Forum Topic

No she doesn't. Not to Mr Farmer obsessional ramblings at least. He would never accept anything she said. If she found a cure for blindness he would complain about the damage she had done to the white stick industry.She isn't an anti-semite. Her track record speaks for itself and no substantive allegations have been made against her so she doesn't need to answer 'when did you stop beating your wife' type questions.Mr Farmer is so gripped with this non-issue that he is missing a more important point. Jeremy Corbyn had his Prince Andrew moment with Andrew Neil by refusing to apologise to the Jewish community for anti-Semitism in the Labour party. He may have had his reasons but to most people they will be inexplicable. Any doubt that he was a fit and proper person to run the country vanished at that point.Although, neighbouring MP Andy Slaughter has recently gone on record to criticise the party over anti-semitism, it is understandable if Rupa Huq chooses to hold fire on this matter for now with an election looming. The important thing is what she chooses to do after the election.Labour will not win yet another election next month but some in the party will try to frame the result, whatever it is, as a victory. The victory will be attributed to Jeremy Corbyn and people will need to decide at that point which side they are on. Rupa Huq does bear some culpability for this mess as she nominated him for leader.The most likely scenario is a majority for Johnson. If Corbyn seeks to hang at this point or tries to impose a new leader cast in his image then Rupa Huq needs to consider her position in the party.The other possibility is that there will be no party with an overall majority and some variety of coalition will need to be formed. What we know now is that the Lib Dems' and the DUP's participation will be conditional on Corbyn not being leader. If Corbyn refuses to go, once again Rupa Huq will have to chose between party and country.

Paul Corcoran ● 2367d

Dear Rupa Huq,1. You have worthy words about racism.  Significant, though, you did not attend the debate on anti-semitism in Parliament but were there for the islamophobia debate.  I was shocked by your attempt to defend the anti-semitic comments made by Naz Shah. Those who don’t remember the incident can consult articles in The Spectator and The New Statement (28.4.16), in which your defence of Shah is transcribed.  I have checked the transcriptions against the sound recording and they are accurate. 2.SHAHShah had shared an image with the words “Everything Hitler did was legal”.  She had also suggested a solution for the Israeli/Palestinian conflict was relocating Israel to the USA.  She did that by sharing an image of the United States with the State of Israel superimposed upon it.  The heading:  Solution for the Israel Palestine conflict.  “Solution” seemed to me a sinister word in the context. Shah’s comment: “Problem solved.” Asked om BBC Radio 4’s World at One what she thought of her posts, Shah replied: “"I didn't get anti-Semitism as racism".  "I had never come across it."  She was around 40 years old.  Had she never heard of the Holocaust? 3. ANALYSIS of your defence of ShahYou said her comments were made before she was a public figure.  What has that to do with anything?  NOTHING.  You claimed we needed to see the facts. It was clear from your comments that you knew what Shah had said.  You knew, for instance, that she had not written the offending words but “shared” them. If you knew that, you must have known what was involved in detail. The facts were the words.  The words were known.  By failing to condemn them you condoned them.  You claimed Shah did not write anti-Semitic comments;  she simply shared them.There is no mitigation in that.  “If I shared a racist post would that be ok? No. Never.”  So tweeted Luciana Berger (28.4.16 ). As to the comment that everything Hitler did was legal, that was from Martin Luther King.  In the context of his speech it was NOT anti-semitic.  The image Shah shared picked out one sentence that, taken out of context, WAS anti-semitic. You say  “It’s easy to click those buttons – like, share – and I guess we have to be very careful what it is we are clicking on.”Shah’s s keyboard mishaps all tended in the same direction.You said that some online comments should not be taken seriously. In my opinion, hers should have been, but you characterised her remarks “a silly moment” and “Just really unfortunate”.  Your trivialising of her comments appalled me.In commenting on your behaviour, The New Statesmen – yes, The New Statesmen, not The Spectator – defended Naz Shah but not you: “Rupa Huq represents Labour’s anti-Semitism problem, not Naz Shah … That’s not on Naz Shah. That’s on Rupa Huq. Does she care? Listen to her interview on the Today programme this morning. I don’t think she does.”Your excuse (reported on Ealing Today) was that you were “naïve”.  You are middle-aged and of reasonable education.  “Naive” will not do.  How much have we been paying you as an MP when what you offer is “naïveté”?  Rupa Huq, will you condemn the words and pictures that Shah posted and shared as anti-semitic and in doing so condemn her for having been anti-semitic?  Will you apologise for you intellectually ridiculous and morally indefensible defence of the indefensible and withdraw as a candidate in the coming election? 4.  Naz Shah apologised. Whether sincerely or not who knows. The point is she did not learn to bridle her tongue. She next shared a tweet saying child abuse victims “should keep their mouths shut” for the sake of Diversity and next posted a tribute to Winnie Mandela with a “meme”:  "Together, hand in hand, with our matches and our necklaces, we shall liberate this country."The necklaces were tyres.  The matches were to set them alight around people’s necks.  Labour policy?  The war song of Momentum on the march? Will you condemn Shah for the incitement to violence evident in her quotation? Also, will you condemn Jess Phillips.  She wrote she would knife Jeremy Corbyn “in the front, not the back” if it looked like he was damaging the party’s chances of electoral success. Fortunately for Corbyn, as we all know, Labour politicians don’t keep their promises.  It is matter, Rupa Huq, of the company you keep and what you are prepared to condone. It is when people speak impromptu that they reveal the true content of their minds - as you did when you spoke to Today programme.  Your behaviour in the matter of Shah allowed me to see into your mind.  I do not like what I saw. You have soiled the reputation of our Borough by your behaviour.  I won’t ask you to say sorry.  I would not believe you if you did.  And it is evidently not Labour policy.

