UCU Tribunal, the Zionist project and Comment is Free

There's an interesting thing in the Employment Tribunal result document that seems to have passed under most people's radar though not entirely:

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

Ok, Gilad Atzmon would disagree and so does Harry's Place but it is plainly obvious that an identity that has been ethno-religious for thousands of years cannot suddenly be intrinsically defined by a political project which is only a little over 100 years old.

But that's not the bit that I find so important about this.  I take it for granted that my identity isn't bound up with the State of Israel.  I am not at all surprised by that idea though I was pleasantly surprised by the forthrightness of the ET's report.  But I have also said, as have many others, that the State of Israel isn't a state like any other.  It is a work in progress.  It is a project.  It is a part of, indeed the main part of, the Zionist project.

By the way, I am surprised that The Guardian hasn't covered this story.  It is even worse that they have run a Comment is free piece with the following tedious and bogus allegation:

while no country is beyond reproach, when criticism includes language intended to delegitimize Israel, demonize its people, and apply to it standards to which no other state is held, we must call it antisemitism.

But Israel isn't simply a country, it's a work in progress, a project, an illegitimate project, it is the Zionist project.

Jonathan Hoffman: We are all Ronnie Fraser!

And ain't that the sad truth.

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-Semitism

Innate understanding of antisemitism? Eh?

There's more:

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

Paragraph 156 of the Judgment:

“When a rugby player takes the field, he must accept his
fair share of minor injuries. 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).”

Jaw-dropping. The Tribunal sees resisting antisemitism as
akin to participating in a sport with the ‘teams’ evenly balanced and the contest played according to some kind of rulebook!

What planet do they live on?

Would they dismiss black or Muslim victims of racism – or female victims of sex discrimination – who oppose their treatment as simply voluntary players in a sport?

Paragraph 150:

‘Belief in the Zionist project or an attachment to Israel … is not intrinsically part of Jewishness … ‘

Is it really possible that Judge A M Snelson, Mr A Grant and
Lady Sedley could have sat through 20 days of the hearing, done their post-hearing due diligence and STILL failed to appreciate why Israel wascreated and the centrality of Israel to the Jewish people?

This judgment does a profound disservice to Jews and most importantly a profound disservice to Ronnie Fraser who is a hero for taking this case on.

We are all Ronnie Fraser

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 [2002] 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!

UCU Tribunal: And what of Anthony Julius? Now you see him now you don't

The Jewish Chronicle is down at the moment, like the rest of the zionist movement, you might say.  No really, the JC can't be accessed at the moment but the cache is still in place.  The JC ran a few articles on the action against the UCU by Ronnie Fraser but it has only run one about the disastrous result.

Here's the last one before the result was published:

Judgment in UCU tribunal due next year

By Marcus Dysch, November 22, 2012

Follow Marcus on Twitter

Anthony Julius

A Jewish academic who says his union has not done enough to challenge antisemitism “deliberately misled” an employment tribunal, the union’s lawyer has claimed.

Ronnie Fraser was accused, by Antony White QC, of making around a dozen unreliable claims against the University and College Union.

The tribunal ended on Friday after evidence was presented from around 30 witnesses during the past three weeks. Its final session ended with the two sides’ legal representatives clashing over the reliability of those called to give evidence.

Mr Fraser’s lawyer, Anthony Julius of Mishcon de Reya, said he was “not going to rubbish the UCU’s witnesses in a retaliatory coup”, but said the approach taken by Matt Waddup, the union’s head of campaigns, to deal with antisemitism had been “extraordinary”.

Giving his closing statements at London Central Employment Tribunal, Mr White also accused Jewish Leadership Council chief executive Jeremy Newmark of lying four times in his witness statement, exaggerating evidence, and “wriggling like a fish on a hook under cross-examination”.

Mr Newmark had told the tribunal that at the union’s congress in 2008 he had been “targeted” by UCU officials who saw he was wearing a kippah and stopped him entering the conference hall. Mr White said the allegations were “simply false”.

Mr White also criticised Mr Julius, saying he had failed to put a number of allegations raised by Mr Fraser’s witnesses to the UCU’s witnesses when they were cross-examined. The UCU’s actions had been similar to those of a number of other unions and organisations which debated boycott motions, said Mr White. He argued that Mr Fraser had been a “player in the debate”.

In his own closing submission Mr Julius said the witnesses speaking on behalf of Mr Fraser had been presented because of the importance of having “a record of the issues, not because we think that the issues will be resolved in these proceedings by catching out one side or the other in a misremembered fact or event”.

