The Truth about Jeremy Newmark: "you couldn't make it up"

Oh but he could and he did.  Not only is Jeremy Newmark utterly dishonest he is also stupid so a couple of times recently he popped into my timeline and probably wished he hadn't. A little bit of history first.  I heard a rumour that Momentum were going to host Jeremy Newmark at a meeting at the Labour Conference.  Most followers of Zionist antics in the UK will know Jeremy Newmark as the most notorious liar in the Zionist movement here.  They will also know that liars for the racist war criminals of the State of Israel (Zionists) are ten a penny in all the mainstream media and political establishment including the so-called opposition. So free speech isn't denied to the likes of Jeremy Nemark.  He has no shortage of outlets for his abject dishonesty.  So some of us are dismayed that Momentum are giving Newmark the time of day.

I tweeted as follows when I heard the rumour:

Rumours that @PeoplesMomentum plans to host the most notorious liar in the UK #Zionist movement: @Jeremy_Newmark. Are the rumours true?

— Jews Sans Frontieres (@jewssf) August 25, 2016

Well then Tony Greenstein and Jeremy Newmark responded to Tony.   See this:

@TonyGreenstein so much for “free speech”… you couldn’t make it up!

— Jeremy Newmark (@Jeremy_Newmark) August 26, 2016

Now just a little detour because I like exposing Newmark for what he is. I responded thus:

.@Jeremy_Newmark you couldn't make it up? You're too modest, you're always making things up. It's official. #FUCU! @TonyGreenstein

— Jews Sans Frontieres (@jewssf) August 26, 2016

My comment here was based on the finding of the Tribunal in the case of Fraser v University and College Union. The FUCU case was a rehearsal for the orchestrated smear campaign we have witnessed against the Labour left ever since Jeremy Corbyn became leader of the party. This is what the Tribunal judges had to say about Jeremy Newmark on the matter of free speech:

The opinions of witnesses were not, of course, our concern and in most instances they were in any event unremarkable and certainly not unreasonable. One exception was a remark of Mr Newmark in the context of the academic boycott controversy in 2007 that the union was “no longer a fit arena for free speech”, a comment which we found not only extraordinarily arrogant but also disturbing.

So much for Newmark's commitment to free speech. Regarding who could make what up. Here is what the Tribunal had to say about Newmark making stuff up:

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. 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. One painfully ill-judged example of playing to the gallery was Mr Newmark’s preposterous claim, in answer to the suggestion in cross-examination that he had attempted to push his way into the 2008 meeting, that a ‘pushy Jew’ stereotype was being applied to him.

So there we have a bog standard Zionist.  He believes that free speech on Israel should not be allowed in a trade union whose members might (or might not) support the Palestinian cause.  He lies when he can't convince anyone who matters that criticising or condemning Israel is of itself antisemitic, because of course it isn't. And he lied of course to make out there had been an antisemitic incident when there wasn't one.

He tries to ridicule honest anti-racists who don't want to offend real victims of racism by hosting a low life like him.  You really couldn't make it up.

By the way, Momentum still haven't responded to my tweet asking them to confirm or deny the rumour that they are to host the shameless Newmark.

FUCU costs settled out of court

Now here's a thing.  It appears that UCU has settled its costs dispute with Ronnie Fraser's lawyers, Mishcon de Reya, out of court.

The last I had read of this case was on the Israel advocacy site, Engage, where David Hirsh said that

The hearing for costs will take place next Wednesday, the first day of Channukah.  Nobody is expecting a miracle.

The first day of Channukah was 17 December 2014 but I didn't see anything about the hearing then or since until I did a bit of googling just now.  I found just one source for the out of court settlement of the costs issue and that was the Jewish Chronicle dated, 24 December, or Christmas Eve or even the last day of Channukah.  Maybe Hirsh was confused, I don't know.  Anyway, here's the JC:

A union which won an employment tribunal brought by a Jewish academic who claimed he had been harassed has agreed an out-of-court settlement in its own claim for costs.

The University College Union said it had agreed a deal with Ronnie Fraser’s lawyers Mishcon de Reya after long-running legal argument.

Mr Fraser, director of Academic Friends of Israel, lost his tribunal last year after claiming the union’s anti-Israel stance amounted to harassment.

The battle for legal costs had subsequently gone on for more than a year, with the UCU trying to recover around £600,000.

In a statement issued on Tuesday night, the union and the law firm said: “The costs application by the University and College Union against Mishcon de Reya has been settled on confidential terms to the satisfaction of the parties.

“The University and College Union has, as a result, withdrawn its application against Mr Fraser.”

Mr Fraser and his wife thanked supporters for their backing over the past three and a half years since the case began.

 I'm a bit confused here.  See this bit:

The costs application by the University and College Union against Mishcon de Reya has been settled on confidential terms to the satisfaction of the parties.

 Followed by this bit:

The University and College Union has, as a result, withdrawn its application against Mr Fraser.

 I think the original judgement hinted that Fraser was really a front for other more powerful players and if Marcus Dysch's JC report is accurate then maybe Mishcon de Reya has admitted as much.

Union calls on Theresa May to say FUCU to Tzipi Livni

This in from Stop the Jewish National Fund:

UCU Scotland condemns Israel war criminal visit to London JNF

 

The 2014 Annual Congress of the University and College Union Scotland Congress (UCU Scotland) today voted unanimously to condemn the planned visit by Israeli war criminal Tzipi Livni.  The Israeli politician was given a rare diplomatic passport by the UK Government in 2011 specifically to protect her from the risk of arrest and prosecution for complicity in Israeli war crimes.  Livni is planning to speak at a provocative Nakba Day meeting of the racist JNF (Jewish National Fund) at a secret central London venue on Thursday 15th May.  UCU Scotland Congress called on Theresa May to refuse Livni entry to the UK.

