When Zionists spoke out against the Anti-Zionism = Antisemitism Equation II

Back in September 2017 I intended to post criticism's by Zionists of the disastrous Fraser v University and College Union (FUCU) case but I only posted this one by Adam Wagner, the increasingly notorious Zionist human rights barrister. Well here's one I remember well by another barrister, well actually a judge and a QC no less, Jonathan Goldberg. He described the Fraser case, brought by Antony Julius, as "an epic folly". Here he is in the Jewish Chronicle answering a critic of his own stance on the FUCU case:

Why the Ronnie Fraser case against the UCU was a legal and public relations disaster 

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? 

V 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. 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.

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 
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Judgments/eemployment-trib-fraser-v-uni-college-union-judgment.pdf 

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?

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?

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. Nor was that by any means the only error of law.

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. 

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?

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. 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)

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?

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.

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.

When Zionists spoke out against the Anti-Zionism = Antisemitism Equation

I'm going to post articles I find arising out of the old Ronnie Fraser vs University and College Union (FUCU) case where Zionists actually had the decency to be embarrassed over a scathing ruling where some of the UK's leading Zionists tried to make out that Palestine solidarity activism amounted to antisemitic or racial harassment of those Jews (in this case Ronnie Fraser) who support The State of Israel.  One reason for doing so is that they lift the spirits in troubled times and another is that the former critics seem to change their minds and their own old articles get harder to find.  In this case I've already posted the article before but I want them in roughly one place.

This one is by Adam Wagner.  I remember Jews for Justice for Palestinians were quite excited by his article because they mistook him for one of their own, and maybe he was.  He is now an ardent supporter of the bogus IHRA working definition of antisemitism if he recent tweets are anything to go by.  Now read on....

 Legal Ruling Shines Unflattering Light on the Anti-Zionism Equals Racism Campaign

By Adam Wagner, Cartoon Kippah
April 05, 2013

Sometimes we need an outsider’s perspective to bring into focus uncomfortable truths about ourselves. Just before the Passover festivities, the Employment Tribunal released a 45-page judgment full of Biblical fury which did just that.

The judgment was about a legal claim brought by a maths teacher, Ronnie Fraser, against his teaching union. He claimed that the Union had harassed him in breach of equality laws due to its handling of the Israel-Palestine debate.

The full judgment can be read here (PDF). If you have any interest in Jewish communal politics and in particular how the Israel-Palestine debate is handled, I highly recommend you read it. Perhaps set aside half an hour over a well-earned post-Passover sandwich – it’s worth it, I promise.

I won’t try to summarise Employment Judge Snelson’s findings here, but I would like to draw out a few points. The main one is that the Claimant, represented by solicitor Anthony Julius, lost in a big way. This was a total, unqualified demolition job. As an outcome, it really was ten plagues bad.

The language of the judgment is harsh and at times sarcastic. As a lawyer, you can take it from me that it doesn’t get much worse than this. This was a “sorry saga”, the Tribunal “greatly regret that the case was ever brought”, at its heart the case was “an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means”. Perhaps worst of all, the claim showed a “worrying disregard for pluralism, tolerance and freedom of expression.”

Let’s just step back for a moment. Just because a judge rules on something doesn’t mean they are right. Judgments get appealed and overturned. Reading this one, and not having been in court for the weeks of evidence, there are at least two possibilities. First, that the Tribunal has taken an irrational or perverse dislike to the claimant, his lawyers and some of his witnesses – that is a real possibility, given how scathing the judgment is. The second is, however, is that the Tribunal has got it broadly right, having listened to the extensive evidence and nonetheless dismissed the case out of hand.

As I said, I wasn’t there – this is an evidence heavy case so you really have to have sat through it to reach a proper conclusion. But assuming for the purpose of this article that the Tribunal did get it right, there is a lot here to be worried about.

Preposterous
Let’s take just a single paragraph, number 148. Here the Judge is summarising his conclusions on the claimant’s witnesses who included British Jewish luminaries such as the author Howard Jacobson. Some gave “careful, thoughtful, courteous evidence”. Others however, “seemed more disposed to score points or play to the gallery rather than providing straightforward answers to the clear questions put to them.” Again, ouch.

