Authors: members of the LibDems4freespeech group: Jonathan Coulter, Peter Downey, John Hall, Roger Higginson, Mike Jones, Dr Thomas Hugh Manning, Pamela Manning, Denis Mollison, John Payne, Penny Rivers, Jeanette Sunderland, Denise Watkins and Dr Rodney Watts. Based on this article in Middle East Monitor, Dec 5th 2019
We are a group of Liberal Democrats committed to free speech, particularly concerning Israel and Palestine.
On 16th September, we used this Open Democracy article to ask our leaders to distance themselves from the constant antisemitism smears against Labour. Tim Farron had started by welcoming “Jewish people who feel alienated by the Labour Party”, while Vince Cable, Jo Swinson and others went on giving credence to the smears.
Three things that happened in the weeks before the election have driven us to comment further on this:
on November 13-14th, just as nominations were closing, the leadership sought to corral PPCs into endorsing the IHRA “working definition” on antisemitism. The Editor of Lib Dem Voice (Caron Lindsay) supported with this post that contains two clips, one with Luciana Berger claiming to have suffered large-scale antisemitism and misogyny within the Labour Party, and the other where Jo Swinson presses PPCs to sign up.
on November 24th, we were dismayed to read a leaflet where the Lib-Dem PPC for Gateshead, as if heeding the leader's advice, uses selected newspaper quotes to accuse Labour of failing to tackle antisemitism.
on November 26th, Jo spoke in support of the Chief Rabbi’s outburst, in which he said that “a new poison - sanctioned from the very top - has taken root" in the Labour party.
We find this deeply problematic, for the following reasons.
The leadership is prioritising party line over evidence-based discussion
Jo has continuously failed to discuss hard statistical evidence, aptly summed up in this illustration by Alan Maddison, challenging repeated assertions that antisemitism is rampant in the Labour Party.
The IHRA definition picks up on some genuine concerns about antisemitic discourse, but Israel and its supporters have mobilised it as a smoke-screen, with the aim of shielding Israel from criticism about its dispossession and oppression of native Palestinians. Regardless of caveats about “protecting free speech”, the IHRA definition has created an environment where public figures run for cover and/or opt for self-censorship rather than criticise Israel, as Antony Lerman demonstrates in The Independent.
On May 31st of this year, twelve of us addressed Jo an “Open Letter” raising these issues, but at no time has she sought to discuss them. She has instead reacted in an authoritarian manner, pressing PPCs to sign up to a party line that she herself is unwilling to debate.
All ears for Luciana Berger, but none for dissenting Jewish voices
Jo has likewise ignored the voices of the approximately 41% of British Jews who are not Zionist[1]. Many have expressed themselves in letters to the Guardian and on websites like Free Speech on Israel. But Jo only has ears for people like Luciana who has been at the heart of the pro-Israel lobby since she was a student, occupying top posts in Labour Friends of Israel and the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM). JLM is not an organisation for all Jews, but only for those who support Zionism, the doctrine behind the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians.
Luciana has certainly received antisemitic abuse, but this carefully-researched article provides evidence that she has been economical with the truth, intentionally blurring the distinction between abuse from the left and the far right, as part of a politically-motivated campaign to defame Labour Party members. Four of the six people convicted of antisemitic threats and abuses against Luciana (and all three jailed) were far-right extremists; yet she seems determined to paint the abuse as a mainly left-wing phenomenon.
Party discussion platforms are toeing the party line
LibDemVoice is supposed to be “a neutral platform where the views of all members are welcome” but in this case it has simply peddled the party line, only allowing a single comment and making it difficult for PPCs to consider the pros and cons of signing the pledge.
This is not the only time LibDemVoice has censored posts and comments on Israel and Palestine, a policy Caron Lindsay justifies by saying that the topic “brings more heat than light”. But she fails to point out that most of the “heat” comes from pro-Israeli elements who routinely avoid discussing the evidence and resort to attacking the personal qualities of those advancing evidence, as can be seen from this thread.
All this comes on top of what happened when we first put forward our ideas back in June. We were shut out of all party discussion platforms, and on one platform, several party activists and officers treated us, and others, to troll-like abuse, including f-words – with impunity.
Finally, we appeal to the party to stay true to liberal and democratic principles, which means:
ending internal censorship and opening up discussion forums to proper debate;
leaders making sure their arguments are evidence-based, and insisting party members do likewise, and;
a consistent approach to the media: a party that supports Justice Leveson’s recommendation for independent press regulation to protect the public and uphold press freedom must oppose the press acting as a conduit for a tsunami of unsubstantiated allegations about antisemitism.
[1] According to the House Affairs Select Committee report on Antisemitism, of 2016, para 28.