms adequately and yet the EHRC has closed its monitoring of the implementation of LP Action Plan as they “are satisfied with the action the Party has taken”. The EHRC itself turned down our FOI request relating to which Jewish organisations were consulted.

One of our Jewish members has recently had her ‘charge’ from 2022 changed from one of “threatening behaviour and harassment” to one of “antisemitism”, with no change of evidence and no apology or explanation. And what was the evidence provided by the Party? That she wrote - in a supposedly secure WhatsApp group - the suggestion that the trawling of social media accounts in order to report members for alleged breaches in the LP rules might have been carried out by Keir Starmer’s appointed “Social Listening and organising manager”.  Assaf Kaplan had previously been part of an Israeli military spying/intelligence unit for nearly 5 years, as reported in the Guardian and therefore quite widely known.

You may have seen the powerful play entitled “The Wrong Sort of Jew” that was performed at the Sands Theatre, Rotherhithe and also streamed live in March this year. It featured actors narrating from the recorded testimonies of several Jewish Labour Party members regarding their backgrounds and experiences both within and without the Party. There is a link below to one section of the performance which highlights many of the issues that we are challenging.

https://youtu.be/nHPBXrrBSWY

We believe that getting justice for LP members continues to be worthwhile since members continue to be wrongly accused of antisemitism and to be bullied and harassed. Legal consultations are extremely expensive, so we ask that you donate to us if you can and please share on all your networks.

Thank you.

Diana Neslen speaks about the harassment she and many other Jews like her have faced for being an anti-Zionist.

Despite being a practising Jew and active Labour Party member, Diana Neslen was investigated by the Labour Party for antisemitism due to her political views on Israel. 

The Labour Party have since dropped their latest investigation but only after Diana instructed lawyers and fought a long campaign against the party for herself and others harassed and bullied by the Labour Party for their views on Israel.  

Diana says: On a previous charge I was  found guilty  of antisemitism because of  my views on Israel.  It is not the place for Gentiles and Jewish zionists to use the Labour Party's mechanisms to attack Jews whose political beliefs they do not share." 

You can watch the video from this link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBpi7TBVjcg

See also the JVL statement on the EHRC's failure to respond to their submissions: https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/statement/the-ehrc-has-spoken-labour-is-no-place-for-left-wing-jews/

Please help  support other members like Diana who are similarly being persecuted for their political beliefs.  Legal advice and support is costly so please donate if you can and please share widely.

Thank you.

Labour has finally backed down and withdrawn its absurd charges of antisemitism against Diana Neslen, one of our original group of Labour Activists 4 Justice and an orthodox practicing Jew. Follow the link below to read the Guardian article.

Diana hasn’t received an apology from the Party, despite her request for it to do so, and they had told her she was not entitled to talk publicly about it. She says she was a “committed Zionist” before she visited Israel, and says that she would not be silent. “You shouldn’t silence people who you disagree with, and although Zionism is for many Jews a sense of identity, [it’s] not for all and we all have a right to our views.”

We call on Labour to withdraw complaints against other party members under similar investigation and to review those subject to extraordinarily punitive sanctions such as the six original LA4J claimants including the late Mike Howard.  Also, as the Guardian reports, there are at least 46 Jewish Labour members that we know of, two of whom have since died, who have faced or are facing disciplinary charges relating to allegations of antisemitism

“To say that we are insulting Jews is wrong,” said Diana. “We are acting in accord with what we regard as Jewish values and Jewish ethics, and I’m not going to change that.”

Follow this link to The Guardian article, published on Mon 7 Feb 2022. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/feb/07/labour-drops-case-against-jewish-woman-for-alleged-antisemitism?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

We will continue to call on the Labour Party to stop its harassment and discrimination of those who have anti-Zionist views and to apologise to those it has wrongfully accused of antisemitism.

Please donate if you can and share this link to the Guardian article.

The Guardian has published an article about Diana Neslen’s case against the Labour Party, appearing both online and (slightly abridged) in the print edition.

Link to online article: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/dec/20/jewish-woman-accused-antisemitism-labour-threatens-sue-anti-zionism

This is an important step forward as it will reach a wide audience who may not have been aware of the scale or scope of the allegations the Party is making against Jewish members in particular. The article highlights the discrimination experienced by Diana for a protected belief, stating:

“In a pre-action letter to Labour, her lawyers, Bindmans, say the party’s investigation is totally unjustified and disproportionate as it rests on a single tweet from 2017, which said “the existence of the state of Israel is a racist endeavour and I am an antiracist Jew”.

They claim anti-Zionism is a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act and Neslen has been “subjected by the party to discrimination and harassment related to her protected philosophical belief”.”

In addition it states that the Guardian has approached the Labour Party for comment. At point of publication, the Party had not replied either to the Guardian or to our lawyers.

We will keep up the pressure.

See also coverage by Skwawkbox:

https://skwawkbox.org/2021/12/20/jewish-neslen-speaks-on-her-decision-to-sue-labour-over-antisemitism-smears/

Morning Star:

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/labour-threatened-legal-action-after-accusing-82-year-old-jew-anti-semitism-third-time

And Middle East Eye:

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/uk-labour-antisemitism-jewish-widow-accused-threatens-sue-party

Please keep on sharing and donating if you can – our legal costs continue to rise, but this is definitely a case worth pursuing.

Six weeks ago a letter was sent to the Labour Party about the harassment and discrimination of Diana Neslen, 82 year old observant Jewish widow, a  lifelong antiracist who has been appallingly accused by the Labour party of being an antisemite. As yet we have had neither acknowledgement nor reply. We have therefore been left with no choice but to send a ‘Letter Before Action’ for the purposes of the Pre-Action Protocol.

Our legal team have told the Party that, while we would naturally prefer to avoid proceedings if at all possible, we reserve the right to issue proceedings if they fail to respond to this letter within 21 days.

Diana claims indirect discrimination related to a protected philosophical belief contrary to section 101(2) EA2010; and harassment related to a protected philosophical belief contrary to section 101(4) EA2010.

