71

At a Time when Margaret Thatcher was calling Nelson Mandela a terrorist, and a young David Cameron was living it up on all expenses paid tours around apartheid South Africa, Jeremy Corbyn was being roughed up and arrested for blockading the South African embassy in London.

Is this a photo of Jeremy Corbyn, and is it photoshopped in any way? Was he arrested, and if so was it for blockading the South African embassy? Did this happen at a time when David Cameron was touring South Africa, and was Margaret Thatcher the Prime Minister then?

Tim
  • 3,866
  • 2
  • 22
  • 38
  • 2
    Where did you read the caption? Did it not give a date for the photo? – Colonel Panic May 15 '17 at 14:39
  • @ColonelPanic [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/theactivistscalendar/photos/a.1622003071349299.1073741825.1621999738016299/1655180238031582/?type=3&pnref=story) and no. – Tim May 15 '17 at 14:40
  • It should possibly be noted that whether or not he supported the ANC is not about our 20/20 hindsight, he also apparently supported the IRA, Hamas, Hezbollah. He did not choose friends well http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11749043/Andrew-Gilligan-Jeremy-Corbyn-friend-to-Hamas-Iran-and-extremists.html – Separatrix May 17 '17 at 10:30
  • 1
    @Separatrix As an op-ed, that Telegraph article could be the source for some additional claims about what Corbyn does or does not believe, but as an op-ed it serves poorly as evidence. I don't think controversial claims that Corbyn supports Hamas belong in an answer on Corbyns contemporary views of the ANC, but feel free to post additional questions if you think such claims deserve the same scrutiny as the present one. – gerrit May 17 '17 at 19:24
  • 1
    @Separatrix But sure, if you wish: Cameron accepted money from a pro-Apartheid lobby group to visit South Africa. Corbyn accepted money from an allegedly pro-Hamas group to visit Palestine. The former is addressed by the question; the latter is not. Note that the Telegraph article does *not* claim that Corbyn supported Hamas except in its header. – gerrit May 17 '17 at 19:34
  • @gerrit, I wasn't aware that it was controversial, it was just context to say that it would be within his normal behaviour pattern to be seen to be supporting any given "terrorist" group, just as it would be within Cameron's to visit South Africa. There are various statements from both giving their reasons for their respective behaviours. – Separatrix May 17 '17 at 19:41
  • @Separatrix It is not controversial that Corbyn supports **talking to** Hamas (the elected government of Palestine). However, the claim that Corbyn supports Hamas certainly is controversial (and, I believe, untrue). Any claim of *x supports y* is inherently problematic because the meaning of *support* is vague. From the Telegraph article, I can see why some would consider that Corbyn supports some islamist groups, whereas others do not consider inviting groups for dialogue constitutes support. See also the controversy on [this question](https://politics.stackexchange.com/q/15719/130). – gerrit May 17 '17 at 19:47
  • @gerrit, quick fact check: Hamas aren't the elected government of Palestine, they only won the election in Gaza strip and proceeded to expel or kill any political opposition. The PLO won the overall vote. Also, [he called them his friends](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/04/jeremy-corbyn-says-he-regrets-calling-hamas-and-hezbollah-friends) – Separatrix May 17 '17 at 19:50
  • @Separatrix You have it backwards. [Hamas won 74/132 seats](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_legislative_election,_2006) with 44.45% of the vote, winning in both West Bank and Gaza. Fatah had 41.43% and 45/132 seats. The Fatah-Hamas conflict [is complicated and involves many outside actors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatah%E2%80%93Hamas_conflict). The friends quote and subsequent discussion / regret goes to show "x supports y" is an inherently problematic claim to objectively verify. – gerrit May 17 '17 at 19:59
  • 1
    @gerrit, yes I did have that backwards. Who supports what and which behaviours is not for us to say. What we can say is that Corbyn has consistently maintained dialogue with persons and groups considered to be terrorists by the majority along with publicly calling them his friends. In some cases (ANC) he was shown to be potentially correct, in others (Hamas, Hezbollah) he has apologised for his position. – Separatrix May 17 '17 at 20:06

1 Answers1

108

Yes, photo and caption are essentially accurate.

Some details are not entirely accurate: the arrest was in 1984, the Thatcher quote in 1987, and Cameron's trip in 1989. And although Thatcher labelled the ANC as terrorist, she also pressed the South African president to release Mandela. See below for details.

The photo shows Corbyn under arrest.

Yes, this does show Jeremy Corbyn at an anti-Apartheid protest on 22 July 1984, according to the University of Leicester:

The photograph shows Corbyn being arrested on an anti-apartheid protest in 1984 - and was originally ‘discovered’ through Dr Gavin Brown's “Non-Stop Against Apartheid” research project, funded by the Leverhulme Trust.

(...)

"Jeremy Corbyn was one of a small number of politicians who was arrested alongside less famous protesters. In doing so, he helped to defeat the police ban and reinstate anti-apartheid protests in front of South Africa House - where they could have maximum impact on the representatives of the apartheid regime in Britain.

