Denis MacShane was too soft on Muslims like Jimmy Savile, Rolf Harris and Cyril Smith

At least I think that's what he told The Daily Telegraph:

Denis MacShane, the former Labour MP for Rotherham, has admitted that as a “Guardian reading liberal leftie” he shied away from the issue of the oppression of women in the Muslim community.

Mr MacShane, who resigned in 2012 over an expenses fraud for which he was later jailed, insisted no-one came to him with child abuse allegations during his 18 years in Parliament, but admitted he should have “burrowed into” the issue.

He told the BBC: "I think there was a culture of not wanting to rock the multicultural community boat if I may put it like that.”

Admitting he had been guilty of doing too little, he said he had been aware of the problem of cousin marriage and “the oppression of women within bits of the Muslim community in Britain” but: “Perhaps yes, as a true Guardian reader, and liberal leftie, I suppose I didn’t want to raise that too hard.”

He recalled having a “huge row” with another local MP and council grandees because they were complaining about a newspaper investigation into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham, which unearthed uncomfortable truths they did not want to hear.

He said: “Nobody pursued Jimmy Saville, nobody pursued Rolf Harris, nobody pursued Cyril Smith, nobody pursued Mrs Thatcher’s sidekick we now learn was a depraved predatory monster. 

Now really we should be enforcing the law without fear or favour irrespective of ethnic, national or religious background and irrespective of celebrity status but since MacShane was never known for having a "Guardian liberal leftie" attitude to Muslims anyway, I really don't know how he can hide behind "multiculturism" to explain away his inaction over rampant child abuse in his former consituency of Rotherham.

Denis MacShane collected the £s but didn't pass GO

 

It's a fair cop!

Denis MacShane does the Decent Thing and Pleads Guilty

Denis MacShameless has done the decent thing and pleaded guilty to being the dodgiest character ever.  Hmm, maybe not quite that.  Let's have a look at The Guardian:

The former Labour minister Denis MacShane has pleaded guilty to making nearly £13,000 of bogus expenses claims.

The ex-MP admitted false accounting by putting in fake receipts for £12,900 for "research and translation" services.

He used the money to fund trips to Europe, including one to judge a literary competition in Paris.

Sentencing was adjourned until 19 December and he was granted unconditional bail
Mr Justice Sweeney told MacShane "all sentencing options remain open".

I ought to say here that as much as I don't like Denis MacShane, it is very cruel to leave him stewing over whether or not he'll go to prison but then, as a zionist he approves of far greater cruelties.

BTW, I got that pic from google.

Disgraced former MP Denis MacShane's Islamist Lobby Thesis

I've just seen from this Electronic Intifada post by Ben White that shamed former MP, Denis MacShameless has joined the zionist cacophony over the EU Fundamental Rights Agency's ditching of the so-called Working Definition of Antisemitism.  Here's MacShameless:

EU Fundamental Rights Agency drops anti-semitism definition from its website after pressure from Islamists and anti-semitism denial lobby
— Denis MacShane (@DenisMacShane) November 3, 2013

This is interesting because I remember the BBC Trust writing the following explanation to me:

the so-called “working definition of anti-semitism” referred to in the finding and cited by the complainant was published on the website of the EU Monitoring Committee for Racism and Xenophobia in 2005. This body was replaced by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (the FRA) in 2007. A press officer at the FRA has explained that this was a discussion paper and was never adopted by the EU as a working definition, although it has been on the FRA website until recently when it was removed during a clear out of “non-official” documents. The link to the FRA site provided by the complainant in his appeal no longer works.

So is the discredited former MP saying that the FRA spokesperson is lying?  I think we should be told but I'm guessing we won't be.  I know what I'll do, I'll ask MacShameless for his evidence.  Don't bother watching this space because, unless he's drunk, he won't answer.

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.

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.

The UCU and the All Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism

Once more to the FUCU case.  This time it's about the All Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism, which, hopefully, will have been discredited by the FUCU Tribunal judgment.

Here's what a key player on the F side of the case, Dr David Hirsh of Engage, had to say following the judgment:

The Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism reported that the boycott debates were likely to cause difficulties for Jewish academics and students, to exclude Jews from academic life and to have a detrimental effect on Jewish Studies.  UCU responded that these allegations were made to stop people from criticizing Israel.  76 members of the UCU published acritique of the union’s response, but the union took no notice.  John Mann MP told the Tribunal that UCU had been unique among those criticized by the inquiry in its refusal to listen.

This has been cross-posted to the Shiraz Socialist blog where critical comments have been allowed.
Here's what the judgment says about the complaint about how the University and College Union handled dealings with the inquiry:

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 ... note certain features.  ....the Committee found that anti-Semitism was on the rise. The new trend appeared to be largely associated with the politics of .... 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....anti-Semitism in the academic sphere, the Committee found: ...that Jewish students feel... 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....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.......