On Nakba (“Catastrophe”) Day, Palestinians remember the wave of Zionist ethnic cleansing that engulfed Palestine in 1948, and created the world’s largest refugee population.  Every year on 15th May Palestinians and human rights supporters protest Israel’s ongoing ethnic cleansing programmes, house demolitions and Israel’s apartheid system, of which the JNF is a central pillar.

Stop the JNF UK supports the demonstration called by Palestine Solidarity Campaign of England and Wales and the London Palestine Action in Central London on Thursday May 15^th to protest the racist JNF and its war criminal guest, Livni.

In late 2009 Livni cancelled a scheduled visit to London when she discovered an arrest warrant had been issued against her on the grounds she had been a member of the Israeli war cabinet which organised the massacre of more than a 1400 Palestinians.

Click here to write to Home Secretary Theresa May to demand that Tzipi Livni be prevented from entering the UK to participate in incitement to hatred and division.

Does Recuse offer Excuse?

Another day another FUCU post.

I've reported before that the University and College Union is seeking costs from the complainant in the case of Fraser v UCU.  According to Dr David Hirsh of the zionist Engage site, the costs are £580,000.

Lawyers for complainant, Ronnie Fraser, argued that the tribunal itself should not hear the costs claim because they so indicated their disapproval of the complaints in their judgment that they had already prejudiced the outcome should they hear the case.  The original trio who heard the case agreed to recuse, ie, absent themselves from the case.

Here's Hirsh:

The tribunal decided to recuse itself in this case.  The judge said that he did not accept that their judgment had already articulated a view on the question of costs, but he admitted that a reasonable outside observer may come to the conclusion that it had.

In this sense at least, the tribunal admitted that it had over-reached itself in its substantive judgment.

I know how hasbaristas work.  In future all the facts of the case will be cast to the wind in favour of the idea that "the tribunal admitted that it had over-reached itself in its substantive judgment".  This will be their excuse no matter what eventually is decided on costs.

The section of the judgment the complainants are relying on is as follows:

180 What makes this litigation doubly regrettable is its gargantuan scale. Given the case management history, the preparations of the parties and the sensitivity of the subject-matter, we thought (rightly or wrongly) that it was proper to permit the evidence to take the course mapped out for it, provided that the hearing did not overrun its allocation. But we reminded ourselves frequently that, despite appearances, we were not conducting a public inquiry into anti-Semitism but considering a legal claim for unlawful harassment. Viewed in that way, a hearing with a host of witnesses, a 20-day allocation and a trial bundle of 23 volumes can only be seen as manifestly excessive and disproportionate. The Employment Tribunals are a hard-pressed public service and it is not right that their limited resources should be squandered as they have been in this case. Nor, if (contrary to our view) it was proper to face them with any claim at all, should the Respondents have been put to the trouble and expense of defending proceedings of this order or any thing like it.

Read it over.  Hirsh says,

it is not clear what evidence the UCU can adduce to show that Fraser’s claim was vexatious, since the evidence upon which it is relying is the relevant section from the judgment in which the tribunal appeared to prejudice the hearing on costs.

 Now I don't want to leave a hostage to fortune (and what a fortune?) here but isn't that the whole point?  A tremendous amount of expense has been gone to in order to hear and defend a case that was wholly without merit.  Doesn't that in itself make the case vexatious?

But the zionists are in this for a reason.  If the UCU are saddled with the costs they will have still won the case, in spite of what Hirsh says, on the substantive points.  But that, as Asa Winstanly of Electronic Intifada has said, could deter other unions from taking a stance of international solidarity for the Palestinians.  If, on the other hand, the UCU wins its claim, then the zionists will still try to claim some kind of victory on the grounds of the nonsense Hirsh had come out with, that the tribunal somehow, over-reached itself.

Oh by the way, still no sign of Anthony Julius unless anyone knows otherwise...

£500 k the potential cost of FUCU I

Here's a report in the Jewish Chronicle I missed when it first appeared. I did mention the claiming of costs by the UCU over the FUCU case back in May this year but this later report has more detail.  Under the headline, Union seeks to reclaim costs after tribunal win, Marcus Dysch writes:

A union which defeated a harassment claim from a Jewish lecturer will go to court in November in an attempt to recover its legal costs.

The University College Union won an employment tribunal in April after Ronnie Fraser had claimed its anti-Israel policies amounted to harassment.

London’s Central Employment Tribunal will consider UCU’s application on November 7.

It is understood the claim amounts to around £500,000, but neither party was able to confirm the figure this week.

I don't know why the union can't confirm what it's claiming but an interesting thing I've just noticed is that the headline on line is different from the headline in print:

 Maybe,if the case goes the UCU's way, it won't be Fraser that pays.

FUCUPs Feedback?

Well no real news from the Fraser v UCU post mortem except this comment to Hasbara Central aka Harry's Place:

amie

• −

I was at a post Fraser v UCU symposium on antisemitism last week. There was much debate whether antisemitism was best countered as a form of racism in line with UK legislation or, because the anti racism narrative has gone in a particular direction, it should best be treated as a sui generis type of predjudice and discrimination. That aside, a trade unionist well known here who campaigns for Israel and Jewish trade union links with Palestinians, opined that things were much worse these days as back in his day, it was considered shameful to be antisemitic but today it has lost its stigma and the accusee would shrug "so what".

