logo
Will the new anti-Semitism report change anything?

Will the new anti-Semitism report change anything?

Spectator7 hours ago
For any Jew – or anyone who is alive to Jew hate – a report from the commission on anti-Semitism to be published tomorrow will make for uneventful reading. That is no slur on the report or its authors. The Board of Deputies of British Jews asked Lord Mann, the Labour peer who is the government's anti-Semitism adviser (incongruously often described as the 'anti-Semitism Tsar') and Penny Mordaunt, the former Conservative cabinet minister, to look at the state of anti-Semitism in the UK today.
John Mann and Penny Mordaunt have done Jews and those who care about Jew hate a great service
Their findings have already made front page news, even before the report has been officially published. But there is not a word or a finding in it that will not be entirely familiar to any Jew. Britain's Jewish population of 287,000 see daily – indeed, on social media it is hourly – reports of anti-Semitism in the professions, on the streets, online and elsewhere, and then we wonder why so few people seem to care about the re-emergence into supposedly polite society of the world's oldest hatred. It always surprises me, for example, how few people are aware of the intense security around Jewish schools and communal buildings – and how pupils at Jewish schools undergo regular training in how to respond to a terror attack.
But for all the familiarity of its findings, the report – which essentially concludes that anti-Semitism has been normalised in middle-class Britain – is nonetheless a vital piece of work. This is precisely because it brings home in unrelenting, unsparing detail the extent of anti-Semitism in Britain in 2025.
Mann and Mordaunt find anti-Semitism to be pervasive in the NHS, on campus and in the arts and it highlights the appalling policing of the 'Free Palestine' hate marches. As they wrote yesterday:
We heard about the noisy demonstrations and how intimidating people find the current environment, but as we dug deeper, what really scared us was the increasing normalisation of far more extreme, personalised and sometimes life-changing impact directed at individuals purely and simply because they are Jewish.
They had, they said, been 'stunned into silence' by the evidence gathered during six months of research for the report.
So what is going on? The story underlying the ever-widening and growing incidence of contemporary anti-Semitism in Britain is how it has changed. The late Lord Sacks described Jew hate as a mutating virus and Britain is now demonstrating this.
Anti-Semitism was essentially dormant in the decades after the Holocaust, for obvious reasons. Where it did emerge, it was what one might call 'skinhead' anti-Semitism, and was from the far right. Such people still exist, but their role in today's anti-Semitism is so minuscule as to be almost entirely irrelevant. Today's anti-Semites are from the so-called Red-Green alliance: self-declared progressives and Islamists.
Islamist Jew hate is so prevalent as to be one of its defining features. Spend ten minutes on social media and you will be shocked at the range and ubiquity of sermons in which the evil Jew is the target. (I recommend following @habibi_uk on X). Yet nothing is done. Literally, nothing. These imams are left free to spout their hate in sermons which regularly do not merely incite violence against Jews but urge it as part of being a good Muslim.
When politicians come out with their usual blather of there being no place for anti-Semitism in Britain, they are speaking utter drivel. Anti-Semitism is not merely tolerated; many of the mosques which host these sermons are lauded as beacons of inclusivity. (It is of a piece with the police standing and watching as crowds on the hate marches shout chants calling for the murder of Jews, such as 'globalise the intifada'.)
The other arm of this alliance is progressives. The incidence of anti-Semitism has increased sharply since the Hamas massacre of 7 October 2023 – in the year to 30 September 2024 official figures show a rise of 204 per cent to the highest level ever recorded. (Let that thought sink in – the response to the largest slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust has been a rise in Jew hate). But it did not arise out of the blue.
Much of it can be traced back to the advent of Corbynism, which gave license to the left's Jew hate to escape from the shadows. But many Jews – I include myself – mistakenly thought that the return of the former Labour leader and his followers to the political fringes would mark a better period. We were ahistorical to think that. History shows that the quiet years after 1945 were the aberration, not the Corbyn years.
We have now reverted to the norm, which is open Jew hate, with the difference that the main purveyors are progressives. In the professions, in the arts and on campus, as well as in other spheres, those who consider themselves to be part of the community of the good direct their ire at the familiar target of history – the all-purpose villain, whether it's the Jew as coloniser, the Jew as baby-killer, the Jew as media manipulator, the Jew as financial domineer, the Jew as…the list is endless. To cite Lord Sacks again:
Anti-Semitism is not about Jews. It is about anti-Semites. It is about people who cannot accept responsibility for their own failures and have instead to blame someone else. Historically, if you were a Christian at the time of the Crusades, or a German after the First World War, and saw that the world hadn't turned out the way you believed it would, you blamed the Jews. That is what is happening today.
John Mann and Penny Mordaunt have done Jews and those who care about Jew hate a great service. Their findings matter to everyone, because rampant anti-Semitism is a symptom of a diseased society, and its impact always moves beyond Jews. But count me a sceptic as to whether their report will make the least difference to anything.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

