I have made a start on the document, but highly recommend everyone interested to read the forward and the executive summary. It is very clearly written and in plain English, and will not take very long. A few highlights:

But, more than that, politicians on all sides have a responsibility to set standards for our public life and to lead the way in challenging racism in all its forms. What politicians say and do matters. Their words and actions send a message about what is acceptable and what is not.
In recent times, there have been examples of behaviour that falls well below the standards we would expect, from politicians of various parties. While freedom of expression is essential to proper political debate, politicians must recognise the power of their language to sow division. The recommendations in this report provide a foundation to assist all politicians and political leaders in adhering to equality law, while still protecting freedom of expression and engaging in the robust and wide-ranging debate that is a core part of living in a democratic society

.. so yes, this is focused on Labour, but no one should interpret the issue as just about Labour. All parties have, at times, fallen short.


The issue of antisemitism within the Labour Party has been the subject of much scrutiny, most formally with three investigations in 2016, conducted by Baroness Chakrabarti, Baroness Royall and the Home Affairs Select Committee (HASC). Since then, the Party has failed to implement the recommendations made in these reports fully, or to take effective measures to stop antisemitic conduct from taking place. It is regrettable that many of the concerns we raise here were first raised in these reports over four years ago

.. some in the past have regarded Baroness Chakrabarti's report as a whitewash. That is not the ECHR view. But they do say its recommendations have not been implemented adequately.

This is by no means the full extent of the issues we identified within the files in our sample; it represents the tip of the iceberg. We also saw: • A further 18 ‘borderline’ cases. In these cases, there was not enough evidence to conclude that the Labour Party was legally responsible for the conduct of the individual. These were people such as local councillors, local election candidates and Constituency Labour Party office holders. • In many more files, evidence of antisemitic conduct by an ‘ordinary’ member of the Labour Party. These members did not hold any office or role, therefore the Labour Party could not be held directly responsible for their conduct under the Equality Act 2010.

Although only a few cases are addressed in this report, there is much more. While some of these are definitely antisemtic, because the people concerned are not employed by Labour, Labour has no legal responsibility for them. That does not make the actions excusable: it is simply the Labour Party is not legally responsible.