THE PEOPLE'S DAILY
FIGHTING FUND
YOU'VE RAISED:
£6025
WE NEED:
£11795
14 Days Remaining

May
2016
Monday 2nd
posted by Morning Star in Features

Thursday’s thuggery from the anti-Corbyn MP was inexcusable even if he was really outraged – which CHELLEY RYAN doubts


ON THURSDAY Ken Livingstone made some remarks during a BBC Radio London interview, which I am sure you’ve all read or heard by now.

The perspectives on his comments are as many and varied as the people who hold them, from those who are deeply offended, to those who are adamant he said nothing wrong.

Many in the latter category are honing in on the fact that some of what he said turned out to be factually correct.

Others agree, but make the case that his impromptu — and some would argue uncalled for — history lesson was sparse on detail and lacking in context.

But while many hang their heads in despair as yet another bad news story for Labour dominates the headlines, there are those with an anti-Labour agenda who can barely conceal their glee.

The fact that many in this camp are Labour MPs will sadly come as no surprise.

The MPs who are queuing up to give their despairing assessment of Labour’s “anti-semitism” problem are the often the same MPs who have been gunning for Jeremy Corbyn since he stood for leader.

No wonder people don’t trust their professions of concern.

That’s not to say there are not genuine instances of anti-semitism within the Labour Party, or that these should not be taken seriously.

It should be taken VERY seriously, and in every case that’s been reported, the appropriate action has been taken.

But that does not mean anti-Corbyn MPs should be left unchallenged if suspected of exaggerating the scale of the problem in order to cost votes, which is the understandable suspicion of many Labour members, as well as of two Jewish organisations, the Jewish Socialists’ Group and Facebook group Jews for Jeremy, which have both released statements on Labour’s alleged anti-semitism problem.

My own take on the Livingstone affair is quite simple.

If anyone, particularly anyone Jewish, was offended by Ken’s comments, I take that seriously, and am glad Jeremy acted swiftly to suspend him.

That doesn’t mean I now view Ken as an anti-semite. I don’t.

But Labour must take any allegations of racism seriously. I trust that a resulting investigation will look into the matter more fairly and thoroughly than the corporate news media, more fond of punchy headlines and soundbites than of hard facts.

But I don’t just want there to be an investigation into Ken’s conduct. I also want the Labour Party to conduct an investigation into John Mann’s response.

Having watched the video footage several times now, I find myself getting angrier and angrier.

What did Mann think he was doing, acting as a lone vigilante in that way? And not only that, why did he choose to attack Ken in front of the TV cameras?

For the answer to those questions you need to watch the video very closely.

There is a split-second shot, on the stairs, when Mann looks into the camera lens.

What I see in that brief but telling moment is a man excited by the thought of his moment of fame.

He believes he will go down in history as the man who stood up to “racist, nazi-apologist” Ken Livingstone.

What he fails to see is how this scene might look to a large percentage of the ordinary voting public and, more importantly, those too young to vote.

What they might see is a middle-aged man chasing a much older man up some stairs, bellowing insults at the top of his voice, while the man he is shouting at tries to speak on the phone, and almost loses his footing due to the distraction.

If you, like me, have ever been the victim of aggressive bullying, this scene will probably have brought a familiar knot to your stomach. Sometimes, when things look and feel wrong, it’s because they are wrong.

Even if Mann was genuinely outraged by Ken’s remarks, he should have complained through the official channels, the way my 15-year-old daughter did when she was witness to racially motivated bullying of a Turkish friend at school.

Her friend did not want to report it, but my daughter, so disgusted by it, took it upon herself to tell the headteacher.

What she didn’t do was follow the bully all the way up the school corridor aggressively screaming “racist” into her face. And believe me, it wasn’t because she wasn’t angry. She was furious.

But despite this anger, she conducted herself with more decorum than a 53-year-old Labour MP, who knew full well that the TV cameras were trained upon him.

Many of the MPs who are clapping Mann on the back for his tirade are sending the message to my daughter, and other young people, that it’s not only perfectly acceptable to shout abuse and harass anyone we profoundly disagree with, it’s actually commendable.

Is that really the message they want to send to young people? Isn’t it better to commend them for keeping control, despite angry feelings, which is not the same as condoning racism or any other form of poor behaviour.

At the end of the day, Mann’s behaviour was inexcusable even if he was genuinely outraged.

Many believe, and I am inclined to think this way myself, that Mann was hamming it up for the cameras to inflict maximum damage on a Corbyn-led Labour Party.

But in many ways getting drawn into a discussion over how angry he really was distracts from the ugly truth of the matter, which is that Mann’s aggressive behaviour toward Ken was nothing short of bullying.

It was ugly, loud, intimidating and scary. If I had been in Ken’s shoes, I would have felt genuinely anxious.

There is no excuse for it. None whatsoever.

And a ticking off from the whip’s office is an inadequate response.

I’m not alone in these feelings. Thousands of people have signed a petition calling on Mann to be disciplined for his conduct.

If Ken had been a woman — Naz Shah for instance — would Mann’s allies have been quite so vocal in their support of his loud, bellowing aggression?

I doubt it somehow.




Advertisement