MPs slam ‘disgraceful' rollback of Northern Ireland veterans legislation
MPs slam ‘disgraceful' rollback of Northern Ireland veterans legislation

Leader Live

time8 minutes ago

  • Leader Live

MPs slam ‘disgraceful' rollback of Northern Ireland veterans legislation

A debate over withdrawing the legal protections established by the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act, which shield veterans from being prosecuted for historic actions between 1969 and 2007 during Operation Banner, took place at Westminster Hall on Monday. MPs critical of the move suggested it would open a 'witch-hunt' against veterans who served to protect citizens across communities in Northern Ireland. The debate followed a public petition against repealing the legislation which attracted more than 170,000 signatures. Conservative MP John Lamont, who opened the parliamentary session, said the rollback could lead to 'two-tier' payouts for figures such as former Republican politician Gerry Adams. Mr Lamont said: '[The change] could result in a six-figure payout for Mr Adams, simply because his interim custody order was not considered by the secretary of state, but rather a junior minister. 'That is simply outrageous. 'We have seen a lot of examples of two-tier justice since the Labour government came to power, but this may simply be the worst of all. 'Is the Government really contemplating creating a system to drag northern Irish veterans through the courts, whilst potentially paying millions to terrorists? 'We should also be clear about the differences between the actions of soldiers and terrorists. When terrorists get up in the morning, they go out with murderous intent to use violence to attack our democracy. Soldiers do not. 'The Legacy Act is by no means perfect, but it is better than the disgraceful spectacle of veterans being dragged through the courts. 'Doing so is not sustainable – legally or morally.' Others echoed Mr Lamont's comments, highlighting the implications the rollback could have on the armed forces in future conflicts. Conservative MP Sir David Davis argued the change would mean that British soldiers would be abandoned by the country they served. He said: 'Getting this right is not just a matter of historical justice. 'The legal witch-hunt won't end in Northern Ireland. 'It'll cast a shadow over every future conflict that our armed forces engage in, and undermine their abilities to defend us.' He added: 'Those who freely talk about human rights would do well to remember that our rights, our law, our democracy and our nation were protected by the very veterans that are at risk today. 'So let us all make one promise, that no British soldier will ever again be abandoned by the nation they have so bravely protected.' Other MPs voiced their support in favour of the Government's proposals, arguing that the current act is not fit for purpose. Labour MP Louise Jones suggested that the lack of support for the legislation among victims, politicians across parties in Northern Ireland, and veterans themselves meant it ought to be repealed. She said: 'This Legacy Act has been found to be unlawful. It gives immunity to terrorists, and it denies justice to the families of the 200 service personnel that were murdered by terrorists during the Troubles. 'It is not supported in its current form by victims, it's not supported by a Northern Irish party, and many veterans are troubled by it. It must go and be replaced, and I call on the minister to outline how we can protect veterans from malicious lawfare of any conflict.' 'We have a huge duty here in Westminster to work with those communities not against them, and I hope everyone here will reflect on that important undertaking.' Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn pointed to statistics from the Centre for Military Justice that show that only one British soldier has been convicted since the Good Friday Agreement in 1998. He suggested that this was the case over the 27 years, despite immunity for British military personnel not being enshrined in law for the majority of this time. Mr Benn also argued that the changes would allow incomplete investigations into the deaths of soldiers to reopen. He said: 'Legacy is hard. This is the unfinished business of the Good Friday agreement. 'And that is why we need to listen to the many families who lost loved ones, including the families of British service personnel, who served so bravely. 'There are more than 200 families of UK military personnel who are still searching for answers 30, 40, 50 years ago about the murder of their loved ones. 'The Police Service of Northern Ireland recently confirmed they had 202 live investigations into Troubles-related killings of members of our armed forces, and a further 23 into the killings of veterans. 'Each and every one of those investigations was forced to close by the Legacy Act, and we will bring forward legislation to deal with that. 'The other challenge is the lack of confidence in the act on the part of communities in Northern Ireland, which we are going to seek to reform. 'We owe it to all these families.'