Mr Julius said the union had “demonstrated an institutional incapacity to approach the issue of antisemitism appropriately and effectively”, and that Mr Fraser was seeking compensation “for injury to feelings” as the victim of harassment.

Tribunal chairman Anthony Snelson said the panel would meet for three days in the second half of January and again in February or March to review the evidence and prepare its judgment —which is not expected to be delivered before April 2013.

And here's the one from after the result was published:

A blistering rejection of pro-Israel activist Ronnie Fraser's case against the academic union, UCU, was published on Seder night by a London employment tribunal.

In a 49-page ruling, the Employment Judge, AM Snelson, sitting with Mr A Grant and Lady Sedley, rejected Mr Fraser's claims of unlawful harassment by the UCU, and dismissed the entire proceedings.

The reserved judgment was issued in respect of nearly three weeks of hearings which took place in October and November last year. In a stern rebuke in the conclusion of the judgment, Judge Snelson wrote: "Lessons should be learned from this sorry saga. We greatly regret that the case was ever brought. At heart, it represents an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means...What makes this litigation doubly regrettable is its gargantuan scale."

The judge rebuked the litigants, saying "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."

Although the tribunal said that Mr Fraser had impressed them "as a sincere witness" with "nothing synthetic about his displays of emotion", there were harsh words for several others who gave evidence during the hearing, particularly the chief executive of the Jewish Leadership Council, Jeremy Newmark, whose testimony was rejected as untrue.

Two MPs - one has since resigned from Parliament - were also criticised for giving "glib evidence, appearing supremely confident of the rightness of their positions... Both parliamentarians clearly enjoyed making speeches. Neither seemed at ease with the idea of being required to answer a question not to his liking."

No mention of Julius, no picture of Julius, no smile from Julius. And the earlier report didn't even mention what the Tribunal report did mention about him. The fact that might be of interest to readers of the Jewish Chronicle. Let's see that report again:

Complaint (10): The letter before action of 1 July 2011 and UCU's response

136 By the letter before action, Mr Julius charged the Respondents with harassing the Claimant. It was said that the union was not a place that was hospitable to Jews and that the union's treatment of the Claimant was not merely a violation of equality legislation but also a scandal. Reference was made to correspondence going back to 2008, the boycott motions, the management of the Activists List, the Bongani Masuku affair and other matters. It was said that the union was institutionally anti-Semitic and that the decision most recently taken to abandon the Working Definition was just the most recent of many "insults". That motion was characterised as a choice to legislate anti-Semitism out of existence. The letter continued in similar unbridled fashion and culminated in the demand for the abrogation of Motion 70 of 2011, an open an unqualified acknowledgment that the union had been guilty of institutional anti-Semitism coupled with a public apology, a commitment to abide by a code of conduct in respect of its Jewish members to be drawn up by a body comprising individuals approved by the Claimant and a further commitment to sponsor a programme (for a minimum of 10 years and conducted by that same body) educating academics about the dangers of anti-Semitism, "with special reference to the relationship between anti-Semitism and what now passes for 'anti-Zionism".

137 By a letter of 13 July the Respondents replied. They began by noting that the text of the letter before action had already been published on the internet in the Jewish Chronicle (whose Chairman Mr Julius was and is). They expressed regret that the Claimant considered himself to have been harassed but firmly dismissed the complaints and promised that any litigation would be strongly resisted. Points were made concerning the constraints on the union arising from its democratic obligations to its members. Attention was drawn to the Claimant's right to pursue matters of complaint through the Respondents' internal procedures but his right to litigate was also fully acknowledged.

See that?  Anthony Julius is Chairman of the Jewish Chronicle.  He managed to get a letter before action published there before it had been sent to its intended recipients.  And yet now the JC doesn't even mention his role in the biggest disaster to befall the zionist movement in the UK that anyone can remember.

The report has a whole lot more to say about Anthony Julius, the pick of which has been ably covered by the New Left Project.

UCU Tribunal: What about the MPs, John Mann and Denis MacShane?

I don't know whether it was Ronnie Fraser's or Anthony Julius's idea to run with two MPs, John Mann and Dr Denis MacShane, the latter of whom is so discredited he is no longer an MP.  But let's see what the Employment Tribunal had to say about Mann and MacShane.

Their first mention is in Complaint 2:

Complaint (2): The Respondents' response to the report of the All Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism

77 The Inquiry was commissioned by Mr John Mann MP, Chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group against Anti-Semitism, and a witness before us. A cross-party committee of MPs ('the Committee') chaired by the Rt Hon Dr Denis MacShane, also a witness before us, was appointed and began work in 2005. It reported in September 2006.