We are asking for a disclosure of Diana’s investigation and disciplinary file, including the complaints made against her, the materials obtained by the Labour Party about her, and all records of decision-making in her case. We are also calling for any internal documents or correspondence relating to Jewish Voice for Labour, including whether JVL officers, committee members and/or supporters are targets of the Labour party precisely because of their involvement with JVL.

(Please see JVL submission to EHRC which outlines the Labour Party’s disproportionate targeting of JVL officers and its Jewish members : https://www.<wbr>jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/<wbr>statement/jvl-third-<wbr>submission-to-the-ehrc/).

We are calling again upon the Party to apologise to Diana for its discriminatory conduct and harassment; to undertake not to pursue any further investigations against her in respect of her philosophical beliefs, that are in contravention of the Party’s Handbook, Policy or other PCPs; and to undertake to provide an update on the progress of the complaints she has made within one month of the date of this letter.

As you are aware, legal action is costly and there are many calls on your finances. But please donate if you are able to and please share widely.

While the legal case against the Labour Party for which this crowd funder was set up has been settled, some of the individuals whose cases it was based on continue to be investigated and harassed by the Party. We are therefore continuing to support those members to fight their cases and so need to continue to raise funds.

Unfortunately, despite what the LP lawyer said in its defence, breach of confidentiality in disciplinary cases can be and is still being used against those being investigated. Indeed this has now been formalised in a Code of Conduct, thereby preventing members from even correcting incorrect public statements about their cases. We cannot therefore identify the members concerned at this stage.

One of these Jewish members has already had two cases ‘concluded’, and yet has since received a further NOI covering several of the same social media posts previously investigated, or posts made prior to their joining the Party.  Seeking to investigate both categories is directly contrary to Labour Party policies, thereby leaving only one tweet from 2017 expressing her anti-Zionist and antiracist beliefs as being able to be properly investigated.

The Party has so far refused to engage with questions about these fallacious charges and would appear to have done nothing to investigate this member’s own complaints of the anti-Semitism they have suffered at the hands of other Party members.

We believe that the Party is therefore in breach of its own handbook and policy, which state respectively that the Party will not consider complaints about the “conduct or behaviour of current members from a time previous to when they joined the Labour Party as a member.” And that the Party will not investigate “complaints that have already exhausted our process – if the same complaint has received a final written decision”.

We also believe the Party’s conduct amounts to harassment and discrimination in relation to the protected philosophical belief of anti-Zionism under the Equality Act 2010 (EA10).

The LP Code of Conduct: Social Media Policy states that members should “treat all people with dignity and respect” and that “this applies offline and online.” The member’s conduct is consistent with this Policy. The State of Israel is not a person and it fails to treat all its citizens with dignity and respect. To not “call out” the State of Israel for its conduct would also be to fail to treat Palestinians and others mistreated by the State of Israel with dignity and respect. To stand in solidarity with the oppressed, no matter who the oppressor might be constitutes a deeply held belief that should be protected.

We are calling upon the LP to apologise to this member for its Discriminatory Conduct and Harassment and undertake not to pursue any further investigations against them in respect of their philosophical beliefs, or in contravention of the Party’s Handbook, Policy or other procedures.

We also call on the Party to act on the antisemitism complaints made by this member and undertake to provide an update on the progress of the complaints made.

We appreciate that there are many calls on your finances, but please give generously if you can and share on your social media outlets.

Many thanks.

The hearing on costs was held on Monday 12th July.

The costs were fixed in a summary assessment at £110k, the judge refusing our request for a detailed assessment.  This is 70% of the costs claimed by the Labour Party; at the preliminary hearing - when we won - the summary assessment awarded us half of our costs only.  Moreover, our legal team had incurred approximately half of the Party’s costs during the same period.   

There was one comfort in that the Judge  did not pick up on the Labour Party’s attempt to yet again to treat the claimants as disreputable rebels.  We are being treated as the enemy of the Party, not members seeking to save the party by achieving procedural fairness and improved disciplinary systems.  The Party had attempted to swing the case against us because the LA4J group were continuing to crowdfund and to show concern for injustices!   So we are broke but continue to challenge them!  

 And materially Justice Butcher rejected the Party’s request for a fourteen day payment period. We asked for 28 days; he ordered payment within 21 days. 

So we still have an urgent need for funding to pay these costs. Please donate if you can and share widely.

We have now received the judgement on our case. It was extremely disappointing; the court relied on the facts as presented by the Labour Party, largely ignoring or dismissing our evidence to the contrary.  However, the judgment is not the whole story and the proceedings have achieved some significant successes.

To recap from our previous post, we asked the judge to rule on three issues:

• The applicants were judged by the Party using an unpublished code of conduct.  It was unfair to judge people according to a code they had not seen.
• The EHRC had condemned the disciplinary system and suggested it was unfair.  The party had accepted the findings and agreed to implement all the changes identified.  Since these had not as yet been implemented, it was unfair for the claimants to be judged under a system condemned by the EHRC. People will remember that the EHRC found that respondents received particularly unfair treatment. 
• The confidentiality clause was unfair to the claimants in that it prevented them from getting support and advising colleagues as to their situation.

All three claims were dismissed, meaning that the Court ruled against us on all three issues.

These are the positive outcomes to the entire proceedings:

• The first is that the Labour Party published the NEC Code of Conduct on Antisemitism in March 2021 as part of its Rule Book. This Code had been put forward in 2018 by Corbyn when he was Leader and aroused so much antagonism at the time, that the Party claimed that the reason it was not publicly available was because doing so would have been ‘incendiary’. So our case has forced the Labour Party to be transparent in making clear the guidance it uses in adjudicating on accusations of antisemitism.  And this demonstrated the hypocrisy of those who condemned the Code when published under Corbyn, but accepted it without a word of opposition under Starmer.
• The second positive is about confidentiality. We know that members have been stifled by this issue, with some feeling that they cannot even explain to their local CLP or their partners why they have been suspended, for fear or provoking further disciplinary action against them. In effect the Court determined that the confidentiality provisions in the Notices of Investigation do not have contractual backing: they are simply requests for confidentiality.  Any sharing of information about disciplinary processes should therefore only be subject to disciplinary proceedings if the disclosure breaches specific rules in the Rule Book. This is an important finding because it means that members subject to disciplinary proceedings can talk about them and provided they do not fall foul of other clauses in the Rule Book, make their cases public. Also the NEC proposed at its June meeting the creation of a ‘Code of Conduct on Confidentiality and Privacy’, to be finalised at the body’s next full meeting. This looks to be a direct consequence of our case. 
• Thirdly, of the original thirteen claimants, the party backed down by ending its disciplinary actions against five of them before the preliminary hearing and all were cleared of having committed any offence. This included several claimants who had been suspended for several years without any information as to the charges against them.

