I was right, Zionists are using the Recuse Excuse for their FUCU Disaster

No sooner had I predicted that the zionists wold use the original FUCU judges absenting themselves from the costs decision as an excuse to make out that the whole FUCU judgment was wrong, we see two examples of zionists doing just that.

Now, to be honest, Dr David Hirsh of the zionist Engage website gave me the tip-off in this post.  He started factually enough:

Fraser’s lawyers argued that the tribunal should recuse itself from hearing the case relating to costs because the tribunal had already expressed a clear opinion in its judgment not only on the substantive issue of harassment, but also on the issue of costs; for this reason, it had prejudiced its ability to be seen to be impartial in the hearing over costs....

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

So, it's all about costs and whether or not the Tribunal had made it known where it stood on the ussue.

Now Hirsh gets a bit slippery:

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

If UCU continues its bid to punish Ronnie Fraser, its case for costs may now be heard by a fresh tribunal.  However, it is not clear what evidence the UCU can adduce to show that Fraser’s claim was vexatious, since the evidence upon which it is relying is the relevant section from the judgment in which the tribunal appeared to prejudice the hearing on costs.

Now let's look at the parts of the judgment where the costs award against Fraser (and co) might be applicable:

177 The result is that the proceedings are dismissed in their totality. The Claimant has put before us one claim which, on initial examination, appeared arguable on its merits. Closer scrutiny, however, showed it to be clearly unsustainable. And, being hopelessly out of time, it is outside our jurisdiction in any event. The other nine claims are wholly unfounded and many are also defeated by the jurisdic tional time bar.

Now the Tribunal did agree to the hearing so that could be a point in Fraser's favour but then again on hearing the case it found one of its ten claims was out of time and out of its jurisdiction and the other nine are "wholly unfounded".

Now the bits that could be said to touch on costs:

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

Now they seem to be complaining more about the cost to the Tribunal than to the UCU but there is a little word of sympathy for the union having to go to the "trouble and expense of defending proceedings".

Now, it could be that whoever hears the costs issue will not want to dissuade future complainants from er, complaining but clearly the only issue the original Tribunal can be challenged on and is being challenged on is the word or two it uttered touching on costs.

And yet here's Sarah Annes Brown of Harry's Place (who sensibly remove their wacky comments after a week):

• 
  

SarahAB Mod  Discredited Andrew

• 3 days ago

• 
  
• 
  

I have no confidence in their findings. This is not because they ruled against Ronnie but because of the way they did so.

http://engageonline.wordpress....

I won't replicate the whole thread here but here's Discredited Andrew helping you guess what other comments looked like:

Discredited Andrew  SarahAB

• 3 days ago

• 
  
• 
  

Are you really going to clutch at that straw?

Another of the findings was that the claim that Jews were booed and jeered at in conferences was false. They spent a whole day listening to recordings of conference debates. You're into some weird conspiratorial territory if you are going to deny that any dishonest accusations were made.

Well now the Jewish Chronicle have put a marker down on the Recuse Excuse.  Here's the JC's Simon Rocker from this morning's print edition (also on line, see link):

A battle over the legal costs relating to a defeated claim of antisemitic harassment is set to continue after a tribunal withdrew from deciding the issue.

The University College Union is trying to recover costs — understood to be around £600,000 — following the action brought against it by the director of the Academic Friends of Israel, Ronnie Fraser, who said its policy on Israel amounted to harassment.

The same tribunal, headed by Judge Anthony Snelson, which had rejected Mr Fraser’s claim in April was due to hear the case for costs.

But lawyers for Mr Fraser and for the solicitors who represented him in the harassment case, Mishcon de Reya, argued that the tribunal had been so scathing in their original ruling that they could not fairly settle the question.

The tribunal had dismissed Mr Fraser’s claim as “a sorry saga” and “an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means”.

The UCU will now have to go to a new tribunal. Judge Snelson said: “We must recuse ourselves and a cost application should be listed before another tribunal.”

I think Simon Rocker must be deliberately missing the point here.  It wasn't the scathing nature of the FUCU judgment that was problematic for a costs hearing but the fact that the judgment could be perceived as having touched on costs.  Rocker doesn't even mention that.