Particular criticism was reserved for Jeremy Newmark, the Chief Executive of the Jewish Leadership Council, a committee of community grandees:

We regret to say that we have rejected as untrue the evidence of Ms Ashworth and Mr Newmark concerning the incident at the 2008 Congress… Evidence given to us about booing, jeering and harassing of Jewish speakers at Congress debates was also false, as truthful witnesses on the Claimant’s side accepted. One painfully ill-judged example of playing to the gallery was Mr Newmark’s preposterous claim, in answer to the suggestion in cross- examination that he had attempted to push his way into the 2008 meeting, that a ‘pushy Jew’ stereotype was being applied to him. The opinions of witnesses were not, of course, our concern and in most instances they were in any event unremarkable and certainly not unreasonable. One exception was a remark of Mr Newmark in the context of the academic boycott controversy in 2007 that the union was “no longer a fit arena for free speech”, a comment which we found not only extraordinarily arrogant but also disturbing.

Wow. Here are some words you never want to hear in litigation: “untrue”, “false”, “preposterous”, “extraordinarily arrogant”, “disturbing”. To recap, this is the Chief Executive of an organisation which is arguably now the main ambassador of the Jewish Community to the wider British community. This may all be unfair and perverse, but if it is not then we should be worried about the implications.

Then came the MPs. Not just any MPs, but Denis MacShane and John Mann, both well known to the Jewish community; Mr MacShane chaired the The All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism, Mann authored the Football Association Taskforce on Tackling Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. Again, it’s bad:

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.

As I said, wow. These are MPs who have been lionised by the Jewish community, and in particular the Jewish Chronicle (perhaps not incidentally, Anthony Julius chairs the JC board, a point highlighted by the Judge). ”And on the topic of that Parliamentary Committee”

157… 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.

The sarcasm drips off that final sentence, doesn’t it? Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that contrary to the claimant’s arguments, the Union’s meetings were “well-ordered and balanced” and that almost the entire case was “manifestly unmeritorious”. Most importantly, the Tribunal rejected out of hand the argument that “a belief in the Zionist project or an attachment to Israel or any similar sentiment” can amount to a protected characteristic.

Lessons not learned
Where does this leave us? It is tempting to see this “sorry saga” as no more than an unfortunate and hubristic litigation fail, or an “act of epic folly” as the Jewish Chronicle’s ‘Ask the QC’ QC Jonathan Goldberg commented. But I think there are wider lessons here which we would ignore at our peril.

Anyone who follows Jewish communal politics and reads the JC will recognise many in the cast of characters as well as the arguments. Anti-Zionist or pro-Palestinian campaigners are regularly branded as anti-Semites. Despite the good work of organisations like Yachad, this is still a regular and well-supported narrative at the centre of much of the Jewish communal response to criticism of Israel. But that approach – which really amounts to communal comfort food – has clearly failed. And yet it is still wheeled out: watch, for example, this stirring but flawed recent speech by the Chief Rabbi to AIPAC, an American pro-Israel lobby. They hate us, so they would say that. Etc.

Of course, some criticism of Israel is linked to or motivated by anti-Semitism, but isn’t it time to stop using vast resources to paint legitimate debate as racial hatred? As well as failing miserably as an pro-Israel argument, this approach also risks fatally undermining work against real anti-Semitism. Aren’t we just a little bit ashamed for major communal leaders and organisations to have backed a claim showing a “disregard for pluralism, tolerance and freedom of expression”?

In a prediction of Michael Fish quality, the JC originally said of the case that unless UCU repented its “clear antisemitic behaviour”:

we could be set for this decade’s version of the Irving trial – a specific case which acts to crystallise broader themes and issues

It certainly did crystallise broader themes and issues. But not the ones the cheerleaders hoped for. As said above, it is possible that this Tribunal reached a perverse decision. No doubt some will say so once the recriminations begin to fly. I imagine some will even accuse the Judge of anti-Semitism. But assuming for a moment that he was right, we should, as a community, be embarrassed by this ruling. It involved not just the looney fringe but central figures in the community, who have been branded exaggerators, manipulators and arrogant liars. More importantly, the ‘anti-Zionism equals racism’ argument is plainly bankrupt and has no purchase in wider society. We should move on to something which might actually work. And that is the lesson of this sorry Passover saga.

Adam (@adamwagner1) is a barrister specialising in human rights & medical law. He is founding editor of UK Human Rights Blog….”

The Cartoon Kippah website linked in the headline is now gone.

