A right Royall
LABOUR-SUPPORTING STUDENTS at Oxford University did engage in antisemitic acts, according to Baroness Royall’s full report.
The Labour peer’s report into allegations of Jew-hate at the Oxford University Labour Club had been suppressed by the party’s National Executive Committee.
Its full publication by Baroness Royall on Wednesday revealed that there were “some incidents of antisemitic behaviour” among members and that Jewish students in OULC “do not feel comfortable attending the meetings, let alone participating”.
Alex Chalmers, the student who first blew the whistle on events at OULC, said he was concerned by the fact that the Labour leader had blocked the report than the antisemitism itself.
He said: “More troubling has been the attitude of the party leadership, which has been an obstacle to transparency at seemingly every turn, suppressing the initial Labour Students investigation, blocking the
publication of Baroness Royall’s report, and instead of going ahead with the Chakrabarti Inquiry, which was characterised by alack of focus and banal recommendations. This lack of transparency has undoubtedly fuel led the abuse faced by many of those discussing antisemitism, who have found themselves denounced as liars or Zionist stooges.”
A Labour spokeswoman said the NEC had “formally accepted” the Royall report earlier in the year, had published its recommendations, and was now acting on them. A party source also told the JC that Labour would not comment on the specifics of the report because it had been “leaked”.
John Trickett MP, Shadow Business Secretary and an NEC member, said the report “made a significant contribution to helping the Labour Party develop and implement the internal policies to make sure that as a party we respect the culture and traditions of everyone who wants to be involved in our party”.
Mr Trickett said Shami Chakrabarti had found Baroness Royall’s work “immensely useful” and that “much of her work was integrated into the Chakrabarti Report”.
Baroness Royall wrote that some of the antisemitic activity members engaged in was conducted outside the group’s structure, potentially limit- ing OULC’s scope to act. But she added: “I regret that the incidences of antisemitism were not reported to any authority, including the Labour Party, as soon as the allegations were made.” Earlier this year Jewish students at the university claimed members of OULC had backed Hamas terrorists’ efforts to kill Jews, sang about rockets over Tel Aviv, and discussed “an international Jewish conspiracy”.
Baroness Royall took the decision to publish her report herself after becoming increasingly frustrated with the party’s response to her work. She said she had “no doubt” the report would “be a great disappointment to the Jewish community for which I have a very high regard”.
She hoped that her recommendations would be implemented in order “to bring about the necessary change in culture.”
The publication of the report prompted further questions about Ms Chakrabarti’s role in investigating Jewhate in Labour.
When she launched her inquiry into antisemitism in May she said the Royall report would be published as part of her own report and appointed the peer as her vice-chair.
But Ms Chakrabarti’s subsequent in June made no mention of Baroness Royall’s findings. She later told the JC that she had the “impression” that the NEC had “redacted” the peer’s report.
Ms Chakrabarti did not respond to repeated requests on Wednesday for an explanation of whether she knew what Baroness Royall had found or whether she had ever read the full Oxford report.
During her investigation Baroness Royall received 300 pages of evidence from more than 40 OULC students. She interviewed eight group members and “offered interviews to a number of others which were not taken up”.
The report contains few specific details on incidents and does not name any individual students.
Baroness Royall wrote: “It is clear to me from the weight of witnessed allegations received that there have been some incidents of antisemitic behaviour and that it is appropriate for the disciplinary procedures of our party to be invoked.
“However, it is not clear to me to what extent this behaviour constituted intentional or deliberate acts of antisemitism.
“Whilst I want to see the party deal with acts of antisemitism, I see no value in pursuing disciplinary cases against students who may be better advised as to their conduct and who would benefit from training on these issues.”
Jennifer Gerber, Labour Friends of Israel director, said it was “absolutely vital that the Labour party takes swift action to ensure that those responsible face the appropriate disciplinary action. There must be no more coverups.”
Oxford University’s Jewish Society said: “We hope that Labour’s disciplinary procedures will finally lead to justice for Oxford’s victims of antisemitic abuse,” the group said.
The Union of Jewish Students said it “remains a concern” that the incidents “haven’t been appropriately addressed” by Labour.
A spokesperson for Oxford University said: “We note the report’s finding of no institutional antisemitism at Oxford University Labour Club.
“Antisemitism, like all forms of harassment or victimisation on grounds of religion and belief, is not tolerated at Oxford… Where offences are found to be committed, they will be considered grounds for serious disciplinary action.”