So the FUCUps are using the Recuse Excuse. Remember you heard it here first.

What have Zionists learned from the Fraser v UCU case?

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

The UCU, Antisemitism and the boycotts campaigns against Israel

Thu 11 Jul 2013

Time: 4.00pm - 6.00pm

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

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

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

Discussant: Robert Fine

Chair: Gunther Jikeli / Hagai van der Horst

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• • 
    
    
    
    

     

    •Reply
• judyk113 • 5 hours ago

  
  
  
  
  

  • −

  
  

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

  
  
  
  
  

  1  

  •

  Reply

  •

  Share ›
  • 

    
    
    
    
    

    zkharya  judyk113 • 5 hours ago

    
    

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

    Agree with that.

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

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

From MikeMarqusee.com:

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

2013 JUNE 2

by Mike Marqusee

Tribunal blow to Israel’s advocates,
UCU vindicated

Labour Briefing, June 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Costs claim by University and College Union

From Friday's print edition of the Jewish Chronicle:

Costs claim

BY SIMON ROCKER

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

That's how it appears in the JC.

Another Critical Zionist take on the FUCU case?

This time it's Joshua Rozenberg, one time legal correspondent for the BBC, writing for Standpoint magazine's May 2013 edition.

Let's just establish his Zionist credentials.  I know I already said he used to work, maybe still works, for the beeb but let's see how he sets out his stall:

The UCU is far from being a supporter of the Jewish state. Fraser's view is that his union did nothing to stop institutionally anti-Semitic acts over several years. At its policy-making conferences in 2007 and in 2009, members supported academic boycotts of Israel. On legal advice, neither motion was implemented by the union's executive.

I can well understand how upset Fraser was by decisions such as these. In 2007, the National Union of Journalists voted at its annual meeting for a boycott of Israeli goods, a policy I could not possibly have respected. I resigned, after more than 30 years' loyal membership.

So he was a loyal union member until it took a decision he didn't like and that was to support the Palestinian cause. Now where's the criticism of the Fraser v University and College Union Employment Tribunal case?

Of ten complaints brought by Fraser, all but one were dismissed as without substance, devoid of merit, palpably groundless, obviously untenable or hopeless. The tenth had been brought 18 months too late. 

Well that's just factual and Rozenberg, as a Zionist, wants as badly as any antisemite to conflate Jewishness with support for the Zionist project so he's working within quite narrow constraints:

But, even if the tribunal was justified in concluding that Zionism was not a protected characteristic, this finding  — though not binding on other courts — is glib to the point of offensiveness. 

So what's the beef exactly?

Fraser cannot be blamed for bringing a misguided claim. But who transformed what the tribunal described as Fraser's "simple, down-to-earth" oral evidence into the "magnificent prose" of his written case? Fraser was represented by Anthony Julius, a leading campaigner against anti-Semitism. But the best advocate is one who can take a detached view of a client's case.

What explanation did Julius give the Jewish Chronicle? Since he is the newspaper's chairman, I was confident he would favour it with an interview. Alas, he was "unavailable for comment this week".

I didn't mention that Joshua Rozenberg is Melanie Phillips's husband.  She works for the Jewish Chronicle.  Why doesn't she get in touch with Anthony Julius?

Professor Alderman Hasn't got a Prayer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CORRECTION: According to Roland Rance in the comments

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

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

Ask the QC about FUCU

Finally, the Jewish Chronicle article I posted about yesterday, you know, the one that was only online in pdf newspaper format, has gone online in normal website type format.  Is that html?  I don't know. It's titled Why the Ronnie Fraser case against the UCU was a legal and public relations disaster. and it's from the Ask the QC section of the JC.

As I've already posted on this I was going to just run my favourite bits but as I read through it again all sorts of questions ran through my mind.  So here's the whole thing:

Rebecca from Finchley writes: I was furious to read your comment last week that bringing the Ronnie Fraser harassment case against the University College Union was “an act of epic folly”. Surely it was high time the Anglo-Jewish community stood up for its rights, win or lose?

Rebecca, I am unrepentant in my view that bringing the Ronnie Fraser litigation was a legal and public relations disaster. All those concerned should first have reminded themselves of the rabbinical saying that “All Israel is accountable one for the other.”