78 The report runs to over 50 pages plus appendices. We will not attempt to summarise it but it may help to note certain features. In the first place, the Committee found that anti-Semitism was on the rise. The new trend appeared to be largely associated with the politics of the Middle East and in particular the Arab/Israeli conflict. The report concluded that the correlation between conflict in the Middle East and attacks on members of the Jewish community in the United Kingdom must be better understood and that academic research in that area would be welcomed (para 110). The Committee appeared to accept that criticism of Israel or Zionism was not "necessarily" anti-Semitic but added that the converse was also true: " ... it is never acceptable to mask hurtful racial generalisations by claiming the right to legitimate political discourse".

79 Dealing with evidence about anti-Semitism in the academic sphere, the Committee found:

We conclude that Jewish students feel disproportionately threatened in British universities as a result of anti-Semitic activities which vary from campus to campus. Attacks on Jewish students and their halls of residence, and a lack of respect shown for observant Jewish students and their calendar requirements amount to a form of campus anti-Semitism which Vice-Chancellors should tackle vigorously. While criticism of Israel - often hard-hitting in the rough and tumble of student politics - is legitimate, the language of some speakers crosses the line into generalised attacks on Jews.

80 At paras 206-213, the Committee addressed the question of academic boycotts. It noted the motions passed at the annual conference of AUT in 2005 proposing the boycott of two Israeli universities. It also referred to a motion at the NATFHE conference of May 2006 calling on members to boycott all Israeli academics. The Committee perceived, and criticised, the "singling out" of Israel for boycotting purposes. Evidence given by Dr Jon Pike (also a witness for the Claimant before us) was quoted with apparent approval. Dr Pike was a leading member of 'Engage' an anti-boycott organisation. This section of the report ended as follows (para 213):

We conclude that calls to boycott contact with academics working in Israel are an assault on academic freedom and intellectual exchange. We recommend that lecturers in the New University and College Lecturers Union (sic) are given every support to combat such collective boycotts that are anti-Jewish in practice. We would urge the new union's executive and leadership to oppose the boycott.

81 The Committee heard oral evidence over four days in February and March 2006. Those who gave evidence included the Chief Rabbi, the Home Secretary, a senior police officer, the Attorney-General, the President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Dr Brian Klug (an Oxford academic with special expertise in the area of anti-Semitism) and Dr Pike, to whom we have already referred. The Committee also received evidence in writing from a wide range of sources including several Jewish organisations, political parties, the Commission for Racial Equality, embassies of six countries including Israel and the United States of America and eminent individuals including Mr Howard Jacobson, the well-known author (whose evidence we read in these proceedings). The list of those who supplied written evidence also includes AFI and Engage.

82 NATFHE supplied written evidence to the Inquiry. AUT did not. Ms Hunt was General Secretary of AUT at the time. She told us without challenge that her union was not asked to comment on the academic boycott issue or notified that the Committee was interested in that particular topic.

83 The Respondents had come into existence by the date of publication of the Committee's findings. They decided to respond to the report. Before doing so, they requested a meeting with the parliamentarians and as a result an appointment was fixed for 13 December 2006. Those present were Mr Mann, Dr MacShane, Ms Hunt and Mr Mackney, formerly General Secretary of NATFHE and by then joint General Secretary of the Respondents (a position which he continued to share with Ms Hunt until May 2007).

84 The meeting was not particularly a productive one. Ms Hunt and Mr Mackney referred to parts of the report which had described Jewish students feeling threatened on campus and explained that they wished for further information because that matter called for investigation. The parliamentarians did not provide any detail and did not genuinely respond to that inquiry at all. Mr Mann led for them and the more conciliatory tone of Dr MacShane gave way to a somewhat hostile display in which Mr Mann made no bones about his view that the union was operating in an anti-Semitic way and that those at its head must address the problem. He did not explain what the anti-Semitic behaviour was supposed to have consisted of besides referring to the boycott debate and characterising any boycott of Israel or Israeli institutions as itself anti-Semitic.

85 Following the meeting Mr Mackney drafted the Respondents' written answer to the Committee's report. He affirmed the Respondents' opposition to anti-Semitism. He was critical of what he characterised as a lack of balance in the report and questioned whether it was appropriate to take anti-Semitism as a topic in isolation, pointing out that Islamaphobia was also on the increase and suggesting that the two problems would benefit from a balanced joint approach. He referred to the evidence which had been submitted by NATFHE and observed that it would have been courteous and helpful to invite the Respondents to give oral evidence. Mr Mackney acknowledged that some groups might make criticism of Israel an excuse for anti-Semitic activity but contended that criticism of the Israeli government was not in itself anti-Semitic and argued that defenders of Israel had used the charge of anti-Semitism as a tactic to smother democratic debate and legitimate censure, citing research by Israeli journalists published in the Guardian in June 2006 to that effect. Mr Mackney reserved his most direct strictures for the recommendation concerning the boycott issue remarking:

We find this recommendation highly improper, constituting an interference in the democratic processes of our union. The UCU and its predecessors are and were democratic organisations ... the report itself struggles and fails to satisfactorily resolve the issue of whether a policy which is critical of the actions of the Israeli government is anti-Jewish in practice and this is likely to remain a highly subjective issue.

