Wednesday, 4 May 2016

Explaining To Do

Peter Oborne, let the reader understand, writes:

This week’s coroner’s court verdict has exposed at last the dreadful role of the police — helped by some in the Press — in spreading lies about what really happened at Sheffield Wednesday’s Hillsborough ground. 

However, many questions still surround what Shadow Home Secretary Andy Burnham has rightly called the greatest miscarriage of justice in our time.

These relate to the role of politicians. 

I am certain that the truth about Hillsborough would have been made public much sooner had it not been for a first-class political cover-up. 

This is a scandal which stretches right to the top of both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party. 

The Thatcher government still ran Britain at the time of the tragedy in 1989. 

Did Margaret Thatcher and her ministers protect the police after 96 football fans were killed?

Did they intervene to restrict the terms of the Taylor Inquiry, set up in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy? 

What were the communications between the South Yorkshire Police and Downing Street? 

Did the government use its muscle and influence to shape the false narrative of events as it went to the media. 

The relevant Cabinet Office papers relating to all this have never been released to the public. 

This must happen urgently.

Mrs Thatcher had what amounted to a blood debt to the Yorkshire Police for their hugely supportive role in the miners’ strike five years earlier.

So Mrs Thatcher had every incentive to protect the force. She was always loyal to her allies. 

Don’t forget we got an inkling of her government’s attitude from her Press Secretary Bernard Ingham’s later remark that Liverpool fans were ‘tanked-up yobs’. 

There are equally serious questions to be asked about Tony Blair’s Labour government. 

In opposition, Tony Blair had promised that Labour would institute a full-scale inquiry.

However, he failed to do this after winning the 1997 General Election. 

Andy Burnham is on record as saying that Tony Blair did not order an inquiry because he did not want to offend Rupert Murdoch, whose Sun newspaper had accused ‘drunken’ Liverpool fans of attacking rescue workers. 

Can this really be true? 

Had Blair gone ahead and launched his inquiry, Liverpool fans would not have had to wait nearly two decades more to learn the truth. 

Had the Thatcher government done its job properly, they would not have had to wait at all. 

Both main political parties have a great deal of explaining to do.

America First Deserves Better


When Donald Trump applied the label "America First" to the mix of half-formed thoughts he calls foreign policy last week, I was sad. 

First because he had associated his obnoxious thoughts on dipping bullets in pig's blood with a proud foreign policy tradition. 

And second because columnists would lazily malign the America First Committee (AFC) of 1939-1941, a noble if misunderstood cause. 

America First was a young, politically diverse, and surprisingly well-lettered movement that wanted to keep America neutral (like Switzerland or Ireland) as Europe descended into World War II. 

Though it started on the East Coast, it was concentrated in the Midwest and had over two million members nationwide. 

It counted major American political figures, Democrat and Republican, in its ranks, as well as many men of letters. 

You probably remember the Clinton years. The America Firsters remembered World War I. 

Members of the AFC over 30 would recall that the last European bloodbath had some deforming effects on liberty at home. 

These included America's experiments in mass wartime censorship, stirred up-hatred of German-Americans, and the legal suppression of the German language that was used commonly in the Midwest and Great Plains.

The governor of Iowa told reporters, "There is no use in anyone wasting his time praying in other languages than English. God is listening only to the English tongue." 

America Firsters also remembered British intelligence planting false and insane stories in the American press during World War I, accusing the German army of marching with Belgian babies impaled on their bayonets. 

They remembered that Woodrow Wilson's government had employed a small army of government-licensed demagogues, the Four Minute Men, who got their speeches from the proto-fascist Committee on Public Information. 

They also recalled that the peace imposed at Versailles had been vengeful and its reparation schemes so entangled that they contributed to a global economic depression just a few years earlier. 

Naturally, some of them wanted to restore America's foreign policy of maintaining the Monroe Doctrine in our hemisphere and not intervening in others. 

The modern charge against America First is that it was made up of people obsessed with Jews. 

In her denunciation at CNN, Susan Dunn says that Charles Lindbergh, a famous pilot, anti-Semite, and popular AFC speaker, "put American Jews on notice that America's 'tolerance' for them rested upon a fragile foundation.'" 

McManus says that Lindbergh's "followers included more than a few pro-Nazis and anti-Semites." 

This has been rebuffed by historians Wayne S. Cole and Justus Doenecke. 

The AFC, understanding that it was in tension with the Anglophile elite on the East Coast, tried to police anti-Semitism in its ranks. 

