Dear Massoud Shadjareh
Thank you for your letter of the 18th April. Your characterisation of my visit is quite different from my own, which I will set out whilst trying to provide clarification about the points on which I believe you are mistaken.
I am disappointed that you cannot recall my visiting your shop on any previous occasion. In fact, every year I visit the shop. This is usually around the beginning of January when I deliver my newsletter and calendar to all retailers. I always introduce myself as the local MP, wish you a happy new year and ask how the business is going and if there are any issues or problems that I can help with. I find this a good way of keeping in touch with all the retailers in the area and is important to me. I am sorry that you did not feel able to raise any of the issues that you mentioned in your letter when I called previously but am happy to address them now.
When I called at the shop last Friday evening, I respectfully greeted the lady and the gentleman who were in the front of the shop with “As-salam alaykum” and politely introduced myself as the local member of parliament. I immediately stated that I considered you had every right in law to display the two flags, as they did not in my view constitute incitement to racial or religious hatred and were within your legitimate right to free speech.
I then explained the context, which you have conveniently left out of your account; namely that because they were being displayed next door to a Kosher bakery, they could cause tension and undermine good community relations. I indicated that I had already received correspondence to that effect, and I asked your colleagues to consider whether they believed it might hinder good community relations and whether they might reconsider what action to take in the light of my representations. I did not “demand” or even explicitly ask them to take the flags down.
Your colleagues were resolute in saying they would not take the flags down and said “We do not pander to racists”. I repeated that I was concerned only to defuse any community tension and whilst I accepted the messages on the flags were within the law and within their rights of free speech I felt that it was a matter in which they might be persuaded to use their judgement to avoid any such tension. They again refused and so I thanked them for their time and left.
A few seconds after I had left, I was followed down the street by another gentleman from the shop who began video recording me. I do not know who this gentleman was. He called after me and I turned and spoke with him. Upon confirming that I was Barry Gardiner he said “The member of Labour Friends of Israel” I said that indeed I was, and pointed out that I was also a member of Labour Friends of Palestine. He was highly enervated and demanded that I condemn Israel as an Apartheid State. I said that I would not use his words and preferred to use my own words to speak out against those actions of the Israeli government with which I disagreed. I pointed out that I had done so on numerous occasions – at one point being publicly denounced by the Rabbi in a local synagogue for doing so.
I explained what I had already said about the flags and the Kosher bakery and as the gentleman had affected ignorance of it being a Jewish bakery, I turned his camera round to show the kosher sign in the bakery window. I then ended the conversation politely and left.
Your letter says that I “acknowledged there was nothing wrong” with the phrasing of the flag that said “Boycott Israel” and later states that I was prompted by a “misplaced sense of offence (sic) from a constituent”. Both of these statements are incorrect. The whole point of the Right to Free Speech is that it gives you the legal right to say something that is offensive. The law only provides that free speech cannot be used to incite hatred or violence. That is why I made clear that I believed you had every right under the law to display the flags with those messages. It does not follow that I thought you were right to do so next to a Kosher bakery, or that the offense you were causing was not real and justified. The law allows us to be offensive; it is not always right to be so.
Your letter refers to the Al-Quds Day March in support of Palestinian freedom in London. In fact it was precisely this distinction, between causing offense, and committing a criminal offence under the law, that I used in defending your right to protest to the many constituents who had written to me complaining about some of the banners used on that occasion. When I wrote to the police about the messaging that was displayed on the march, they were clear that they did not consider this to be in breach of the law as Zionist was a political term. I pointed out to the objectors that whilst they might be offended by the remarks about Zionists you had not broken any law and were exercising your right to free speech.
Your letter also sought to pretend that I was in some way reluctant to assist you when you experienced dogs fouling the pavement outside of your shop. My recollection is that I was extremely sympathetic to what was a deeply unpleasant experience for your staff and customers. It is wrong of you to say that “I would not get involved”. The fact is that without evidence that somebody was deliberately getting their dog to foul the pavement outside of your premises, I could not get involved. This was evidence which you were, quite understandably, not able to provide.
Your letter elides this event with other instances of malicious communications you have received and complains of a failure by the police to investigate these properly. These are events which you did not raise with me either by email, or when I called into your shop in person. I am not sure why you failed to bring them to my attention until now, but be assured that if you have a specific complaint to make about any individual who engaged in harassment as you suggest or if you consider that the police failed to properly pursue an investigation of a criminal offence, I will be more than willing to make representations on your behalf to ensure that your rights are protected.
Your letter also mentions a planning application which you made to extend the building and its use. You will be aware that as your MP in the House of Commons I have no role on the planning committee which is exclusively a matter for the local council as the planning authority. I do not receive planning applications and had no knowledge of the comment that you refer to. I agree with you that the comment that the bookshop “could raise money for terrorist groups” is deeply offensive. More than that I consider that it could be grounds for a civil action in defamation. Had you brought it to my attention at the time, I would have given you just this advice.
Finally, you mention the remarks by “a local pro-Israeli activist” who has since come into the shop making the statement that “Palestine doesn’t exist”. You will be aware that I voted in favour of the UK government recognising the State of Palestine alongside the State of Israel. I continue to condemn the illegal Israeli settlements and I have spoken out on many occasions against Israel’s disproportionate use of force.
That does not mean that I think that an organisation whose stated aim is: ‘to promote human rights and equality and diversity (in particular good race relations) throughout the world for the benefit of the public’, is either wise or acting in accordance with its own objectives by posting the Palestinian flag with the invitation to Boycott Israel next to a Jewish Kosher bakery.
In my view such an act was bound to cause offense. However, our freedom of speech is precisely a freedom to offend. I had believed it might be worth speaking to your colleagues in the IHRC shop to urge them to behave in what I considered a reasonable and non-confrontational manner for the sake of harmonious community relations. Sadly they and you appear to be unwilling and have chosen to assert your rights within the law. I guarantee you that I will defend your right to do so, but you cannot expect me to applaud what I believe to be a poor decision. Nor can you expect me to apologise for hoping you might have responded more positively.
Yours sincerely
Barry Gardiner
Member of Parliament for Brent North