86 In January 2007 the Times Higher Education Supplement published a letter from 76 members of the Respondents, including the Claimant, attacking Mr Mackney's response to the Parliamentary Inquiry report as "evasive, disingenuous and complacent".

And what did the Tribunal think of the MPs themselves?

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 anti-Semitism 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.

It's very important to note here that Denis MacShane was held not to have understood the MacPherson report.  Zionists have been trying to pass off the EUMC working definition of antisemitism as legitimate on the grounds that it allows victims to decide what is racism.  Of course, first the victims have to establish that they are indeed victims and having a state you support accused of illegal behaviours or lacking core legitimacy does not amount to victimhood.

I started by expressing surprise that the zionists ran with now ex-MP, Dr Denis MacShane.  Perhaps it's surprising that John Mann is an MP.

UCU Tribunal: Whatever happened to Snow White and the Eighth Dwarf, Pushy?

Of all the zionists openly ridiculed and denounced in the Fraser v University and College Union Employment Tribunal ruling, Jeremy Newmark and Jane Ashworth come off worst:

131 There was a conflict of evidence concerning an event at the Respondents' Congress in 2008. It is not pleaded in the claim form but since it relates to the behaviour of witnesses who appeared before us, we think it right to record brief findings on it. A closed debate was to be held, for which permits were required. Ms Jane Ashworth, a member of Engage (and a witness before us), managed (as she put it) to "sneak in" without the necessary permit. Mr Jeremy Newmark, now and perhaps then Chief Executive of the Jewish Leadership Council (also a witness before us), attempted to do likewise but was stopped by stewards. He then tried to push his way in, but was not allowed to do so. Mr Waddup (already mentioned in relation to complaint (2», spoke to Mr Newmark and told him that he would not be allowed in. We reject the allegation that Mr Waddup said, "You're not wanted here". We also reject as utterly unfounded the emotive allegation of Ms Ashworth that Mr Newmark was "Jew-baited". He was not baited at all. Neither Ms Ashworth nor Mr Newmark was a member of the Respondents. 

132 More generally, we can record these brief observations. We do so having spent an entire day listening to recordings of Congress debates. In our judgment, the proceedings were well-ordered and balanced. They were carefully controlled from the Chair. They were managed in an even-handed fashion with speakers selected in turn to speak for and against the motions. On the very rare occasions when it was necessary to call Congress to order, the chairman did so and those present responded appropriately. The debates were conducted with courtesy. Speakers on both sides received applause. Despite the strength of feeling, they lightened the occasion with humour from time to time. We were quite unable to detect the atmosphere of intimidation which the written case on the Claimant's behalf attempted to convey.

 So much for evidence but what of the people giving the evidence:

148 An unsurprising consequence of bringing forward on behalf of the Claimant a very large number of well-informed and independent-minded witnesses (including some individuals of great distinction in their fields) largely for the purpose of offering their opinions rather than giving evidence of facts, was that disagreements emerged. We have already given an example (para 53). This diversity eloquently made Mr White's 'range of views' point. Some witnesses were most impressive. These include, but are not by any means limited to, Professor Yudkin, Mr Kline and Dr Seymour. They gave careful, thoughtful, courteous evidence and were clearly mindful of their obligations as witnesses in litigation.

Unfortunately. others appeared to misunderstand the nature of the proceedings and seemed more disposed to score points or play to the gallery rather than providing straightforward answers to the clear questions put to them. 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. 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. 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.

Both Jane Ashworth and Jeremy Newmark have yet to break their silence on their forensic denunciation. I don't know if or where Jane Ashworth tweets or posts but Jeremy Newmark tweets @Jeremy_Newmark.

I must say that the more I look at the judgment the more ludicrous the case looks.  Many friends of mine have asked "what were they thinking of?"  The scary thing is that they may have been hoping, in fact they must have been hoping for a perverse decision.  After all, Israel was admitted to the United Nations.