General Robert Wood, a distinguished veteran of America's war in the Philippines and the First World War, told the followers of the openly anti-Semitic radio priest Father Coughlin, "We don't want you people." 

The powerful industrialist Henry Ford was ejected from the board of America First for his anti-Semitic views. 

And when Lindbergh included, for the first time, anti-Semitic lines in his infamous Des Moines speech, he was drowned out by boos and catcalls. 

The AFC had Jewish staffers like James Lipsig and Sidney Hertzberg. 

All in all, the America First Committee put considerably more effort in removing the anti-Semites from its ranks than the Roosevelt administration did in ejecting Stalin's agents from its own. 

The Roosevelt White House's case against America First is barely repeatable in polite circles today. 

Roosevelt aide Harold Ickes was smearing America First as Nazi sympathizers and Japanese lovers. 

Whatever the imagined dangers of Lindberg's Des Moines speech, it was the war effort — not the pacifists and beatniks — that revealed the "fragile foundation" of America's tolerance.

Roosevelt set up 10 interment camps to hold 110,000 Japanese-Americans. No trials, no charges. Just internment based on ethnicity. 

Who was in America First? 

John F. Kennedy donated money to the AFC.

Gerald Ford was one of the first members of America First after it was formed at Yale; he was assisted by Potter Stewart, a future Supreme Court justice. 

The movement included a number of powerful literary voices including e.e. cummings, Jack Kerouac, Sinclair Lewis, Robinson Jeffers, and Kurt Vonnegut. 

After the Pearl Harbor attack, the America First Committee dissolved of its own will. 

America's honor and resources were now at stake, and war on the Axis Powers was just. Charles Lindbergh flew missions in World War II.

Kurt Vonnegut fought in the Battle of the Bulge and was captured. Taken to Dresden, he got a first-hand look at America's militarily useless fire-bombing of the city, which killed 25,000 people, mostly civilians.

America First deserves better than the posthumous smear of Dunn or McManus. 

And its banner deserves a better political champion than an oaf like Donald Trump.

America First wanted peace, prosperity, and America's liberty. Trump just wants America to be feared.

This Twittersphere Slumber Party From Hell

Reprinted today, Ella Whelan writes: 

British politics got a bit more girly at the start of this week, with the official launch of the Women’s Equality Party. 

Garnering support with the versatile hashtag #WE, the party was pleased with the 1,000 supporters it gained during its first day. 

‘If #WE’re honest, some of us are a little bit teary’, said a post on Facebook. 

For those not on social media, the Women’s Equality Party is a non-partisan party that campaigns against inequality for women ‘at home, at work, in politics and in public life’. 

The party is currently fundraising and boasts some tempting offers in exchange for your cash – £250 will get you a copy of founding member Sandi Toksvig’s book,Girls are Best, while £5,000 will get you dinner with the author herself. 

However, the party does not seem to recognise its own contradictions. 

Not only is there a mismatch between the party’s appeals to radicalism and its knitting-circle vibe, cosy tweets and general air of loveliness, but the party’s slogan, ‘Equality for women isn’t a women’s issue’, also jars, given the party is being marketed solely at women. 

On the surface, the Women’s Equality Party seems like nothing more than a politically correct sorority, with matching #WE phone stickers and smug grins. 

However, there is something very sinister about Toksvig’s project. 

Appearing on The One Show earlier this year, the former News Quiz presenter stated, ‘We’re not going to fight with each other. When you watch Prime Minister’s Questions, you’re sort of embarrassed. PMQs couldn’t be more bad-tempered if it was called PMT. It isn’t the way to get things done.’ 

If relating politics to periods wasn’t bad enough, Toksvig seems hell-bent on making clear that women are somehow not up to the cut and thrust of modern politics.

Let’s get one thing straight: this is not a party for all women, it is a party for media women. 

Both of its founding members, Toksvig and journalist-cum-royal-enthusiast Catherine Mayer, realised they shared an ‘appetite for change’ when they shared a platform at the Southbank Centre’s Women of the World Festival. 

The driving force behind this party is a feeling that politics is vulgar, but rather than do what people disgusted with politics used to do and vote Lib Dem, the commentariat is now taking to creating its own parties – just without the politics. 

When an organisation says it is non-partisan, what it really means is that it is non-committal. 

As Toksvig said when she unveiled the party’s new logo, ‘you can be Tory, you can be Labour – let’s all work together instead of fighting each other’. 