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

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

I tweeted as follows when I heard the rumour:

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

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

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

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

— Jeremy Newmark (@Jeremy_Newmark) August 26, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

We regret to say that we have rejected as untrue the evidence of Ms Ashworth and Mr Newmark concerning the incident at the 2008 Congress. Evidence given to us about booing, jeering and harassing of Jewish speakers at Congress debates was also false, as truthful witnesses on the Claimant’s side accepted. One painfully ill-judged example of playing to the gallery was Mr Newmark’s preposterous claim, in answer to the suggestion in cross-examination that he had attempted to push his way into the 2008 meeting, that a ‘pushy Jew’ stereotype was being applied to him.

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

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

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

Exaggerators, Manipulators and Arrogant Liars - Who said it and of whom?

Here's an article that first appeared in the now defunct online magazine, Cartoon Kippah.  It's by a thinking person's Zionist called Adam Wagner who is some kind of human rights barrister.  I'm not sure how he squares that circle of support for human rights and being a Zionist but the "exaggerators, manipulators and arrogant liars" comes from his own take on the infamous Fraser v UCU (PDF) debacle of late 2012/early 2013, so here is the whole article as lifted from the Jews for Justice for Palestinians website:

By Adam Wagner, Cartoon Kippah

April 05, 2013

Sometimes we need an outsider’s perspective to bring into focus uncomfortable truths about ourselves. Just before the Passover festivities, the Employment Tribunal released a 45-page judgment full of Biblical fury which did just that.

The judgment was about a legal claim brought by a maths teacher, Ronnie Fraser, against his teaching union. He claimed that the Union had harassed him in breach of equality laws due to its handling of the Israel-Palestine debate.

The full judgment can be read here (PDF). If you have any interest in Jewish communal politics and in particular how the Israel-Palestine debate is handled, I highly recommend you read it. Perhaps set aside half an hour over a well-earned post-Passover sandwich – it’s worth it, I promise.

I won’t try to summarise Employment Judge Snelson’s findings here, but I would like to draw out a few points. The main one is that the Claimant, represented by solicitor Anthony Julius, lost in a big way. This was a total, unqualified demolition job. As an outcome, it really was ten plagues bad.

The language of the judgment is harsh and at times sarcastic. As a lawyer, you can take it from me that it doesn’t get much worse than this. This was a “sorry saga”, the Tribunal “greatly regret that the case was ever brought”, at its heart the case was “an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means”. Perhaps worst of all, the claim showed a “worrying disregard for pluralism, tolerance and freedom of expression.”

Let’s just step back for a moment. Just because a judge rules on something doesn’t mean they are right. Judgments get appealed and overturned. Reading this one, and not having been in court for the weeks of evidence, there are at least two possibilities. First, that the Tribunal has taken an irrational or perverse dislike to the claimant, his lawyers and some of his witnesses – that is a real possibility, given how scathing the judgment is. The second is, however, is that the Tribunal has got it broadly right, having listened to the extensive evidence and nonetheless dismissed the case out of hand.

As I said, I wasn’t there – this is an evidence heavy case so you really have to have sat through it to reach a proper conclusion. But assuming for the purpose of this article that the Tribunal did get it right, there is a lot here to be worried about.

Preposterous
Let’s take just a single paragraph, number 148. Here the Judge is summarising his conclusions on the claimant’s witnesses who included British Jewish luminaries such as the author Howard Jacobson. Some gave “careful, thoughtful, courteous evidence”. Others however, “seemed more disposed to score points or play to the gallery rather than providing straightforward answers to the clear questions put to them.” Again, ouch.

Particular criticism was reserved for Jeremy Newmark, the Chief Executive of the Jewish Leadership Council, a committee of community grandees:

We regret to say that we have rejected as untrue the evidence of Ms Ashworth and Mr Newmark concerning the incident at the 2008 Congress… Evidence given to us about booing, jeering and harassing of Jewish speakers at Congress debates was also false, as truthful witnesses on the Claimant’s side accepted. One painfully ill-judged example of playing to the gallery was Mr Newmark’s preposterous claim, in answer to the suggestion in cross- examination that he had attempted to push his way into the 2008 meeting, that a ‘pushy Jew’ stereotype was being applied to him. The opinions of witnesses were not, of course, our concern and in most instances they were in any event unremarkable and certainly not unreasonable. One exception was a remark of Mr Newmark in the context of the academic boycott controversy in 2007 that the union was “no longer a fit arena for free speech”, a comment which we found not only extraordinarily arrogant but also disturbing.