It was misconceived in law, wasted a fortune in legal costs (rumoured in legal circles to be over £500,000) but worst of all showed no Jewish seichel or streetsmarts whatsoever. (Where did that money come from? I only heard about £50k and £70k)

You only litigate such hotly contentious matters if you are being dragged to court as the defendant and thus have no choice, or if, as claimant, you are sure to win. This case sent out the worst possible message to our many hate-filled enemies, namely that rich Jews threw huge resources at a failed attempt to stifle free speech. The result was entirely predictable and had been anticipated by several wise legal heads.(Well presumably there were rich Jews throwing huge resources at a failed attempt to stifle free speech but since many of the Palestine solidarity activists in the UCU are Jewish, I don't think they'll bring the Jewishness of the mystery donors into it)

Those who now react to this defeat with sour grapes should more carefully study the judgment, which even an old warhorse like me had to read three times for all the nuances. See http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/media/judgments/2013/fraser-uni-college-unio....

From a lawyer’s point of view, it is impeccably written and all too compelling. I cannot see any viable appeal arising from it and I would predict further damage and ignominious failure if such were attempted.

I do not accept that the court was antisemitic, as Dr David Hirsh and others have insinuated. Should Jews now be whiners who cannot admit we fought the wrong battle and miscalculated badly? (ah but Mr  Goldberg doesn't understand the political stakes. The court actually stated the obvious.  The court merely said what the Palestine solidarity activists were arguing all along. So what could Hirsh et al do? Own up to bad faith allegations of antisemitism? There was of course another path open to them, the technicality path tried by Paul Usiskin at Open Zion and Sarah Annes Brown at Harry's Place but their dishonesty is as transparent as Hirsh's, just not as ludicrous.)

Do those who so rashly suggest on such shaky foundations that an English court was antisemitic have any conception of the damage they are doing to our community thereby? (I don't think the courts will judge the whole Jewish community by the bogus reasoning and grandstanding of a bunch of chancers but Goldberg's the QC, not me)

Of the 10 factual complaints brought by Mr Fraser against the union, all but one were found to be unmeritorious after an exhaustive 20-day evidential investigation, with detailed reasons being given as to why the court rejected them. And even that one was brought out of time.

A main premise underpinning the claim — that the union was responsible in law for anti-Israel views promulgated by individual members in its annual congresses and in-house internet chatroom — was held wrong in law. (But it was only an error in law.  I wouldn't have known that and I don't think it would be obvious to everyone that things happening under the auspices of a union aren't the responsibility of the union.) Nor was that by any means the only error of law.(Nor was it the only issue period.) 

The underlying notion that a commitment to Zionism should be a “protected characteristic” in English employment law was in my view almost as fanciful as suggesting that supporting Tottenham Hotspur should be a protected characteristic, because so many Jews do so.(I've often said similar, at least I used to want to ask if it's antisemitic to not like smoked salmon beigels.  I'll use the Tottenham Hotspur argument now.  But this does blow the bogus concept of the "new antisemitism" away. Some zionists try to attach the more obvious forms of antisemitism to arguments against zionism but what they've been trying on for some decades now is the argument that simply opposing the State of Israel is antisemitic)

Who is qualified to say, unless they sat through the 20 days of evidence, that the particular criticisms made of the evidence of Jeremy Newmark and two MPs were not reasonable. And just as important, why did Mr Newmark and the others ever voluntarily place themselves in a position to be so criticised in support of a claim brought on such dubious legal foundations?(Regarding the MPs this is important.  Mann claimed to know where the line was between criticism of Israel and antisemitism. The judgment noted with a sneer that he was unable to locate the line for the Tribunal. Other witnesses couldn't agree on what amounted to antisemitism with regard to criticism of the State of Israel.  Fraser said that calling Israel an apartheid state was antisemitic whilst Mr Whine of the CST said it wasn't.  The dismissal of Denis MacShane's evidence was important too. He tried to use the MacPherson Report to support Fraser's case but the judgment said that MacShane didn't understand MacPherson.  The MacPherson Report arising out of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry has been used by many Zionists to justify the working definition of antisemitism.  See Gabriel Ash on this. Suffice to say, this judgment should blow the whole shebang away, the Zionist abuse of the Macpherson Report, the so-called EUMC Working Definition of antisemitism and the All Party Parliamentary Group on Antsemitism.

