Skip to main content

Do you agree with Jeremy Corbyn's suspension from the Labour Party?

It's hard to take seriously those who say we should put first and foremost the very real concerns of Jewish people, but then stuff socks into the mouths of anyone who would quite correctly reassure the Jewish community that the scale of antisemitism in Labour has been hugely exaggerated.

First of all, just for clarity, Corbyn said the recommendations of the EHRC report should immediately be implemented.

Second, surely anyone familiar with the evidence knows that what Corbyn did say - that antisemitism in Labour has been exaggerated by people inside and outside the party - is true.

There is a widespread perception of antisemitism being 'rampant', 'rife' on the Left and in Labour, etc. For example...

*In 2018, 68 Rabbis signed a letter saying: 'As British rabbis, it is with great regret that we find it necessary to write, yet antisemitism within sections of the Labour party has become so severe and widespread that we must speak out with one Jewish voice.'

*The Jerusalem Post' has claimed that 'Britain’s Labour Party has a major problem with rampant antisemitism.'

*New York Post ran a leader that 'Britain's Left is melting down over rampant antisemitism'

Yet what stats we have suggest that only 00.08% of members have been found guilty of antisemitism. You can no more reasonably conclude that the Left have an 'antisemitism problem' by showing 00.08% are antisemitic than you can show that 'women have a bad driving problem' by showing that 00.08% of women drive badly.

Worse still pretty much all the hard evidence from Jewish Policy Research, The Economist, etc. actually flatly contradicts the claim that there is more antisemitism in Labour/on the left than in the general population:

 · Jewish Policy Research - a Jewish think-tank - conducted an extensive survey looking into anti-semitism, including on the left (2017). They concluded, and I quote, 'antisemitism is no more prevalent on the left than in the general population'. That's a Jewish think-tank's conclusion.

· A Cross-Party Home Affairs Select Committee was tasked with looking into levels of anti-semitism in the UK (2017). It concluded, and I quote, '...there exists no reliable, empirical evidence to support the notion that there is a higher prevalence of antisemitic attitudes within the Labour Party than any other political party.'

· In 2015, 2016, and 2017 Campaign Against Anti-Semitism conducted a survey of British attitudes towards Jews. It found supporters of the Labour Party were less likely to hold antisemitic views than those of the Conservative Party or the UK Independence Party (UKIP), while those of the Liberal Democrats were the least likely to hold such views.

· Further analysis by Evolve Politics of the CAAS YouGov data indicated antisemitic attitudes had actually *reduced* in Labour under Corbyn.

· The Chakrabarti inquiry looked into the accusations of significant antisemitism in Labour and found no significant problem.

· In 2016, Channel 4 Dispatches programme did a 6 month undercover investigation of Momentum, looking for dirt, including anti-semitism. They found none at all. After six months of undercover investigation.

· A 2019 study by The Economist showed that in the UK those who are 'very left wing' were significantly less likely to be antisemitic compared to those 'very right wing, or even in the centre. However the study also revealed (as did the JPR study) that there are more critical attitudes towards Israel found on the far left. See image.

Clearly, many are hugely over-estimating the scale of the problem. Yet, despite it being obviously true that the scale of antisemitism in Labour/on the Left is being exaggerated, I can't remember a single instance of someone being challenged by a journalist when they have exaggerated it in an interview, etc.

Third, this exaggeration has caused Jewish people grave fears that Labour is 'rife' with antisemitism that are in reality groundless. This is actually the context of Corbyn's remark, if you read it.

Fourth, this was a day on which, inevitably Corbyn and the left were going to be smeared again and these exaggerations repeated unchallenged yet again.

So my question is, is it right that Corbyn should be suspended for pointing out an obvious fact that we all know to be true on a day when levels of antisemitism were going to be again dramatically exaggerated by his enemies without challenge?

And (tough one for defenders of free speech who also hate Corbyn) is it right that there should be (as Starmer appears to suggest) 'no place in the Labour Party' for anyone who says what is true - that the problem has been exaggerated for factional reasons?

Incidentally, 73% of the members believe antisemitism has been exaggerated according to 2020 Aschroft poll. So my fifth point is this - is it strategically wise to tell three quarters of your membership that they can't say what they believe and indeed know to be true?

The Left have been accused of being 'rife' with antisemitism and 'Jew hate', even in The Guardian. Yet no fair minded observer looking at the actual evidence could possibly come to that conclusion. It's absurd. And it stokes the very real and deep fears of Jewish people whose concerns really should be at the heart of this issue.

It's hard to take seriously those who say we should put first and foremost the concerns of Jewish people, but then stuff socks into the mouths of anyone who would quite correctly reassure the Jewish community that the scale of antisemitism in Labour has been hugely exaggerated.


Some will reply that yes antisemitism on the left is exaggerated and yes we should be free to say that, but it was politically inept for Corbyn to say it on the day the EHRC report came out.

You can argue that if you like, but 1.: does his saying what's true on that occasion really make him worthy of being kicked out of Labour?