From the antisemitism card to the technicality card Sarah AB does Pavlov's Dog

Harry's Place keeps disappearing lately but it's up at the moment and Sarah Annes Brown was up very early this morning to misrepresent the report of the Unemployment Tribunal in the case of Fraser vs University and College Union (UCU).

Despite being deeply interested in the result of Ronnie’s Fraser’s case, I expected the ruling itself to be rather dry, with the result hinging on precedents set by case law.  While fully sharing the concerns which motivated the many other witnesses, and Ronnie himself, to pursue this case, I realized that the tribunal would have to judge it according to various quite technical criteria.

To some degree, of course, this has been the case – one very simple count against Ronnie Fraser was that several of the incidents he referred to were deemed out of time. There is also a long discussion of issues such as ‘vicarious liability’, as part of a determination as to whether UCU could be held responsible for the effects on members of actions carried out, not just by paid employees, but by, for example, the NEC.  My response to the (hugely disappointing) result would have been rather different if the ruling had limited itself to such matters.

However the later parts of the ruling went beyond these technical issues, and were less dry – and less dispassionate.  

What a bizarre way of saying that they were totally wiped out by the Tribunal.

Here's the actual judgment again just to show that it was the substantive arguments which lost the case and the technical issues came, literally, second:

(1) The Claimant's complaints of unlawful harassment are not well-founded.
(2) Save in so far as they are based on acts or omissions which occurred on or after 26 May 2011, the Claimant's complaints of unlawful harassment are in any event outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
(3) Accordingly, the proceedings are dismissed.

Now I was up very late last night predicting that she would play the technicality card. She'd already trailed it on twitter and what else could she do? Even I am surprised at her brazenness though.

Here's what I said in my previous post:

It's not just Ben Cohen trying to make out that this was something technical rather than an utter humiliation for Israel lobbyists and hobbyists in the UK.  Sarah Annes Brown of Harry's Place tweeted thus:

@steve4319 Obviously I don't agree with the ruling - that is, I might accept various aspects of it, particularly technical ones, but not
— Sarah Brown (@SarahAB_UK) March 26, 2013

She also trailed (and I predicted) the Masuku affair as some kind of deal breaker proving that the UCU is antisemitic:

@flying_rodent @thethirdestate It's in the light of the Masuku incident that the repudiation seemed so particularly deplorable.
— Sarah Brown (@SarahAB_UK) March 29, 2013

I responded to that one here:

@sarahab_uk @flying_rodent @thethirdestate Masuku invite + EUMC repudiation nothing to do with eachother. see paras 166 + 170 #UCU #BDS
— Jews Sans Frontieres (@jewssf) March 29, 2013

Curiously she didn't try that bogus linkage in her post.  But, helpfully, she did go into some detail about what it was that got Masuku on the wrong end of hate speech procedings:

“…as we struggle to liberate Palestine from the racists, fascists and Zionists who belong to the era of their Friend Hitler! We must not apologise, every Zionist must be made to drink the bitter medicine they are feeding our brothers and sisters in Palestine. We must target them, expose them and do all that is needed to subject them to perpetual suffering until they withdraw from the land of others and stop their savage attacks on human dignity…”.

“If the offices of the Zionist Federation and that loud-mouthed Rabbi and his SABJD were in town we would have marched there. All we wanted, as we still want to target are all who represent evil and suffering, whether its companies, individuals, offices, etc. We are working on identifying them now. It’s a pity if they are in residential areas, which unfortunately will not deter us. No one must enjoy peace while supporting and promoting the suffering of others, so goes our believe and we shall enforce it to its fullest.”

It's clear that Masuku is targeting zionists here, not Jews as Jews, though he was found (or claimed) to have said in an email, "Jews are arrogant" but that was after the events complained of.

This hate speech charge may well have failed in the UK but let's just remind ourselves of what the Tribunal said about zionists seeking legal redress for offending against zionism:

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.

The plain fact is that Ronnie Fraser and Anthony Julius's case against the UCU, like Sarah AB's post at Harry's Place, was totally bogus.  The technical side like the Masuku affair is a mere figleaf for an attempt at silencing criticism of the last of the colonial settler states, the State of Israel.

Zionist reactions to the UCU Tribunal ruling

Well the reaction of zionists to the recent Employment Tribunal ruling has been mostly silent.  The case was formally called Fraser vs The University and College Union. The judgment is as follows:

(1)        The Claimant's complaints of unlawful harassment are not well-founded.

(2)        Save in so far as they are based on acts or omissions which occurred on or after 26 May 2011, the Claimant's complaints of unlawful harassment are in any event outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction.

(3)        Accordingly, the proceedings are dismissed.