It is noteworthy too that the judgement handed down by the court confirmed the EHRC’s view that improvements had been made to the complaints procedures in the period of Corbyn’s leadership.

The Court confirms, as expressed in the judgement, that Labour Party is effectively a member’s club and that members have a contractual relationship with the Labour Party and the Rule Book forms the basis of this contract. We think that Labour Party members are entitled to feel that their membership goes beyond the type of relationship that an individual would have with say, a tennis club or a charity, given the Party’s collectivist, democratic roots. Indeed the Party is constantly making demands for support from activists, while arguing in Court it should be free to treat its members how it pleases without oversight and interference This leads us to conclude that the Party may have won its case against us, but if it carries on treating its members this way, it will have lost its future.

As Diana Neslen says: “I think it’s a pyrrhic victory because it shows the Labour Party has learned nothing on how to treat its members.

“In the end we keep on fighting and hopefully the wind will change.”

Costs were awarded against us so we need to continue to ask for substantial donations to pay for the claimants' liabilities for those costs. Furthermore, the 'cancellation', as the Labour Party calls it, of Colin O'Driscoll's party membership raises other serious issues concerning the Labour party's treatment of its membership. Therefore we want to also crowd fund to pursue these specific issues going forward, including misuse of the fast-track procedure.

Please give generously if you can and share widely!

Read more about the case in this article: https://ammarkazmi.uk/labour-on-trial-the-slow-death-of-blairism-5168f15f0609

We had our day in court on Thursday 17th June and are  now awaiting judgement. What follows is our Full Court report. There are 3 Declarations.

Declaration 1: Code of Conduct

The claimants asked that the court make a declaration with respect to the NEC Code of Conduct on Antisemitism (the Unpublished Code) namely that the party has breached the express and implied terms of fairness in its contract (against two of the claimants) by failing to disclose—and then later relying on—the Unpublished Code, which the claimants did not know was being applied to them.

This declaration had been sought for all eight claimants originally, after the Party repeatedly refused to disclose the Code in correspondence.  However, the Party did not publish it until the end of March and then only allowed six of the claimants to make new representations.  By that time two of the claimants’ cases had been concluded with sanctions applied, and those two claimants were denied their request for their cases to be reopened to make submissions on the Code.

LA4J consider that it is only fair and just for those accused of misconduct to know the criteria by which they are judged so they can mount their defence.  The absence of such criteria means the individual is effectively navigating treacherous waters without a compass.

In these cases the accusations were of antisemitism.   These are profoundly serious and painful allegations.   Diana Neslen’s immediate family has experienced violent antisemitism historically and recently.  Colin O’Driscoll has called out antisemitism in his Constituency Labour Party and fought against all forms of racism.  As well as the sanctions imposed on both of them by the Labour Party there is a serious risk of personal, professional and reputational damage as a result of these allegations.

Rachel Crasnow QC, the Labour Party barrister, asserted that knowledge of the Unpublished Code would not have made any difference to the claimants’ representations. because the respondents were able to make ‘meaningful responses’ without the Code.  She referred to the ‘draft charges’ based on the code but not the context of these charges, which sets out in detail what the Party considers to be, and even more importantly not to be, antisemitic conduct. 

Why, if the party believes that there is no benefit to a claimant’s defence to know the Code, have they now published it and allowed those whose claims are yet to be settled to make new or revised representations using the Code but not the claimants whose cases have already been closed?

Declaration 2: EHRC

Immediately after the EHRC Report was published, the Party stated that they accepted all the findings of the EHRC report without reservation, they committed to following all the recommendations and to having processes that remedied existing processes. Their Action Plan sets out concrete steps and a timetable, making clear its intention to deal with existing cases by a modified and more fair system.

Starmer himself issued a public statement in October 2020: “The report’s findings are clear and stark… they leave no room for equivocation. …The report finds… an inadequate process for handling complaints of antisemitism… The Labour Party I lead accepts this report in full and without qualification. We will implement all the recommendations and we will implement them in full. That process starts today.”

We would expect – after declaring its intention to implement all the recommendations of the EHRC report in full, to great public fanfare - that the LP would be doing all it could to demonstrate that it was doing so.  However, when the unfairness to respondents was pointed out to them last November, the Party denied either such unfairness existed at all, or that it was relevant to the claimants.

The Party maintained this position in Court, claiming that none of the deficiencies identified by EHRC amount to unfair processes for respondents and any unfairness found predated our cases and had been remedied by the time of the EHRC Report! It is astounding to suggest – as the Party’s Barrister has - that the full acceptance of the EHRC report related only to those parts of the report criticising the lack of independence in the process. This ignores the findings of the EHRC report that the LP disciplinary processes failed to comply with natural justice in several crucial respects including to the particular disadvantage of respondents.

Our case is that, given those commitments, it is procedurally unfair to continue to use old discredited processes to discipline claimants and a declaration from the Court is sought accordingly.

Declaration 3: Confidentiality

Our case is that the confidentiality provision in Notices Of Investigation (NOIs) sent to those being investigated – materially misstates and exaggerates members’ obligations under threat of sanction. There is a total mismatch between confidentiality as set out in the rules, which provides for the Party to treat members fairly and, in good faith - and the warning given, on pain of penalty, in the NOIs.

And it seems that there is a level of duplicity, since members can be disciplined punitively following an accusation of antisemitism if they tell anyone, but no such expectation appears to exist of those within the LP, which is the source of regular leaks to the press regarding the disciplinary process.

The Party’s response is that their warning in the NOI doesn’t purport to be a reflection of the rules on confidentiality, just a request to keep details of the process confidential, going beyond any actual obligation. They say that the clause is there in the NOI to deter members from leaking information for political purposes - and they do benevolently set out the support available while being investigated and offer sources of support for well-being.

