,
16 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
Ian Austin MP was subjected, in my view, to a clear case of victimisation (within the meaning of the Equality Act) when disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him for complaining about antisemtism.
In a sense, he has been constructively dismissed politicshome.com/news/uk/politi…
In a sense, he has been constructively dismissed politicshome.com/news/uk/politi…
This is victimisation.
It is being treated less well (or punished) for, for example, complaining about discrimination.
@IanAustinMP made an entirely justifiable complaint and was taken through a months' long disciplinary process to attempt to punish him for doing so
It is being treated less well (or punished) for, for example, complaining about discrimination.
@IanAustinMP made an entirely justifiable complaint and was taken through a months' long disciplinary process to attempt to punish him for doing so
@IanAustinMP The party claims it was all about his manner in shouting in Parliament.
But this was in the context of a fiercely contested debate over Labour attempting to write it's own definition of antisemitism.
That's what happened on 16-17 July, the days the complaints relate to
But this was in the context of a fiercely contested debate over Labour attempting to write it's own definition of antisemitism.
That's what happened on 16-17 July, the days the complaints relate to
Austin was a fierce (and in my view fair) critic of the party's actions over antisemitism and the attempt to discipline him was ill-judged, as was the attempt to discipline another fierce critic, Margaret Hodge
Politics can be passionate and difficult and there has been little more passionate or difficult than this issue for Labour.
But to use formal disciplinary proceedings against @IanAustinMP was a huge mistake in the context. It should never have happened.
But to use formal disciplinary proceedings against @IanAustinMP was a huge mistake in the context. It should never have happened.
@IanAustinMP For those saying that Austin brought the party into disrepute.
Compare the case of Peter Willsman, friend of the leadership, who ranted at an NEC meeting about rabbis being "trump fanatics" making of antisemitism claims.
No disciplinary action taken.
theguardian.com/news/2018/jul/…
Compare the case of Peter Willsman, friend of the leadership, who ranted at an NEC meeting about rabbis being "trump fanatics" making of antisemitism claims.
No disciplinary action taken.
theguardian.com/news/2018/jul/…
@IanAustinMP Willsman was re-elected to the NEC after that incident.
What about when Chris Williamson signed a petition supporting antisemite Gilad Atzmon?
No action taken
What about when Chris Williamson signed a petition supporting antisemite Gilad Atzmon?
No action taken
The context is critics of the leadership (Austin and Hodge) are disciplined under a fig leaf of 'uncivil conduct' or similar - so plausible deniability.
But friends of the leadership get carte blanche.
That's a decent sign of institutional antisemitism
But friends of the leadership get carte blanche.
That's a decent sign of institutional antisemitism
I read the replies and I see there is a plausibly deniable case here
Austin was shouting, he's a bully, he had done it before.
But you have to consider the full context. Why was he, amongst other rude/even abusive MPs selected for disciplinary action?
Austin was shouting, he's a bully, he had done it before.
But you have to consider the full context. Why was he, amongst other rude/even abusive MPs selected for disciplinary action?
To respond to a few of the replies - for which I am grateful.
(1) I was not saying he was constructively dismissed. He isn't an employee so cannot be. That's why I said "in effect". It's a useful analogy as MPs are very poorly protected in this scenario. Why should they be?
(1) I was not saying he was constructively dismissed. He isn't an employee so cannot be. That's why I said "in effect". It's a useful analogy as MPs are very poorly protected in this scenario. Why should they be?
(2) Some people including someone who DM'd me have pointed out that Austin behaved verbally aggressively on occasion.
I think that is bad.
I am still totally unconvinced that him being disciplined for 17-18 July was solely about that.
Here's why.
I think that is bad.
I am still totally unconvinced that him being disciplined for 17-18 July was solely about that.
Here's why.
This goes back to a fiery few days in July which were the apex of the antisemitism crisis, where Labour was attempting to write its own definition of antisemitism.
There was clearly a huge amount of heated (sometimes overheated) debate.
There was clearly a huge amount of heated (sometimes overheated) debate.
Disciplinary proceedings were launched against 2 MPs - who happened to be two of the most high profile critics of Labour's approach to antisemitism
Ian Austin and Margaret Hodge
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politi…
Ian Austin and Margaret Hodge
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politi…
At the exact same time, Peter Willsman, the member of the NEC who ranted about Trump supporting Rabbis making up antisemitism allegations at an NEC meeting, was not disciplined.
It doesn't add up. Shouting in an argument is poor behaviour but this all smells bad I'm afraid.
It doesn't add up. Shouting in an argument is poor behaviour but this all smells bad I'm afraid.
Should Labour be given the benefit of the doubt that it just happened that on this very day of the antisemitism debate Hodge and Austin, alone, shouted at people and that was the only motivation?
Neither complaint was proceeded with to a hearing.
Neither complaint was proceeded with to a hearing.
The Labour Party should and would have been well aware of exactly how the disciplinary proceedings would appear to both Hodge and Austin, timed as they were.
