I kid you not here. Jonathan Hoffman has used the comment space of a leading zionist lawfare advocate Lesley Klaff, to issue the Finkelsteinesque declaration, We are all Ronnie Fraser! And he's got something there. I am yet to see an admission from any zionist that this legal action, Fraser v University and College Union, was ill-conceived on all possible grounds, factual, political and legal so they are all Ronnie Fraser.
Let's have a quick look at Lesley Klaff's post on the cyberspace of the Louis D.Brandeis Center which describes itself as a non-partisan institution. First up the piece is headed, Employment Tribunal Sanctions Antisemitism. It goes on to make even more extraordinary claims:
His [Fraser's] written complaint, drafted by Anthony Julius who is renowned for his scholarly knowledge and innate understanding of anti-Semitism, went to great lengths to explain how and why forms of hostility to Israel and Zionism amount to contemporary anti-SemitismInnate understanding of antisemitism? Eh?
the Tribunal itself invoked the “bad faith” charge that Jews cry anti-Semitism in order to stifle legitimate criticism of Israel. This is itself anti-Semitic.[my emphasis, Klaff doesn't see a charge of antisemitism as anything special to emphasise] Further, by not recognising that the UCU’s disavowal of the EUMC Definition was consistent with a course of anti-Semitic conduct, the Tribunal has given the union carte blanche to continue to single out Israel for academic boycott and to deny legitimacy to the Jewish state by equating Zionism with Apartheid.Ok, you get the drift but let's have a look at the comment from that clown among clowns, Jonathan Hoffman:
Excellent article Ms Klaff
Hoffman is actually doing the rounds with that "jawdropping" stuff about rugby players. It could be he didn't read the whole report but it was actually Anthony Julius who raised the comparison with a case involving rugby. See para 22 of the Employment Tribunal report:
Mr Julius placed particular reliance on a judgment of Morland J delivered on 13 December 2002 in the case of Vowles-v-Evans & Others  EWHC 2612 (08). With great respect, we do not begin to understand how the decision in that case can assist us. It does not decide anything to do with vicarious liability. Vowles was a personal injury action. The claimant suffered a catastrophic injury in an accident which occurred during an amateur rugby union match.Now see the paragraph Hoffman refers to:
When a rugby player takes the field he must accept his fair share of minor injuries (see Vowles, para 35, citing an earlier Court of Appeal authority). [My emphasis of what Hoffman omitted] Similarly, a political activist accepts the risk of being offended or hurt on occasions by things said or done by his opponents (who themselves take on a corresponding risk).You see what Hoffman has done here? He has taken out the bit that refers to the case invoked by Julius. What a breathtakingly dodgy character!