Thread by @adamlangleben

Thread:
I read this piece in Jacobin. Its really sloppy in key parts of it. It seems to rely on an implication that the EHRC are not impartial without any real evidence to back this up. Here is my view on why the EHRC has not investigated the Tories. Yet.
jacobinmag.com/2020/06/keir-s…

In the piece it goes very heavily on the EHRC for not investigating Islamophobia in the Conservative Party, and implies that the failure to do so almost invalidates its investigation into Labour antisemitism. Its an implication without any real basis.

None of this invalidates the very real stench of Islamophobia emanating from all sorts of corners from the Conservative Party but having helped put together JLM submissions and now reviewing the evidence from the MCB I can see why the EHRC couldn't launch an investigation.

And if they did launch one, based on what was made available to them (at least publicly), they would probably have lost a legal challenge from the Conservative Party, that they would not doubt have brought.
To be honest, that would have been bad for everyone.

The author here @DanFinn95 seems to have not done any research whatsoever on the criteria for what triggers such an EHRC investigation. The EHRC has no powers to police hate speech. The EHRC governs unlawful acts under the Equality Act and can only act within the legislation.

It polices the Equality Act in relation to institutions and those connected to those institutions, such as members or employees.
Only twice has a Section 20 Investigation been launched:
Labour in relation to Jewish members.
Metropolitan Police in relation to Black Police Officers

I've made these points before here.

https://twitter.com/adamlangleben/status/1269181253795876864?s=20

Before I start on this part, I have said before I would be happy to use my experience of the EHRC to help any Tory Muslim put together a referral. But it has to come from Muslims within the Party, it cannot come from Labour people shouting racism. It politicises the issue.

The MCB submission to the EHRC seems to closely mirror the dossiers from the the Campaign Against Antisemitism in documenting hate speech. However worthy these documents are, I do not believe they would have been sufficient for triggering a Section 20 investigation.

Of the five pillars of the case by the MCB, only one directly falls within the key criteria of the EHRC. The rest are important no doubt in making the overall case, but without demonstrating unlawful acts within that one section its bound to fail.

That one section is just 4 pages (of a 44 page document). Hostility to Muslim Conservative Party members is the key pillar.

Its worth noting that when @JewishLabour made this case to the EHRC we provided the Commission with hundreds of personal witness statements from Jewish Labour members directly affected by what we believe to have been unlawful acts within Labour Party spaces and using party rules.

The MCB have provided 11 case studies to the EHRC. Of those 11 very limited detail seems to have been provided to the EHRC and much of it seems to rely on hate speech online. Like some submissions on Labour tonthe EHRC, much is over reliant on online hate speech.

Of these 11 submissions. These jump out to me as good examples that fall within what the EHRC can investigate. They speak directly to the processes internally of the party and environment in meetings that are the responsibility of the party.

But without providing full witness statements from the victims it makes it very hard for the EHRC to launch its highest level investigations.
Many of the other examples are not clear on who the responsible party is.
Is it the Government or is it the Conservative Party?

For the purposes of an investigation like that sought from the EHRC there is a distinction between the two, even if activists cannot necessarily see it.

The document overall is mostly solid in providing background on how an Islamophobic culture has developed but from my own experience it seems to fall way short on the key plank of what the EHRC would need.

This isn't the fault of the EHRC and doesn't demonstrate any impartiality issues. It demonstrates that they have to work in line with the law or face legal challenge.

That being said, the EHRC have effectively put the Conservative Party on notice. They asked the party a series of questions and havnt ruled out future enforcement. Its worth noting that this was also the first step the EHRC took in relation to Labour.

The only real difference between these statements is with Labour they believe that the threshold for unlawful acts has been reached. They clearly didnt come to the same conclusions for the Tory Party. Thats not to say they won't in time with more evidence.

Lastly, again I and I'm sure others who were involved in JLMs submission would be happy to work with Muslims in the Conservative Party in how we did ours. But Labour people pushing this to minimise antisemitism should just get in the bin. It's factional BS that betrays our values