1/ Is anyone else intrigued why the EHRC Report didn't consider whether the Labour leadership's interference in antisemitism investigations to a far greater extent than any other area of complaint was direct rather than indirect discrimination?
2/ That would, of course, require investigation into motivation in interference: did something about these antisemitism complaints explain that disparity? Perhaps a difficult issue for the EHRC to determine, but one which would provide for a far more powerful & damning outcome.
3/ In making that analysis, it's worth reminding ourselves that in a court a party asserting direct discrimination needs only to show facts from which a court could properly conclude the party's actions were motivated by the Jewish religion or ethnicity.
4/ That needs not be the sole motivation. An effective cause suffices. The burden would then shift & it would be for the party to show it was in no sense whatsoever motivated by those factors in the decisions on how to treat complaints of antisemitism - a tall order.
5/ My 2nd, far more trivial point concerns the EHRC list of cases considered when looking at whether actions were done in the course of an authorised function rather than in a private capacity. The case missing is the most recent & best on this question: Forbes v LHR Airport 
6/ If anyone from the EHRC wants to brush up on what it says, here's my thread on Forbes:
Also, because it's the greatest employment case I've ever tweeted about, here's my thread on Mason v Huddersfield, which the EHRC cites:
https://twitter.com/JasonBraier/status/1146791118660657156.
Also, because it's the greatest employment case I've ever tweeted about, here's my thread on Mason v Huddersfield, which the EHRC cites:
https://twitter.com/JasonBraier/status/1260104086835380224
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
