How the Greenstein verdict falls short of addressing Labour’s anti-Semitism problem

The expulsion – after many months – of Brighton-based activist Tony Greenstein from the Labour Party is seen by many as long overdue, and as an indication that the Labour Party is serious about dealing with anti-Semitism in its ranks.

I’m not going to comment on the Greenstein case, but on the reasons given by the Labour Party’s NEC for the expulsion.

Officially, the Labour Party has announced that it found Greenstein guilty on three  counts of breaching Labour rules.

However, Jewish News reports that a Labour Party spokesman went on to say that this was:

“not a case about Mr Greenstein’s right to hold his ‘anti-Zionist’ views, or about whether Mr Greenstein is an antisemite. The NEC’s (National Executive Committee’s) case is that Greenstein’s use of the term ‘Zio’ is antisemitic, but the NEC does not otherwise allege that Mr Greenstein’s conduct was antisemitic”.

In other words, the case was not about the fact of Greenstein’s views, but the language in which he chose to express them.  And the logic of this judgement is not that holding anti-Semitic views is incompatible with Labour Party membership, but that expressing them in a certain way is.  And it is difficult to see how that position is compatible with Labour’s apparent adoption of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, which is about perception: it goes much further than the use of inflammatory language.

It may be that the NEC felt that it should focus on the issues where it was confident of winning its case.  But the wider logic of that statement is that, beyond the use of inflammatory terminology, the NEC has washed its hands of addressing wider issues of anti-Semitism.  Obviously the expression of views is evidence of anti-Semitism, and the use of certain words all the more so, but the implication of the ruling appears to be that the NEC is unconcerned about the conduct of anti-Semites who mind their language.  In other words, it looks like a variant on the old dictum of “thou shalt not get found out”.

This is not “zero-tolerance” by any definition. And at a time when there are real concerns about anti-Semitism within Labour (especially in relation to its expression on social media) and when many Jewish Labour members feel uncomfortable – or have simply left – that’s not remotely good enough.

 

Advertisements

One thought on “How the Greenstein verdict falls short of addressing Labour’s anti-Semitism problem

  1. Pingback: Signs of the times – “An object of scorn and ridicule” – Belgian Ecclesia Brussel – Leuven

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s