This is the pinnacle of middle-class feminism, a club for women who want to jazz up their image with a little politics, darling. 

The party’s objectives state a desire for ‘women to enjoy the same rights and opportunities as men’, but, as Joanna Williams has pointed out on spiked, women, on the whole, already do. 

What is the point in creating a sisterhood of victims? 

The Women’s Equality Party is yet another sign that contemporary feminists are uncomfortable with the fact that women in the West are doing just fine, choosing instead to imagine women as helpless creatures in need of empowerment. 

This otherwise laughable organisation is a prime example of the long-drawn depoliticisation of women in British politics. 

The celebration of Blair’s Babes, New Labour’s record-breaking number of female MPs after the 1997 election, spoke to a sense that female representation, in and of itself, was positive and would attract more female voters. 

During the recent General Election campaign, Labour MP and Blair Babe Harriet Harman released a fleet of Barbie buses to encourage women to vote. 

At no point did these efforts try to engage women about what they thought, instead they used pink-coloured ploys to try to make politics look a bit more female-friendly. 

What’s more, while mumsy middle-class feminists may seem more agreeable than blue-haired campus radicals, they still attach themselves to trendy feminist campaigns, like educating men who think tampons are icky, banning adverts that tell us we shouldn’t have another tea cake and promoting a Mary Whitehouse attitude to sex. 

The hashtag used by the Women’s Equality Party is misleading; #WE really means #US – that is, the the feminist commentariat, which dictates what women should do and think.

It is time for women to take a stand and kill off feminism as we know it.

It is the only thing truly holding women back in the West today, reducing us to little more than our biology. 

The ideas of individual autonomy and free thinking have taken a beating recently, with the surge of patronising identity politics that judges us all on appearance rather than substance.

But enough is enough.

Women, if you truly value your brains over your bodies, you should have nothing to do with this Twittersphere slumber party from hell.

Who Started The Second Cold War?


Friday, a Russian SU-27 did a barrel roll over a U.S. RC-135 over the Baltic, the second time in two weeks. 

Also in April, the U.S. destroyer Donald Cook, off Russia’s Baltic enclave of Kaliningrad, was twice buzzed by Russian planes. 

Vladimir Putin’s message: Keep your spy planes and ships a respectable distance away from us.

Apparently, we have not received it. 

Friday, Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work announced that 4,000 NATO troops, including two U.S. battalions, will be moved into Poland and the Baltic States, right on Russia’s border. 

“The Russians have been doing a lot of snap exercises right up against the border with a lot of troops,” says Work, who calls this “extraordinarily provocative behavior.” 

But how are Russian troops deploying inside Russia “provocative,” while U.S. troops on Russia’s front porch are not? 

And before we ride this escalator up to a clash, we had best check our hole card.

Germany is to provide one of four battalions to be sent to the Baltic.

But a Bertelsmann Foundation poll last week found that only 31 percent of Germans favor sending their troops to resist a Russian move in the Baltic States or Poland, while 57 percent oppose it, though the NATO treaty requires it. 

Last year, a Pew poll found majorities in Italy and France also oppose military action against Russia if she moves into Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia or Poland.

If it comes to war in the Baltic, our European allies prefer that we Americans fight it.

Asked on his retirement as Army chief of staff what was the greatest strategic threat to the United States, Gen. Ray Odierno echoed Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford, “I believe that Russia is.” 

He mentioned threats to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Ukraine.

Yet, when Gen. Odierno entered the service, all four were part of the Soviet Union, and no Cold War president ever thought any was worth a war.

The independence of the Baltic States was one of the great peace dividends after the Cold War. But when did that become so vital a U.S. interest we would go to war with Russia to guarantee it?

Putin may top the enemies list of the Beltway establishment, but we should try to see the world from his point of view.

When Ronald Reagan met Mikhail Gorbachev in Reykjavik in 1986, Putin was in his mid-30s, and the Soviet Empire stretched from the Elbe to the Bering Strait and from the Arctic to Afghanistan.

Russians were all over Africa and had penetrated the Caribbean and Central America.

The Soviet Union was a global superpower that had attained strategic parity with the United States. 

Now consider how the world has changed for Putin, and Russia.

By the time he turned 40, the Red Army had begun its Napoleonic retreat from Europe and his country had splintered into 15 nations. 

By the time he came to power, the USSR had lost one-third of its territory and half its population. 

Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan were gone.

The Black Sea, once a Soviet lake, now had on its north shore a pro-Western Ukraine, on its eastern shore a hostile Georgia, and on its western shore two former Warsaw Pact allies, Bulgaria and Romania, being taken into NATO.

For Russian warships in Leningrad, the trip out to the Atlantic now meant cruising past the coastline of eight NATO nations: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Germany, Denmark, Norway, and Great Britain. 

Putin has seen NATO, despite solemn U.S. assurances given to Gorbachev, incorporate all of Eastern Europe that Russia had vacated, and three former republics of the USSR itself. 

He now hears a clamor from American hawks to bring three more former Soviet republics—Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine—into a NATO alliance directed against Russia.

After persuading Kiev to join a Moscow-led economic union, Putin saw Ukraine’s pro-Russian government overthrown in a U.S.-backed coup.

He has seen U.S.-funded “color-coded” revolutions try to dump over friendly regimes all across his “near abroad.” 

“Russia has not accepted the hand of partnership,” says NATO commander, Gen. Philip Breedlove, “but has chosen a path of belligerence.” 

But why should Putin see NATO’s inexorable eastward march as an extended “hand of partnership”? 

Had we lost the Cold War and Russian spy planes began to patrol off Pensacola, Norfolk and San Diego, how would U.S. F-16 pilots have reacted? 

If we awoke to find Mexico, Canada, Cuba, and most of South America in a military alliance against us, welcoming Russian bases and troops, would we regard that as “the hand of partnership”? 

We are reaping the understandable rage and resentment of the Russian people over how we exploited Moscow’s retreat from empire.

Did we not ourselves slap aside the hand of Russian friendship, when proffered, when we chose to embrace our “unipolar moment,” to play the “great game” of empire and seek “benevolent global hegemony”?

If there is a second Cold War, did Russia really start it?

Incumbent Insurgent Illusion

Although many of us never did fall in love with the SNP, Jade Azim writes:

After a kerfuffle on Twitter the other night, I am all too aware that writing something even mildly questioning of the SNP government is the British equivalent of approaching a lion pride on a kill. 

Nevertheless, seeing the almost hero-levels of mental gymnastics tweeted by Mhairi Black, in the week of the Hillsborough inquiry whereupon Nicola Sturgeon posed with a copy of The Sun endorsing her re-election, prompted me once more to consider just how spectacular the distance has become between the SNP that stood against Ed Miliband versus the SNP today and in government. 

Mhairi tweeted: “So Kezia wants to put up the taxes of Scottish people to subsidise Tory cuts that her party supported in Westminster?”.

Confused? So am I.

This follows in a series of SNP revisionism on what austerity is and the excuses the SNP has hidden, not quite so conspicuously, up its sleeve to not act on its new tax powers, so as not to break its bond with Middle Scotland.

They insist that Labour’s plans for a penny tax are not progressive, and have framed it in such a way that an anti-austerity plan has now become a subsidy for cuts Labour actually haven’t supported for more than a year now.

Just like that, the SNP is a low-tax mimicry of Toryism.

But it isn’t ‘just like that’. The SNP have governed from an economically cautious stance for seven years.

For a brief period, they borrowed Ed Miliband’s clothes.

But once the Red Wedding had been completed, they returned back to where they started: as successors to New Labour, though that is hardly fair: they are far, far less redistributive.

So why is it, in the 2015 election, and even today, many of us on the left in England still entrust our faith in SNP rhetoric?

Still beat the drum for an electoral ‘progressive’ coalition with a party that doesn’t seem very happy to embrace even the concept of higher taxes?

My theory is that the SNP have successfully, indeed more successfully than any party in Britain, adopted the prime hobby of much of the Left: ‘againstism’.

‘Againstism’, clumsy I admit, is to be against everything.

This can include a negative framing of being anti-austerity but not pro-anything in its place. But in this instance, it means to be anti-establishment.

The latter, the establishment, is what Labour as a party of government always has aspired to be in competing to be the national government in Westminster - which is why elements of the Left will always hate it and will always vote against it.

In a way, some of the left is suspicious of governance.

This is occasionally healthy, until it prevents real progressivism from ever being elected.

While in government, Labour could be seen as sell-outs, rightly or wrongly, because they became the establishment and had no one but themselves to blame.

The SNP are the establishment, in Scotland, but can nevertheless exercise ‘againstism’, even with new tax powers.