82 NATFHE supplied written evidence to the Inquiry. AUT did not....

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”.

Notice how it doesn't quite tally with Dr Hirsh's account.

Now see what the judges decided about this:

157 Complaint (2) is ... 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. Their response was sincere and had substance. On any view, it was open to them to do as they did. Their action cannot properly be seen as ‘unwanted’: it was perfectly proper and unobjectionable. No legal claim can arise from it. Our reasoning on the meaning of ‘unwanted’ under complaint (1) is repeated.

Now I'm not sure if they are saying that the fairness of the Parliamentary Committee was open to question or the fairness of the way they treated the UCU.  Does it matter?  Whatever they did, they are utterly discredited now.

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.

Funder and fundee give their "evidence" at UCU antisemitism tribunal

The zionists' case against the Universities and Colleges Union is still rumbling on at the employment tribunal. The aim of the case is to portray the UCU as antisemitic and to have it punished accordingly.  I don't really understand why the case is being heard at all given that it has nothing to do with employment and the case hasn't been brought by an employee against an employer.  But anyway, here's a chunk from a report on the hearing from the Jewish Chronicle:

The University and College Union travelled a “dangerously slippery slope” from criticism of Israel to “plain old antisemitism”, an employment tribunal has heard.

Jeremy Newmark, Jewish Leadership Council chief executive, said the UCU’s proposed academic boycott of Israel had been “hugely concerning” for the Jewish community.

Mr Newmark gave evidence at the employment tribunal brought by maths lecturer Ronnie Fraser, who is challenging the UCU after its rejection of a widely-accepted definition of antisemitism last year.

That rejection had marked a “tipping point”, Mr Newmark told London’s Central Employment Tribunal on Tuesday.

“That was the moment we began to talk of institutional antisemitism.”

During two-and-a-half hours of cross-examination, Mr Newmark regularly clashed with the UCU’s defence lawyer, Antony White QC.

Mr White accused Mr Newmark of making “a series of false accusations” in his submitted witness statement.

Mr Newmark said 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: “What, in fact, happened was you were trying to push your way in, despite having the wrong badge.”

Mr Newmark responded: “It’s very easy to use the stereotype of a pushy Jew. That’s not what happened. Nobody else was stopped from going in. They knew me.”

Readers may recall that it was Jeremy Newmark who "had brilliant idea of funding soft Trotskyists Engage to lead the campaign against the higher ed boycott".

Now I hope whoever is hearing this ludicrous case has some idea of how casually zionists invoke the charge of antisemitism from Newmark's translation of "you were trying to push your way in" to "It’s very easy to use the stereotype of a pushy Jew".

Not content with putting an antisemitic spin on just about anything, Newmark also tried to redefine the Jewish identity:

Mr White argued that some Jewish members of the union had backed the boycott. The tribunal heard how activists from Jews for Justice for Palestinians had been supportive of the policy.

Mr Newmark rejected those Jewish views as having been “grossly, disproportionately magnified” by UCU. The Jews backing the boycott were “a tiny group of people who only identify as Jews to take political positions in debates on Israel. These people are not engaged in Jewish life in any way,” he said.

Those Jews supporting the UCU stance “could not be more irrelevant in Jewish life in this country. Most British Jews are deeply disturbed by what they have seen in British academia”.

Of course if zionists succeed in redefining Jews as zionists then anti-zionism and antisemitism become the same thing but then they might also succeed in legitimising antisemitism. That wouldn't bother them but it would bother me and many others.

Woah! I nearly forgot the point of the headline. Jeremy Newmark was the funder but who is the fundee?  I'll give you a clue. He was a member of parliament in the UK until very recently.  He too likes to redefine antisemitism so as to stifle criticism of the State of Israel.  Ok, one last clue.  He got done (but not well done yet) for fiddling expenses, paricularly over his work on "antisemitism".  Aha! you got it that time.  It's Denis the menace MacShane.  Here's the JC again:

Former MP Denis MacShane gave evidence on Wednesday. He chaired the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism and said that the EUMC definition had been “very helpful” and “invaluable” to those combating hatred.

After the union rejected the definition, Dr MacShane “felt horrified for all the Jewish lecturers who felt obliged to resign”.

Dr MacShane likened the boycott calls to the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany, and said he felt the union had “gone down an antisemitic road”.

Cor, that's powerful. I wonder what he thinks about colonial settlement. ethnic cleansing and segregationist laws. Oh yes, he supports those things and accuses the opponents of being nazis.

Denis MacShane, all hasbara but no explanation

I know, I know, hasbara means explanation but by usage it is taken to mean zionist propaganda.  Explanation on the other hand means, er, explanation.

