I referred back to the EHRC investigation into antisemitism the other day. What is fascinating and frankly distressing, is the way in which so many people engaged in politics have made strong decisions about the investigation. The people who are adamant that the whole thing was a scam are quick to assert that Jewish members and former members of the Labour Party were just driven by Blairite, factional hatred of Jeremy Corbyn and were making it all up. This has led to a refusal to even listen to anyone or anything that challenges those assumptions. So, as far as they are concerned, the EHCR report itself was part of the scam and is allegedly discredited.
This week, the #ItWasAScam movement seized on something they considered to be evidence that the EHCR investigation was discredited. A little while back, Ken Livingstone and another Labour campaigner sought judicial review of the EHCR’s investigation and report because they were directly named in it. They argued that the EHCR infringed their human rights by seeking to identify their words and actions as unlawful because it infringed their freedom of expression. At the first stage of the JR, it was agreed that there was a case to answer and so they could bring it forward. It’s important to note that JR works in these two stages where at first hearing the questions are to do with whether they have standing to bring a serious case. This is not an indication of the likelihood of success.
Additionally, it’s important to understand exactly what the implications of this were. JR is concerned with lawfulness. Therefore, the question that a Judge would have been asking would have not been as to whether or not the EHCR was factually incorrect to identify examples of antisemitism and interestingly, from what I can see, the focus doesn’t even seem to be on the legality of specific definitions of it. Rather, the question was whether or not Livingston could reasonably claim that it was his right under freedom of expression to say and do what the EHRC say what he did. In other words, we might argue that certain words and actions are antisemitic but should people be constrained by the law from saying them. The court would have had to determine whether or not one specific law in effect constrained and overruled other laws. Notice, that that this would have had wider implications.
So, even if the Judicial Review had gone ahead and even if it had found in Livingstone’s favour, this would not have discredited the EHRC, nor would it have proved that it was all a scam. However, it has not gone ahead. Leftwing media outlets, including The Morning Star and Squawkbox are reporting that the EHRC and Livingstone have reached a settlement so that the matter won’t go to court. Again, they are spinning this as though the EHRC have offered an out of court settlement and that this vindicates Livingstone and and by extension the Corbynistas.
Once again, it is important to be clear about what has and has not happened. A Judicial Review is not a trial, the clue is in the name. Furthermore, it is not to be confused with things like libel. So, the EHRC have not in effect caved in and gone to Livingstone to offer damages. That in any case would not be the outcome. What in effect, they’ve done is agreed with the other party that the JR should end and that they will not pursue legal costs from the other party. This may well be because they see further legal action to do this as not a good use of their time and resources, perhaps considering that things have moved on. The EHRC will be more concerned with the good governance of the Labour Party, not the pursuit of individuals. Furthermore, what this also means is that the EHRC report still stands. It has not been found unlawful.
In this example, we’ve seen people so determined to take a particular view, that it has shaped their reading of all the evidence put in front of them. We need to be careful that we don’t find ourselves doing the same.
Faithroots 