Labour claims the decision was made by the General Secretary in Labour HQ. The morning of the EHRC report Starmer was in HQ for his press conference. Immediately after, I'm told, he went into a room on the 8th floor. The decision was made extremely quickly thereafter.
In its first press statement, Labour didn't say the General Secretary made the decision to suspend Corbyn, but later strongly briefed journalists that he did—perhaps suddenly aware it wasn't supposed to look like a political decision.
BUT! The General Secretary being involved in disciplinary matters is, according to the EHRC... (drum roll)... political interference. The report explicitly defines the General Secretary's Office (GSO) as one of "the Party’s political organs." 
So, to convince people there was no political interference in the suspension of Jeremy Corbyn, Labour went out of its way to say it wasn't the Leader who did it, but the General Secretary—which, according to the EHRC, makes no difference. It's still political interference.
Following the EHRC's line of argument, then, the suspension of Jeremy Corbyn was an act of "unlawful indirect discrimination" against Jewish members of the Labour Party.
I know that sounds silly but it's what happens if you apply the EHRC's legal argument to this case.
I know that sounds silly but it's what happens if you apply the EHRC's legal argument to this case.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