Of course, they say, the warning doesn’t ban the accused from talking to anyone – as shown by them not imposing additional charges on our claimants for talking to our legal team. So, according to the Labour Party, it obviously hasn’t prevented us from sharing information with lawyers and on our fundraising sites and released videos on YouTube. This apparently rebuts any suggestion that the confidentiality warning has any gagging effect.

This ignores the fact that our claimants considered  they were taking a risk even in just talking to a lawyer.   And it totally ignores the harm it has caused, eg one claimant not being able to explain why he had relinquished his LP position or being able to respond to allegations in the national press about antisemitism. Another claimant could divulge he had been expelled but not why. Some members in receipt of NOIs are fearful of sharing even with their own partner, their closest family, even the Samaritans and the CAB due to the threatening wording of the NOI.

Conclusion

These are multiple violations of natural justice and due process.

Interestingly, Ms Crasnow  put in a plea to the Judge to defer judgement until after the Batley & Spen by-election on 1^st July. The Party claim was that as George Galloway is standing and fighting the seat on how the LP is dealing with Palestine and AS, a judgement in our case prior to this could have an impact on their campaigning due to this being a period of sensitivity in the constituency.

The judge made clear that judgment was unlikely to be delivered before 1^st July in any event.  We therefore await his judgment.

This will include a judgement on costs. We do have further legal bills to pay, so any donations that you can make will be very welcome. And please share widely.

LABOUR ACTIVISTS FOR JUSTICE (LA4J) WILL HAVE OUR DAY IN COURT

The Labour Party will be in the High Court again next week (17/18 June 2021) to defend their disciplinary process against our claim , Labour Activists For Justice (LA4J) and two other members supported by the Left Legal Fighting Fund, that the process is unfair and therefore in breach of contract.

The Labour Party are pursuing this case, and continuing to spend their members’ money in doing so.  This is despite the fact that they accepted in full the EHRC report’s findings that the Party’s system for investigating antisemitism was procedurally unfair. They very publicly announced that they were taking urgent steps to put in place a new independent system that would correct the substantive unfairness found by EHRC.

We asked the Party, in the light of the EHRC report, to stop its disciplinary action against us until the new – fairer - procedure is in place, but the Party has refused. We Claimants, including three Jews, are all accused of antisemitic conduct, and are seeking to be tried by a fair process. We all vociferously deny the charges.

At a Case Management Hearing in the High Court in March – which the Party lost - it was confirmed that the Party were using a secret – unpublished – code to judge antisemitism complaints.  This had not been published - on its own admission - because its contents were thought to be ‘politically incendiary’. Around a month after the Hearing they went ahead and published it on their website despite having refused to do so for the nine months previous. 

Publication of the code enables any accused person to render a defence based on a known set of criteria, but only those whose cases were yet to be concluded at the time of publication.  Those who had been sanctioned before that publication were denied the opportunity to defend themselves based on the Code, which recognises the importance of freedom of speech within the Labour Party. This has had an impact on two of the LA4J claimants.  They were not able to use the code in their defence and believe that this had adverse effects on the sanctions they have received.

LA4J also claim that the Party’s confidentiality requirement that accused members may not tell anyone other than their GP or the Samaritans about even the fact of any accusation, is draconian and unfair. The Party deny this, and cite as evidence that the LA4J group were able to go to lawyers to get advice, although we only did so while mindful of the risk of further disciplinary action against us.  Moreover, other members will not necessarily know that they have that option or may not be able to afford to do so and therefore will be denied support.

The rulebook states that: “Members have the right to dignity and respect and to be treated fairly by the Labour Party”. We are fighting for that right for all members.

The case is to be heard next week (17th or 18th June) and has been very costly. Many thanks to all who have donated so generously. However we still need more funds.

So please make a donation now if you can - and please share on all your social media platforms

The previous two updates have given some information about the unpublished Code of Conduct (the Code)  that the Labour Party has apparently been secretly using  for its disciplinary cases concerning allegations of antisemitism.  We only know for sure about this from early 2020 when ’draft charges’ based on the Code appeared in notices of investigation.

Now, under pressure of our impending court case, the Party has been forced to re-release it to public view. It can now be found on the Labour Party website, under the complaints procedure - follow the link below.

The Code was created by an NEC working party chaired by Gordon Nardell, and approved by the whole NEC. It was thought to have been abandoned once the full IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism (WDA) was adopted in 2018 by the NEC – under pressure from pro-Israel lobby groups: the Board of Deputies, Jewish Labour Movement, Campaign Against Antisemitism etc who had publicly accused the Code - and Corbyn, who was blamed for it - of being antisemitic. However, it turns out that, as was advised by IHRA author Kenneth Stern, legal advisers and House of Commons Select Committee, the IHRA WDA is not fit to be used in any disciplinary processes. So this Code was kept ‘for consultation’ and has been used to interpret the IHRA for disciplinary purposes ever since. As stated in a previous update, there has been a deafening silence from those same lobby groups regarding the Code’s re-emergence under Starmer. Labour officials will be relieved about this silence – in submissions to the High Court the Party’s lawyers claimed the Code’s continued use was kept secret because it was regarded internally as ‘incendiary’.

So why does it matter that this unpublished code has been used for at least a year in disciplinary cases involving allegations of antisemitism? 

It demonstrates that Labour is failing to follow transparent and fair disciplinary procedures when it investigates members accused of antisemitism. (Those investigated for alleged antisemitism include some thirty Jews).

The code has been used to provide these so-called ‘draft charges’ to LA4J and other members under investigation, but because it was being applied in secret, the accused could not access the context in which they were being applied. This means they had no way of knowing if the charges were being applied correctly, or be able to use the Code as a basis for their responses to these allegations.

It is now clear that in constructing charges, the Code has been applied incorrectly in many cases, resulting in members being wrongly accused and even expelled from the Party, without being able to challenge them.

This revelation might help some of the LA4J members to reassess their cases, but in addition we believe that the logic is  that everyone still subject to investigation can make submissions on the Code (if relevant) and everyone sanctioned since 2018 could ask for their investigations to be reopened in light of the Code (if it is relevant to their investigations).