There was a chorus of vigorous disagreement, including from me. We said the stigma was now so great that everyone would vehemently deny the accusation (Galloway would probably sue you) and it was this very denial, this lack of acknowledgement of its variegate manifestations, that was the problem.

So what to do? Do they falsely accuse Israel's opponents, critics and victims of the old antisemitism, ie racism against Jews or do they run with a new antisemitism as in simply being an opponent, critic or victim of the racist war criminals of the State of Israel?

What have Zionists learned from the Fraser v UCU case?

Well nothing appears to be the answer to that if this shindig at the Wiener Library is anything to go by:

The UCU, Antisemitism and the boycotts campaigns against Israel

Thu 11 Jul 2013

Time: 4.00pm - 6.00pm

The University and College Union (UCU) has passed anti-Zionist resolutions since 2005 and Jewish members have complained about antisemitic tendencies within the union. In 2012 Ronnie Fraser brought a case against the UCU complaining of institutional antisemitism in violation of the Equality Act. However, the employment tribunal handling the case ruled that his complaints of harassment were unfounded. Despite the evidence that was brought forward the judges did not recognise antisemitism in the union and instead accused Fraser of disregarding pluralism, tolerance and freedom of expression by trying to silence his political opponents.  This workshop seeks to analyse this case as well as antisemitism in unions and on campus, including anti-Israeli boycott campaigns. It explores why there is a reluctance to recognise anti-Zionist forms of antisemitism in the frame of anti-racism and anti-discrimination.

This event is organised by The Wiener Library for the Study of the Holocaust & Genocide and the International Study Group for Education and Research on Antisemitism.

Roundtable speakers: Ronnie Fraser, Eric Lee, Doerte Letzmann, Eve Garrard

Discussant: Robert Fine

Chair: Gunther Jikeli / Hagai van der Horst

Admission: Free, but booking is essential as space is limited.

Location: The Wiener Library, 29 Russell Square, London - click for map

Here are some brief notes on the speakers I know of:

Ronnie Fraser was the fall guy in the Employment Tribunal disaster back in March this year.  

Eric Lee is an anti-BDS activist in the Trade Union movement in the UK.

The "discussant", Robert Fine has lots of form for smearing anti-zionists and BDS campaigners. I wrote about him here.  Let's just say he's not a man of the highest integrity.

I'd never heard of Gunther Jikeli before but a bit of googling turned up a useful piece by Antony Lerman:

Günther Jikeli, co-founder of the International Institute for Education and Research on Anti-Semitism in London and Berlin, is under the false impression that the Fundamental Rights Agency of the EU endorses its predecessor’s ‘Working Definition’ of antisemitism

 I don't expect any balance to the views of the bogus bunch mentioned above so I am guessing the discussion will revolve around finding new ways of smearing Israel's critics as antisemitic and in so doing hindering or even outlawing international solidarity with the Palestinians.

By the way, I suppose it is needless to say that the Judeo-Nazis at Harry's Place are promoting this bit-of-a-do but two comments suggest that the zionists are still in disarray over the FUCU case:

• • 
    
    
    
    

     

    •Reply
• judyk113 • 5 hours ago

  
  
  
  
  

  • −

  
  

  It would have been helpful if this event had included as speakers people who are lawfare experts and anti-boycott experts from the Israeli community. As it is, the presenters seem, apart from Ronnie himself to be a selection of people from around the Harry's Place/Euston Manifesto/Engage consensus, which is exactly the group that was used so unsuccessfully act as witness fodder for what seems to have been a misguided legal action.Adding the group campaigning around a mysterious death of a lone Jewish man in Germany does not cut it.

  
  
  
  
  

  1  

  •

  Reply

  •

  Share ›
  • 

    
    
    
    
    

    zkharya  judyk113 • 5 hours ago

    
    

    [for what seems to have been a misguided legal action]

    Agree with that.

I see whilst Ronnie Fraser is happy to put his head above the parapet there is still no sign of the man who ought to be a "lawfare expert", Anthony Julius, but who knows, all these zionists making utter fools, not to mention liars, of themselves in pursuit of this "epic folly" might smoke Julius out soon enough.

Mike Marqusee in Labour Briefing on the Fraser v UCU Employment Tribunal

From MikeMarqusee.com:

How a London court repudiated Zionist abuse of the anti-semitism charge

2013 JUNE 2

by Mike Marqusee

Tribunal blow to Israel’s advocates,
UCU vindicated

Labour Briefing, June 2013

Taunting and tainting opponents with the charge of anti-semitism is a long-standing Zionist ploy, familiar to everyone involved in the Israel-Palestine issue. As their support weakens in the face of evidence-based argument, Israel’s advocates have stepped up their use of the accusation as a means to close down debate, particularly on proposals for boycott, divestment and sanctions.

A key component in their armoury is what’s been called “lawfare”: attempts to use the courts to stifle opponents. This strategy, which has been employed in the US, France and Britain, suffered a significant reverse at the end of March, when an Employment Tribunal in London comprehensively rejected a claim made by Ronnie Fraser, of Academics for Israel, against his union, the University and College Union.

Fraser and his celebrity lawyer, Anthony Julius, argued that debates and decisions on Israel-Palestine issues within UCU amounted to “harassment” against Fraser as a Jew. They made ten specific allegations to support this charge; every one of them was dismissed by the Tribunal as false or irrelevant.

