Just over 20 years ago, judgment was delivered in favour of Deborah Lipstadt in the case brought against her by the holocaust denier, David Irving. Today the findings of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s investigation into antisemitism in the Labour Party have been published. The cases bracket other legal interventions, most notably Ronnie Fraser’s (unsuccessful) case against the UCU, and together contribute in a particular way to the fight against antisemitism as its forms continue to mutate.

By its nature, legal intervention leads to a lag in response to an issue. It is usually a last resort, as it should be in matters that are intrinsically political. It is often very drawn out. The Lipstadt case took four years and it is nearly two years since we submitted a complaint on behalf of the Jewish Labour Movement to the EHRC. By the time the Lipstadt case came to court, Irving was a spent force. The EHRC’s findings come when a Corbyn led Labour Party already feels a bit like history, although the issue of Corbyn and his legacy is clearly not over.

Both cases, however, serve as significant and defining responses to specific and particular forms of antisemitism: dangerous in their time and, in the case of left wing antisemitism, very much yet to be defeated.

The Lipstadt judgment was a complete dissection and destruction of all of the then current Holocaust denial themes. While some remain active and Holocaust denial has found a new voice, the Irving brand of denial, posing as a quasi-respectable form of discourse on the pages and in the mouths of semi respected writers has gone. The very strong conspiracy theory element persists and propels holocaust denial today, but the historiographical, academic veneer version receded with the defeat of its cheerleader.

Just as the Lipstadt case was an answer to one form of antisemitism, so is the EHRC to another. Legal processes are slow and resource intensive, but the end result is a forensic and objective examination. The findings are evidence based and made by a non-combatant in the fight.

How the EHRC report — thorough, painstaking and detailed as it is — will serve to draw a line under a chapter remains to be seen. Much of that depends on the ability of the Labour Party to internalise the findings and for them to land within the left generally. Already a new form of denialism has emerged. Irving rejected the judgment in Lipstadt, but no one listened. The voices rejecting the EHRC report have the tools of 2020 at their disposal and the amplification that social media brings. Keir Starmer’s first challenge will be to deal with this – a form of antisemitism itself, as the EHRC pointed out.

The virtues of legal intervention on behalf of our community interests should not be examined only in the aftermath of victories.

The Ronnie Fraser case against the UCU was fought – and lost – on essentially the same grounds and under the same law as the EHRC conducted its investigation. The forum, an Employment Tribunal, was different, but I believe it was timing rather than quality of case or evidence that was the distinguishing factor. In my view the merits were strong but the recognition of the issue, the institutional willingness to see the character and effects of this form of anti-Jewish discrimination, had not yet matured. The success of the EHRC process was partly at least, based on the lessons learned in the Fraser experience.

The other principal lesson is of community strategic coherence. I have been involved in the Jewish community for several years and have never witnessed such brilliant and harmonious execution of a strategic plan from beginning to end.

Much of that is due to the excellence of our institutions charged with responsibility in this area: the CST, the JLC, the BoD and the Holocaust Educational Trust. However most was due to the JLM and its leadership and, in particular, to the brilliance, grit and drive of Peter Mason and Adam Langleben who instructed my firm throughout.

For all the analysis, however, the significance of the victory is an emotional one. It should never have come to this, but coming after a period when the community’s sense of place and wellbeing was under the type of assault few of us have ever experienced, the knowledge that our rights are recognised and secured in our country is of enormous comfort.”

James Libson is Managing Partner of Mishcon de Reya LLP