April 06, 2013


David Hirsh has been touting his ludicrous "prelimary response" to the Employment Tribunal decision in the case of Fraser v University and College Union (FUCU) to anyone who will host it and Shiraz Socialist didn't disappoint.  The comments are a hoot but let's first look at Hirsh's argument which is presented in his usual way,which is to state the facts but in a way that invites disbelief.  Hang on. Let me explain that.  He says things like "they say we falsely allege antisemitism to silence them".  See?  Well that's a factual statement. We do say that about zionists in general and Hirsh in particular.  But he isn't saying that that bit is factual.  Ah, you know what I mean.  Here's that opening para:
A co-ordinated campaign by Ronnie Fraser, his lawyers and his witnesses to try to intimidate critics of Israel with an invented accusation of antisemitism would indeed be vile and disgraceful.  This is what the Tribunal thought was happening,  and this explains the unusually intemperate and emotional language employed in its dismissal of Fraser’s case.
Actually, "co-ordinated campaign" can't be quite "what the Tribunal thought was happening".  Just a quick example.  The Tribunal said that evidence given by Jeremy Newmark and Jane Ashworth was "untrue" but that there were "truthful witnesses" on the complainant side.  Look:

We regret to say that we have rejected as untrue the evidence of Ms Ashworth and Mr Newmark concerning the incident at the 2008 Congress (see our findings under complaint (8) above). Evidence given to us about booing, jeering and harassing of Jewish speakers at Congress debates was also false, as truthful witnesses on the Claimant’s side accepted.
You see, there were truthful witnesses on the claimant side and there what untruthful witnesses on the same side. Hirsh's side.  No co-ordination suggested.  Basically, what Hirsh is saying is that the Tribunal found against Ronnie Fraser because the Tribunal was antisemitic.

Now, the comments.  You can probably guess what Hirsh said in the post already but if you can't you will be able to from the comments:

charliethechulo said,

Rodent: you make no sense. Hirsh can speak for himself but my position is quite simple: the bourgeois courts (in this case, tribunal) are not the place to decide what is, or isn’t racism.
I give no credence to their ruling in this or any other case.
For the record, I always thought Fraser and Engage were ill-advised to pursue their case at ET, given the fact that well over 90% of all ET claims fail and the respondent only has to defend their position on ‘balance of probabilities.’
It is, however, worth noting that the ET has *not* given a judgement upon whether or not the UCU is antisemitic, but merely upon the applicability of the legal terms ‘harassment’ and ‘secondary liability.’ The UCU so-called “left” are, of course, cock-a-hoop at this decision, but in fact it does *not* vindicate them with regard to the main charge against them: antisemitism.

flyingrodent said,

For the record, I always thought Fraser and Engage were ill-advised to pursue their case at ET, given the fact that well over 90% of all ET claims fail and the respondent only has to defend their position on ‘balance of probabilities.’
I was led to believe that the claim was thrown out in its entirety not on the balance of probabilities, but because it was almost entirely composed of unprovable assertions based on highly dubious reasoning.
But I can see why fans of unprovable assertions based on highly dubious reasoning might not be fans of the legal process.
Nonetheless, let’s note that a major chunk of Britain’s Woe-Is-Us Israel fans threw their whole weight behind this case, and have driven their cause into a ludicrous disaster. They should have the balls to at least admit this, I think.
After all, when Hirohito declared that the war situation had developed “not necessarily to Japan’s advantage”, he was at least conceding defeat, rather than standing on the rubble and shouting that modern warfare is inherently racist.
I think CharlieTheChulo, is the Shiraz blog host, Jim Denham.  By the way, he's wrong about the Tribunal merely ruling on "legal terms 'harassment' and 'secondary liability' as the "untrue" stuff above proves. And also, Denham is too stupid to realise that he has flatly contradicted Hirsh's argument which was that the Tribunal was antisemitic because it accused the complainant(s) of a cock and bull story.

Hirsh has also had this nonsense posted up at Harry's Place where comments have been barred, only on that post.  I'm guessing that's because HP can usually rely on their own trolls to overwhelm any critical comment but not always.  Some slip through the net and make the hosts look very silly indeed.  Hirsh can and does control the comments at his own Engage website and, again I'm guessing he trusted Jim Denham to control things at Shiraz.  But he forgot that Jim likes a drink and can be even sillier than Hirsh sometimes, hence he (and Hirsh) got dealt a few body blows that had the host contradicting the guest.

ps I'm sure others have noticed what I only noticed a few hours ago, that a handy acronym for the Fraser v University and College Union is FUCU.  Coincidentally, it was what Harry's Place had on their masthead when the UCU rejected the ludicrous working definition.  Ah well, what goes round comes round!

No comments:

Post a comment