Jonathan Freedland once lauded Julius’s musings on anti-semitism as “forensic”. But when subjected to a genuinely forensic examination at the hands of the Tribunal, they were shown to be anything but. In fact, the Tribunal’s point by point demolition of Julius’s arguments shows just why Zionists are so fearful of open, fact-based, rational discussion. (For a thorough examination of the Tribunal’s findings and the aftermath, see Mark Elf’s excellent blog,http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot.co.uk.)

The judges had harsh words for a number of Fraser’s witnesses, particularly the chief executive of the Jewish Leadership Council, Jeremy Newmark, whose testimony as to his alleged treatment at a UCU meeting was labelled “false”. Two Labour MPs, John Mann and Denis Macshane (still in Parliament when the hearings were held last autumn), appeared for Fraser but did him no favours. They were criticised by the Tribunal for giving “glib evidence…Neither seemed at ease with the idea of being required to answer a question not to his liking.”

The Tribunal also found no evidence of the “atmosphere of intimidation” alleged by Fraser. UCU’s adherence to democratic procedures was fully exonerated. Unions in general should be relieved that the judges have found that they are not liable for psychological “damage” arising from debates among members.

Most significantly, on the core question of whether opposition to Israel or Zionism amounted to anti-semitism, the Tribunal reached a clear-cut, unimpeachable conclusion. “A belief in the Zionist project or an attachment to Israel or any similar sentiment cannot amount to a protected characteristic,” they declare, adding “It is not intrinsically a part of Jewishness.” It’s welcome to have this simple truth, so fiercely denied by Israel’s advocates, upheld as logical and lawful.

Julius had argued that although not all Jews were Zionists the great majority felt an affinity for Israel. The Tribunal found this argument unpersuasive; a political view cannot claim “protected” status simply because many members of a particular religion or “race” hold it. If that were to be the case, political debate would be shut down. The Tribunal was clearly aware of that danger, as their final words on the case indicate: “We greatly regret that the case was ever brought. At heart, it represents an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means… The Employment Tribunals are a hard-pressed public service and it is not right that their limited resources should be squandered as they have been.”

In the pro-Israel camp, the humiliating ruling has caused consternation. Some are now calling for what is known as “the European Union Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia’s ‘working definition’ of anti-Semitism” to be adopted in British law. According to this definition, opposition to Zionism, descriptions of Israel as an “apartheid” or “racist “ state, and calls for boycotts are all in themselves anti-semitic. It has never had any official status within the EU and has been quietly dropped by the EUMC’s successor body, the Fundamental Rights Agency. Clearly, it would endow Israel and supporters of Israel with a protected status enjoyed by no other state or political opinion. This from people who accuse their opponents of “singling out Israel”. Worryingly, a similar definition was adopted last year by the California state legislature, without a single vote against.

It apparently does not trouble the self-appointed protectors of the Jewish community that inscribing the “working definition” into law would make the British state the adjudicator on what does and does not constitute Jewishness. Historically, Jewish freedom and equality has been advanced as and when the state’s role in relation to religion opinion has been diminished. Here we see again how the Zionists’ abuse of the anti-semitism charge actually undermines the real struggle against anti-semitism.

There’s been no mention of the Tribunal ruling anywhere in the mainstream media. Of course, had the judges found the UCU guilty of “harassing” its Jewish members, the story would have been on every front page.

[Mike Marqusee is the author of If I Am Not for Myself: Journey of an Anti-Zionist Jew (Verso).]

Actually there has been one mention of the case in the mainstream media and that was in a complete pack of lies by Howard Jacobson, as predictable as a dog returning to its own vomit.

Costs claim by University and College Union

From Friday's print edition of the Jewish Chronicle:

Costs claim

BY SIMON ROCKER

The University and College Union,
which was unsuccessfully sued by a
Jewish lecturer over its anti-Israel
policies, is trying to recover
its costs.
     Mishcon de Raya, the solicitors
which acted for Academic Friends
of Israel director Ronnie Fraser, con-
firmed that a cost order has
been sought.
    A UCU spokesman said it could not
comment as there were still "legal
issues".

That's how it appears in the JC.

Denis MacShameless: Working Definition of Chutzpah!

Disgraced former Member of the UK Parliament, Denis MacShane was a witness for Ronnie Fraser in the FUCU case.  He was still an MP at the time.  Here's what the Employment Tribunal judgment says of his (and John Mann MP's) evidence:

We did not derive assistance from the two Members of Parliament who appeared before us. Both gave glib evidence, appearing supremely confident of the rightness of their positions. For Dr MacShane, it seemed that all answers lay in the MacPherson Report (the effect of which he appeared to misunderstand).....Both parliamentarians clearly enjoyed making speeches. Neither seemed at ease with the idea of being required to answer a question not to his liking.

This was published on 22 March and since then I have been looking out for members of the motley crew around Ronnie Fraser to pop their heads above the parapet to explain away their shame.

Now MacShameless has a self-serving piece in Ha'aretz misrepresenting almost every aspect of the judgment:

I sought to make sense of the recent ruling on Ronnie Fraser, the college lecturer who sought to persuade an English legal tribunal that the ban decreed by his union against contact with fellow Jews in Israeli colleges and universities was anti-Semitic in its politics.

That's just from the intro but it gives you a taste of what's to come.  The judgment is remarkably straightforward and the language is perfectly accessible.  To imply that one has to struggle to make sense of it is itself a lie.