At the preliminary hearing last month, the judge threw out the Party’s arguments that the case had no substance. We believe that this Code would have remained unpublished if it were not for the fact that its secret application was part of the LA4J court case. 

LA4J are seeking transparent and fair processes for ALL Labour Party members. 

Fighting a legal case is extremely costly. Please donate towards the continuation of our case if you can, and please share widely.

Follow the link below to find the newly published Code, which starts on page15:

NEC Code of Conduct: Antisemitism

Introduction 

Para 1. Clause 2.I.8 of the Party’s Rule Book contains the basic conduct rules applicable to all Party members:

There are 16 paragraphs. 

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Labour-Party-Complaint-Handling-Handbook-2.pdf

As stated in previous update, the Labour Party re-released its Code of Practice on antisemitism last week. Noisily and vociferously described as antisemitic when first issued, the reception this time has been deafeningly silent.

 In 2018 when the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn issued its antisemitism Code of Practice, the Code – and Corbyn - were immediately characterised as antisemitic by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Community Security Trust, the Campaign Against Antisemitism, Labour Party affiliate the Jewish Labour Movement, and The Guardian.

Shortly after it was issued the Party adopted the IHRA in full, and the code was assumed to have been withdrawn. But it is understood the Party found the code was essential in order to apply the IHRA working definition.   So the Party kept using it (competently or not) to choose and judge cases where members are accused of antisemitic conduct, but without the accused, or indeed anybody outside the Labour hierarchy knowing about it, except in occasional NCC hearings. They didn’t dare make it public that they were still using it because, as Alex Barros-Curtis, the Party’s lawyer, said in recent evidence to the High Court, that Code was regarded internally as ‘incendiary.’

Now, under pressure of our impending court case, they have been forced to re-release it to public view. But where are the cries of ‘antisemitic conduct?’. Nowhere to be seen or heard. Could it be that the objectors haven’t noticed, or have they changed their minds and it wasn’t antisemitic after all? OR COULD IT BE WHAT MANY JEWISH EXPERTS WROTE AT THE TIME: THAT THIS IS A USEFUL CODE AND IF USED TRANSPARENTLY AND WITH UNDERSTANDING IT COULD ASSIST IN DETERMINING ANTISEMITISM. In other words, it is one thing under Keir Starmer and another under Jeremy Corbyn?

We are continuing our court case to obtain justice for all Labour Party members. 

We still need  your generous donations if you are able to and for this to be shared by email and on all your social media platforms.

In an apparent attempt to pre-empt an imminent High Court hearing, the Labour Party has this week published a previously secret Code of Conduct that it uses for judging members accused of antisemitism.  

One aspect of our claim concerned the use by the Party of a secret – unpublished - code of conduct to judge antisemitism cases; a code which accused members could not access and so use in their defence and which the Party repeatedly refused to publish. 

In a preliminary hearing in the High Court in February, we won our arguments about how the case should proceed and had our costs awarded against the Party for that hearing.   Last week, just over a month the later, the Party released the secret code that formed a central part of the claim. It had been withheld because of the way it was received when it was first published. As the Party’s lawyer Alex Barros-Curtis said in a submission to the High Court, it was regarded as ‘incendiary’.  As a result, complainants have been denied the opportunity to understand the Party’s approach to antisemitism before making complaints and respondents have been denied the opportunity to make submissions on it.

When the code first appeared in 2018 under Corbyn, it, and he, were heavily criticised for being antisemitic by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Community Security Trust, the Campaign Against Antisemitism, and Labour Party affiliate the Jewish Labour Movement - along with the Guardian.  It was assumed to have been withdrawn once the Party adopted the IHRA working definition. That turns out not to have been the case.

It appears the code has been being used to decide which antisemitism complaints to pursue, and to judge those complaints, since September 2018.  As far as we are aware there have been no accusations of antisemitism against the Party itself following the publication of the Code last week under Keir Starmer, unlike the response in 2018 when Corbyn was leader. 

Diana Neslen, an 81 year-old orthodox Jew accused of antisemitism by the party, and one of the LA4J, said ‘I’m very pleased that the party has now published this secret code. Even a quick look at it suggests that all of us have been wrongfully accused, indeed we should never have been investigated in the first place. But there are still all the other issues  that we are challenging and this just highlights the gross injustice of the whole process. And  what are they going to do about the hundreds of people already judged under the secret code, including me?’

Fighting this case - for the ultimate benefit of all LP members - is costly and we still need more funds. If you are able to, please give generously and please share via email and social media.

Chris Wallis (age 72) is a former Chair of Hazel Grove CLP, part of the Stockport conurbation.  A member since 2015, he has promoted antiracist and antifascist ideas throughout his 40 year career in the entertainment industry, including recording the autobiographies of Nelson Mandela and Amos Oz for BBC Radio.. He is accused of 6 instances of hostility or prejudice based on race or religion. The instances are all re-posts of material posted by other reputable posters, and the charges are based on definitions of antisemitism in a version of an antisemitism code of conduct that the Labour Party will not publish. Mr Wallis denies all the charges.

Watch video here: https://javelinmedia.org/2021/03/18/labour-activists-4-justice-no-7-chris-wallis/

Please continue to share and donate - while we did get some of our costs paid in our recent court hearing, we had already paid out most of the donations so far in preparing the case and will need even more to take it to court.

Many thanks also to Merseyside Pensioners who recently collected and donated £200.

Mike Howard is Jewish member of the Labour Party, accused of antisemitism. He explains why he’s joining the legal action by Labour Activists for Justice (LA4J), a group of Labour Party members who have been caught up in the absurdities of Labour’s disciplinary processes. Here he gives the background to his story, his family background going back three generations in London’s East End anti-fascist movement, and explains why he and other members have been forced to use the law to try and get justice in the Labour Party.

Watch here:

https://javelinmedia.org/2021/03/01/labour-activist-4-justice-no-6-mike-howard/

Please share and donate if you can.

VICTORY IN HIGH COURT - LABOUR PARTY HAVE TO PAY OUR COSTS

In an important development in our case to bring fairness and justice to the Labour Party’s disciplinary process, the six members of Labour Activists For Justice (LA4J) along with two other claimants appeared on Wednesday before Master Sullivan of the Queen’s Bench to ask whether the cases could be heard together and to challenge the Labour Party’s demand for a preliminary hearing which would have put off - possibly for ever - a full hearing.

