3

In this tweet, Stephen Canning, a representative of Bocking, Essex is claiming that 25 Jewish applicants had their membership request into Labour pended dependent upon a home visit.

STAGGERING: If you’re a Jew and want to become a Labour member in Tottenham constituency, you have to agree to a home visit - something prospective members of other religions do not have to do... #GE2019

enter image description here

This account was based upon one respondent's reporting in this claim. Is this true?

Community
  • 1
  • 2
    There is absolutely nothing to go on in his tweet, and from what I can read in the very limited screenshot that Mr. Canning had posted it doesn't even confirm what he's saying. I don't know how we would even begin to answer this. – DenisS Dec 05 '19 at 18:02
  • I'd rephrase that to "has the LP in Tottenham…"; doubting that this is an ongoing 'requirement' but an incident. Seems the screenshot is from ["Redacted JLM closing submission to the EHRC"](https://www.scribd.com/document/438367082/Redacted-JLM-Closing-Submission-to-the-EHRC). Not in the mood to log in there… Perhaps someone finds that doc elsewhere… – LangLаngС Dec 05 '19 at 18:34
  • @DenisS Exactly, it's not well sourced at all. But you verify things THROUGH INDEPENDENT SOURCES. That's what good reporting does. –  Dec 05 '19 at 20:00
  • @langlangc seems like a one off, but a bad one. –  Dec 05 '19 at 20:01
  • @oddthinking I kind of like the "has" language proposed by Lang that I incorporated. Goes to policy versus occurrence. I'm trying to verify the latter. –  Dec 06 '19 at 14:02
  • 1
    Visiting one person who happens to be Jewish is anecdotal; drawing motivation from that is unsafe. Having an explicit policy or written statemnt that Jews need home visits would address the claim. – Oddthinking Dec 06 '19 at 14:10
  • @oddthinking It happened 25 times, or so the claim reads. –  Dec 06 '19 at 14:30
  • 2
    Oh, sorry, I misunderstood what the request was. I see "Did [it] require?" and "Has [it] required?" to be equivalent, and either is better than "Is [it] requiring]". I don't mind which you use. – Oddthinking Dec 06 '19 at 14:39

1 Answers1

5

The text comes from a redacted and leaked report from the Jewish Labour Movement entitled Jewish Labour Movement Closing Submission to the EHRC - Antisemitism in the Labour Party. No information can be gleaned as to whether it is accurate or not as it is a allegation made by the JLM and not an actual conviction or statement of fact. Furthermore, the statement by Mr. Canning seems to claim that this alleged event is official policy of the Labour party, as opposed to discriminatory behavior by one member of the party.

The relevant portion can be found on page 9.

23.1 One respondent reports that the membership secretary in the South Tottenham constituency objected to 25 applications for membership from the ultra-orthodox Jewish community, and required home visits to these prospective members' houses. This was not a requirement for other prospective members and appears to have been direct discrimination against Jewish applicants for membership. (57)

The (57) refers to a footnote at the bottom of the page.

(57) JLMSUB1 Appendix 4 Part A Statement of [REDACTED]

There is no Appendix 4 in the leaked report.

The statement by Mr. Canning claiming

If you’re a Jew and want to become a Labour member in Tottenham constituency, you have to agree to a home visit

does not appear to be true. Even if the allegations above are true, it does not appear to be an official policy of the British Labour party, or even of the South Tottenham Labour Party, but instead a discriminatory act by a single member of the South Tottenham Labour Party.

DenisS
  • 22,355
  • 8
  • 95
  • 95
  • 1
    He doesn’t say that it’s official policy. – Andrew Grimm Dec 05 '19 at 18:58
  • 2
    @AndrewGrimm no but he strongly implies it. – DenisS Dec 05 '19 at 20:36
  • 1
    This verifies the claim's source, which is helpful. +1, but not definitive. –  Dec 05 '19 at 21:00
  • 5
    @DenisS if person X from organisation Y does Z, it may not be because organisation Y has an official policy of Z. It may be that X perceives they can do Z without receiving punishment from Y. Or it may be that Y has a toxic culture that encourages people to do Z. Or Y did a poor job of vetting people in a position of responsibility. In such circumstance, it is appropriate to call out Y as well as X. – Andrew Grimm Dec 06 '19 at 07:47
  • 2
    @AndrewGrimm Or that Y really wants X to do Z but doesn't want a paper trail or go through official channels to change Z officially. –  Dec 06 '19 at 16:48
  • 1
    What is an "official" policy anyway? It can only be something that's written down or recorded as applying to the Labour Party as a whole. So Canning is certainly not implying it's an official policy, he's implying it's an unofficial policy or more accurately a symptom of an alleged culture of antisemitism in the LP. And yes, this particular claim doesn't seem to have much evidence to back it up. – President James K. Polk Dec 08 '19 at 04:37