Ok, got that? See number 1.  The complaints are not well-founded.  That is, the substance is not well-founded.  It is not a legal point, it is a factual point.  Number 2 is a legal point.  It relates to the fact that the Complainant and his lawyer and their witnesses took too long to concoct the complaint.  That you might call technical/procedural but it doesn't matter because the substantive point is that "The Claimant's complaints of unlawful harassment are not well-founded."  So even if they had have got their act together in time they still wouldn't have fallen at the hurdle of the case having to have some merit. This one had none.

The former anti-zionist, Ben Cohen, in Commentary Magazine, doesn't seem to have quite taken that on board:

Why did the Fraser case collapse in such spectacular fashion? In part, the problems were technical and procedural; several passages in the verdict argued that the UCU’s officers were not themselves responsible for the specific instances of anti-Semitism Fraser’s complaints highlighted, while another lazily bemoaned the “gargantuan scale” of the case, asserting that it was wrong of Julius and Fraser to abuse the “limited resources” of the “hard-pressed public service” that is a British employment tribunal. The verdict also contained extraordinary personal attacks on the integrity of Fraser’s witnesses, among them Jewish communal leader Jeremy Newmark and Labor Party parliamentarian John Mann, and even insinuated that the plain-speaking Fraser was unwittingly being used as a vassal by the articulate and florid Julius!

Far from focusing on "technical and procedural" issues, the report is remarkably easy to read as it focuses mainly on the substantive, that is factual issues.  As for, "lazily"  referencing the ""gargantuan scale" of the case", the judges were anything but lazy.  They read through everything, discussed everything and even listened to recordings of union proceedings.  The reference to the "gargantuan scale" of the proceedings was one of the reports many humourous asides.

It's not just Ben Cohen trying to make out that this was something something technical rather than an utter humiliation for Israel lobbyists and hobbyists in the UK.  Sarah Annes Brown of Harry's Place tweeted thus:

@steve4319 Obviously I don't agree with the ruling - that is, I might accept various aspects of it, particularly technical ones, but not
— Sarah Brown (@SarahAB_UK) March 26, 2013

She went on to cite what the Tribunal report suggested was the only one of ten claims to have any substance at all, the Masuku affair, and then conflated that with the UCU's repudiation of the EUMC working definition of antisemitism:

@flying_rodent @thethirdestate It's in the light of the Masuku incident that the repudiation seemed so particularly deplorable.
— Sarah Brown (@SarahAB_UK) March 29, 2013

So, let's have a look at how the report deals with the Masuku affair:

Complaint (5): The Bongani Masuku affair including his invitation, the fall-out from that invitation, his conduct and the aftermath of his visit

110 As mentioned above, at the 2009 Congress a motion (Motion 29) was passed which required the Respondents to host an autumn international inter-union conference of BDS supporters. An invitation only conference was arranged for 5 December 2009. The Claimant was not among the invitees. In October 2009 invitations were sent out to various organisations including COSATU (see para 71). They were not sent to individuals; organisations were invited to identify proposed representatives whom they wished to send. On 2 November COSATU advised the Respondents that they wished to send Mr Bongani Masuku, their International Relations Secretary, and another named individual. The Respondents then issued personal invitations to both. By 24 November it had been agreed that Mr Masuku would be one of the speakers at the conference and would address the subject of BDS with reference to apartheid era South Africa and current political realities in Israel. 

111 On 30 November 2009 the Claimant sent an e-mail to Mr Waddup enquiring about plans for the conference. Mr Waddup replied on 2 December and confirmed that the event was proceeding as had been reported in the Morning Star (from where the Claimant had picked up the story, and which had named Mr Masuku as one of the billed speakers). 

112 At just after 3.00 pm on 3 December 2009 the Claimant sent an e-mail to Ms Hunt, copied to Mr Waddup, alleging that Mr Masuku had made inflammatory statements against the South African Jewish community which were under consideration by the South African Human Rights Commission ('SAHRC'). He described Mr Masuku as a racist and asked Ms Hunt to clarify whether he was scheduled to attend and, if so, urging her to withdraw his invitation. 

113 Mr Waddup attempted to find out more. He found some evidence on the Engage website and at least one other website with similar sympathies, tending to support the Claimant's allegation. He was unable to ascertain from the SAHRC any information other than that the case of Mr Masuku was awaiting adjudication. Mr Waddup advised Ms Hunt that she should not respond to the Claimant's message. 

114 In fact, on 3 December 2009, SAHRC issued a 'Finding' to Mr Masuku, upholding a complaint by the South African Jewish Board of Deputies that statements made by him in February and March the same year amounted to hate speech. He was offered the option of settling the matter amicably by tendering an apology to the complainants within 14 days and notified that failing that, the matter would be referred to the relevant 'Equality Court' for final adjudication without further notice. 