And here's  another taste since it takes him so long to get to the point:

To read in full the banal, contemptuous dismissal of Ronnie Fraser's efforts to show that a one-sided ban on contacts with Jewish academics in Israel, decreed by the U.K.’s University and College Union (of lecturers), was an assault on his existence as a Jew, was a miserable experience.

That might explain why he hasn't linked to the judgment itself.

Of course, trying to use an employment tribunal as a means to take on institutional anti-Semitism was always a risk......[an "epic folly" even]

To Ronnie Fraser's brave legal team I expressed my concern that employment law judges were not people who were intellectually equipped to deal with the UCU's action against Jews in the U.K. and in Israel. But they believed that the law exists to protect the individual against a powerful, wealthy organization like a trade union.

Now that is interesting.  Not the ludicrous notion that a zionist lawyer cares about the powerless against the powerful.  The bit where he claims he warned Fraser's legal team of a possible disaster.  I know he can deny that that is what he is saying, but that is certainly what he is implying.

The ugliness of the tribunal findings beggars belief. The European Union's definition of anti-Semitism is dismissed. The work of the House of Commons Committee of Inquiry into anti-Semitism that I chaired – which forced a change in government policy to acknowledge anti-Semitic attacks - is rubbished. The efforts of Fraser to use the law are openly insulted. The view of an important public Commission of Inquiry into the 1993 racist murder of a black youth, Stephen Lawrence, which stated that the police are obliged to investigate crimes that the victim of discrimination or attacks believes to be motivated by racial or religious hatred, is thrown away.

The European Union doesn't have a definition of antisemitism to dismiss.  He is of course referring to the what's commonly known as the EUMC working definition and it wasn't dismissed, it was discussed:

52....As we have mentioned (and will more fully explain in due course), the Claimant bases his case in part on the rejection by the Respondents’ Congress (in 2011) of the ‘Working Definition’ of anti-Semitism produced by what was then the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (referred to above and below as the EUMC). He was content with that definition. Others disagreed, regarding it as exposing critics of Israel to the unfair accusation of anti-Semitic conduct. They pointed to the fact that the definition might be read as branding attacks on Zionism as anti-Semitic and precluding criticism of Israel save where ‘similar’ to that levelled against any other country

The working definition is also touched on, though not in name, in paragraph 47 referring to an earlier case:

Unlike the instant case, the racial basis for the charges was not said to be Jewishness but Israeli nationality. The Sheriff dismissed the charges, holding that the prosecution must be content with a charge of breach of the peace (to which there was no apparent answer). On the subject of freedom of expression, he remarked (para 46):

And if persons on a public march designed to protest against and publicise alleged crimes committed by a State and its army are afraid to name that State for fear of being charged with racially aggravated behaviour, it would render worthless their Article 10(1) rights. Presumably their placards would have to read, “Genocide in an unspecified part of the Middle East”; “Boycott an unspecified State in the Middle East”, etc.

The judgment didn't simply rubbish the rubbishy All Party Parliamentary Inquiry Into Anti-Semitism, it exposed it as utterly bogus, especially in its treatment of the UCU:

157 Complaint (2) is also devoid of any merit. The Respondents defended themselves courteously but robustly against treatment by the Parliamentary Committee the fairness of which was, to put it at its very lowest, open to question.

Regarding the Stephen Lawrence Report, zionists have been misrepresenting one feature of it which is that victims of an offence are entitled to be taken seriously if they believe the offence against them to have been motivated by racism.  Zionists have been trying to make out since publication of what is more commonly known as the MacPherson Report that this means that representatives of minority groups are entitled arbitrarily to define what they believe to be racism against their community, period.  It's ludicrous and it trivialises a real issue for black and other minority communities in their dealings with various institutions.  But what did the judgment say again about MacShane and MacPherson?

For Dr MacShane, it seemed that all answers lay in the MacPherson Report (the effect of which he appeared to misunderstand)

You can say that again! Oh, I did say that again.

Of course there will be some Jewish legal experts in London who insist the case should not have been fought.

Hindsight's a wonderful thing. My guess is that MacShane read the withering criticisms of Adam Wagner and Jonathan Goldberg QC.  Also, he comes close to contradicting his earlier warning to the "Fraser's brave legal team". Thinking about that again, when he warned the legal team, he cannot simply have meant that this could go either way because any adversarial case could, in theory, go either way.  Ach, why even consider it? We've only MacShane's word for what he did or didn't say anyway.

Ok, that wraps it up I suppose.  Let's just see how MacShane is signed off:

Denis MacShane (@DenisMacShane ) is Britain’s former Minister for Europe and author of ‘Globalising Hatred: the New Antisemitism’ (Weidenfeld, 2008).

No mention of his being an Ex-MP.  Do they know he is an Ex-MP?  Do they know why he is an Ex-MP?  Dishonesty is the answer to that.

Professor Alderman Hasn't got a Prayer

Here's a little noticed quirky comment from Professor Geoffrey Alderman in the Jewish Chronicle the week before last.  Last week's edition was the one that had Jonathan Goldberg QC ridiculing the notion of support for the Zionist project or attachment to the State of Israel being intrinsic to the Jewish identity.

Now let's have a look at what Alderman says:

The argument that "an attachment to Israel… is not intrinsically a part of Jewishness" is so manifestly absurd (I had only to consult my daily prayer book to reassure myself on this point) that I cannot believe any higher court would accept it. But if, indeed, at least for the moment, this ridiculous argument holds centre stage, it is blindingly obvious that it must be challenged - if not in a court of law then in some other public forum.

