FUCU II: This Time it's Personal!

This story is a bit old now but I only discovered it this morning in a month old copy of The Jewish News.  The case is both similar to and different from FUCU I in that the case involves a complainant stretching the definition of who is a Jew and therefore what constitutes discrimination against a Jew in connection with their being Jewish but it is different in that it does involve a specific action aimed at a named individual, the complainant, Professor Moty Cristol.

Here's The Jewish News:

A judge has been warned he would release ‘a tiger’ into the legal system if an Israeli was allowed to sue one of the UK’s biggest unions for indirect discrimination.

Professor Moty Cristal, 45, an expert on conflict resolution, was formally ‘disinvited’ from a speaking event when Unison members discovered his ethnicity, Central London County Court heard.

The Jewish academic had been due to lead a session at an NHS workshop in Manchester but was told union members would refuse to if he spoke.

Professor Cristal subsequently brought an action against both the union and Manchester Mental Health and Social Care Trust for racial discrimination.

Unison and the Trust deny the allegation, claiming that the event was not cancelled because Professor Cristal is Israeli or Jewish, but because he had worked as an official for the Israeli government.

In response, Professor Cristal’s lawyers have lodged a claim of ‘indirect’ discrimination, alleging his right to freely associate with the Israeli government was breached.

Christopher Jeans QC, representing Unison, said that if Professor Cristal was allowed to sue on this basis, the case would become ‘completely different and much wider’.

‘No one thinks it will be an edifying experience to argue about Palestine, boycotting policies and the like. We say this a huge issue which is unsuitable to be debated in the courts. Our point is simply this: the court should be wary of releasing this tiger as an afterthought’, Mr Jeans warned.

John Hendy QC, for the Trust, said the reason Cristal had been banned from the event was because ‘he had in the past conducted negotiations on behalf of that [Israeli] government’, the court heard.

Mr Hendy defended the actions of Unison and the Trust.

‘Is it maintainable that Professor Cristal’s association with the government of Israel – namely the fact that he in the past had conducted negotiations on behalf of that government – is that an association which is protected by Article 11?’, Mr Hendy asked.

Now it looks here that Professor Cristol is trying two lines of attack. He is saying that he has been racially discriminated against on the grounds of his being Jewish or Israeli and that he is being denied his right to freely associate with the Israeli government.  Now in the first instance the finding of FUCU I 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

 is relevant here.  They might be safer with the freedom of association thing.  It's certainly less tenuous but do people have freedom to associate with a rogue state and not be excluded from equal opportunities environments because of that association?  And if they can, why did Cristol's lawyers lead on the racial discrimination argument?

We'll know soon enough.

PS: Still no sign of Anthony Julius.  I wonder why they didn't use him...

PPS: Actually there has been a sighting of Anthony Julius.  See last week's Jewish Chronicle

Defend Max Watson, Jawad Botmeh and Steve Jefferys

I've got a personal interest in this case outlined as below on the GoPetition website:

Stop the Witch Hunt - Defend Max Jawad and Steve

Petition published by steve jawad max campaign on Feb 23, 2013

Petition Background (Preamble):

Three members of staff at Londonmet’s Working Lives Research Institute (WLRI) have been suspended from work in an attack on human rights, trade unions and academic freedom.

Professor Steve Jefferys, European employment relations academic, Director of Londonmet’s Faculty Advanced Institute for Research (FAIR) and head of WLRI, was suspended on Wednesday 20 February for ‘potential gross misconduct’. Five years previously, he had agreed that Jawad Botmeh should have the chance of going forward to be interviewed as a part-time casual administrative worker on a temporary three month contract in WLRI, when Jawad had a criminal record (he had served 13 years on a conspiracy charge).

Jawad Botmeh, after working for five years to the complete satisfaction of all staff and post-graduate students who worked with him, was overwhelmingly elected to the Board of Governors as one of two staff representatives. Two weeks later, on February 7 he was suspended.

Max Watson, a WLRI administrator who is also Chair of the Londonmet UNISON branch, was also suspended on February 7. Max had been recently singled out by the Vice-Chancellor in an all staff email because of UNISON’s opposition to the involvement of Capita in the university’s Business Process Review.

Steve, Jawad and Max have broken no university rules. They have all been entirely open and honest with the university. Professor Jefferys had the authority to make casual appointments. There were no procedures suggesting he should discriminate against former prisoners. Jawad had twice informed the university in writing of his earlier prison sentence and conviction and this evidence is on their files.

The WLRI was set up by Londonmet to undertake ‘academic, applied and socially-committed research and teaching emphasising equality and social justice into all aspects of working lives’. Now is the time for the university to be FAIR to the Institute and its staff.
These suspensions are an attack on the principles of staff rights and representation, on social justice and on academic freedom.

 You can sign here.