Wow. Here are some words you never want to hear in litigation: “untrue”, “false”, “preposterous”, “extraordinarily arrogant”, “disturbing”. To recap, this is the Chief Executive of an organisation which is arguably now the main ambassador of the Jewish Community to the wider British community. This may all be unfair and perverse, but if it is not then we should be worried about the implications.

Then came the MPs. Not just any MPs, but Denis MacShane and John Mann, both well known to the Jewish community; Mr MacShane chaired the The All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism, Mann authored the Football Association Taskforce on Tackling Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. Again, it’s bad:

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.

As I said, wow. These are MPs who have been lionised by the Jewish community, and in particular the Jewish Chronicle (perhaps not incidentally, Anthony Julius chairs the JC board, a point highlighted by the Judge). ”And on the topic of that Parliamentary Committee”

157… 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.

The sarcasm drips off that final sentence, doesn’t it? Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that contrary to the claimant’s arguments, the Union’s meetings were “well-ordered and balanced” and that almost the entire case was “manifestly unmeritorious”. Most importantly, the Tribunal rejected out of hand the argument that “a belief in the Zionist project or an attachment to Israel or any similar sentiment” can amount to a protected characteristic.

Lessons not learned
Where does this leave us? It is tempting to see this “sorry saga” as no more than an unfortunate and hubristic litigation fail, or an “act of epic folly” as the Jewish Chronicle’s ‘Ask the QC’ QC Jonathan Goldberg commented. But I think there are wider lessons here which we would ignore at our peril.

Anyone who follows Jewish communal politics and reads the JC will recognise many in the cast of characters as well as the arguments. Anti-Zionist or pro-Palestinian campaigners are regularly branded as anti-Semites. Despite the good work of organisations like Yachad, this is still a regular and well-supported narrative at the centre of much of the Jewish communal response to criticism of Israel. But that approach – which really amounts to communal comfort food – has clearly failed. And yet it is still wheeled out: watch, for example, this stirring but flawed recent speech by the Chief Rabbi to AIPAC, an American pro-Israel lobby. They hate us, so they would say that. Etc.

Of course, some criticism of Israel is linked to or motivated by anti-Semitism, but isn’t it time to stop using vast resources to paint legitimate debate as racial hatred? As well as failing miserably as an pro-Israel argument, this approach also risks fatally undermining work against real anti-Semitism. Aren’t we just a little bit ashamed for major communal leaders and organisations to have backed a claim showing a “disregard for pluralism, tolerance and freedom of expression”?

In a prediction of Michael Fish quality, the JC originally said of the case that unless UCU repented its “clear antisemitic behaviour”:

we could be set for this decade’s version of the Irving trial – a specific case which acts to crystallise broader themes and issues

It certainly did crystallise broader themes and issues. But not the ones the cheerleaders hoped for. As said above, it is possible that this Tribunal reached a perverse decision. No doubt some will say so once the recriminations begin to fly. I imagine some will even accuse the Judge of anti-Semitism. But assuming for a moment that he was right, we should, as a community, be embarrassed by this ruling. It involved not just the looney fringe but central figures in the community, who have been branded exaggerators, manipulators and arrogant liars. More importantly, the ‘anti-Zionism equals racism’ argument is plainly bankrupt and has no purchase in wider society. We should move on to something which might actually work. And that is the lesson of this sorry Passover saga.

Adam (@adamwagner1) is a barrister specialising in human rights & medical law. He is founding editor of UK Human Rights Blog….”

Something rotten about allegations of antisemitism in the Oxford University Labour Club

I first caught wind of these allegations of antisemitism within the Oxford University Labour Club from Harry's Place.  I immediately suspected that the allegations were false not simply because they appeared on Harry's Place but because they have come in the wake of the OULC deciding to support Israel Apartheid Week on campus, something which, of itself, is clearly not antisemitic.

Now look at the quote in the Harry's Place post:

“Whether it be members of the Executive throwing around the term ‘Zio’ (a term for Jews usually confined to websites run by the Ku Klux Klan) with casual abandon, senior members of the club expressing their ‘solidarity’ with Hamas and explitictly [sic] defending their tactics of indiscriminately murdering civilians, or a former Co-Chair claiming that ‘most accusations of antisemitism are just the Zionists crying wolf’, a large proportion of both OULC and the student left in Oxford more generally have some kind of problem with Jews. The decision of the club to endorse a movement with a history of targetting [sic] and harassing Jewish students and inviting antisemitic speakers to campuses, despite the concerns of Jewish students, illustrates how uneven and insincere much of the active membership is”.

