Was emma barnett right to ask her woman’s hour guest about anti-semitism? | thearticle

It all started when Kelechi Okafor, a black actress and fitness studio owner, pulled out of Wednesday’s _Woman’s Hour _at the last minute. She was due to take part in a discussion about the

Me Too movement marking the anniversary of the opening of the Harvey Weinstein trial. Hardly controversial, but then Okafor claimed she overheard Emma Barnett, the new presenter of _Woman’s

Hour_, speak about her in a “degrading and vile manner”. There are two completely different accounts of what happened. Okafor posted a number of tweets beginning, “Hi guys I’m coming off

_Woman’s Hour_ because what I’ve just had to witness is absolutely degrading and vile. The host didn’t realise her mic was on as she was talking about me before the interview started is all

I’m going to say.” Another guest then tweeted, “I was also booked for @BBCWomansHour this AM and heard the appalling treatment @kelechnekoff [Okafor] was subjected to minutes b4 broadcast;

it was really unfair and then led to a #MeToo discussion with no black woman’s voice. _Woman’s Hour_ should apologise to her and really must do better.” She didn’t explain what was

“appalling” about the “treatment” Okafor received or why it was “really unfair”, nor did she explain why she never raised the issue during the actual programme. Then Emma Barnett issued a

statement. “It came to my attention,” she said, “that one of our guests, Kelechi Okafor, had made alleged anti-Semitic remarks.” Barnett spoke to Okafor. “She denied the allegations and hung

up.” As the debate developed it became clear that Okafor had indeed “made alleged anti-Semitic remarks” in the past.  In an article for The _Jewish Chronicle_ on December 22 2017, Rosa

Doherty wrote how Okafor “spoke in defence of Reggie Yates, a BBC presenter who was dropped from hosting the Christmas edition of _Top of the Pops_ after making an anti-Semitic comment.

Yates repeated an anti-Semitic stereotype when he said he welcomed the fact that Grime music stars were no longer being handled by “fat Jewish managers”. Defending Yates, the woman in

question [Okafor] made the following comments on her podcast:  ‘He [Reggie] is saying the truth and it just goes to show the power of a specific community [sic] that he can make a comment

like that and everyone is like ‘whoa no, pull him from Top Of The Pops’. Why?  Are these Jewish managers not from North West London? I want to know where the fallacy is?’  She went on: 

‘Black people in the entertainment industry have been short-changed so much by the kinds of people Reggie Yates describes. Why are we not saying it as a form of truth? The fact is these men

have dominated the industry for decades. He didn’t say anything wrong. They are taking most of the profits. Apart from the ‘fat part’ I don’t see what he said wrong. They [Jewish managers]

like blackness as long as it is making them money.’” Barnett was entitled to ask Okafor whether she had in fact made these remarks and whether she stood by them. That isn’t “appalling” and

it’s not “unfair”. Indeed, I have often criticised BBC presenters for not explaining that particular guests have a background which may not be immediately evident to viewers or listeners. If

a doctor or teacher is a passionate Labour supporter that may be relevant to what they say about the current health crisis. There have been a number of cases of this on BBC news programmes

over the past year. Similarly, if you are hosting a discussion about Harvey Weinstein, a famous Jewish film producer, and your interviewee has allegedly made anti-Semitic remarks, the

listener should be informed and, of course, the guest has the right to refute these allegations. Okafor didn’t wish to exercise that right. She simply hung up. But as with all questions

about anti-Semitism these days a couple of Labour MPs decided to get involved. Chi Onwurah tweeted,  “Looking forward to @BBCRadio4 response to this thread. The @DiversityAPPG, which I co

Chair, champions diversity of voices in the creative industries & respect for them. twitter.com/kelechnekoff/s…” Another Labour MP, Florence Eshalomi, tweeted: “@kelechnekoff sorry to

read this thread I don’t even know where to start with this one. To think in big 2021 and this is still happening. Awon oloshi” As Euan Phillips pointed out, also on Twitter,  “@ChiOnwurah

seems to have made an assumption here about a report of racism, a black woman and a Jewish woman, that may speak about some of the attitudes raised in the @EHRC report.” Another Jewish

critic of Labour anti-Semitism tweeted,   @UKLabour MPs Florence Eshalomi (@FloEshalomi) and Chi Onwurah (@ChiOnwurah) are publicly supporting Okafor, and have completely ignored the issue

of her antisemitism. If Labour is serious about regaining the trust of the Jewish community, this isn’t the way to go about it.  In no time, this had spread from a straightforward

disagreement about a Radio 4 programme to another battle in the war over Labour anti-Semitism. What’s the point of Keir Starmer constantly saying he wants to earn the trust of the Jewish

community if some of his backbenchers constantly look for fights about anti-Semitism?  Does any of this matter? Yes. For two reasons. First, presenters should be more open about past

comments or affiliations by their guests which might well change the way their audience perceive the speakers. Second, Labour anti-Semitism is not over. It is still alive and kicking on the

backbenches which is why British Jews should think very carefully before they ever vote Labour again.  A MESSAGE FROM THEARTICLE _We are the only publication that’s committed to covering

every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one that’s needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout the pandemic. So please, make a

donation._