115 At just after midnight on the morning of 4 December 2009 the Claimant sent a further e-mail to Ms Hunt, this time stating that the SAHRC had "unequivocally" found that statements made by Mr Masuku amounted to hate speech. He attached links to the Engage website and another with similar sympathies. 

116 COSATU issued a press statement strongly challenging the SAHRC 'Finding'. It also promised an appeal. The Respondents received a copy on 5 December, before the conference began. 

117 The conference proceeded. Mr Masuku spoke. The event was unremarkable and it was not suggested that anything improper was said or done. 

118 In the event, Mr Masuku's appeal failed: it was rejected on procedural grounds, having been presented out of time. 

119 As we have mentioned (para 71), the subject of Mr Masuku was raised at the 2010 Congress, when a motion referring to his allegedly anti-Semitic utterances and proposing that Congress dissociate itself from his "repugnant views" was put to the vote but lost.

See how the report dealt with that in paragraph 170:

The fact that Mr Masuku was alleged to have made anti-Semitic comments was certainly the context in which the question of possible revocation of Mr Masuku's invitation arose, but those alleged remarks were neither the reason, nor a reason, for the decision not to revoke the invitation. Nor was the Claimant's race or religion. We are quite satisfied that a guest of the union accused in like circumstances at the eleventh hour of hate speech allegedly directed at some other racial or religious group (or any other protected category) would have been treated exactly as Mr Masuku was. The union would have decided against the drastic measure of withdrawing the invitation at the last minute on the strength of an (apparently) strongly challenged allegation.

Now let's have a look at the bit of the report which deals with the repudiation by the UCU of the EUMC working definition of antisemitism:

Complaint (9): The rejection of the EUMC Working Definition of Anti-Semitism 

134 We have already referred to Motion 70 passed at the 2011 Congress (see our findings under complaint (1) above). The motion was democratically passed in accordance with the Respondents' rules. Jewish members spoke for and against the motion.

Let's just see how this was dealt with by the Tribunal:

166   In respect of complaint (9) the Claimant again fails to make out any arguable complaint of 'unwanted' conduct against the Respondents. There was a debate, constitutionally managed by them, which culminated in the vote to reject the EUMC Working Definition. It was open to Congress to consider that motion. Its legality was not in question. The vote was valid and the outcome was the product of the union's democratic processes. The 'unwanted' conduct was that of the members who proposed and supported the motion and Congress as a whole which passed it. As we have already explained, no claim lies against the Respondents in respect of these actions. Nor was the Respondents' conduct 'related to' the Claimant's protected characteristics [my emphasis]. Nor did their conduct produce the prescribed effect upon him. Nor would it have been reasonable for it to do so. And even if the Claimant could base his complaint on the decision of Congress to pass the motion and even if that decision produced the prescribed effect on him, it would not be reasonable for it to have done so. Our comments on context and human rights in relation to complaint (1) are repeated, mutatis mutandis.

It's very strange that Sarah links the Masuku affair of 2010 to the repudiation of the EUMC working definition a year later.  They clearly have nothing to do with each other.  Is she saying that if the union adopted the working definition they wouldn't have invited Masuku?  If that's the case, she should know that if they adopted the working definition they couldn't publicly criticise Israel at all, which is the point of the working definition.

But let's look at this "protected characteristics" thing:

Protected characteristics 

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.

Good stuff.  Jews aren't necessarily zionists and even if they were why should that characteristic be protected?  Which leads us into the reaction of the man himself, Ronnie Fraser, which was issued via Scholars for Peace in the Middle East which I think roughly translated means academics who want Iran bombed and Palestinians ethnically cleansed, but that's just me.  Here's poor Ron:

I am naturally disappointed by the decision of the Employment Tribunal to dismiss my claim of harassment against the University and College Union (UCU).  I am however very grateful that the hearing provided us with the opportunity to raise and discuss in great detail the issues of discrimination and antisemitism which are so important to Anglo Jewry.

I believe that the many witnesses we called were able to provide evidence to the tribunal of an intolerable atmosphere over a number of years and that the UCU did nothing to stop these institutionally anti-Semitic acts taking place.

Having read the judgment there are two points which greatly concern me. The first is "a belief in the Zionist project or an attachment to Israel cannot amount to a protected  characteristic. It is not intrinsically a part of Jewishness..." (para 150). For the court to say that as Jews we do not have an attachment to Israel is disappointing considering we have been yearning for Israel for 2000 years and it has been in our prayers all that time. The second point highlighted the need for Anglo-Jewry to urgently adopt and publicise its own definition of antisemitsm. 

