Inside The Lords: amendments, anti-Semitism and free speech
Claire Fox reports from a stormy week in parliament.
The implosion in the Commons has dominated Inside The Lords this week. It was an unsavoury spectacle to see parliamentarians seemingly driven more by party-political manoeuvring than the plight of the people of Gaza. Nothing that was voted on would save one life in Gaza, nor would it create a ceasefire, it felt performative.
There was a massive presence of pro-Palestine protesters outside parliament, something which many inside the palaces of Westminster took issue with. And while I disagree with their politics, and think anti-Semitism within that movement is a big issue, I will always defend their right to express their political views. What is concerning, however, is the excuse the speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle gave for taking that controversial Labour amendment - that he was concerned for MPs’ safety. There is an atmosphere of intolerance, bullying and intimidation among some of the pro-Palestine protesters, with politicians being told unless they totally condemn Israel, they are complicit in killing babies, and other dark tactics. But what that means, is that we have the potential for threats and intimidation to rule the processes and proper democratic procedure of our elected parliament. When the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo were murdered by Islamists, there was a brief moment when people went around with Je Suis Charlie on their t-shirts. Now, it seems less likely that we might find the courage to stand up to attacks on free expression. We as a society cannot be intimidated into silence - we must be able to call out anti-Semitism when we see it, and openly debate the challenges we face.
As it happens, I have spent a lot of my time in the Lords this week debating the issue of anti-Semitism in relation to the Israel-Gaza conflict, and how to tackle it. In a ludicrously titled piece of legislation - the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill - the government is essentially trying to ban investment in BDS. I have no love at all for the Boycott Divestment Sanctions movement which has fuelled anti-Jewish hatred, suggesting that the world needs to be Israel-free. I became an even bigger fan of Nick Cave when he defied BDS to play in Tel Aviv. The problem is, the Bill manages to be even more illiberal and censorious than BDS, while avoiding the real problem of anti-Semitism in the public sphere. The government has no right telling public bodies - like universities, for example - what to do with their money.
Like always, these things aren’t black and white - you can abhor boycott campaigns that promote anti-Semitism, and be opposed to authoritarian bans. Elsewhere in the Lords, the issue of non-crime-hate-incidents (remember them?) returned, with the Labour Party using the serious issue of anti-Semitism to try to re-introduce these illiberal non-crime penalties, which had been rightly thrown out. Again - we should be wary of politicians using the moral high-ground to try to clampdown on free speech.
In fact, if you want to know how much the Lords seems to care about anti-Semitism, look at how empty the seats were in the debate we had on the issue - the same night on Wednesday that the Commons had had its big row over a ceasefire. Though the numbers were small, the speeches were very good and I encourage you to listen to them. To me, you can’t explain the rise in anti-Semitism without mentioning the rise of Islamism, an issue that few want to debate. Islamism is not Islam, but there are too many either apologising for or ignoring the rise of Islamism. So too are there lots of useful idiots among the radical social-justice crowd who seem to not know what they’re getting into, by allowing the kind of open Jew-hatred inherent in Islamism for fear of being labelled Islamophobic.
Away from debates about the Middle East, I also asked my first ever oral question on the issue of schools guidance on gender ideology and gender-questioning children. I had less than a minute to push the government to correct the misinformation being circulated by some bad-faith lobby groups advising schools to ignore guidance on working with gender-questioning children. I asked the minister to condemn attempts at scaring teachers into non-compliance with labels like 'transphobic' or falsely saying that they might be in breach of the Equality Act. The minister's reply was a bit woolly, but other points from peers were clarifying during the debate.
Finally, I had a great time at a reception held by Theatr Clwyd and some Welsh MPs. I used to hang out at Theatr Clwyd when I was a teenager, so it was funny to be the Baroness at their event. I was also present for the investiture of Jon Moynihan and Matthew Elliott - two of Liz Truss’s appointees - who have had a lot of snobbish commentary about their right to be in the Lords. The vast majority of the Lords are political appointees, and, as you know, I think we should abolish an unelected second chamber. But while it’s here, let’s use it as a place to argue politically without fear or favour. Good luck to Jon and Matthew in that endeavour. See you next week.