Challenge to fair process: Labour's Advisory Board on Antisemitism

by JVL + 3 potential appointees

Challenge to fair process: Labour's Advisory Board on Antisemitism

by JVL + 3 potential appointees
JVL + 3 potential appointees
Case Owner
JVL + a member of Charedi community + a Jewish member of JVL + a British Palestinian are challenging the fairness of process by which the Labour Party has appointed its Advisory Board on antisemitism
14
days to go
£6,496
pledged of £10,000 stretch target from 215 pledges
Pledge now
JVL + 3 potential appointees
Case Owner
JVL + a member of Charedi community + a Jewish member of JVL + a British Palestinian are challenging the fairness of process by which the Labour Party has appointed its Advisory Board on antisemitism
Pledge now

This case is raising funds for its stretch target. Your pledge will be collected within the next 24-48 hours (and it only takes two minutes to pledge!)

Latest: Aug. 5, 2021

Advisory Board: submission to EHRC

As you may recall when we set up this crowdfunder, JVL instructed solicitors to set out its concerns regarding the Advisory Board on antisemitism and request the party confirm:

  • the process and criteri…

Read more

JVL and three individuals who wished to be appointed - a member of the Charedi community, Adam Hurst, a Jewish member of JVL and Ghada Kharmi, a British Palestinian -  are challenging the fairness and transparency of the process by which the Labour Party has appointed its Advisory Board on Antisemitism.  The process (or lack thereof) has resulted in the exclusion of, and potential discrimination against, relevant Jewish and other stakeholders. It has also seen the appointment of David Evans, the LP General Secretary, as Chair of the Board, meaning he is therefore both personally responsible for implementing the action plan, while chairing the group that is meant to be overseeing its implementation.

The Advisory Board is part of the Party’s response to the EHRC Report, as contained within the Action Plan, which relevantly states as one of the key actions: “Consultation with the Jewish community will be built into all aspects of the Action Plan…” Elsewhere in the plan it is described as a “high-level Advisory Board including Jewish community stakeholders.”

It was expected that the Party would wish the Board to reflect the breadth of the Jewish Communities to which its members belong and the breadth of perspectives and experiences of those members. In the absence of such representation, the Board cannot fulfil one of its key functions, namely re-establishing the trust and confidence of all Jewish people. Given the Party also, rightly, decided to expand membership beyond Jewish stakeholders, it would have been expected that it would include representatives of its British Palestinian members, which have raised concerns about the impact of the IHRA Working Definition on Antisemitism on them, as well as experts in islamophobia.

However, the Party, as far as we are aware, did not publicly call for nominations for participation and did not publicly explain its process or criteria for selecting members. It was also reported that certain groups were given vetoes over particular appointments. As a result of this non-transparent and unfair process, the Advisory Board represents only a fraction of the Jews in the UK, and excludes others who are clear stakeholders in respect of the issue of anti-Semitism.

We are asking the party to explain how the Board was appointed, and how it was that none of the following groups have representation:

  • The Charedi community, who, due to their outward appearance are most likely to be at the receiving end of antisemitic attacks.
  • The membership of Jewish Voice for Labour, all of whose members are Jewish members of the Labour Party, who have decided that the Jewish Labour Movement does not represent their interests
  • British Palestinians, who have significant concern about how the IHRA is used to silence those that speak up about the treatment of Palestinians by Israel, as well as those that criticise Zionism

In particular, our clients are concerned that the Labour Party:

(a) conducted an unfair and opaque process in selecting the Advisory Board;

(b) as a result of this unfair process, the Advisory Board is not representative of the spectrum of the Jewish community, and also excludes other relevant stakeholders; and

(c) such lack of representation amounts to potential discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 and a breach of the Rule Book 2020.

We note also that JVL has attempted to engage with the Party on multiple occasions in respect of the Action Plan’s education programme to identify and tackle anti-Semitism. Given JVL’s track record in providing education, it is well-placed to assist with this aspect of the Action Plan and, indeed, it has offered many cogent and thoughtful contributions via email. However, the Party has refused to engage with JVL at all on this issue, simply asserting that JLM is providing the training.

The Party’s refusal to engage with JVL on this issue is further evidence of a pattern of failure to engage with the wider spectrum of Jewish voices in respect of the Action Plan.

We are aware that there are many demands on our supporters’ pockets. But we ask that you donate to this action if you can and share the link to this page widely by email and social media.

Thank you.

 


 

 


Recent contributions

Be a promoter

Your share on Facebook could raise £26 for the case

I'll share on Facebook
Update 1

JVL + 3 potential appointees

Aug. 5, 2021

Advisory Board: submission to EHRC

As you may recall when we set up this crowdfunder, JVL instructed solicitors to set out its concerns regarding the Advisory Board on antisemitism and request the party confirm:

  • the process and criteria that was followed to appoint the Advisory Board;
  • whether any groups outside the Party were involved in the appointment process. If so, which groups were involved and what was the nature of and reason for their involvement; and
  • the basis upon which the Party maintains that this process was appropriate and not discriminatory, and in accordance with the Rule Book, despite the exclusion of core stakeholders.

Despite various chasers from JVL’s legal representatives, the Party did not respond for over six weeks. When the Party did finally respond, it provided a blanket rejection of all of JVL’s concerns and refused to answer the questions raised concerning the process. The Party likewise refused to engage with our concerns regarding whether JVL’s exclusion from the Advisory Board amounted to a potential breach of the Equality Act (EA) 2010, appearing to deny that the EA 2010 or other equality considerations applied to the appointment of the Advisory Board at all:

The establishment of the Advisory Board is plainly a matter for the Labour Party to manage, and the implication in your letter that the Labour Party has somehow acted arbitrarily, capriciously or irrationally in the establishment of the Advisory Board, or otherwise in a manner contrary to its rules, is entirely lacking in substance and is completely refuted.

JVL is extremely concerned that the Party would already appear to be failing to engage properly with its equality duties in order to pursue factional political objectives. 

JVL has attempted to engage with the Party on multiple occasions in respect of the Action Plan’s education and training programme to identify and tackle anti-Semitism. Given JVL’s track record in providing education, it is well-placed to assist with this aspect of the Action Plan. However, the Party has refused to involve JVL at all on this issue, simply asserting that JLM (Jewish Labour Movement) is providing the training. This is further evidence of a pattern of failure to engage with the wider spectrum of Jewish voices.

JVL has not been included or consulted as a “Jewish Stakeholder”, so the Advisory Board does not reflect the breadth of Jewish communities to which its members belong. It therefore cannot re-establish the trust and confidence of all Jewish people as it excludes some key communities: JVL, Charedi community as well as non-Jewish British Palestinians.

We are therefore now making a submission to the EHRC, stating these concerns, bearing in mind the Party’s stated commitment to implement the EHRC recommendations in line with its Action Plan. The LP is obliged to act fairly and in accordance with the EA 2010.

We continue to incur legal fees with this progression, so call upon you to please donate if you can, and to share widely.

    There are no public comments on this case page.