It all looks very strawman. Let's break it down a bit:

 members of the Executive throwing around the term ‘Zio’ (a term for Jews usually confined to websites run by the Ku Klux Klan) with casual abandon.

The term, "Zio" is simply short for Zionist and is not confined to sites run by the Klan.

 senior members of the club expressing their ‘solidarity’ with Hamas and explitictly [sic] defending their tactics of indiscriminately murdering civilians, 

Solidarity with armed resistance to Israel whatever form it takes is not, of itself, antisemitic.Of course if attacks are indiscriminate or target civilians then that is to be condemned but the failure or refusal to do so or even to support such attacks is not of itself antisemitic.

a former Co-Chair claiming that ‘most accusations of antisemitism are just the Zionists crying wolf’ 

Most allegations of antisemitism are false and many are themselves antisemitic.

a large proportion of both OULC and the student left in Oxford more generally have some kind of problem with Jews.

This isn't just vacuous, it's antisemitic as it conflates Jews, Zionists and Israel.  That of course is without noting the absence of any links, names or anything that could qualify as evidence.

Now, given the flimsy and inarticulately expressed nature of the charges I would hope for this to be a repeat of the Zionists' biggest public humiliation involving false allegations of antisemitism.  I'm referring to the Fraser v University and College Union case which had the great and the good of the Zionist movement in the UK denounced by the tribunal as a bunch of "exaggerators, manipulators and arrogant liars".  But whereas this latest batch of allegations hasn't gone forensic it has got more legs than the FUCU case did.  Harry's Place has run the *story* as have The Telegraph (twice*) and The Guardian. Ironically one of the Telegraph pieces was written by one of the people described as an arrogant liar by the FUCU tribunal, Jeremy Newmark.  Now that might be a good omen for the cause of truth.  The problem right now is that it is all evidence free mud slinging and the sellouts at the Labour Party have decided to take the Zio's seriously but let's just see what happens.

*Woops. three times

Dr Ronnie Fraser of FUCU fame

Whilst looking for stuff about the FUCU costs case I noticed that in spite of being derided by three judges for a colossal logic fail, Ronnie Fraser was awarded just recently a Phd.
Here's one report in the Jewish Chronicle:

The director of the Academic Friends of Israel, Ronnie Fraser, can at last breathe a sigh of relief.

After his failed legal action against the University College Union over its anti-Israel policy, the union launched a claim to recover around £500,000 in costs from him and his lawyers Mishcon de Reya.

Nearly two years after the original case, the parties have agreed a confidential out-of -court settlement and the UCU has withdrawn its application.

In fact, on the day of the scheduled costs hearing, he was able to do something far more pleasant than watch lawyers slugging it out again.

He was able to attend his own degree ceremony — Dr Fraser, as he has now become, has just been awarded his PhD by Royal Holloway, University of London, for a thesis on the links between British and Israeli trade unions.

Royal Holloway?  I think prominent zionist, David Cesarani, lectures there so I googled, royal holloway david cesarani ronnie fraser and what came first?  Ronnie Fraser's personal profile page at Royal Holloway.  He's listed as Postgraduate research student supervised by David Cesarani.  Small world huh?

His doctorate seems to have taken him about nine years to achieve but then he has been busy on other things.  And what was his thesis titled? The TUC and the Histadrut, 1945-1982: a problematic relationship.

It might make an interesting read but I find it more interesting the way prominent zionists have taken care of Dr Ronnie these past few years.

FUCU costs settled out of court

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Followed by this bit:

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

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

FUCU costs hearing update: We don't need no re-Ron

Oi gevalt!  What's that they say about the wheels of justice?  It turns out the hearing today regarding the FUCU case costs hearing, wasn't the costs hearing itself.  It was the application of Ronnie Fraser to appeal against an earlier ruling that the case could be heard in 2 days.  The Fraser side wanted every piece of "evidence" re-examined to show how valid the case was.  The original case took 20 days.  And, Israel advocate, David Hirsh, says it's the UCU trying to punish Ronnie Fraser.

Anyway, the people hearing the appeal today would not grant leave to appeal or put another way, we don't need no re-Ron. H/T Gil Scott Heron

Needless to say, Dr Hirsh is not a happy bunny:

NB this was a hearing to gain leave to appeal this previous decision to allow a summary hearing of costs, it was not the appeal itself.

The Appeal Judge did not give leave to appeal.   He refused to overrule the lower Judge’s determination that a fair hearing for costs can be carried out in two days.