They always will so long as Westminster exists, and so long as their main motivation is independence.

This is why the bogeymen that sustain nationalism are not natural allies of social democracy; to achieve social democracy would be to remove the bogeyman.

This means that the Lesser New Labour tradition within which they govern will continue to go unnoticed, nor be doomed to eventual death as New Labour itself suffered, nor be looked back on as an era of neoliberalism.

The SNP can just avert attentions back to the Westminster establishment. ‘Againstism’.

Paradoxically, the way the SNP have managed to come to exploit this is because of New Labour's devolution.

Devolution has created, for the first time, the perfect environment for an establishment in one part of the country to blame the establishment in another.

It has allowed for the rise of an incumbent insurgent. The SNP can campaign as insurgents while still being incumbents.

It is a spectacular contradiction that they alone can manage.

Insurgency and anti-establishment politics are not, of themselves, a bad thing. We on the Left all dip our toes in it. It is a joy. It is even more fun for us to be successful.

Which is why the celebratory mood that surrounded the SNP gains in Scotland, a paradigm shift against one incumbent for another, is, objectively, understandable.

But these insurgents are not actually insurgents; they are the illusion of one, and they have had the reigns of power, greater now for the Scotland Bill, for seven years.

And they have done little radical with it.

The aim of an anti-establishment politics is to replace an establishment with something better. All the SNP have done is inherit an establishment.

They are simply in the fortunate position of managing to rhetorically distance itself from it due to the unique nature of devolution.

This is why some of the Left still loves them, despite everything.

They can remain ‘againstists’ regardless of their incumbency. They do not have the stench of government as a national Labour government did and inevitable would have.

So the English Left still dream.

But now, with this mounting evidence and the SNP’s clumsy revisionism, it is up to the English Left to distinguish between genuine leftism and empty anti-establishmentarianism, and to see the establishment - via governance - as something to define for itself, to reshape as something better, rather than something to be continuously against.

This is, after all, what Attlee's government did.

The SNP have not defined the establishment, they have continued someone else's. It's up to us to recognise that and fall out of love with the SNP.

In The Age We Live

Randeep Ramesh writes: 

When it was revealed that Google’s London-based company DeepMind would be able to access the NHS records of 1.6 million patients who use three London hospitals run by the Royal Free NHS trust – Barnet, Chase Farm and the Royal Free – it rang alarm bells. 

Not just because the British fiercely guard their intimate medical histories. Not just because Google, a sprawling octopus of a company with tentacles in all our lives, wishes to “organise the world’s information”. 

Not just because patients are unlikely to have consented to Google having this information. The issue for many is the intertwining of these concerns with the idea of artificial intelligence (AI). 

DeepMind is no ordinary company. It specialises in AI, developing technology to exhibit something like intelligent reasoning. 

Last year its engineers produced a research paper showing it had created a program that could replicate the work of a “professional human video games tester”. 

In March, Google’s DeepMind made history by creating a program that mastered the 3,000-year-old Chinese board game Go, thought to be beyond current technology because of the number of possible moves. 

In what was considered a computing milestone, the company’s AlphaGo program beat the world Go champion 4-1. 

Now such a company has a database containing detailed, private, albeit anonymised, records of all these people’s medical history, including HIV status, past drug overdoses and abortions. 

DeepMind says it needs the data to produce medical alerts for hospitals attempting to prevent acute kidney injuries. 

The fear for some is that DeepMind’s database could allow for much more than the original stated purpose. 

The public is no stranger to the fact that NHS patient privacy has not been safeguarded – in 2014 the government was forced to halt and then scale back its proposals to produce a single English medical database over concerns that medical confidentiality could be put at risk. 

DeepMind has not hidden its work with the NHS, announcing in February it was working with the health service to build an app called Streams to help doctors and nurses monitor kidney patients. 

What it did not reveal was the extent of its data haul, which encompasses historical patient records. 

Instead of the few thousand patients with kidney injuries, DeepMind got all the patient records of all three hospitals. 

That’s millions of confidential documents.

It says it needs the entire patient database to make Streams work. Backers of such databases claim that with such data powerful software packages can be created to diagnose diseases sooner. 

The New Scientist magazine obtained the data-sharing agreement between DeepMind and the NHS, which revealed just how much information was being made available. 

The Google company’s skill is to discern complex patterns in huge quantities of data – and the NHS is a goldmine for such “deep learning”. 