And 2.: Isn't it fair enough to point out, on a day when the left and Corbyn would be smeared yet again as filled with Jew hate, rife with antisemitism, etc. that this is simply not true - not least because whipping up hysteria in that way contributes to unwarranted Jewish fears?

Don't people - even the left - have a right to defend themselves by stating obvious facts on a day when their enemies are spouting toxic falsehoods?


Most of us know that levels of antisemitism on the left have been exaggerated for political reasons. Even if you happen to believe there is more antisemitism on the left than elsewhere (which you shouldn't), there is no reasonable doubt that levels have been seriously exaggerated. But it's increasingly risky to say that out loud. It seems, from what Starmer has said, that it can now get you suspended from Labour. And perhaps worse...

Those leading the charge against 'antisemitism in Labour' are now using threats of litigation to try to stifle academics who dare to point out what's clearly true.

This very blogpost would now be deemed 'unlawful harassment of Jews' by David Hirsh.



He's not a social democrat and has been in the wrong party all of his adult life. He chose the LP for cynical political reasons. The sooner he goes the better.
Paul Braterman said…
It would help if you reproduced his entire statement. As I recall, he did not say (your words) that a/s in Labour has been exaggerated by people inside and outside the party, but by enemies inside and outside the party.

My own feeling, when I read that statement; just when I thought he couldn't do any more harm…
Martin Cooke said…
Perhaps the new leader wants the left to overreact, so that he can have them kicked out for not being team players?
Why do you ask a question and not publish the answers?
Stephen Law said…
Here's Corbyn's statement on facebook:
My statement following the publication of the EHRC report:
“Antisemitism is absolutely abhorrent, wrong and responsible for some of humanity’s greatest crimes. As Leader of the Labour Party I was always determined to eliminate all forms of racism and root out the cancer of antisemitism. I have campaigned in support of Jewish people and communities my entire life and I will continue to do so.
“The EHRC’s report shows that when I became Labour leader in 2015, the Party’s processes for handling complaints were not fit for purpose. Reform was then stalled by an obstructive party bureaucracy. But from 2018, Jennie Formby and a new NEC that supported my leadership made substantial improvements, making it much easier and swifter to remove antisemites. My team acted to speed up, not hinder the process.
“Anyone claiming there is no antisemitism in the Labour Party is wrong. Of course there is, as there is throughout society, and sometimes it is voiced by people who think of themselves as on the left.
“Jewish members of our party and the wider community were right to expect us to deal with it, and I regret that it took longer to deliver that change than it should.
“One antisemite is one too many, but the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the media. That combination hurt Jewish people and must never be repeated.
“My sincere hope is that relations with Jewish communities can be rebuilt and those fears overcome. While I do not accept all of its findings, I trust its recommendations will be swiftly implemented to help move on from this period.”
Chris said…
"He's not a social democrat and has been in the wrong party all of his adult life. He chose the LP for cynical political reasons. The sooner he goes the better. "

Staffordshire Man, this is basically a red herring response to Law's probing questions. You've moved the debate to his Corbyn's ideology, and away from the charges of antisemitism, coupled with party eviction.

Paul Braterman said…
"the scale of the problem was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents inside and outside the party"

Opponents,not enemies. Not quite as bad as I had thought.

If this means anything,it means (a) that the problem was "dramatically overstated"; not perhaps the right thing to say in response to so clear an indictment from EHRC, and (b) more seriously, that "we" (who are "we"?) have oppponents inside the Labour party who have for political reasons taken part in this dramatic overstatement.

Either he is asking his supporters to start a hunt for "opponents" within the Labour Party,or he has no sense of the significance of his words when uttered by someone in his position.

I suspect the latter
Paul Braterman said…
Trivial Q: is there now sme way I can notifiedby email of comments as well asposts?
Stephen Law said…
I don't think there is Paul, sorry. Having said that I am not an expert on this system....
Peter said…
How is antisemitism measured in this survey? Is it antisemitic to say that "Jews are good with money/overrepresented at levers of power"? And some antisemitic attitudes might lead to different behaviour than other antisemitic attitudes. "Stay away from Jews" seems to encourage less harmful behaviour than "the Jews are responsible for problem X and X is our problem".

Of course it is reasonable to critcise Israel but as a foreigner who studied in the UK, I found the preoccupation of left-leaning Londoners and Guardian readers (are the latter really leftists?) with the occupation interesting. You even had things like a "Russell Tribunal" (what a pompous name!). You might object rightly that the existence of a graver harm is no reason to ignore lesser harms, e.g. just because you cannot prosecute murderers does not mean that you should not prosecute burglars. However, this does not really apply in this case: both Israel and Saudi Arabia can easily be brought up and discussed without consequences. And it is not entirely clear that the UK or each of its citizens has more influence (via his buying power) to sway Israel's policies rather than Saudi Arabia's/China's.

If a mayor of London (Livingstone) thinks his job somehow includes statements about foreign countries and the policies regarding them (and why the Middle East?) then it is right to ask why his ire seems to be solely focussed on Israel rather than Saudi Arabia.

Popular posts from this blog


(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

What is Humanism?

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression, a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism, understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o