Now let's have a look at Jonathan Goldberg QC's comment on this:

The critics have chosen to take five words out of context from this much longer passage in order to condemn the court for allegedly not recognising the attachment between the Jewish religion and Israel.

In context, the court was saying no more than that an attachment to the modern State of Israel (“modern” is important here) is not intrinsic to Jewishness. And that is surely correct.

Apparently Geoffrey Alderman has a very modern or even post-modern Jewish prayer book.

Of course, if his prayer book does include prayers for the modern State of Israel this begs the question of what the Jewish identity consisted of before the state was established.  There's also the fact that prayer books in Hebrew and English which do mention or include prayers for the President and State of Israel also tend to include a prayer for Queen Elizabeth II, "Defender of the Faith".  Would Alderman say that royalism is intrinsic to the Jewish identity?  Maybe he would....

CORRECTION: According to Roland Rance in the comments

the prayer book includes a prayer for "the President OF the State of Israel", not "the President AND the State of Israel". Not quite the same thing...

Yup, not quite the same thing and it still begs the question, what does Professor Alderman's prayer book say that makes the Zionist project or the State of Israel intrinsic to the Jewish identity?

Tribunal didn't understand the "new antisemitism" claims Ronnie Fraser

I'm guessing that Ronnie Fraser's lawyer, Anthony Julius, is still on the missing list because poor Ron is being a bit of a loose cannon regarding the FUCU judgment.  This time he's talking to the Times of Israel.

In an interview with Times of Israel, Fraser says he was “saddened” by the decision, but three weeks on is stoical, buoyed by a stream of supportive messages from around the world.

He lost, he says, because the judges did not clearly understand what anti-Semitism is, particularly the “new anti-Semitism” which seeks to demonize and delegitimize the Jewish state, not just the Jewish people. Those who believe that Israel is not “intrinsically a part of Jewishness” probably do not understand Jewish heritage, he says. The problem is that there is no definition of anti-Semitism enshrined in British law.

Now the judges clearly addressed the fact that there is "no definition of antisemitism enshrined in British law".    They even addressed the fact that there was no definition of antisemitism agreed by everyone on Ronnie Fraser's own side.

51... Among the vast field of witnesses on the Claimant’s side, there was an interesting spread of opinions on where the line is, or should be, drawn. So, to take one of many examples, Mr Whine of the Community Security Trust, an organisation which provides security, training and advice for British Jews, did not consider that comparisons between Israel and apartheid South Africa were inherently anti-Semitic, whereas the Claimant did.

The Tribunal also found that the Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism, John Mann MP, couldn't seem to define antisemitism with regard to the Israel/Palestine conflict either.

148....when it came to antiSemitism in the context of debate about the Middle East, he [John Mann MP] announced, “It’s clear to me where the line is …” but unfortunately eschewed the opportunity to locate it for us.

The Tribunal "did not derive assistance from" former MP Denis MacShane either.

For Dr MacShane, it seemed that all answers lay in the MacPherson Report (the effect of which he appeared to misunderstand)

Actually, for MacPherson see this post by Gabriel Ash.

So instead the Tribunal looked at the basis for Fraser's complaint:

11 By a claim form presented on 25 August 2011 the Claimant sues the Respondents for harassment based on his protected characteristics of race (Jewish) and religion or belief (Jewish). Many of the allegations relied on featured in Mr Julius’s letter of 3 June 2008, but more recent matters are also pleaded.

Now harassment based on protected characteristics of Jews used to be known as antisemitism or anti-Jewish racism but as we have seen, even Zionists can't agree on what constitutes antisemitism so we're left with harassment based on protected characteristics.  I know I've covered this many times but I enjoy it so much and it is very important because it blows away Zionist definitions of antisemitism so let's see what the Tribunal says about those "protected characteristics" of Jews:

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. A separate matter, which we will address in relation to the individual claims, is whether the treatment complained of, or any of it, was ‘related to’ his Jewish race or his Jewish religion or belief.

And now let's look at the logic poor Ron deploys to criticise the judgment and what he thinks must now be done to win a future case:

“If I was to call you a dirty Jew, the police could take action. If I call you a Zionist and a racist, they won’t – it’s deemed to be political discourse. But Zionist is a substitute word for Jew.”

One lesson from the trial, he believes, is that the community must set, publicize and insist on its own definition of anti-Semitism – a challenge he is willing to take on himself. It must also reclaim the narrative of Israel being central to a Jewish identity.

“We have to define it as Jews, for ourselves. We can’t let other people define what Jews are,” he says.

So Ron has decided that anyone referring to zionists must be referring to Jews.  He then goes on to say that zionist Jews like himself must be the ones to define who is a Jew and that Jews must be defined as Zionists.  But that problem has already been addressed in the judgment.  Look again:

belief in the Zionist project or an attachment to Israel.........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.

So even if Ron succeeded in having Jews redefined as people who support the "Zionist project" or have an "attachment to [the State of] Israel" he still couldn't claim that as a "protected characteristic".  This is abundantly clear in the judgment.  This is what leads me to believe that he may not be the "sincere witness" the judgment says he is or his lawyer, Anthony Julius isn't around to explain these things to him.  But then when it comes to defining characteristics or "sub-characteristics" of Jews, the Tribunal did say "we remain uncertain as to Mr Julius’s position on this point."

