April 16, 2013

Jeremy "preposterous" Newmark hits back and misses

It was well worth the wait.  Jeremy Newmark, the CEO of the Jewish Leadership Council, has issued his verdict on the FUCU Employment Tribunal that found his evidence to be "untrue", "false", "playing to the gallery", "extraordinarily arrogant" and "also disturbing".

The arrogant and disturbing bit was in relation to Newmark's suggestion that the University and College Union was "no longer a fit arena for free speech".  Looking at Twitter today it appears that Jeremy Newmark is still willing to threaten free speech about the racist war criminals of the State of Israel:
But it is the Jewish Chronicle where, assuming the report is accurate, he has fully justified the ET's descriptions of him:
The judgment in the case of an academic who accused the University College Union of harassment and institutional antisemitism was “devastating” and a “travesty”, the chief executive of the Jewish Leadership Council has claimed.
 Now when the Tribunal said that a claim he had made about "booing, jeering and harassing of Jewish speakers" was "untrue" or "false", they were going on the evidence, among other things like recordings, of people the ET described as "truthful witnesses".  Is Jeremy Newmark saying that these "truthful witnesses" were actually the liars and that he was the one telling the truth?  I wonder if these "truthful witnesses" will write into the JC to clarify this for us. Let's face it we can't believe a word Newmark says.

But the JC didn't just give him space to imply that zionist witnesses other than him were lying.  They allowed him to misrepresent the whole proceedings.  Look:
In the judgment, published last month following a three-week hearing last year, employment tribunal judge Anthony Snelson said Mr Newmark’s evidence had been “false, preposterous, extraordinarily arrogant and disturbing”.
But speaking at a Manchester Jewish Representative Council meeting on Sunday, Mr Newmark hit back.
Right now let's look at where those words appear in the judgment and what they related to:
False: already mentioned above. This was Newmark's claim that there had been "booing, jeering and harassing of Jewish speakers".
Preposterous: This was Newmark's claim that he was being stereotyped as a "pushy Jew" over his attempt to push his way into a union meeting.
Extraordinarily arrogant and disturbing:  Again, mentioned above.  This was Newmark's description of the UCU as "no longer a fit space for free speech".
So, now let's watch Mr Newmark "hit back":
He said the tribunal’s finding that there could be no link between Jewish identity and support of Israel “cannot be left to stand”.
“That is a shocking and ignorant statement to make. It is something that will have to be followed up," he said.
“If a Jew is bullied or harassed in the work place or his trade union, and part of that bullying or harassment contains anti-Israel slogans, material or activity, then to take that forward to the judicial system is considered by this panel in their ruling as an attempt to usurp the British judicial process for political means – that’s something that is very, very wrong.”
Did you see what happened there? He's been called preposterous, and a disturbingly arrogant liar and he hasn't hit back against any of that.  He's simply changed the subject whilst showing he has lost none of his propensity for untruth.

The Tribunal did not say that there "could be no link between Jewish identity and support of Israel".  The Tribunal said:
150 It seems to us that a belief in the Zionist project or an attachment to Israel or any similar sentiment cannot amount to a protected characteristic. It is not intrinsically a part of Jewishness and, even if it was, it could not be substituted for the pleaded characteristics, which are race and religion or belief. Accordingly, if and in so far as the Claimant seeks to base his claim on what might be termed a sub-characteristic (we are bound to say that we remain uncertain as to Mr Julius’s position on this point), we find that it is not open to him to do so.
They didn't say there's no link.  They said there is no intrinsic link between support for Israel and being Jewish and that even if there was it still couldn't amount to a "protected characteristic".

What's the matter with Newmark?  Has he not read the report?

But anyway, just to clarify.  Even if he could show that support for colonial settlement, ethnic cleansing and racist laws was an intrinsic part of Jewishness, he still couldn't use that to prevent campaigning against those repugnant things.

He goes on to say,
“It wasn't just Ronnie, it was hundreds of Jewish members [who] felt there was an atmosphere of bullying and harassment. Many decided to leave their union.
But surely the zionist members that left the union wouldn't have been at the meetings where, in his evidence, Newmark had complained there had been "booing, jeering and harassment of Jewish speakers".  So he's hit back against allegations that haven't been made.

And that's the leader of Jewish leaders in the UK.  When he finally takes his opportunity to refute the allegation that he is a preposterous arrogant liar, he changes the subject and tells more lies.


Post a Comment