If doctors think Brits will support their latest strike here's why they're mistaken – people are not stupid
If doctors think Brits will support their latest strike here's why they're mistaken – people are not stupid

The Sun

time12 minutes ago

  • The Sun

If doctors think Brits will support their latest strike here's why they're mistaken – people are not stupid

WHAT on Earth was Labour expecting? Coming to power last year, it awarded junior doctors a 22 per cent pay rise. 3 3 And simultaneously abolished legislation brought in by the Conservatives to make it harder for public sector unions to hold the country to ransom. Twelve months later and the British Medical Association has come back for more. This time it is demanding an even bigger, 29 per cent rise for junior doctors (who now like to be called "resident doctors" to disguise the fact they are still in training). The union has announced a five-day strike if it doesn't get what it wants. Health Secretary Wes Streeting seems to be taken aback, along with the rest of the Government, but he shouldn't be. It was obvious that by caving into the BMA last year, he would embolden it. Under the new rules, the BMA does not need a majority of its members to vote in favour of strike action, and neither does it have to worry about the now-repealed law brought in by the Conservatives which guaranteed minimum service levels on strike days. Something, however, has changed since last year to thwart the BMA's ambitions. It has suffered a collapse in public support. Prior to last year's pay award, a majority of the public appeared to support junior doctors' strikes. Junior Doctors Announce Five-Day Strike in July Amid Ongoing Pay Dispute Now, according to a YouGov poll, only 33 per cent support strike action, and 49 per cent oppose it. The BMA seems to think that doctors hold such an esteemed position in the minds of the UK public that it can get away with anything. Perhaps it remembers all the clapping on the doorsteps during the Covid pandemic and thinks that people will forever after react in the same way, even when they are having appointments and operations cancelled due to a five-day strike. But it is sadly mistaken. We all, rightly, applaud doctors for what they do, especially when they go out of their way to help us. But there are limits. Last year's pay rise for junior doctors was way above that offered to any other group of workers. So, too, is the 5.4 per cent rise which junior doctors have been awarded this year. To come back and ask for an even bigger rise, and expect the public to nod in support, shows a detachment from reality. People are not stupid. They can see the Government is deep in debt, and that Britain is heading for fiscal disaster if the Government continues to spend more than it earns in revenue. They can see, too, that the BMA's claim junior doctors need a 29 per cent rise to restore their earnings to 2008 levels is spurious to say the least. It is based on calculations using the Retail Prices Index, a long-discredited measure of inflation which tends to run well ahead of the official index now used for almost everything, the Consumer Prices Index. There are plenty of workers whose pay has fallen back in real terms over the past decade and a half, and for good reason. 3 Britain has been struggling to achieve any meaningful economic growth. Productivity is static, and in the public services has fallen lower than it was in 1997 when Tony Blair came to power. The Government had an opportunity to link last year's pay award to improved working practices, with the aim of improving lamentable NHS productivity, but chose not to do so. The public can also see doctors have a generous pension scheme, with taxpayers contributing an extra 23.7 per cent of doctors' pay in the form of pension contributions. When doctors retire, they will enjoy guaranteed, index-linked payouts. Few, if any, private sector workers enjoy pensions which are anything like as generous. Index-linked payouts Streeting has at least acknowledged the generosity of doctors' pensions, suggesting he might be prepared to offer pay rises in return for lower pension entitlements. As for the claim junior doctors were being paid less per hour than baristas in high street coffee shops, even the BMA has given up on that propaganda. Actually, with overtime payments, some of the junior doctors going on strike could be earning in excess of £100,000 a year. It is important to remember, however, that not all junior, or 'resident', doctors support these strikes. Only 55 per cent of BMA members actually voted in the ballot. Moreover, not all junior doctors are members of the BMA. Of the 77,000 working in the NHS the BMA claims 48,000. Many doctors have been horrified by the prospect of more strikes, with Lord Darzi and Lord Winston both condemning them in recent days. It even led to Lord Winston's resignation from the BMA. Doctors are being badly served by the BMA, which is really just a trade union like any other. Many may at present be pleased with last year's pay award, but the BMA is taking them down a blind alley of militant unionism which is unlikely to end well. What has always marked out the medical profession is very high levels of public support.

