Labour does not care about antisemitism anymore

It's official. As of 24th September 2016, 62% of those eligible to vote in the Labour Party's leadership election do not care about antisemitism. Approximately 50% of those will read that sentence and, ironically, accuse me of a smear campaign against Jeremy Corbyn. They will not ask me why I feel this way. Instead, they will tell me Jeremy Corbyn is a thoroughly decent man. They will probably tell me that he is just pro-Palestinian, even though I have not mentioned Israel. And finally, they will tell me that there is no antisemitism problem in Labour. Because, apparently, I am just an embittered Blairite or a right-wing conspiracy theorist out to cause trouble and lie about Corbyn.

Supporting Jeremy Corbyn does not automatically make one an antisemite. Dismissing his supporters as such is unhelpful and wrong. It is to misunderstand his considerable appeal completely. I have friends, ones that I know for a fact are not antisemitic, that support Corbyn and I think it is easy to see why. They, like me, have left university with thousands of pounds worth of debt they see saddled on them by this Tory government. They, like me, care about the environment. They, like me, think that spending billions on a nuclear deterrent that we will never use is madness when we have record numbers at food-banks. They, like me, are tired of the same old politics and politicians. Rightly or wrongly, Jeremy Corbyn is seen as the answer to many of the issues they care about. He is seen as the opposite of your normal politician. Principled and decent. Nevermind this is all nonsense. That's another article for another time. I get his appeal. Truly I do. But I could never support him or a Labour Party under his leadership.

Because I, unlike them, care about antisemitism. They can't care about antisemitism, because if they did, they'd be appalled by Jeremy Corbyn. They'd be appalled by Diane Abbott and John McDonnell. They'd be appalled by Ken Livingstone and the fact he remains in the party. They'd be appalled by the Chakrabarti report and her peerage. They'd be appalled by the video Corbyn released where his supporters make it clear they think anti-Semitism is not a problem and do not care even if it were because it was the Tories who were really anti-Semitic 70 years ago. They'd be appalled by any claims (from, for example, Len McCluksey and Diane Abbott) that antisemitism accusations are a slur against Labour. They'd be appalled that Corbyn himself dismisses the allegations, demonstrating a remarkable arrogance and an ignorance and apathy towards antisemitism. They'd be appalled that instead of rooting out and expelling members who express antisemitic views, Corbyn and McDonnell appear alongside them and endorse them. They'd be appalled by Corbyn's association with Holocaust deniers. They'd be appalled by the fact Jewish MPs now require protection. They'd be appalled by the abuse directed at Jewish MPs in Corbyn's name. They'd be appalled that Ruth Smeeth left the event launching the antisemitism report in tears, rather than dismissing her as a CIA agent.

But they aren't. Because they do not care about antisemitism. If that upsets you as a Corbyn supporter, then it should. You should be deeply upset that you have chosen to ignore the vast majority of the Jewish population in this country and tell us that you care about all forms of discrimination apart from discrimination against us. You should be deeply upset that you have decided to either ignore the crisis of antisemitism in Labour or, worse, dismiss it as a smear against the dear leader. You should be deeply upset that you have not asked Jews like me (and the 92% of the Jewish Labour Movement that endorsed Owen Smith) why we feel there is a problem in the Labour Party and with Jeremy Corbyn (see above and here). You should be deeply upset that the Labour Party Conference 2016 has been riddled with antisemitism. You should be deeply upset that Momentum calls for the expulsion of the Jewish Labour Movement, an affiliate since 1920. You should be deeply upset that instead, you have simply dismissed our concerns. And you should be deeply upset that your response to this article won't be to consider for the briefest of moments that you might be wrong. That maybe, just maybe, glorious, infallible Jeremy Corbyn might have a glaring, despicable flaw that you missed despite the thousands of Jewish and non-Jewish voices trying to point it out.

And personally, I do not know what upsets me more. The antisemitism in Labour or the fact so many people, both friends and people I do not know, care so little about antisemitism. But it's fine, you can just dismiss me as a member of the worldwide Zionist conspiracy. After all, the allegations are just invented. That's a lot easier than facing up to the fact that you, the self-confessed anti-racist and self-appointed moral authority, do not care about antisemitism. You do not care even a little bit.

