“I'm dismayed by the sustained disinformation attack orchestrated, I suspect, from Conservative HQ on Mr Corbyn ever since he became Labour leader. Like a snake's tongue it is two-pronged - that he is a communist (or as Boris would say, stalinist) when he's in fact a democratic socialist, and that he is anti-semitic, when in fact he's anti-racist but opposed to expansionist zionism. I'm more dismayed that mainstream media so regularly reinforces the myths. And I'm even more dismayed that the poison is so widely swallowed. It is not good for the political discourse in this nation.”
So why, if that’s true, does he not just come out and strongly deny the accusations raised against him and apologise for the few errors of judgement he may have made? I believe that, in fact, once he realises he’s made a mistake, he has admitted it and apologised, for example in the case of the Mear One mural. Partly I think it’s explained by his nature and his manner, perceptively observed by the distinguished linguistics professor, Noam Chomsky, on a lecture tour here a couple of years ago, in an interview with The Guardian. ““There are various reasons for that – partly an extremely hostile media, partly his own personal style which I happen to like but perhaps that doesn’t fit with the current mood of the electorate,’ he said. ‘He’s quiet, reserved, serious, he’s not a performer. The parliamentary Labour party has been strongly opposed to him. It has been an uphill battle.’
“He said there were a lot of factors involved, but insisted that Labour would not be trailing the Conservatives so heavily in the polls if the media was more open to Corbyn’s agenda. ‘If he had a fair treatment from the media – that would make a big difference.’”
And there is of course an honourable tradition of silence in the face of false accusations both in literature and life, from Cordelia to Jesus. If an accusation is groundless, an answer merely fuels the myth-making. We’re all familiar with journalists pressing for some slip-up. The fiercer the denial, the greater the doubt.
One line of criticism often raised against Jeremy Corbyn is that he has met our “enemies”, such as Palestinians, Irish Republicans, Libyans or Venezuelans, and even talked to them. When he reasonably asks in Parliament for evidence a precipitate government action, we’re told it demonstrates his lack of patriotism, not the scrutiny appropriate to a responsible opposition. As even Donald Trump recognises, progress in diplomatic relations depends on meeting the “other side”, talking to them, listening to them, building a relationship, even a friendship, with them. To demonise your “enemy” is only to deepen divides; whether individually or corporately one does not love one’s enemy by ignoring them. Accepted, as Mr Corbyn does, that defence of the realm is a priority, it's still true that jawing is better than warring. If we ever hope for peace with our “enemies”, escalating the means of violence is the answer of fools.
Of course, the most insidious accusation raised against Mr Corbyn is that of anti-semitism. This has most recently been voiced by the Chief Rabbi, the leader of the United Synagogue (membership about 40,000, out of the estimated 284,000 Jews in this country). This was unfortunately soon followed by a general comment about hate speech by the Archbishop of Canterbury, eagerly seized upon by the press as an endorsement of Rabbi Mirvis’ attack on Mr Corbyn. It’s worth examining his record which seems consistently to contradict the verdict, for example since being elected leader 20 new measures to counter anti-semitism in the party have been introduced.
The Jewish author and poet, and former Children's Laureate, Michael Rosen’s Facebook comment on the matter is worth reading in full. Here are the last five paragraphs:
“Further: the whole question of 'antisemitism' has been fogged by an unknowing or unwilling lack of clarity over distinctions between slurs, prejudice, bias, discrimination, persecution, incitement to antisemitic violence, and the violence itself. There are times when you might have thought that UK Jews were experiencing a pogrom.
“Secondly, the minimum requirements for a claim that there is a 'problem' in a given area (e.g. antisemitism in the Labour Party) is that it is distinctly and measurably worse than in other places or in society as a whole. If that hasn't been shown (and it hasn't been), it's not a Labour Party problem it's a societal problem.
“I've known Jeremy Corbyn for 30 years. He is no antisemite. He has put his neck on the line hundreds of times in opposing racism, antisemitism, far right fascism, holocaust denial.
“For the record the sudden loss of Jewish support for Labour came when Miliband was leader who the Jewish Chronicle described as 'toxic' for Jewish voters. Miliband is Jewish. It was his support for recognition of Palestine before negotiations that did for him, they said. Being Jewish was no shield against this hostility.
“Ask me, who am I 'safer' with: a Johnson-led government with its record of the 'hostile environment', persecution of Windrush generation, and persistent antisemitic jibes from leading party members or this Labour Party, and I say, Labour every time.”
The witness of a 30-years’ friendship to me outweighs the slurs of a plutocratically owned press and broadcast media which generally dance to their tune. My observation of Mr Corbyn has been of a principled politician who sincerely wants the best for ordinary people, and they certainly need a champion. Mr Corbyn was initially a reluctant leader, but how much this country needs integrity, honesty and principle in its leader now! He's no more a saint than I am; yet I for one have to concur with Michael Rosen’s conclusion.