Lifting amnesty for Troubles veterans ‘will lead to witch hunt'
Lifting amnesty for Troubles veterans ‘will lead to witch hunt'

Telegraph

time12 minutes ago

  • Telegraph

Lifting amnesty for Troubles veterans ‘will lead to witch hunt'

Lifting the legal immunity for Troubles veterans will lead to a 'witch hunt' of servicemen involved in future conflicts, Sir David Davis has warned. The 2023 Legacy Act put an end to fresh historical inquests into deaths that occurred in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, as well as civil actions. It created the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, which would review deaths and serious injuries that occurred during the conflict. However, Labour pledged in its manifesto to scrap the legislation, which it said was unpopular with Irish political parties and victims' groups as well as being incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Sir David, a senior Tory MP, said that allowing inquests to restart would cause concern among soldiers as it would set a precedent for servicemen facing legal action. Speaking at a debate in Westminster on Monday, the former minister said: 'Getting this right is not just a matter of historical justice, the legal witch hunt won't end in Northern Ireland. 'It will cast a shadow over every future conflict that our Armed Forces engage in and undermine their abilities to defend us'. He added: 'Our soldiers have been held to the highest standards of law and yet our Government is rewarding this by effectively threatening them in their retirement. That is not a proper reflection of their human rights'. Mark Francois, the shadow Armed Forces minister, said that to repeal the Act to allow fresh inquests would be 'not just morally but operationally mad'. He told MPs: 'It would be an act of sheer folly and indeed aid to our enemies to continue with this act of military self-harm so that to put it bluntly even fewer people will join the Army and even more will leave.' All three Armed Forces branches are struggling to maintain their numbers, with more than 14,500 service members leaving in 2024 while only 12,850 new recruits joined. Mr Francois added: 'This government-sanctioned form of lawfare is self-evidently a case of two-tier justice at its worst and that is why on these benches we are utterly against it.' One of the most controversial elements of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement saw paramilitary prisoners released from jail as part of securing an end to the conflict. Sarah Pochin, the Reform UK MP for Runcorn and Helsby, said: 'These courageous men should be enjoying their hard-earned retirement, not facing prosecution for defending the British people from IRA terrorists.' Ms Pochin, whose father served in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, added: 'The same British people who value these soldiers are outraged at the unfair and unjust action of this British Government.' Meanwhile unionist MPs warned that reversing the law could lead to prosecutions being used to relitigate the conflict. Gavin Robinson, the former leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, said: 'Our responsibility as parliamentarians from across the United Kingdom is to say no, we will not assist your quest to rewrite the history of the past, nor will we assist in the IRA's pursuit to try and attain some sort of honour toward their retirement. 'They tried to destroy this country through war and they failed. Let's not create the conditions for them to try and destroy the reputation of this country through peace.' Hilary Benn, the Northern Ireland Secretary, insisted that the Legacy Act must be repealed but said that all MPs were in agreement that 'there can be no rewriting of history'. He told MPs: 'We can't have any more false promises or undeliverable pledges, pledges that our courts have found to be unlawful. 'And that is why we will fix the mess we inherited from the previous government, whatever its intentions were, and we will protect our veterans as we do so.' Mr Benn admitted that 'legacy is hard' to get right, adding: 'This is the unfinished business of the Good Friday Agreement and that is why, as well as listening carefully to veterans which we are doing, we also need to listen to the many families who lost loved ones, including the families of British personnel who served so bravely.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store