This article was updated on 25th September 2016 to reflect the antisemitism that has occurred at the Labour Party Conference 2016. 

This article was further updated on 19th September 2017 to correct the spelling of antisemitism and antisemitic.

June 23rd, The Day British Democracy Stopped

"Brexit means Brexit" has been the tautological, trivial cry from Theresa May in an attempt to appease sudden ardent supporters of our democracy who claim that the referendum vote is absolutely final and that, basically, is that. Aside from the fact that one of the fundamentals of a democracy is that we can discuss, criticise and, indeed, even challenge democratic votes, this insistence that Britain must absolutely leave the EU no questions asked because 52% of 72.2% of those eligible to vote, voted to leave (without it being in the slightest clear what) just smacks of stupidity. It just seems that everyone who supported Leave has decided to stick their fingers in their ears, close their eyes and scream "BREXIT MEANS BREXIT" until all the nasty people who disagree with them shut-up.

To begin with, what does Brexit even mean? Aside from Brexit because everything means itself. Except literally, which now means the opposite of literally. Literally. So what does Brexit mean? Does anyone know? Anyone? Obviously, it means, to some degree, leaving the European Union but it is not as simple as that. Does no one think someone, whether it be MPs or the public again, should have a vote on whatever deal is agreed? Would that not be the sensible thing to do? What if the Brexit deal is not Brexit-y enough? What then? Our democracy does not stop just because we had one vote on a vague question with many possible permutations and answers. Nor should it. It would be somewhat ironic if the Brexit deal negotiated is not to the taste of the majority of Brexiteers in Parliament but gets pushed through because they all threw their toys out the pram and decided that absolutely no one should ever vote on the EU issue again in response to some people daring suggest that this vote did not mean we blindly accept any Brexit deal. Indeed, that would be the worst of both worlds. We leave the EU, which 48% of those who voted did not want to do in the first place and end up with a deal that the other 52%, or indeed any percentage thereof, do not like anyway. The maths is quite simple: If just 4% of those who voted leave think the Brexit deal reached is worse than staying, we force through a Brexit deal the majority of those who voted (making the fair assumption that all Remainers oppose it) oppose.

Which brings us to a second reason why this blind insistence on sticking to the vague referendum is ridiculous. It actually harms, rather than serves, our democracy. To begin with, should there be a general election in October because Theresa May decides that beating Jeremy Corbyn would be quite fun and we return a majority of MPs who support remain and then hold a parliamentary vote on triggering Article 50 that fails, that remains democratic. And ironically, just because it gives you the result you do not like Brexiteers, does not mean it is not democratic. Challenging a democratic vote (the referendum) is not arguing it is not democratic. It is simply exercising our democratic right to challenge our democracy. However, more importantly, our democracy does not stop with one referendum. That is not how it works. Given no one can decide what Brexit means, given it is not even agreed yet what it means, would it not be prudent to have a vote on whether we like what Brexit looks like? Just because we've agreed to go to a restaurant does not mean we have to eat there if we subsequently look at the menu and decide what we already had at home was better and we'd rather stick with that.

Finally, and perhaps most ironically, Brexiteers seem to have forgotten what they argued this referendum was about. Alongside their racist nonsense about immigration and ignorant nonsense about regulations, it was about parliamentary sovereignty and taking back control, whatever the hell that means. Yes, that's right, it was about the sovereignty of the parliament Brexiteers want to ignore with the triggering of Article 50, and indeed any deal and it was about taking back control to the British people but giving them absolutely no say, whether via their MPs or directly, on what that control looks like.

It seems, therefore, that we do know what Brexit means. It means blindly following a referendum vote regardless of consequences; implementing a deal irrespective of what that deal is, ignoring virtually everyone's views; and that once we had the EU referendum vote, our democracy ceased to exist.

Update: A previous version of this post erroneously used the word 'tenants'. This has now been corrected.