Master Sullivan found in our favour on both counts.

In making her decisions to allow the new members to join the case and to refuse the preliminary trial, Master Sullivan had regard to both the legal issues and to the huge increases in costs and time that a separate case for the new members and a preliminary hearing would incur.

Diana Neslen, an 81 year-old member of an orthodox synagogue who the Labour Party has accused of antisemitism, and who is one of the original members of LA4J said :

‘I think it’s a pity and a shame that the Party should waste members’ money defending the indefensible.  I think their main reason for refusing to allow the new members to join and asking for a preliminary hearing was to drive our costs to a point where we could no longer continue. I’m delighted with the Master’s ruling’.

‘Perhaps now the Party will go away and reconsider their actions, and do the simple and honourable thing of changing the disciplinary process to make it fair and just, in line with the promises they made to the EHRC.’

Uniting their cases with LA4J are Alma Yaniv and Palestinian journalist Sameh Habeeb, who are both currently suspended from the Party. There were originally five applicants to join the case, but less than a week before the hearing the Party suddenly dropped their charges against three of them without explanation - charges which had remained on the Party’s books, anonymous and unspecified, for over a year. Yaniv and Habeeb are supported by the Left Legal Fighting Fund.

Speaking about his victory at the High Court, journalist Sameh Habeeb said:

“I joined the Labour Party after I came to the UK as a refugee from Gaza. I thought it shared my values, but the Party has let me down. I’ve been suspended for over two years and have been gagged from responding to constant attacks on my character.

“I never wanted to take my own Party to court, but there was no other way to get justice. This legal action has the potential to change how Labour treats its members, which would prevent others in my position from being subjected to this gross unfairness.”

Alma Yaniv added:

“The Labour Party suspended me nearly two years ago. Since then, I’ve been left in limbo, unable to properly respond to the allegations that have been levelled against me.

“Rather than resolving our cases as quickly as possible, it seems to me that the Party is simply trying to cause more unnecessary delays. Labour has treated pro-Palestine members with contempt. At last, with this court process, we have a chance of achieving justice.”

The full hearing has been scheduled in the Court session beginning on the 8^th June.

Master Sullivan awarded LA4J £25 000 of its costs to be paid by the Labour Party, leaving  the Labour Party with a total bill of over £75k. 

However, we have incurred - and will continue to incur - further costs, so we are still seeking contributions to our legal funds.

Please share and give generously if you can - this case sets out to benefit all LP members with fair and just processes, and we will continue this fight.

Please watch (and share) our videos on javelinmedia.org, individual links can be found in our previous updates.

LABOUR PARTY DEMANDS MAKE IT A LONGER, MORE COSTLY PROCESS

'Labour Activists for Justice’ case is now scheduled for its first court hearing on Wednesday February 24^th to determine how the case should proceed.  LA4J is seeking a quick and efficient resolution with the joining of two groups of claimants with the same interest to avoid wasted time and costs.  The Labour Party is seeking a further preliminary hearing to determine legal questions LA4J do not even consider relevant, thereby increasing costs and delay.  

We hope that this hearing will prevent an unnecessary (and expensive) second pre-hearing.  It should be in both parties’ interests to move to a full court hearing as soon as feasible, to limit costs and resolve these issues as soon as possible. We want this full court hearing in the expectation that if we win, this will bring benefit to the many other people stuck in Labour HQ’s unjust disciplinary processes.

Meanwhile, over the last few days the Labour Party have totally exonerated 3 of those who were looking to join us in the action, despite them having been under investigation for over 15 months, without even knowing why they were being investigated. Additionally they have concluded the cases for two LA4J activists and changed the allegations for another. (More details soon)

It is unfortunate that the Labour party by its actions is expending costs - at the expense of members’ subscriptions - rather than getting down to the meat of the case.  We do not have the large pockets that the Labour party is using to defend a system criticised as being unjust and ineffective by the EHRC.  

So while our costs mount we are asking you, if you have not already donated, to please consider making a donation or to donate again if you have and can. 

This is the fifth video in our series.

John Davies (age 67) is a former chair of St Michael’s branch, Liverpool Riverside CLP, one of the largest branches in the country. A member since 2015, he has participated in antiracist and antifascist movements all his life and served on the Liverpool Riverside CLP Executive during Louise Ellman’s tenure as MP. He is accused of 7 instances of hostility or prejudice based on race or religion. The instances are mostly re-posts of material posted by others, including a former Israeli minister and a Palestinian doctor, and the charges are based on definitions of antisemitism in a version of an antisemitism code of conduct that the Labour Party will not publish. Mr Davies denies all the charges.

Watch here: 

https://javelinmedia.org/2021/02/15/labour-activists-4-justice-no-5-john-davies/

Colin O’Driscoll is a Labour Party member falsely and anonymously accused of antisemitism. His is the fourth of a series of interviews issued by Labour Activists 4 Justice (LA4J), a group of Labour Party members who have been caught up in the absurdities of Labour’s disciplinary processes.

Here Colin explains why he is joining the legal action by Labour Activists for Justice (LA4J). He gives the background to his story in Labour International CLP, and why he and other members have been forced to use the law to try and get justice in the Labour Party.

watch video here: https://javelinmedia.org/.../25/la4j-no-4-colin-odriscoll/

Video 3: Jonathan Rosenhead

Jonathan Rosenhead is a retired university professor in his eighties. His is the third of a series of interviews issued by Labour Activists for Justice (LA4J), a group of Labour Party members who have been caught up in the absurdities of Labour’s disciplinary processes.

Jonathan is Jewish, and has been falsely accused by the Labour Party of antisemitism. Here he gives the background to his own story, and why he and other members (Labour Activists for Justice – LA4J) have been forced to use the law to try and get justice – for all party members.