In this treasure trove of data are logs of day-to-day hospital activity, such as records of the location and status of patients – as well as who visits them and when. DeepMind will also obtain pathology and radiology test patient records. 

As well as real-time data, DeepMind has access to the historical records from critical care and accident and emergency departments. 

Crunching this information, so the theory goes, allows DeepMind to develop predictions based on data that is too broad in scope for any one person to assimilate and analyse. 

By comparing patient data, DeepMind might be able to predict that someone is in the early stages of a disease that has not yet become apparent. 

This is the medical holy grail: not treating a patient when they are ill, but treating them before they become ill.  

Utopian? Perhaps. Behind the promise of these technologies lies the crux of the dilemma in the age we live. 

Google, Facebook and others feed on the fact we suspend our privacy rights in return for new technology built with our data.

Like Apple, Google is building a reputation in medical apps. It is also true that the use of machine learning in medicine by academics is nothing new. 

However this data is being passed to and controlled by one of the world’s biggest and most powerful companies. 

It raises questions over whether it might quickly become the biggest player, a de facto monopoly, over NHS health analytics. 

AI also represents something new, a promise that a program could improve itself – and very quickly surpass human intellect. 

This is the so-called “intelligence explosion” – a point where humanity courts its own destruction. 

We are some way off this. No one has built a machine that respects social and ethical norms, even at the expense of its goals. 

It’s difficult enough to get humans to do that. Some may say such extrapolation is ridiculous. 

After all Tay – the “intelligent” Twitter chatbot from Microsoft – lasted a few hours until she “learned” to become a racist, genocidal tweeter and was killed off. 

However as Elon Musk, the inventor who originally invested in DeepMind, said, it was worries over “Terminator” technology that drove him to warn about its dangers.

For perhaps sound commercial reasons, DeepMind operates under the radar. But this often raises more questions than answers.

Google’s AI ethics board, established when Google acquired DeepMind in 2014 for £400m, remains one of the biggest mysteries in technology, with both companies refusing to reveal who sits on it.

Artificial intelligence needs data to learn. Hence the sucking up of all those patient records by Google’s DeepMind.

So why the secrecy? 

If patients had been told what was going on and why, they could make informed choices. 

If they think the potential risks of Google dominance over a new critical technology for the NHS are outweighed by the benefits, then let’s have that debate. 

But if the company does not explain and carries on in secret, the public will rightly not go along with such plans.

Purged Too, Soon Enough

Brendan O'Neill writes: 

Something in the media fury about Labour’s anti-Semites doesn’t add up.

We’re told that Jeremy Corbyn, being a stiff old radical and noted friend of Hamas, has helped to turn a once respectable party into a seething hotbed of Jew hatred. 

But the people being suspended from the party for having said dodgy things joined before Corbyn became leader. And they’re being thrown out by Corbyn.

The media narrative can be turned on its head: Corbyn could be seen, not as the importer of anti-Semitic thinking into Labour, but as the first Labour leader to take serious action against it.

Perhaps Corbyn isn’t facilitating Labourite anti-Semitism but rather is doing something about it. 

Whether it’s Ken Livingstone, who’s been in Labour since the Stone Age [well, his present membership dates from the Blair years], or Naz Shah, who became an MP under Ed Miliband, these people ascended up the party pole back when Corbyn was just a scruffy Islington MP. 

Holding him responsible for their party membership or past comments is wrong. 

It’s hard to dodge the feeling that some in the media, whether Tory columnists or Labourites hankering after the Blairite era, are using the anti-Semitism crisis to dent Corbyn’s leadership. 

This is a dangerous thing to do. 

First, because it will make people even more cynical about the problem of anti-Semitism. Some will equate accusations of anti-Semitism with political point-scoring. 

And the last thing we need in this discussion is even more shoulder-shrugging, more doubt that anti-Semitism is a real problem. 

And second, the narrow focus on Corbyn actually underestimates the depth of anti-Semitic thinking today.

The modern left’s strange, heated obsession with Zionism, and its view of Zionism’s supporters as warped people unwelcome in polite society, has been growing for years. 

It springs from the left’s abandonment of progressive thinking and its embrace of the conspiracy-theory mindset, meaning it is always on the hunt for one, evil force that might be held responsible for the world’s ills. 

Israel now plays that role, meaning leftists sometimes slip into an anti-Zionism that echoes the paranoia of the old anti-Semitism. 

This is a long-brewing, profound problem.