It is probably difficult to objectively determine whether he was “roughed up”, as this term is rather vague. It appears he did not leave voluntarily, and that the police used force to remove him from the protest. This may or may not be considered “roughed up”.

Thatcher called the ANC terrorist (but was more ambiguous about Mandela)

Yes, Margaret Thatcher did refer to the ANC, led by Mandela, as terrorist, but was more ambiguous about Mandela. From a 1987 interview transcribed at margaretthatcher.org:

Just before you, I just remembered I did not answer the second part of the previous question put to me about the ANC, when the ANC says that they will target British companies. This shows what a typical terrorist organisation it is. I fought terrorism all my life and if more people fought it, and we were all more successful, we should not have it and I hope that everyone in this hall will think it is right to go on fighting terrorism. They will if they believe in democracy.

In this interview, she was talking about the ANC in general, and not about Nelson Mandela specifically. 3 years prior, in 1984, she reportedly harangued [the South African President] on why he should let Mandela out of prison. I will leave open the interpretation of those two observations (I'm not sure how to interpret it myself).

David Cameron accepted a paid-for trip to South Africa

According to The Independent:

David Cameron accepted an all-expenses paid trip to apartheid South Africa while Nelson Mandela was still in prison, an updated biography of the Tory leader reveals today.

The trip by Mr Cameron in 1989, when he was a rising star of the Conservative Research Department, was a chance for him to "see for himself" and was funded by a firm that lobbied against the imposition of sanctions on the apartheid regime.

Note that this was 5 years later than Corbyn's arrest, so Cameron was not in South Africa at the exact moment of Corbyn's arrest (or at least not on the funded trip), but both happened during the "Thatcher era" of British politics, so it depends on ones interpretation of "at a time" whether one considers this true or partly true.

Community
  • 1
gerrit
  • 17,636
  • 17
  • 84
  • 137
  • 2
    @DavidRicherby 'roughed up' is a pretty vague phrase, the photo shows him being strong armed by the police which is a synonym of being roughed up. He probably wasn't beaten with a phone book while in police custody but we will never know for sure. – daniel May 15 '17 at 09:33
  • 3
    It is worth noting that your quote of Thatcher calling the ANC "a typical terrorist organisation" comes from 1987. Curiously, in 1984, the year new MP Jeremy Corbyn was photographed, Thatcher was pressing South African president P W Botha to release Mandela http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/margaret-thatcher-branded-anc-terrorist-while-urging-nelson-mandela-s-release-8994191.html – Henry May 15 '17 at 14:29
  • 4
    @Henry Curious indeed. I agree that both observations are worth noting as they seem to suggest Thatchers views on Mandela may have been more subtle than her views on the ANC overall. – gerrit May 15 '17 at 14:42
  • 2
    The political problem with calling Mandela himself a "terrorist" was that he had been in jail so long (2 decades) that claiming there was any recent terrorist act he had any hand in would have been more an indication of Government incompetence in incarcerating him than a smirch on Mandela's character. – T.E.D. May 15 '17 at 14:57
  • Any info on what reason he was removed from the protest for? – jpmc26 May 15 '17 at 23:38
  • 1
    @jpmc26 The government had specifically prohibited to protest outside the South African embassy, which is exactly what Corbyn and others did. I didn't describe this in my answer because I think the *why* of the arrest is beyond the scope of the question/claim. – gerrit May 15 '17 at 23:57
  • I dunno if including it is a good idea, but it does seem like relevant info to the claim, which clearly goes beyond what's explicitly stated and into implication territory. Thanks for the info, though. – jpmc26 May 16 '17 at 00:01
  • @jpmc26 It's actually stated in the quote already: *defeat the police ban (...) in front of South Africa House*. – gerrit May 16 '17 at 15:08
  • 1
    The phrase "living it up on all expenses paid tours" is of course the kind of phrase that journalists love because it paints a picture without actually containing any facts that can be challenged. Yes, if you're a political researcher and you go on a fact finding tour to a foreign country, then your hotel bills and meals will be paid for. – Michael Kay May 16 '17 at 20:02
  • @MichaelKay Of course the original photo caption aims to paint a particular picture; it is clearly politically motivated. The facts can still be checked. Having said that, I do believe it is relevant whether the money source is impartial. There is a difference between parliamentarians and their staff travelling accepting OSCE funds for fact finding in Kosovo or Kazakhstan, vs. politicians accepting money from lobbyists who aim to promote a particular message. If/when British leftists had accepted an all-expenses-paid "fact finding" tour from Stalin they'd be rightly criticised as well. – gerrit May 16 '17 at 20:11
  • I can't imagine that the research outfit of any political party gets much funding from non-partisan sources. – Michael Kay May 16 '17 at 20:16
  • @MichaelKay I just mentioned the OSCE, and national parliaments also have funding for sending parliamentarians and their staff on work trips. It happens all the time, paid for by taxpayer's money, not without corresponding complaints from some. A third alternative is for the political party itself to fund the trip, which is not impartial but not an external lobby group either. – gerrit May 16 '17 at 20:18