Watch video here: https://javelinmedia.org/2021/01/23/labour-activists-for-justice-no-3/

Jonathan Rosenhead (age 82) is Chair of Hoxton West branch and serves on the Executive of Hackney South and Shoreditch CLP. He first joined the Labour Party in 1962, and was a Labour Parliamentary candidate. From the sixties he has been involved in the anti-apartheid movement; in campaigning around the use of rubber and plastic bullets in the north of Ireland; in working with Hugo Chavez’ government in Venezuela; and in support for the rights of Palestinians. He rejoined the party in 2015. His Notice of Investigation served in May 2020 cited as evidence i) a speech at the February 2020 CLP meeting nominating Jo Bird for the NEC, in which his mention of her well known ‘Jew-process’ joke was allegedly a disciplinary offence; ii) words which were incorrectly asserted to be part of his verbal evidence as a witness at Ken Livingstone’s disciplinary hearing in 2017; and iii) an article he had written in Open Democracy in October 2017 describing the launch meeting of Jewish Voice for Labour (but which of the 3000 words were problematic was not specified). His conduct is being judged on the basis of an unpublished version of the code.

Watch video here: https://javelinmedia.org/2021/01/23/labour-activists-for-justice-no-3/ (Link corrected)

Michael Ellman is an 83 year old member of the Labour Party, falsely accused of antisemitism. His is the second of a series of interviews issued by Labour Activists for Justice (LA4J), a group of Labour Party members who have been caught up in the absurdities of Labour’s disciplinary processes.

Michael is an observant Jew. Here he explains his reasons for joining in a legal action against the Labour Party. He gives the background to his story, and why he and other members have been forced to use the law to try and get justice – for all party members. 

Follow the link to see video on Javelin Media

https://javelinmedia.org/2021/01/23/la4justice-no-2/

Please continue to donate and share

Please watch:

Follow on Javelin media Facebook page:

http://facebook.com/MediaJavelin

Please give generously if you can and please share widely.

LABOUR PARTY GOES BACK ON ITS PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE OF EHRC RULING

Labour Activists 4 Justice (LA4J) filed our claim in the High Court on 9^th December in light of the Party’s acceptance that its disciplinary process is unfair and not fit for purpose.  

Last month the EHRC Report on its Investigation into Antisemitism in the Labour Party found that the Party’s disciplinary process was not fit for purpose, and recommended that the Party should put in place a new fair system. 

When the EHRC Report came out, the Party said it would implement all the recommendations as a matter of urgency and would commission a new process. So LA4J approached the Party again to ensure that the Party did not continue with its investigations under the unfair process, only to be told the Report did not apply to them and the Party would continue to use the same disciplinary processes that were found to be seriously unfair by the EHRC.

We – now able to be named below, including 4 who are Jewish - are making this High Court claim because the suggestion in many cases, including our own, that there is anti-Semitic content in the evidence provided by the Labour Party is unfounded and offensive. We want a fair disciplinary process to be implemented for ALL Labour Party members where the criteria by which we will be judged are clear and public and the procedures are fair.

We appreciate the support from hundreds of individual contributors, many of whom have said they have donated or pledged precisely because we are taking action on behalf of ALL members.  

However the likely costs of the action will run to six figure sum, so we still need further contributions! Please share widely!

The Labour Party owes it to all its members to treat them with fairness and due process.

This should start now!

The Members of LA4J :

Diana Neslen (age 81) is a General Committee delegate to Ilford South CLP. She is an Orthodox Jew. She rejoined the Labour party in 2015 following the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader and is a member of Jewish Voice for Labour. She has been a long time Palestinian and antiracist activist. In September 2018, five months after the sudden death of her husband and while undergoing cancer treatment, she received a reminder of conduct from the Labour Party detailing eleven 'offences' she had committed. All were social media postings related to Israel’s policies and conduct. There was no indication anywhere as to the identity of the complainants or the definition of antisemitism the Party was applying, and some of the postings predated her Labour party membership. Although she contacted the Party to discover the nature of the 'offences', she received no response. In May 2020, while shielding alone, she received a notice of investigation from an anonymous employee of the Labour party detailing seven items that required investigation for antisemitism. The complainants were again anonymous and the definition not based on the published code. Although she has made contact with the party to request further information and later on to explain the proper context in which what she said must be understood, they have at no time had the courtesy to reply. It is chilling that the Labour party feels emboldened to accuse a Jewish woman of antisemitism on the basis of a hidden definition, and by its unfair processes expose the truth of the EHRC findings about its unjust complaints process.

Jonathan Rosenhead (age 82) is Chair of Hoxton West branch and serves on the Executive of Hackney South and Shoreditch CLP. He first joined the Labour Party in 1962, and was a Labour Parliamentary candidate in 1966; he rejoined the party in 2015. His Notice of Investigation served in May 2020 cited as evidence i) a speech at the February CLP meeting nominating Jo Bird for the NEC, in which his mention of her well known ‘Jew-process’ joke was allegedly a disciplinary offence; ii) words which were incorrectly asserted to be part of his verbal evidence as a witness at Ken Livingstone’s disciplinary hearing in 2017; and iii) an article he had written in Open Democracy in October 2017 describing the launch meeting of Jewish Voice for Labour (but which of the 3000 words were problematic was not specified). His conduct is being judged on the basis of an unpublished version of the code.

Michael Ellman (age 83) is Auditor of Junction Ward branch of Islington North CLP. He is a practising Jew. He joined the Labour Party in 1980, re-joined in 2015, and is a solicitor and former Vice-President of FIDH (International Federation for Human Rights), who has fought for human rights and against racism all his life. He proposed a motion in August 2020 to an internal branch meeting to reconsider the IHRA definition of antisemitism because it might stifle legitimate political debate, and substitute the Oxford English Dictionary definition, which was leaked to the Press by an unknown person and he was immediately suspended from the Party for conduct grossly prejudicial to the Party following a complaint by an unknown person. Suspension now lifted – 9^th December!

Mike Howard (age 68) Member of Hastings & Rye CLP. Active Labour Party member for over thirty-five years, holding office in six CLP’s during this time. Twice elected Hastings Borough Councillor. Retired (former office-holding) Unison life member. Unite Community, JVL and PSC. He is a Jewish, lifelong anti-racist whose family escaped the murderous pogroms in pre-war Russia/Poland and fought the fascists in their East London neighbourhood. Mike has suffered real anti-semitism, and finds it completely unacceptable that Labour Party HQ, knowing that he is Jewish, has not responded to his solicitors’ request to drop an anonymous complainant’s accusations of anti-semitism against him which is based on the process the EHRC found was unfair and based on a code the Party will not publish.