In a verbal judgment, he seemed explicitly to close ranks with the lower Employment Tribunal Judges.  He went out of his way gratuitously to praise the Snelson Judgment, saying that it was “very well written”.  He quoted, apparently approvingly, the most trenchant and absurd paragraphs of the Snelson judgment, the ones which led to the recusal.  He praised the chair of the new tribunal Judge Wade’s decision that a fair hearing for costs can be carried out in one day of reading and one day of argument, with no new evidence, no witnesses, relying mainly on the Snelson judgment which itself went far beyond its remit in the determination of facts and offered opinion about the bad faith, underhand intentions and wastefulness of the whole action.

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

So I presume the appeal won't happen now so it's full steam ahead to the costs hearing itself.

FUCU case to be revisited by Tribunal today

I just saw the following tweet from the Israel advocacy site, Engage:

UCU continues its campaign to punish Ronnie Fraser for challenging its antisemitism – David Hirsh: UCU is in c... http://t.co/BtYY3wDs6d
— Engage (@engageonline) December 8, 2014

Following the link to the article on the site itself I find that:

UCU is in court again today looking to make Ronnie Fraser pay hundreds of thousands of pounds for daring to challenge its antisemitism.

The original tribunal, led by Judge Snelson, found that nothing that ever happened in the UCU was antisemitic and that Fraser was raising the issue of antisemitism in bad faith in order to get an underhand advantage in the Israel/Palestine debate.

The Tribunal didn't actually say that "nothing that ever happened in the UCU was antisemitic" or even "that Fraser was raising the issue of antisemitism in bad faith in order to get an underhand advantage in the Israel/Palestine debate" though, to be sure, there were hints of that throughout the judgement (pdf).

Take a look at the report on the original judgement at the Times Higher Education site:

Mr Fraser, the child of refugees who fled Nazi Germany, is viewed as a “sincere witness”, but the tribunal notes his “political experience” and are not impressed by his claim that the tone of several debates at the UCU’s annual congress “violated his dignity”, thereby constituting harassment......

Scorn is also invoked for Mr Julius’s decision to pursue certain points, with complaints variously dismissed as “palpably groundless”, “obviously hopeless” and “devoid of any merit”.

 It doesn't quite tally with the claim made by Engage's Dr David Hirsh.

Anyway, let's remind ourselves of where we're at with this costs claim.  UCU entered a claim for costs on the grounds that Ronnie Fraser's action was frivolous and vexatious.  Fraser's people argued that the original tribunal members had already indicated where they stood on the question of costs and the original tribunal recused (absented) themselves as their judgement, whilst not taking a position on liability for costs could have been understood that way by others.

So here we have another tribunal to rule on whether UCU or Ronnie Fraser should pick up the tab for what was for the zionist movement a disastrously ill-advised action.

FUCUps go for broke

I've only just seen this Engage piece by David Hirsh about a preliminary hearing on costs in the Fraser v University and College Union case.  The case was possibly the biggest disaster to befall the zionist movement in the UK since its inception with all of Fraser's claims of antisemitism against the union found to be "without merit".

Well next up came the question of costs.  Ronnie Fraser's lawyers argued at the costs hearing last year that the original tribunal had been so scathing that they had effectively decided the question of where they (the tibunal) stood on costs at the original hearing. In fairness, going from memory, the tribunal did say that the case was an enormous waste of money.  So the original tribunal recused (absented) itself and a new hearing was ordered.

Now Fraser's people are arguing that the delay should mean a decision in Fraser's favour.

The only report on this costs business is on Engage so see what you think:

It is possible for costs to be awarded against a claimant, but there are stringent conditions.  Firstly, the claimant must not only be wrong, his action must be “misconceived or otherwise unreasonable”.  And secondly the hearing for costs must be capable of being heard promptly and quickly, in summary form.

Lawyers for the UCU argued that both of these conditions could be satisfied.  They said that the new tribunal could have one day’s reading preparation for a costs hearing and the hearing itself would be heard in another day; the decision on costs could be based on the material already in the Snelson judgment.

Barristers for Ronnie Fraser and his original lawyers did not agree.  They argued that the pursuit of costs had already violated the requirement for promptness since this was the third hearing in over a year and since any costs hearing would have to look far beyond the Snelson judgment for evidence.  Proving that the case was “misconceived or otherwise unreasonable” would require a long and complex case.

The Snelson judgment had made findings of fact on the substantive issues: were the charges made by Fraser proven?