The Corbyn-bashers think they’re seriously tackling anti-Semitism, when in fact they’re elevating their own urge to topple the Labour leader over the serious debate we need about the moral decay of the left and the return of an old prejudice.

And:

So now we know: the right and the respectable left are just as good at PC purges as potty, radical students are. In fact they’re better.

The effective exiling of Ken Livingstone from polite society.

Yesterday’s almost hourly toppling of Labour councillors who once tweeted or Facebooked something ugly about Israel.

The scouring of social media in search of Zionist-haters we might expose and shame and crush.

All this zealous speech-policing, this crusading against people who said the unsayable, has made the intolerant, No Platforming student left look like amateurs in comparison.

The right is out-PCing the left. 

I know what the warriors against anti-Semitic idiocy in sections of the Labour party will say: ‘We’re not being PC, we’re fighting against racism!’

The fools — that’s exactly what the scowl-wearing censors of the NUS say as they ban or libel people whose ideas they don’t like. 

Whether they’re No Platforming Maryam Namazie, a decent secularist, or Nick Griffin, an actual xenophobe, or sombreros, inanimate objects incapable of moral thought, these speech-crushing bureaucrats scoff at the idea that they’re being PC and insist they’re simply combating sick ideas. 

And now the right and the ‘decent’ Labour left do the same: exercise zero tolerance of what they see as ‘sick’ thinking. 

What the right and the left share in common is a devotion to the cult of ‘You Can’t Say That!’. 

This is the stifling culture of conformism that is threatening free, open and edgy debate in 21st-century Britain. 

It isn’t enforced by the state; rather it speaks to what John Stuart Mill called ‘the despotism of custom’, where the parameters of acceptable thought are policed, and policed thoroughly, by informal, non-state actors. 

Today, that dirty job is done by Twittermobs and Change.org uprisings and quarrelsome gangs who gather at the opening of controversial exhibitions or plays to demand they be called off. 

‘You Can’t Say That!’ is their rallying cry. 

They seek to destroy offensive ideas, and to secure the borders around acceptable thinking. 

And this is the cry of right-wingers and respectable Labourites, too, as they trawl the web for evidence that some councillor once said something nasty about Zionism or Jews, and as they leap with glee as that person is then exiled from the land of the decent. 

‘You Can’t Say That!’, they holler. 

The similarities between the left and the right are striking. 

Where leftists insist there’s a ‘sickness’ of Islamophobia, people on the right say there’s a ‘disease’ of anti-Semitism. 

Where leftists hound and sometimes successfully censor people who say Islamophobic things, the right harries those who have made anti-Semitic comments. 

And where the left’s definition of Islamophobia sometimes includes commentary that is simply stingingly critical of an idea — Islam — so, increasingly, does the right’s definition of anti-Semitism. 

The inclusion of opposition to Zionism under the title of anti-Semitism is deeply worrying, and potentially deeply censorious. 

The intolerance of the current crusade, of the new right-wing PC, is summed up in the widespread use of the term ‘sickness’ to describe Labour’s problems. 

When crusaders brand a way of thinking a ‘sickness’, what they’re saying is that debate with these people is pointless, intellectual engagement is a waste of time; what we need instead is a cure, and the cure is invariably censure, and shame, and exclusion from society. 

Witness the suggestion that Labourites who have said anti-Semitic things should be banned from the party for life — what authoritarianism; what fatalism; what a dearth of belief in people’s ability to change their minds, and in our ability to help them change their minds; what a turn away from the ideals of freedom and transformation.

Does the left have a problem with anti-Semitism? Absolutely. I’ve been writing about it for a decade, both in this magazine and at spiked. 

But why should zero tolerance be seen as the best solution to anti-Semitism, or any kind of prejudice?

Why should people who have said questionable things be thrown out of parties and silenced by the despotism of PC?

What about arguing with them? What about using our freedom of speech to challenge and change them?

These people are not sick; they’re wrong.

And if you are unwilling to convince them they’re wrong, instead saying ‘Cast them out, because You Can’t Say That!’, then you are a coward.

As all censors are.

That the right is joining the left in punishing those who say the unsayable is truly depressing. 

It suggests politics is dead and all that’s left is purging.

Purge the transphobes. Purge the Islamophobes. Purge the sexists. Purge the far right. Purge lads. Purge racists. Purge people who support Israel. Purge people who hate Israel.

Purge everyone until the only people left are the purgers.

Though, as history shows us, they’ll be purged too, soon enough.