IN the wake of the publication of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) investigation into anti-semitism within Labour, and the subsequent suspension of former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, the response of many on the left shows how far they are still invested in the false narratives of Labour anti-semitism, and how ill-equipped they are to protect the left from further accusations.

Commenting on events, prominent social media figures such as Ash Sarkar, Aaron Bastani and Owen Jones have all responded in defence of Corbyn against his suspension with variations on the theme that the EHRC report itself was good — but it has been overshadowed by disciplinary action taken against Corbyn and misrepresentation of the report’s findings by the press.

In this regard, such commentators point to the fact that the report clearly indicates only two known breaches of the law on behalf of the party, and a further 18 other “borderline” events which could not be considered breaches of legal duty; they point to the lack of designation in the paper of Labour as being “institutionally anti-semitic,” as well as the recognition that internal processes for dealing with complaints of anti-semitism improved after the appointment of Jennie Formby as general secretary in 2018.

They point to recognition in the report that the “political interference” that the Leader’s Office were accused of was primarily to the detriment of those accused of anti-semitism, as opposed to being in their favour — and the fact that a focus on anti-semitism, driven partly by ghoulish media interest, was detrimental to the wellbeing of the needs of other minority groups.

Finally, they emphasise that the EHRC’s recommendations for reform to the disciplinary structures are reasonable and astute — and endorse them.

All of these points are correct and true; but none of them paper over the fact that what is by all measures a minuscule issue of anti-semitic opinions within Labour, over the course of four years under the leadership of Corbyn, was hysterically blown out of proportion for the factional benefit of Labour’s hard-right wing.

Despite making very modest claims regarding the extent of anti-semitism in Labour, and despite implicitly vindicating many of the claims made by Corbyn’s leadership team over the past few years, the report clearly understands its role as a public document informing public opinion, and masks its anodyne content in severe language and phrases.

None of the mitigating factors mentioned above are referenced in the executive summary of the document; and the two instances of alleged breach of law on behalf of “Labour Party Agents” are highly spurious.

One example is a former Rossendale Labour councillor, Pam Bromley, referring to a “fifth column” in the party which the report assumes is a reference to Jews (where it is more likely in reference to the organised cabal of Blairites sabotaging the leadership) and the second is in reference to the comments of Ken Livingstone, namely his suggestion that Hitler had supported “zionism” early on under his rule (a crude but historically arguable position for which he was suspended and later pressured out of the organisation).

Most disturbingly, the EHRC has established case law against what has been coined the “Livingstone Formulation” by journalist David Hirsh — that is, questioning the extent of the accusations of anti-semitism in Labour or claiming such accusations form part of a smear campaign. The EHRC document has specified that unlawful harassment of Jewish people extends to “suggesting that complaints of anti-semitism are fake or smears.”

This rationale was the basis of the decision to suspend Corbyn from the Labour Party, following his response to the report in which he stated that the scale of anti-semitism in Labour had been “dramatically overstated for political reasons by our opponents… as well as by much of the media.”

Put short, it is now considered anti-semitic to even question the veracity or extent of the claims being made about anti-semitism in Labour — despite overwhelming evidence supporting Corbyn’s position.

Up until 2018, data released by Jennie Formby showed that the number of anti-semitism complaints in Labour’s organisation of over half a million people amounted to claims against only 0.1 per cent of the membership, with more complaints lodged against non-Labour members than members, and 90 per cent of all evidence submitted to the party had to be dismissed as unfit.

At the same time, polling data from Survation showed that the general public believed over a third of Labour members were embroiled in such complaints.

It is hard to comprehend the extent of cognitive dissonance being expressed by left commentators attempting to square this circle, in which the EHRC ruling is a positive but misrepresented document being crudely exploited by Corbyn’s enemies.

The EHRC document is a disgrace to justice and a plainly political document seeking to smear the cause of socialism. But such a response speaks to the state of political Stockholm Syndrome still afflicting large sections of the left, in which the language of “equalities” and anti-racism is used to camouflage the emergence of sinister thought-crimes, Kafkaesque corruption and the rampant bureaucratisation of our national politics.

The EHRC has shown its colours as a heavily politicised organisation devoted to the defence of the British establishment with this report (if it hadn’t done so before with its refusal to investigate the Conservative Party over widespread and well-documented allegations of Islamophobia). There is no defence for its conduct — and socialists should not be continuing to peddle craven apologism and selective interpretations in a desperate attempt to avoid this awful truth.

The EHRC has outed itself through this process as part of an Orwellian network of organisations blurring the boundary between liberal moralism and the law. Socialists should not be defending it.