,
6 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
For me, @LordCFalconer ruled himself out as an investigator of #LabourAntisemitism when he excused Jeremy Corbyn’s defence of the Brick Lane Mural, saying ‘he hadn’t looked properly at it’. It betrayed how unsuitable he is for the job. <thread>
However, I needed to confirm what I remembered of the incident for an article I was writing - so I decided to go back to the #Marr interview of 23rd September, in which Corbyn was asked about the mural in interview for the first time.
Corbyn (thrice) repeats his original 'artistic expression' objection, saying he “was worried about the idea of murals being taken down” When Marr points out how obviously antisemitic it was, he retorts: “It also has other symbols in it as well, doesn’t it?-from the Freemasons”
“..and do you now find it antisemitic?” Marr asks. Corbyn evades - and will only say “I think it should never have been put up”.
So, having had six months of controversy in which to weigh his response, on the biggest media platform available, @jeremycorbyn a) repeats his original objection thrice b) refuses to admit the mural was antisemitic and c) proposes it had other meanings. He does not apologise.
With all the publicity at the time around the IHRA definition, I don’t think the full significance of his responses was fully registered. Even I find it shocking. You can hear it here, 9 minutes in: bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06…