As a member of the Board of Deputies I intend to campaign for us as a community to accept a definition of Jewishness which includes a connection with Israel and the adoption of a definition of anti-Semitism.

I would like to thank my wife, my family, my witnesses, and all those who supported my action both from within the Jewish community and elsewhere for their incredible support and understanding over the last two years.

I would also like to thank my solicitor Anthony Julius and all the staff of Mishcon De Reya for all their magnificent work and support.

Note:  The Employment Tribunal  judgment can be found here; http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/judgments/2013/fraser-uni-college-union

Now Ben Cohen and Sarah Annes Brown were probably smarter pretending there were technical issues involved in the case. Ronnie Fraser is here suggesting that support for colonial settlement, ethnic cleansing and segregationist laws are part and parcel of Jewishness or the Jewish identity.  The problem there of course is that in order to protect this supposed characteristic of Jews one has to support or tolerate the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. This means that to be anti-racist you would have to be antisemitic or in order not to be antisemitic you would have to be a racist, in this instance, a zionist.

Other zionists have also attacked the substance of the report, of course, without going into any specific detail.  Dr Hirsh of Israel advocates, Engage and BICOM (Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre), on his facebook page has accused the Tribunal itself of being antisemitic:

Ronnie said that the key mode of intimidation in the UCU was this constant allegation of bad faith - the allegation that Jews who say they feel antisemitism are actually lying for Israel.

The Tribunal says that the Jews who say they feel antisemitism are actually lying for Israel.

That which Ronnie experiences as antisemitism is what the Tribunal finds to be precisely the right and courageous way to treat him.

That's a strange spin given that Ronnie Fraser was one of the few witnesses for the zionist side who the Tribunal described as sincere:

147 The Claimant impressed us as a sincere witness. 

 In fairness, they did qualify this:

Although his sincerity is not in question, his political experience showed at a number of points. He veered away from awkward questions. We were also struck by the contrast between his simple, down-to-earth style and the magnificent prose in which his written case was couched. We do not believe that it would ever occur to him to think that as a member of the Respondents he inhabits an environment of "thickening toxicity". 

 But nowhere do they suggest that he is claiming antisemitism because he is lying for Israel.  Why does Dr Hirsh believe that to be the case?

Other zionist responses were nuttier still.

Jewish former anti-zionist, David Toube, had this to say on Dr Hirsh's facebook page:

David Toube You can't win political battles by litigation. If judges think that Jews are sneaky and whining and powerful, there's no law you can pass to change that.

Ok, Toube is another one who can find antisemitism in a smoked salmon beigel but look what he says next:

Demographically Jews are a small minority. They're beset by an intense fascination, which sometimes manifests as philia and sometimes as hatred. They keep their heads down, because they correctly realise that this is a wise thing to do, and historically always has been. There is no prospect at all of the sort of frightening militancy from Jews that has achieved both respect and mistrust, when deployed by other groups. 

So what then?  And this is where Jonathan Hoffman joins the fray:

• Jonathan Hoffman "You can't win political battles by litigation" You simply don't get it. It's about racism not 'politics'. you're making the same error as the tribunal.

  26 March at 16:35
• David Toube Argue all you want about it - the point isn't what two Jews happen to think about definitions or strategy. It is irrelevant. This is NOT something that Jews can do anything about. You could have unanimity, dissent - this isn't about Jews Views. It is about Views on Jews.

  26 March at 16:36
• 
  

  Jonathan Hoffman So Jews are powerless. Good job Herzl, Weizmann and Ben Gurion didn't agree.

  26 March at 16:53 · 1
• 
  

  David Toube Like Herzl, Weizmann and Ben Gurion, I recommend that Jews who want to stand and fight against antisemitism, emigrate to Israel. Those who want to get by elsewhere, should - and usually do - keep their heads down.

So is Toube heading for the South Hebron Hills or is he keeping his head down? He calls himself Lucy Lips these days on Harry's Place and, as far as I know he still lives in London so I suppose he must be keeping his head down.  How many corporate lawyers can a small state like Israel need? We've even got too many in London.

I'm sure more zionists will rear their heads on this in the coming days and weeks.  They have two ways to go.  The "unmeritorious" claim failed on a technicality or the Tribunal was antisemitic.  Of course neither are true but this is the zionist movement we're talking about and there's still no such thing as an honest zionist.

Meanwhile, where is Anthony Julius?  And where is the mainstream media on this? So far no word from The Guardian. What's all that about?