But now the new tribunal was being asked a set of new questions: were the charges made by Fraser “misconceived or otherwise unreasonable”?

Normally, a tribunal which had already decided upon substantive issues could apply the new, more stringent test, for costs, to the same body of evidence and argument.  But in this case there was a new tribunal.  The Snelson tribunal’s determinations as to the substantive issues would be accepted, but the Snelson tribunal’s determinations as to whether the case was “misconceived or otherwise unreasonable” could already be seen, by Snelson’s own admission, to appear prejudicial to a costs hearing.

Where the Snelson tribunal did what it was supposed to do, that is, judge the substantive case, it would be accepted.

But where the Snelson judgment over-reached itself, in a consideration of whether the case was “misconceived or otherwise unreasonable”, Fraser’s barristers argued, its findings could not be relied upon in the costs hearing.  This would mean that the costs hearing would have to make new judgments as to whether elements of the case were “misconceived or otherwise unreasonable”.  This couldn’t be done by a quick one day trial but would require a re-examination of evidence, the presentation of new evidence and perhaps new cross-examinations.

The new Judge will decide if a fair hearing on costs is possible, and whether it would be within the rules of the Employment Tribunal.

Third hearing in over a year? I think that must be counting the original hearing where Fraser's people are claiming the tribunal took a position on costs and the one where Fraser's people requested the recuse.  This means that Fraser's own interpretations and actions are now being used by Fraser to bolster his own case.  Ok I'm not a lawyer. I'm just saying how it looks to me.

By the way, here's the original judgment.

Anthony Julius's FUCU demands being implemented on US campuses

Someone just sent me a link to Chris Hedges's article, Israel's War on American Universities in TruthDig.Com.  

See this:

The banning of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) at Northeastern University in Boston on March 7, along with a university threat of disciplinary measures against some of its members, replicates sanctions being imposed against numerous student Palestinian rights groups across the country. The attacks, and the disturbingly similar forms of punishment, appear to be part of a coordinated effort by the Israeli government and the Israel lobby to blacklist all student groups that challenge the official Israeli narrative.

Northeastern banned the SJP chapter after it posted on campus replicas of eviction notices that are routinely put up on Palestinian homes set for Israeli demolition. The university notice of suspension says that if the SJP petitions for reinstatement next year, “No current member of the Students for Justice in Palestine executive board may serve on the inaugural board of the new organization” and that representatives from the organization must attend university-sanctioned “trainings.”

In 2011 in California, 10 students who had disrupted a speech at UC Irvine by Michael Oren, then the Israeli ambassador to the United States, were found guilty, put on informal probation and sentenced to perform community service. Oren, an Israeli citizen who has since been hired by CNN as a contributor, has called on Congress to blacklist supporters of the campaign of boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel and to prosecute those who protest at appearances by Israeli officials. Some activists at Florida Atlantic University were stripped of student leadership positions after walking out of a talk by an Israeli army officer, and they were ordered by school administrators to attend re-education seminars designed by the Anti-Defamation League.

Now look at how the industrial tribunal in the FUCU case detailed Anthony Julius's "letter before action" against the University and College Union:

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

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

I wrote about the case result here.  See the similarities between what Anthony Julius was demanding and what some US universities are forcing their Palestine solidarity activists to go through.

Of course what was so pleasing about the FUCU case and other court victories for the Palestine solidarity movement in the UK is that Israel/zionism rarely stands up to any forensic test.  But in the US, as Chris Hedges points out, Israel and its advocates are not having to stand up to a forensic test.  They can simply muscle universities into doing pretty much what Julius was demanding of the UCU.  It's particularly annoying because Julius managed to chalk up the biggest hasbara fail in the UK that anyone can remember.

Uppity Rodent Part II

Being sympathetic to Flying Rodent on Ben Gidley's Bob from Brockley blog I attempted a comment not that long ago.  I signed it off with my usual Levi9909 but as far as the tech goes it was anonymous.  Well it got deleted within minutes of appearing.  I'm just posting it here so I can draw this Flying Rodent's attention to it on Twitter:

 

Anonymous said...

Flying Rodent - I think you may have been a bit too specific about the spelling of "as a Jew". Norm railed against these types all the time as do a whole ragbag of racists around here, HP and Engage, but Norm only employed the "zz" spelling and the "pet" prefix once. Sadly Bob here too likes to be precise, especially when it helps him duck and dodge his way around a critical comment about his condemnation of Israel's opponents. When he relaxes the precision he can "verbal up" like the old bill on the case of an Irishman/woman back in the day but you were precise so he repaid in kind.