Here, from the beeb, is what happened:

Former Labour minister Denis MacShane has quit as an MP after he wrongfully claimed at least £7,500 in expenses.

A Parliamentary committee found he had submitted 19 false invoices which were "plainly intended to deceive" Parliament's expenses authority.

The committee said it was the "gravest case" which has come to them for adjudication.

Mr MacShane, who has has repaid the money, said he wanted to take responsibility for his mistakes.

And here, from The Guardian, are some chunks out of various statements from MacShane:

MacShane said he "unreservedly" accepted Lyon's findings. In a letter to the committee on 26 October, he wrote: "How did this foolish and wrong behaviour come about? I was as Mr Lyon generously recognises under great pressure in this period.

"I had lost a daughter in a sky-diving accident in Australia, gone through a wrenching divorce and held the hand of my first daughter's mother, Carol Barnes, as she lay dying from a stroke for a week in 2008.

"To overcome these griefs I did what many do and buried myself in work. I accepted extra parliamentary delegation work from the Labour party. I chaired the all-party commission on inquiry into antisemitism which was hailed as a model of its kind and changed government policy. I wrote two books and hundreds of articles, but claimed under the wrong heading as Mr Lyon rightly notes. Foolishly and wrongly I paid no attention to the administration of my expenses claims.

In his resignation statement:

MacShane said: "In the light of the Parliamentary Commissioner's decision, supported by the Committee of Standards and Privileges, to uphold the BNP complaint about expenses claimed in connection with my parliamentary work in Europe and in combating antisemitism, I have decided for the sake of my wonderful constituency of Rotherham and my beloved Labour party to resign as an MP.

 And in yet another statement, yet another reference to antisemitism:

"Clearly I deeply regret that the way I chose to be reimbursed for costs related to my work in Europe and in combating antisemitism, including being the prime minister's personal envoy, has been judged so harshly.

"I remain committed to work for progressive values, for Britain playing a full part in Europe, and for combating antisemitism even though I can no longer undertake this work as a Labour MP."

And on BBC Radio 4 yesterday, a friend and supporter of Denis MacShane, Mark Stephens, invoked MacShane's "anti-fascism" and fight against "semitism" (sic).  To which the interviewer responded, "that's an extraordinary assertion, that his campaigns against antisemitism and so forth somehow justify what the Standards and Privileges Committee called "the gravest case which has come to them"."  This was after the interviewer pointed out to Stephens that MacShane had told the committee "I did something so foolish and wrong, I am still unable fully to explain to myself my stupidity".

Denis MacShane's method of "combating antisemitism" has mostly consisted of promoting the EUMC working definition of antisemitism so as to stifle criticism of the State of Israel so it's good to hear that even the BBC is wise to the fact that Denis MacShane's various statements have been all hasbara but no explanation.

Denis MacShane supports boycott!

Even quite recently Denis MacShane was opposed to the idea of boycotting a state. He even linked the academic boycott of Israel to the Toulouse killings a few months ago:

There is little media or political concern when the National Union of Journalists or the University and College Union back boycotts of Jewish journalists or Israeli academics. The NUJ or UCU would never dream of boycotting Saudi Arabia or China, where human rights and core freedoms are ruthlessly suppressed. But when it comes to Jews in Israel, the double-standard of contemporary antisemitism prevails.

Will the Toulouse massacre wake the antisemitism deniers in politics and the media? Probably not. Sadly, it will be easier to use the background of the alleged killer to drum up more xenophobic hate against European Muslims, despite the fact that, to Islamists, Muslims who serve their nation loyally in uniform are also victims of hate and violence.

 So opposed to BDS was he that he grotesquely misrepresented what it was all about but he was writing in the Jewish Chronicle where such misrepresentations are fairly routine.

Well now, according to this Guardian article, Denis MacShane does support a boycott.  He even criticises the fact that the UK was a late addition to the boycott list:

The former Labour Europe minister Denis MacShane said on Thursday that Britain should have been the first, not the last, European nation to boycott Euro 2012. MacShane, who raised Tymoshenko's treatment in the Commons last October, accused William Hague of double standards in taking action against Kiev but not against other worse regimes that abuse human rights. He described Tory human rights policy as a "shambolic mess of incohrent contradictions and double standards."

He added: "At long last and after weeks of urging Cameron joins Chancellor Merkel and President Hollande in boycotting Ukraine Euro 2012 over the disgusting treatment of Yulia Tymoshenko. But Britain should taken a lead on this...instead of tailing in behind other European leaders. Cameron and Hague show a shaming double standard as they roll out the red carpet for the killers and torturers of Bahrain but now boycott Ukraine, where the treatment of Mrs Tymoshenko is unacceptable, but not as bad as anything in Bahrain."

"Shaming double standard" anyone?