John Davies (age 66) Former Chair, St Michael's Branch, Liverpool Riverside CLP. Member since 2015. He is accused of 7 instances of hostility or prejudice based on race or religion. The instances are mostly re-posts of material posted by others, including a former Israeli minister and a Palestinian doctor, and the charges are based on definitions of antisemitism in a version of an antisemitism code of conduct that the Labour Party will not publish. Mr Davies has been an active anti-racist all his life, and denies all the charges.

Colin O Driscoll (age 60) Vice Chair Labour International CLP (Labour Party's International Section). First joined the Labour Party in 1978, rejoined in 2015 (pre-Corbyn). He is accused on the basis of social media posts of ]various instances of misconduct. The complaint was made some time before May 2020, by a person or persons unknown. The charges were laid in 2020 as part of an express expulsion procedure. He strongly denies the charges, which again are based on an antisemitism code of conduct that the Labour Party will not publish.

Chris Wallis (age 71) Vice Chair Hazel Grove CLP (near Stockport) . Member since 2015 (pre-Corbyn). He is accused of 5 instances of conduct prejudicial or grossly detrimental to the party relating to racism, and in particular antisemitism. The complaint was made in December 2019 by persons unknown, but the charges were not laid till June 2020, and only then after he had requested an update from the Party as he was about to be Acting Chair of his CLP. He rejects the charges absolutely, which again are based on a version of an antisemitism code of conduct that the Labour Party will not publish.

We are preparing to file court proceedings!   Can you please help with our costs?

The Labour party disciplinary process has been condemned by the EHRC as fundamentally unfair to complainants and respondents.  This is not surprising.  Many of us who have had direct experience of the process can vouch for the fact that it is not fit for purpose. It is an opaque process, granting confidentiality to those accusers whose complaints are investigated, while treating the accused as if they were already guilty, and making vague accusations against people without letting them know the case against them or by what standards they are being judged.

It is fundamental to natural justice that an accused should know their accuser (unless there is very good reason for this not to be the case).  This requirement (confirmed by the EHRC) is, however, dispensed with by the Labour Party as a matter of course.  Indeed, the EHRC found that the Labour Party did not even always record the identity of complainant.  The accused is therefore kept in the dark about who the accuser is, or even if there is more than one.  The accused cannot therefore identify whether there might be other motivations for the complaint, including potential factionalism. Since the motives of the accusers cannot be challenged, the accused is denied a full opportunity to respond.

This is just one of the many unfairnesses identified by the EHRC that have pervaded the Party’s disciplinary processes and which still have not been addressed.  Indeed, we have tried valiantly since July to engage with the Labour Party (and others have preceded us) in order to encourage the Party to address the unjust and inequitable nature of their disciplinary processes and the devastating effect it has on the lives and well-being of those the Party chooses to target.

When the Labour Party finally engaged with our legal representatives they rejected all our reasonable submissions out of hand but without providing any adequate explanation.  It was not therefore surprising to discover that the EHRC’s report agreed with our concerns.  It recommended that the current procedure is so unfair that the party must put in place a new fair, transparent, independent process.   

The Labour Party has now publicly confirmed that it will implement the recommendations of the EHRC report and will put a new process in place.  But extraordinarily, they have refused to stop the unfair current investigations, suggesting that the Report is not for us: it is for complainants and ‘The Jewish Community’.  This is not only offensive, particularly to those of us who are Jewish, it is also simply wrong.  The Report identifies fundamental unfairness to complainants and respondents irrespective of their ethnic background or religion.  And it completely contradicts the Party’s public statements that it accepts and is currently implementing the EHRC’s recommendations by designing a whole new process for investigations.

The Labour Party cannot continue to act in blatant disregard of the recommendations of the EHRC when it suits them, while saying, in a blaze of publicity, that they accepted those recommendations and would act on them in full.  It is time to hold them to account. We now have no option but to file our claim in court. We hope to file within a matter of weeks.

We are deeply grateful to all those who, because they share our views on this issue, have so generously supported this cause already.  We would not be where we are without you.  We still need your help please, so we are asking again for further donations at this stage to fund court action - not just for ourselves, but for all those who have been targeted and to prevent others in the future from having to suffer the same fate. This should be for the benefit of all Party members, and for all those who believe in the rule of law and fair process.

Thank you. Solidarity.

Since our last update, we can report that the Labour Party has responded in some detail if not altogether constructively… Lawyers for the group have been busy consulting with Counsel before responding. Our expectation is that they will be in a position to do so very soon with a view to moving the cases forward. We will send out a further update as soon as we reasonably can. Rest assured we are doing everything we can to bring natural justice for all members to the Party’s procedures.

Thanks to the generosity of those who have already pledged, we have reached our initial target of £25000 and are now moving towards our stretch target of £100 000.

Sadly, even since we launched this appeal, the number of Labour Party members caught up in these unfair LP processes has continued to rise steadily, with many good comrades being unjustly accused and suspended. These include members of long standing with a strong reputation for anti-racist campaigning, and several elected Councillors. 

Some are launching their own legal cases and we certainly support them in doing that. LA4J are committed to challenging the unjust processes that affect all LP members, so that on winning our case all members will benefit from a change in disciplinary processes.

The Party has still not responded in any way to our lawyer’s pre-action letter of some six weeks ago, so we are carrying on with our legal action. Once we have sufficient funds our lawyers will launch the next phase.

Our current expectation is for legal proceedings to begin by mid-September, but to do that we need an urgent increase in donations. If you haven’t donated yet – please pledge now. If you have already donated, then please consider if you could give again. We also ask all of you to share the link to this page wherever you can – both inside and outside the Labour Party, in your Trade Unions, family, friends – and by any means that work – email, letter, social media, conversation, even by Zoom! 

At the moment LP confidentiality rules mean that we cannot reveal the identities or details of the individual cases. Once legal papers have been served there will be more information available in the public domain.

We ask that you support us now and continue once proceedings have begun. Legal cases do not come cheap, but we are optimistic that these are cases that we can win.

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/justice-4-labour-party-members/