The tirade by Tom Watson against the Labour party’s proposed amendments to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) draft definition on antisemitism as being themselves “antisemitic” is extraordinary (“Labour faces ‘eternal shame’ over antisemitism”, News).

Is yet another attempted coup against the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn gathering force and is the issue of antisemitism being weaponised to that end? Watson seems oblivious to the many organisations, such as Jews for Justice for Palestinians and Jewish Voice for Labour as well as other critics of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians, which believe the IHRA text needs further work to ensure defence of free speech.

Kenneth Stern, who wrote the IHRA definition, is on record as saying, in a sworn deposition to the US Congress, that it was never intended as a legal or disciplinary definition. He regards this as a misuse of the text and gives examples, both from the US and Britain, of where it has been used to suppress freedom of speech on Israel.

Is the anti-Corbyn right wing of the Labour party more worried that, with the disintegration of the Tory party over Brexit, a general election may come sooner rather than later and so time is running out if they are to force Corbyn out and “de-Corbynise” the party? Do they fear a Corbyn-led Labour government could be propelled into office unless something is done quickly?

Meanwhile, Tommy Robinson’s release from jail emboldens the far right. The Robinson movement is not yet a fully formed fascist organisation – but it is a precursor movement. On Saturday 4 August, in broad daylight about a dozen hooded, clearly fascist thugs smashed up the socialist bookshop Bookmarks in London and terrorised the staff. The Observer has been an exception to the wider and worrying under-reporting of a growing threat from the racist far right. But it is time Corbyn’s critics turned their attention to the real challenge – the potential for a rise in racism and racist violence in our midst, not from the mass movement that supports the election of a Corbyn-led Labour government but from the extreme right.

John Palmer (Greenwich and Woolwich constituency Labour party), Richard Kuper (Holborn and St Pancras CLP), Moshe Machover (Hampstead and Kilburn CLP), Muriel Seltman (Eltham CLP), cllr John Fahy (Greenwich and Woolwich CLP), Lynne Segal (North Islington CLP), Nick Dearden (Tower Hamlets CLP), Stephen Marks (Oxford East CLP), Barry Slapp (Eltham CLP), Dorinda Duncan (Greenwich and Woolwich CLP), Peter Guillery (Greenwich and Woolwich CLP), Ozlem Onaran (Kingston and Surbiton CLP), Piri Markus (Erith and Thamesmead CLP), Sean Thompson (Cardiff West CLP), Alex Economou (Greenwich and Woolwich CLP), John Weeks (Holborn and St Pancras CLP), Victoria Brittain (Hampstead and Kilburn CLP), Tom Hunt (Eltham CLP), Peter Robins (Holborn and St Pancras CLP), Don Flynn (Greenwich and Woolwich CLP), Elizabeth Dore (Holborn and St Pancras CLP), Julian Wells (Eltham CLP), John Collins (Eltham CLP), Hilary Wainwright (Hackney South and Shoreditch CLP)

The risks of gene editing



You describe the recent European court judgment that gene editing technology should be treated the same as GM as “illogical and absurd” (“To feed the world, we must exploit science, not spurn its advances”, editorial). In doing so, you ignore clear scientific evidence in favour of industry propaganda. Scientific research has long shown that these new gene editing technologies give rise to similar uncertainties and risks as GM always has. Despite decades of claims that traditional GM plant breeding is completely safe, your editorial now admits that they were “imprecise” – in other words, risky. And of course they have failed to deliver on the claims originally made for GM, that it would feed the world, reduce pesticide use and deliver all sorts of other benefits. All too often, GM crops have proved a disaster.

Pro-GM forces have ignored years of scientific research, claiming that these so-called new, more precise techniques are not GM, placing themselves at odds with scientific evidence and EU law. In medical research, it is never disputed that the gene editing techniques are GM and carry similar risks. By coincidence, just two days before the ECJ decision was announced, a paper in Nature Biotechnology again confirmed the science, finding that one type of gene editing can cause greater genetic damage in cells than was previously thought, including the possibility of dangerous changes in some cells that could include triggering cancer.

Peter Melchett, policy director

Soil Association



Put the people before parties



Your editorial points out the lack of a viable and supported Brexit plan (“What don’t you get about the EU stance, Mrs May?”). What it does not point out is that the problem we face is not just a lack of leadership – it’s a lack of statesmanship from our political leaders. It’s not just May but, among others, Corbyn, Sturgeon and Foster too. They are all seeking short-term partisan advantage, rather than rising above party politics for the national interest and are collectively failing us.

Where is the attempt to build a cross-party agreement to produce a Brexit plan that could enjoy a consensus across the nation? I believe, as a Remain voter, that such a consensus is possible – respecting the result of the referendum, but reflecting the views of the broader electorate and putting together a workable solution. Kicking the can further down the road is only a stopgap. Parliament has to take the lead and those party leaders should accept this, even so late in the day. We cannot have our future decided by a single party held to ransom by a minority faction within it.

Ken Hall

Knaresborough, North Yorks

End this cruel practice



Some six weeks ago, the Association of Child Psychotherapists issued a statement condemning the enforced separation of children from their parents on the US-Mexican border. We said that it is well known that the abrupt separation of children from their parents has immediate and long-term significant negative psychological consequences. So it was with shock that we read your editorial that the UK government is operating the same cruel practice under the immigration detention policy (“Like Trump, we separate children and parents. It’s a national disgrace”).

Parents remain in detention centres while their status is decided and their children are placed in care. This practice is just as concerning as the US practices on the Mexican border and leaves families traumatised and anxious. Even when families are reunited (and clearly this does not always happen in a timely manner), the children may feel unsafe and fearful of any further separation, such as school attendance, which puts further strain on already stressed families.

Many families arriving in this country will have undergone traumatic experiences to reach these shores and this should mean that they are provided with care and support that takes this into account. We ask the government to review this practice and to learn from the evidence accumulated by child psychotherapists and psychologists of the harm it is likely to be causing.

Dr Nick Waggett, chief executive, Association of Child Psychotherapists



The blight of tourism



Rowan Moore’s thoughtful piece on cruise ships in the Arctic highlights a particularly malign impact of tourism’s alarmingly exponential growth in “must-see” places, but there are many more such shocks to come as tourist numbers rise (“Will giant cruise ships destroy the wonders their passengers claim to love?”, Comment).

This should not be a surprise. Campaigning charity Tourism Concern’s dogged research on this has been available for years on its website. Its slogan coined in a 1990s campaign said it all: “Your holiday – my home.” How easily now these words could accompany the image of the dead polar bear, though they can just as readily apply to an evicted tenant in cities suffering from “overtourism”, another trend that was predicted years ago.

There was a point around the millennium when leaders in the tourism industry and governments in honeypot destinations seemed willing to face up to the potential damage this industry could do if awareness and regulation were not included in their economic calculations. So blindingly obvious now to anyone who travels with eyes open but alas wilfully ignored by those making money from our curiosity and consumptive instincts.

The time for preemptive action and putting a lid on tourism numbers passed long ago, but not the opportunity to regulate and educate. This must be where the future lies. It is actually easy to do once we take on board the rules we apply in our own lives, as hosts and guests.

Alison Stancliffe

Newcastle upon Tyne



Enchantée, Mme Macron



I absolutely disagree with Agnès Poirier’s comments on Brigitte Macron’s style (“Why the French are falling in love with their first lady”, Focus). In this age of nonsense “fashion”, when any desperate attempt to find a new “statement” is an excuse for ridiculous and unflattering frippery, Brigitte’s classical elegance is a joy to behold!

Patricia Caddick

Paris