John "glib evidence" Mann MP still active on "Antisemitism" Circuit

I noticed this tweet last night:

Hear @bengidley & others at @compas_oxford Integration, Disadvantage & Extremism symposium, 8 May, House of Commons: compas.ox.ac.uk/events/forthco…
— Melanie BE Griffiths (@MBEGriffiths) April 18, 2013

 I wouldn't have thought much of it but I followed the link to here and found this announcement:

Integration, Disadvantage and Extremism

Wednesday 8 May 2013, 13:00 - 17:45
Attlee Suite, Portcullis House, House of Commons

The aim of this symposium is to reflect on the government's integration strategy and to do so in the light of both contemporary developments and recent scholarship. We intend to bring the most current evidence-based research to bear on urgent issues of policy for an invited audience of academic experts, policy makers and parliamentarians.

John Mann MP will open the symposium, which is organised into three panels.

Integration and disadvantage today
Rob Berkeley (Runnymede Trust)
Anthony Heath (University of Oxford)
Ben Rogaly (University of Sussex) and Becky Taylor (Pears Institute for the study of Antisemitism, Birkbeck, University of London)

Integration and extremism
Matthew Goodwin, (University of Nottingham)
Nasar Meer (Northumbria University)
Dave Rich (Community Security Trust) 

Is localism sufficient?
Ben Gidley (COMPAS, University of Oxford)
Dean Godson (Policy Exchange)
Maleiha Malik (University College London)

The symposium is being organised by the Pears Institute for the study of Antisemitism, Birkbeck, University of London and COMPAS, University of Oxford, in partnership with the All Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism.

Please note, places are limited and by invitation only. If you would like to participate please let us know by replying to pearsinstitute@bbk.ac.uk, stating your institutional affiliation and/or area of interest.

Apparently there are some good eggs in there but there are some rotten ones too.  The first thing I noticed is that the notice doesn't mention whose integration, disadvantage and extremism is being discussed.

Four participants I was already aware of are John Mann MP, Ben Gidley, Dave Rich and Dean Godson.

John Mann MP

Let's remind ourselves of what the recent Employment Tribunal in the case of Fraser v University and College Union had to say about John Mann MP.  Mann was one of the celebrity witnesses for the Fraser side and appeared in tandem with an even more discredited MP, now former MP, Denis MacShane:

148 ..... We did not derive assistance from the two Members of Parliament who appeared before us. Both gave glib evidence, appearing supremely confident of the rightness of their positions. For Dr MacShane, it seemed that all answers lay in the MacPherson Report (the effect of which he appeared to misunderstand). Mr Mann could manage without even that assistance. He told us that the leaders of the Respondents were at fault for the way in which they conducted debates but did not enlighten us as to what they were doing wrong or what they should be doing differently. He did not claim ever to have witnessed any Congress or other UCU meeting. And when it came to antiSemitism in the context of debate about the Middle East, he announced, “It’s clear to me where the line is …” but unfortunately eschewed the opportunity to locate it for us. Both parliamentarians clearly enjoyed making speeches. Neither seemed at ease with the idea of being required to answer a question not to his liking.

And John Mann is the Chair of these proceedings on Integration, Disadvantage and Extremism and, as far as a I know, he is still Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Antisemitism.  Actually, on that latter, let's have a quick look at what the Tribunal said about the Parliamentary Group.  It comes out of Complaint (2) of Ronnie Fraser's case against UCU which was the UCU's response to the report of the All Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism:

157 Complaint (2) is also devoid of any merit. The Respondents defended themselves courteously but robustly against treatment by the Parliamentary Committee the fairness of which was, to put it at its very lowest, open to question.

There's a lot more to it than that but between paragraph's 148 and 157 you get the full measure of John Mann MP and his All Party Parliamentary Group on Antisemitism.  You may also be left wondering what he is doing chairing anything at the House of Commons.

Dave Rich

The fact that Dave Rich is from the Community Security Trust, who even Geoffrey Alderman criticises for its self-appointment as Jewish community representatives.  Many of us have noticed that they seem to concern themselves more with defending Israel from criticism than Jews from antisemitism.  Here's a tweet from late last year by Dave Rich:

Hard to take @guardian opposition to #antisemitism seriously when they publish letter comparing #Israel to Nazis. guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov…
— Dave Rich (@daverich1) November 20, 2012

The letter he complained of was from a holocaust survivor but, of course, we all know that zionists are the guardians of the memory of the holocaust, not people who were actually in it.

Ben Gidley

Next up we have the Talentless Mr Gidley (h/t or apologies to Patricia Highsmith).  Ben Gidley tweets as @bengidley where he self-describes as "Posting on migration, cities, multiculture, antisemitism, Jews, London, Europe."  He also runs or contributes to some Israel advocacy blogs, one of which being Bob from Brockley, which I have already described as a one stop shop for hasbara.  He often runs bogus allegations of antisemitism and in common with the few remaining Zionist members of the UCU he was no slouch in falsely accusing the UCU of harassing Ronnie Fraser.

Institutional antisemitism
There is currently in London an employment tribunal concerning the long-harassment of one Ronnie Fraser in UCU, a trade union. I intend to write about this, but only after the Tribunal concludes, but here in the meantime is some commentary: from Ben Cohen in Commentary, from Marcus Dysch, from the Times of Israel.

Look at the impeccable sources he links!  But sadly he has been a bit of a slouch when it comes to making good on his intention "to write about the long-harassment of Ronnie Fraser in UCU, a [Ben Gidley's] trade union".  As Ben Gidley he's tweeted links to a couple of dodgy articles on the judgment.  He hasn't linked the judgment itself and he has steered well clear of even the articles by Zionists which show what a humiliation FUCU was for all concerned on Ronnie Fraser's side.