Andrew Farmer ● 2368d

Ducks!  Mr Evans, what has poultry to do with this discussion?This one walks like a Huq and quacks like a Huq and the chance is it will respond like a Huq.  It did. The response from Rupa Huq’s representative was sent to me in an email.  It is not on the Forum.  Here is my critique of what I received.  The representative states that Huq was “completely exonerated”.  A mere expression of opinion.  If the finding of the investigation was “insufficient evidence”, as reported, that would mean they were not able to make a determination.  It does not mean she was completely exonerated.  If we had a transcript of the proceedings, we would be in a position to form an opinion I asked for a transcript.  She wrote: “She has not, and cannot, have access to transcripts as the process itself would then not be independent.”  NONSENSE.  How can a transcript of an investigation make its less than independent once it has been concluded!  In line with Huq’s easy-going, trivialising attitude to anti-semitism (as denounced in The New Statesman), she describes the subject of the investigation in blandly innocuous terms as a “staffing issue”.  A letter quoted by Rupa Huq suggested it was about “a breach of the Party’s rules”.  It was about something beyond either.  It was about PERCEIVED ANTI-SEMITIC HATE INCIDENTS.  The local Labour Party’s proper course, given the seriousness of what was alleged, was to refer it to the police, not keep it “under wraps” in an internal Labour Party investigation. The police would have been obliged to investigate it.  The complainants should have walked out of the office and alleged constructive dismissal. The representative said the investigation was independent of Rupa Huq.  It was not independent of the local Labour Party and I suggest the local Labour Party had an interest in not having its MP found guilty of an anti-semitic hate incident. As I have said, I view this matter in the light of Rupa Huq’s reputation.  I am still shocked by her attempt to defend the anti-semitic posts of Naz Shah. The New Statesman dealt with the incident.  It was indulgent towards Shah but made clear that her posts were unequivocally anti-Semitic.”  It continued: “If you don’t agree with that, I’m afraid you’re probably an anti-Semite too.”It continued: “Which brings me to Rupa Huq, the MP for Ealing Central and Acton. In an extraordinary interview on the Today programme this morning, which I have had to listen to at least ten times to make sure that it’s not a satire  …….she denied that Shah’s posts were anti-Semitic, and jokingly likened them to a funny photo she herself had once tweeted about Boris Johnson getting stuck on a zipwire. “Rupa Huq represents Labour’s anti-Semitism problem, not Naz Shah  …. That’s on Rupa Huq. Does she care? Listen to her interview on the Today programme this morning. I don’t think she does.”Transcripts of the interview were available in in both The New Statesman and The Spectator.  I shall check the written accounts of what she said against the sound recording and offer my own opinion. Fortunately. both are online – LEST WE FORGET.

