An appointment with Sir Keir Starmer has been denied

• FOR many months I have not been supposed to talk about an investigation into an alleged charge of anti-Semitism levelled against me by the Labour Party on November 5 2021, with a complaint about my conduct which “requires investigation pursuant to the Labour Party’s rules. The complaint relates to Antisemitism (sic)”.

I am Jewish and have been a committed anti-racist all my life. To be told I was being investigated for suspected anti-Semitism feels like an out-of body-experience, a vexatious, personal attack.

The “evidence” provided was a link to an article by me published four years earlier under the heading “Labour Party laws are being used to quash dissent”.

As the title indicates, the article was critical. But anti-Semitic – absolutely not. The letter neither said what was supposed to be anti-Semitic about my article nor who had registered the complaint.

I replied that “Your letter seems to be an attempt to get me to incriminate myself with regard to an unspecified… act you allege I might – or might not – be guilty of. This approach would seem to contradict rules of natural justice, presumptions of innocence and the right not to incriminate oneself…”

I heard back on March 22 2022, with a “Notice of Outcome of Investigation: Reminder of Conduct”. It made no reference to my response, merely that a panel of the national executive committee of the party had concluded (in my absence, without representation of any kind) that my conduct “undermined the Labour Party’s ability to campaign against racism”.

No further information was provided about either the charges or the findings. I was simply issued with a “Reminder of Conduct” (that is, don’t do it again!).

I still have no idea what I supposedly did, nor the slightest indication as to how to avoid similar trespasses in future.

I responded immediately, concluding: “I remain unable to see any charge(s) to answer nor indeed anything I can even appeal against. So I find the claim that I am guilty of something to be without juridical, procedural or moral foundation…”

I heard nothing back. I therefore decided to approach my constituency MP, Sir Keir Starmer, the process having been exhausted. But an appointment with him has been denied.

I am told to “continue corresponding with the Governance and Legal Unit at the Labour Party directly on this matter”. But no one from unit replies, so that is useless advice.

In my last request for an appointment, I wrote: “As I am Jewish and Keir frequently expresses his ambition that Jews should feel comfortable in the party, I would have thought that he would be especially concerned that I feel anything but.”

I am not alone. I am aware of over 50 accusations of anti-Semitism levelled against Jewish members of the party.

Is it unreasonable to suggest that such accusations are being used to suppress disagreements between different sections of the Jewish community about Zionism and the state of Israel, disagreements that are as old as the Zionist movement itself and have nothing to do with anti-Semitism?

What is the point of a “finding” of anti-Semitism where the person accused is not told what they are guilty of? How can supposed lessons be learned if the entire process is kept secret? What is the point of “justice” in the dark?

I wait in the expectation that the charge against me of having undermined the party’s ability to fight racism, which I reject utterly, will soon be withdrawn.

The Labour Party’s disciplinary processes, despite the Chakrabarti recommendation in
2016 and the Equality and Human Rights Commission recommendations in 2021, are still a disgraceful and unjust shambles.

RICHARD KUPER
Holborn & St Pancras Labour Party member in good standing