Chakrabarti inquiry | Page 13

Stereotyping Another fairly direct form of unwelcome and unwelcoming discourse is the use of ethnic stereotypes or dismissing individuals or whole groups of people as thinking or acting in a particular way due to their race or religion in particular. It is not my experience or finding that this kind of thinking is prevalent in the modern Labour Party but nor is it completely absent, and so I think it worth discussing with a view to achieving the highest standards that we seek to maintain. A classic example (though not from our Party) would be of impugning the credentials or good faith of the US President in the context of our EU referendum debate on the grounds of his "part-Kenyan" heritage. The remarks (notoriously made by a senior Conservative politician) were doubly offensive in both stereotyping per se (i.e. in the suggestion that people of Kenyan heritage think a certain way), and in unleashing the classic conspiracy trope that people of a particular minority or of mixed race are somehow suspect or disloyal to the mainstream because a multiple identity equals dubious allegiance. The example I give refers to the stereotyping of the first US President of African heritage whose American nationality, education, career of public service, democratic mandate and two terms as Commander in Chief proved insufficient to "trump" his part Kenyan heritage in the eyes of his proBrexit critic. However this kind of discourse is just as likely in relation to Jewish and Muslim people in some political discourse, including regrettably, on occasion, in the Labour Party. To suggest, for example, that all or most Jewish people are wealthy or interested in wealth or finance or political or media influence or less likely to be of the left or likely to hold particular or any views on the subject of the Middle East is a classic stereotype. Equally, to doubt the political or national loyalty of a Jewish person on account of their actual or perceived connection to fellow Jews elsewhere around the world including in Israel is (unwittingly or otherwise) to tap into an age-old antisemitic conspiracy trope that will inevitably and understandably leave your Jewish friends, neighbours or fellow activists feeling vulnerable, excluded and even threatened. Once more, I am not saying that this is endemic, but any seasoned activist who says that they are completely unaware of any such discourse must be wholly insensitive or completely in denial. I have heard the painful experience of a Labour councillor who was told that he would be particularly good at a finance role (for no reason other than being Jewish). I have heard from an MP around whom rumours circulated that she was some kind of agent for Mossad. This was simply on account of her faith identity and pre-parliamentary career in community activism. I have heard from Jewish students expected either to defend or condemn the policies of the Israeli government during their freshers' week when in truth they have no firm or developed view and just want to settle in and go to the parties like everyone else. Similarly, I have heard Muslims (en masse) being derided as inherently sexist and/or antisemitic and potentially of split or dubious loyalty in the context of Party membership and political participation. Once more, they are sometimes expected to explain and condemn the actions of Isis or particular terrorist acts before, or more vehemently, than anyone else. This is simply not fair. I suspect that both communities suffer as a result of an occasional allergy in some parts of left thinking to religious motivation and identity, and more generally from an actual or perceived identification with fellow Jews or Muslims elsewhere in the world. Labour's internationalist and human rights traditions should be more than capable of embracing the multiple identities of Britain's diverse communities and of remembering that Christianity had its place alongside socialism and secularism in the foundations of the Party from the outset. Of course no religious doctrine, discourse or community can be free from criticism from the modern left (not least on account of the vintage and necessarily patriarchal 10