You also missed Bob's presumptiousness about the lack of Jewishness of Israel's Jewish detractors. Apparently Israel's Jewish supporters do (or have) a lot more Jewish stuff than Israel's Jewish detractors. And what stuff might that be? Well you'll just have to ask Bob if you can stand the inevitable twists and turns. I think he means that supporting Israel is more Jewish than opposing Israel but it would be uncharacteristically honest for Bob to admit he meant that.

And don't miss either Bob's assertion that ""AsaJews"...claim their position is *the* authentically Jewish one." The definite article is vital here. These people are usurpers. They are not saying that they are as Jewish as the next Jew. No, they are saying they are more Jewish than Hirsh, Geras, Garrard, and Uncle Bob Brockley and all. Except of course, they aren't and Bob has already claimed that mantle for his brand of authenticity. They are actually a mixed bag altogether. You were right that some, not all, use their Jewish identity to bat away the bogus allegation of anti-Jewish racism. Some want to reclaim the Jewish identity from racist war criminals and their supporters. Some want to show solidarity with non-Jews falsely accused of racism for supporting the Palestinian cause and some want Palestinians to see Jews through a lens other than the barrel of a supremacist's gun. And there are still others, too numerous and varied to categorise. But for Bob, there is only one and it's a bad one.

Anyway, you've already been subjected to the old one two. One being the false allegation of antisemitism, two being the accusation of trolling. But then there's three and four, three being Bob's pretence at accuracy and four you being banned for one and two unless you stay away for a while which I think you might do without being told.

Levi9909

Actually the fact that the comment has now been deleted suggests that my points three and four, indeed, one, two, three and four were all quite accurate.

UPDATE: He's now reinstated my comment and replied to a tweet I sent but what a dodgy character.

@jewssf I did not delete that comment. It's probably in the moderation queue. But if you harass me I will delete stuff
— Bob From Brockley (@bobfrombrockley) January 27, 2014

But to be honest I'd rather get a reply from Ben Gidley about his alter-ego's plan to write about "the long-harassment of one Ronnie Fraser in UCU, a trade union." The "trade union" is actually his own trade union, you know, the one that some of his comrades left and at least one joined simply to attack it.

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.

Does Recuse offer Excuse?

Another day another FUCU post.

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

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

Here's Hirsh:

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

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

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

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

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

Read it over.  Hirsh says,

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

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

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

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

Let sleeping dogs lie or let lying dog sleep?

I see, belatedly again, that one of two people openly accused of lying by the judge in the Fraser v UCU Employment Tribunal case, Jeremy Newmark, has stepped down as leader of the Jewish Leadership Council.  Here's the Jewish Chronicle:

Lucian Hudson said that last week’s decision by JLC chief executive Jeremy Newmark to step down for health reasons created a new opportunity.

Mr Hudson, who is a member of the JLC council, expressed sadness at Mr Newmark’s departure, saying that he was “an outstanding leader”.

Here's what the Tribunal said:

We regret to say that we have rejected as untrue the evidence of Ms Ashworth and Mr Newmark concerning the incident at t he 2008 Congress (see our findings under complaint (8) above). Evidence given to us about booing, jeering and harassing of Jewish speakers at Congress debates was al so false, as truthful witnesses on the Claimant’s side accepted. One painfully ill- judged example of playing to the gallery was Mr Newmark’s preposterous claim, in answer to the suggestion in cross-examination that he had attempted to push his way into the 2008 meeting, that a ‘pushy Jew’ stereotype was being applied to him.

And that's an "outstanding leader" of what passes itself off as the Jewish community.  Only one zionist, as far as I know, has criticised Newmark himself over his dishonesty and that was Adam Wagner in Cartoon Kippah:

...we should, as a community, be embarrassed by this ruling. It involved not just the looney fringe but central figures in the community, who have been branded exaggerators, manipulators and arrogant liars.

And this "arrogant liar", Jeremy Newmark, is no longer leading the Jewish Leadership Council, not because he has been caught by a court lying to that court, but because of his ill health.  Well the illness, I believe it's diabetes, is all very sad and all, but to have such a character, not simply not censured but praised by his peers says it all about mainstream Jewish organisation today.

As far as wilful dishonesty goes they have decided both to let sleeping dogs lie and the lying dog sleep.

£500 k the potential cost of FUCU I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.