Andrew Farmer ● 2370d

Mr Evans, First, how curious, our contributions arrived without a second between them!1. This thread began with my asking for clarification as to what occurred during the “investigation”.  Nothing anyone has contributed has provided me with it.  Certainly not your comment that the dossier was “very thin stuff”.  Not a terribly closely-argued piece of textual analysis, is it!2. It was the complainant, not I, who accused Huq of racism. 3. You write: “Her record and words in the past give no indication of anti-Semitism”.  We need to examine her record then. You have given your account of it.  There are, however, unrelated matters that paint a different picture.  I shall give an account of them.  Not here.  This thread is not about making a case for or against Rupa Huq in respect of anti-semitism.  It is about whether the investigation that was conducted can enjoy credibility. 4. You write: “Peter Mason, a local councillor who has been a vocal critic of Jeremy Corbyn over anti-semitism is, to the best of my knowledge, happy with her as an MP.”  I could quote a number of people who are not.  And Mr Mason’s being a councillor in a Council led by Julian Bell is of itself no guarantee of integrity!  Not that I wish to criticise Mr Mason.  I and my neighbours are kept busy enough dealing with the “gang of three” who represent us. 5. You write: “Your demand for proof of innocence is never going to be met.”I never asked for proof of innocence.  I asked for clarification as to what occurred during the “investigation”.  That certainly has not been met. 6. You write: “I'm sure the complaint was looked into properly ….I’m sure you are sure.  That is because you are disposed to be.  I require evidence. 7. You continue:  “the claim was made by Labour that it was independently assessed. Independently?  By a barrister, you mean?  The question is who paid him (if he was paid) and what he took to be in the interest of his client.8. You write: “It is highly unlikely that an internal Labour investigation would ever have ruled against a BAME female MP with a large majority who wasn't too vocal a critic of Corbyn unless the allegations were very serious and proven.”I think it unlikely it would have done anyway!  And why would the fact that it was dealing with a BAME female make any difference?  It shouldn’t, should it?  It is, of course, taken into account by Labour when selecting candidates. 9.  You write: “However, the facts speak for themselves - she clearly isn't an anti-semite. Which facts are you referring to?  We are dealing here with opinions. 10. You write:  “If you want to set the bar so low for giving a person a label like this  ….Where in any of what I written have I given anyone a label?  I have asked questions, awkward enough, it seems, to trigger you.' 11. You write:  “… you need to reflect that the same standards could be applied to you. By this measure what's to stop people demanding you 'prove' you are not an Islamophobe and misogynist…accusations of racist behaviour should not be made lightly or used clumsily as a tool to make a political point.Nothing, it seems, is going to stop your making unpleasant insinuations without referencing anything I have written to support them.    I have not asked Rupa Huq to prove her innocence.  I have asked the Ealing Labour Party to demonstrate that a plausible investigation was carried out. 12.  As to islamophobia, having listened to the debate In Parliament on defining what that might mean, I am none the wiser.  The definition, as stated, is intellectually risible and poisonous in intent, useful only for left-wing folk to throw out as an accusation. 11. You write: “You seem to be vindictively obsessed with a female MP of Muslim origin determined to interpret everything she does in the worst possible light.”Point to any word or phrase that I have written that would lead any reasonable person to think I am misogynistic.      The MP in question happens to be a woman and may be a Moslem.    Does that mean she cannot be criticised?  Do you really think I would not criticise a man of whatever religion if I found it necessary?12. Not that I have criticised anyone yet.  So why not wait until I do before you engage in literary criticism and please try to offer something a little more analytical and supported by quotation than  your ham-fisted one-word comment “clumsily”. And, if you wish to make accusations, be man enough not to hide behind insinuation, there’s a good chap. 

Andrew Farmer ● 2373d

The substance of the allegations were published in a national newspaper, the Times I think. The complainant sent them a substantial 'dossier' detailing his grievances against her. They were outlined in the newspaper report which was further precised on this site.Despite the lengthy document that was provided all the allegations against were very thin stuff. Even if they were completely true and accurate it would still be difficult to conclude that she had acted in an anti-semitic way. Her record and words in the past give no indication of anti-Semitism, she has been a member of Labour Friends of Israel, she supports Israel's right to exist and is against a boycott of Israeli goods and cultural exchanges, she was given the support of many Jews in her constituency during the investigation and Peter Mason, a local councillor who has been a vocal critic of Jeremy Corbyn over anti-semitism is, to the best of my knowledge, happy with her as an MP.Your demand for proof of innocence is never going to be met. I'm sure the complaint was looked into properly and the claim was made by Labour that it was independently assessed. It is highly unlikely that an internal Labour investigation would ever have ruled against a BAME female MP with a large majority who wasn't too vocal a critic of Corbyn unless the allegations were very serious and proven. However, the facts speak for themselves - she clearly isn't an anti-semite.If you want to set the bar so low for giving a person a label like this, you need to reflect that the same standards could be applied to you. By this measure what's to stop people demanding you 'prove' you are not an Islamophobe and misogynist, after all you seem to be vindictively obsessed with a female MP of Muslim origin determined to interpret everything she does in the worst possible light. I'm not saying you necessarily are those things just that accusations of racist behaviour should not be made lightly or used clumsily as a tool to make a political point.

Mark Evans ● 2373d

It was dealt with at the beginning of September and it could be inferred that maybe the person was looking for trouble in order to provoke something. Rupa Huq asked a question of the person about Israel. I understand she has been also involved in various anti- racist campaigning including antisemitism. Yes Boris is another story. But focusing on this there are plenty of mistakes within Labour about dealing with this issue in general. It is very annoying as the relationship between Labour and the Jewish community has always been very close. But they have asked for the Equality commission to investigate. On thing we should remember is that criticism or opposition to the actions of the Israeli government has been called antisemitism by some people. But antisemitism is different. It is obvious that some people have been sanctioned for antisemitism including Ken Livingston who shocked me on the radio with his bizarre nonsense. But also there have been complaints about some people on the edge of the party who are not actually party members so they could not do anything about that. In any investigation there will be some innocent and some guilty. Labour has tightened this up this year and about time to. She has been found innocent. So Chris Williamson and Ken Livingston and various others found guilty. My annoyance is that the party had been too wishy washy over this until this year when they called in the Equality commission and John McDonnell and others tried to ensure that the process was taken seriously.

Peter Chadburn ● 2374d