Dean Godson

The last one that I knew anything of when I saw the notice is Dean Godson.  Here's how Irish journalist, Ed Moloney, on his The Broken Elbow blog, describes Godson:

Dean Godson’s two passions in life are Israel and Ireland, or to be more specific the cause of Likud and Ulster Unionism whose twin fates he saw threatened by the temptations of dialogue with untrustworthy terrorist adversaries, the PLO and the IRA, in the search for peace and political accommodation.

And the rest

I've never known anything about the other people involved though I have heard that Rob Berkeley, Nasar Meer and Maleiha Malik are well worth a listen.  That's of course, not to say that the others aren't.

Also I was told that the Pears Institute is a serious group though it may be trying a little too hard to be broad and inclusive.

I suppose we can hope that the rotten eggs present in the august surrounds of Portcullis House won't render the whole thing a curate's egg.

Hitler is alive and well and judging tribunals in London

Ok sorry, that's a wild exaggeration.  It's not actually Hitler, it's "Hitler's legacy" and it's not tribunals (plural) in London, it was just one tribunal: the Employment Tribunal in the case of Fraser v University and College Union (FUCU).  So what's all this about?  Let's meander a little more first.

When zionists began expressing their dismay over the FUCU result and showing their inability to grasp, or at least state, simple truths about their bogus campaign to smear Israel's opponents, critics and victims as antisemites an academic called Mike Cushman wrote an article titled It's about the Palestinians stupid.  It began as follows:

To no one’s surprise a Zionist claque has swiftly assembled to denounce the findings of the Fraser vs UCU employment tribunal. It would appear that according to these voices the only business a the next meeting of UCU’s national executive will not be fighting the massive cuts in UK higher and further education but organising the logistics on cattle trucks.

 My emphasis.  But I was anxious and wrote to Mike:

I think the bit about the cattle trucks is unduly provocative as well as an exaggeration which the oppo could use to detract from credibility. 

So we/he ran with:

To no one’s surprise a Zionist claque has swiftly assembled to denounce the findings of the Fraser vs UCU Employment Tribunal. It would appear that according to these voices the only business a the next meeting of UCU’s national executive will not be fighting the massive cuts in UK higher and further education but debating when and in what format to reissue The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. 

Well how wrong I was.  Look at this insane headline from today's Jewish Chronicle.

Union case was ‘Hitler’s legacy’

That is the main headline on the front page of today's print edition. The article went on line yesterday and took pride of place on the home page. It was trailed by the @JewishChron tweeter/twitterer(?) as follows:

Latest on The JC : Union case was ‘Hitler’s legacy’ bit.ly/13nmwab
— The Jewish Chronicle (@JewishChron) April 18, 2013

Marcus Dysch, the article's author was clearly proud of it:

Our JC front page exclusive - Ronnie Fraser speaks for first time of "devastating" impact of UCU tribunal loss: bit.ly/ZufMnf
— Marcus Dysch (@MarcusDysch) April 18, 2013

But now the Jewish Chronicle's online editor must be a little anxious about running such an insane headline.  Follow the link and you will see that they have not just ditched the headline from the home page but there is no link to the article at all on the home page.  You have to click on More UK News to find it and then it's relegated to the second page as of now.  Or you can click on another link, News and if you're quick you'll find it at the bottom of a list of news items:

• We think BBC news is biased against Israel — but watch it anyway
• Burglar who struck on Shabbat gets six years
• New boss for student body
• Dispute over Nazi marches
• No Alexandra Burke, but supporters still party
• Two men charged with harassment
• Revealed: the UK’s best young writers
• Reform rabbi in Thatcher funeral snub
• Sharansky: my cuppas with Mrs T
• Union case was ‘Hitler’s legacy’

Anyway, let's have a slice of this Marcus Dysch piece which was important enough for the front page of the print edition but so insane as to virtually hide on the website:

When the result came, just hours before Pesach, he went into shock. According to his wife, the impact was dramatic: “It did not come out in an emotional way. It came out physically. Ronnie was bent over, he couldn’t walk. Daily life stopped.”

She said the case had become “part of Hitler’s legacy”.

Mr Fraser said: “I got a phone call at 4.10pm on Seder night to say we lost. Initially it didn’t hit me. We always knew we could lose. When I read the judgment it sunk in.

“My lawyers advised me that we could win and we put a case together.

Now this guy might be serious and possibly unintelligent or even mentally unstable. He frequently broke down in tears at the hearing. He was the only one of 29 or so victims to have been so emotional. He has completely misrepresented the case and the outcome.  The case was about racial harassment.  The judges were clear that they would not venture into the murky waters of what amounts to antisemitism because even the zionists couldn't agree on that. But we can all agree on what constitutes racism.  It is offending against the protected characteristics of an identity group, ethnicity or religion, but definitely not support for a political project, like, say the Zionist project.  This was made abundantly clear in paragraph 150 of the FUCU judgment.

But who was the lawyer who told him he could win this case? Why it's none other than Anthony Julius, the Chair of the Jewish Chronicle, also mentioned in the judgment but not in this obscenely headlined article.  It now appears that the front page article by Marcus Dysch was an embarrassment to the Jewish Chronicle on line. But the Chair of the Jewish Chronicle is now an embarrassment to the Jewish Chronicle in any format.  In fact he hasn't been heard from at all since the judgment was published.