So much for the MPs. What about Newmark?  What possessed him to lie to a court about an incident involving himself?  He's the CEO of a group, the Jewish Leadership Council, many see as the main liaison between the organised Jewish community and the British public at large.  He is now claiming that the judgment was a travesty. Does he mean about him?  The judges said that "truthful witnesses" exposed him as a liar. Is he calling these "truthful witnesses" liars?  Another question about Jeremy Newmark is how come he is still the CEO of the JLC?  Is there no disciplinary procedure?  Does the JLC approve of lying about antisemitism? Is this how it works?  Shocking! Not!)

And why should the court be criticised, as so many have done in this newspaper, for saying “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.”

The critics have chosen to take five words out of context from this much longer passage in order to condemn the court for allegedly not recognising the attachment between the Jewish religion and Israel. (Writers in the JC have taken words out of context to alter their meaning? Surely not! Has the editor, Stephen Pollard, read the judgment and some of the ludicrous articles appearing under his watch and given more prominence on line than this one?)

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

I yield to nobody in my love for Israel and my support for Zionism. But who can ignore the stark fact that many fellow Jews, including, for example, certain Israeli academics and at least one sect of ultra-Orthodox Jews, are among Israel’s most rabid detractors, whereas many gentiles are fervent Zionists (Lord bless them).(Well not a nice way of putting it but I've always thought that an insidious form of antisemitism is the smearing of Jewish anti-Zionists as being somehow unJewish.  I won't and I don't say that Jews can't be antisemitic but when so many of us refuse to identify ourselves with such a criminally racist project as the Zionist project or the State of Israel who can say that Zionism is part of the Jewish identity?  And that's without getting into the thousands of years when there was no such thing as Zionism)

Why was not a fraction of these legal resources used instead to bring a private prosecution against those activists who disrupted the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra or the Batsheva Dance Company?(I suppose that's up to the people stumping up the resources whoever they are.)

Such cases would almost certainly have succeeded. Having recently attended the stellar AIPAC conference in Washington, Rebecca, I have to say this debacle would never have happened in America.(Actually something slightly similar did occur in America but Zionism is better organised there and to the Zionist movement's chagrin, anti-Zionists are better organised here.  This means that Zionists don't have to resort to the courts there whereas in the case of the UCU they thought they had no choice here. If they did have to resort to the courts in the USA who knows what might happen?)

Unlike in the UK, communal organisations there are not constantly jockeying with one another for power and prestige — and the left hand actually does know what the right is doing.(See what I mean, they're better organised there than here.  But where are they going to go now?  Get rid of Newmark? Get rid of Julius? Get rid of the bogus allegation of antisemitism?)

All sorts of possibilities but the bogus allegation has certainly been dealt a body blow as some rare honest Zionists are starting to realise.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, for MacPherson see this post by Gabriel Ash.

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

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

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

150 It seems to us that a belief in the Zionist project or an attachment to Israel or any similar sentiment cannot amount to a protected characteristic. It is not intrinsically a part of Jewishness and, even if it was, it could not be substituted for the pleaded characteristics, which are race and religion or belief. Accordingly, if and in so far as the Claimant seeks to base his claim on what might be termed a sub-characteristic (we are bound to say that we remain uncertain as to Mr Julius’s position on this point), we find that it is not open to him to do so. A separate matter, which we will address in relation to the individual claims, is whether the treatment complained of, or any of it, was ‘related to’ his Jewish race or his Jewish religion or belief.

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

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

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

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

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

belief in the Zionist project or an attachment to Israel.........is not intrinsically a part of Jewishness and, even if it was, it could not be substituted for the pleaded characteristics, which are race and religion or belief.

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

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

I noticed this tweet last night:

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

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

Integration, Disadvantage and Extremism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Mann MP

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

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

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

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

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

Dave Rich

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

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

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

Ben Gidley

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

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

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

Dean Godson

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

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

And the rest

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

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

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