Crushing defeat for Israel lobby as anti-boycott litigation fails in UK

[ymu]

Ultra-Zionist 'lawfare' types get ed by tribunal judges over anti-boycott tribunal brought against UCU:

In the 49-page ruling, the three-person tribunal comprehensively considered the 10 points of the detailed complaint, brought on behalf of Fraser by high-profile pro-Israel lawyer Anthony Julius.

After dismissing each one of them in detail (“without substance … devoid of any merit … palpably groundless … untenable … obviously hopeless”), the document appears to foreclose the possibility of another such “lawfare” attack ever being brought to court again (at least using UK Tribunals).

“Lessons should be learned from this sorry saga. We greatly regret that the case was ever brought. At heart, it represents an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means. It would be very unfortunate if an exercise of this sort were ever repeated” (paragraph 178, my emphasis).

It is this key passage of the ruling that means anti-Palestinian activists may rue the day they ever contemplated “the wreckage of this litigation,” as the judge frankly puts it (para. 181).

The judge raises serious concerns that a “hard-pressed” public service like the Tribunals should have “their limited resources … squandered [by Fraser] as they have been in this case.” Nor “should the Respondents [the union] have been put to the trouble and expense of defending proceedings of this order or anything like it” (para. 180).

Another important finding is that “a belief in the Zionist project or an attachment to Israel … cannot amount to a protected characteristic” under the Equality Act of 2010. This properly sets a clear red line between Zionism and Judaism (or Jewish identity).

Julius’s competence was also called into doubt by the panel, after he “referred in support of his argument to a concept unfamiliar to us and not, so far as we are aware, known to our law, namely ‘institutional responsibility’ ” (para. 22).

Continues ... http://electronicintifada.net/blogs...israel-lobby-anti-boycott-litigation-fails-uk

 

[ymu]

Probably worth quoting this also:

Two members of parliament who appeared as witnesses for Fraser were also criticized. John Mann MP and Denis MacShane MP “clearly enjoyed making speeches. [But] neither seems at ease with the idea of being required to answer a question not to his liking” (para. 148).

 

[redsquirrel]

Bet the judges must have enjoyed writing that.

 

[Pickman's model]

*adds mann and mcshane to shitlist*

 

[teqniq]

Good.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Even by New Labour standards McShane is vermin. He supported the fascist coup attempt in Venezuela for example.

 

[Knotted]

A rather enjoyable summary here. The whole judgement is worth reading, it's clear that this was not just a lawfare suit against BDS but an attempt to use anti-discrimination laws to subvert union democracy. Perfectly legal, democratically voted for resolutions could constitute "harassement" as could merely defending the union against trumped up charges from the likes of Mann and MacShane according to the claimants. I hope this case sets a precedent so that unions don't have to go through this sort of crap again. Huge case by the way, judge really pissed off about the squandering of employment tribunal resources.

 

[ymu]

Yes, it's the strength of the judgement that makes it so important. It will be very difficult to bring these sorts of cases again, and it should also undermine many of the more trivial formal complaints brought against anyone who expresses pro-Palestinian sentiment on campus.

 

[Pickman's model]

in the 1990s i encountered jeremy newmark in his incarnation as a student activist, when he struck me as something of a wanker.

 

[Knotted]

A while back Fraser's "organisation" (it turns out to be him and his wife) recommended a paper by Lesley Klaff (who gave evidence at the tribunal), Antisemitism on Campus: A New Look at Legal Interventions.

Unlike a set of guidelines, legal intervention is powerful enough to change the very culture of the campus by requiring that anti-Zionist expression be positively prohibited, on pain of imposition of sanctions and stigma.

This was about suing universities because of "discrimination" against students so it's not exactly a blueprint for this action, but I think there have been some (rather incompetent) legal heads planning a lawfare push against universities for a couple of years now.

There is an eerie silence from the usual suspects (Engage, Harry's Place, Jewish Chronicle) who were enthusiastically backing this case.

 

[teqniq]

Despite appearances, as the Claimant engagingly told us, AFI consists of him, his wife and a computer...

 

[teqniq]

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.'

 

[Knotted]

To be fair the UCU should have cancelled the invitation for Bongani Masuku even if it was last minute...

 

[Knotted]

teqniq, you'll be hear all day quoting that. There's a lot to at.

 

[teqniq]

I am going to stop now. Best I not read the actual pdf.

 

[cesare]

A rather enjoyable summary here. The whole judgement is worth reading, it's clear that this was not just a lawfare suit against BDS but an attempt to use anti-discrimination laws to subvert union democracy. Perfectly legal, democratically voted for resolutions could constitute "harassement" as could merely defending the union against trumped up charges from the likes of Mann and MacShane according to the claimants. I hope this case sets a precedent so that unions don't have to go through this sort of crap again. Huge case by the way, judge really pissed off about the squandering of employment tribunal resources.

Precedents aren't set in the ET but at the EAT. However the ruling's been published (not all ET decisions are) so it probably will be followed unless the case is appealed.

 

[ymu]

To be fair the UCU should have cancelled the invitation for Bongani Masuku even if it was last minute...

Yeah, there's a lot of twattishness in the pro-Palestinian crowd. My enemy's enemy is my friend.

It's actually precisely the same for the Naturei Karta. Anti-Zionist Jews. Yay! Anti-Zionist Jews who don't give a fuck about Palestinians and tell other Jews that they're not real Jews and that Zionism is wrong because the Jews are supposed to put up with being persecuted until the Messiah arrives.

Both of these forms of anti-Zionism are anti-semitic, IMO, as is the kind of Zionism that insists any Jew who disagrees with the actions of the state of Israel must be self-hating.

None of that should be allowed to divert attention from what is happening to Palestinians, but of course, it always does.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

A rather enjoyable summary here. The whole judgement is worth reading, it's clear that this was not just a lawfare suit against BDS but an attempt to use anti-discrimination laws to subvert union democracy. Perfectly legal, democratically voted for resolutions could constitute "harassement" as could merely defending the union against trumped up charges from the likes of Mann and MacShane according to the claimants. I hope this case sets a precedent so that unions don't have to go through this sort of crap again. Huge case by the way, judge really pissed off about the squandering of employment tribunal resources.

Hilarious!

 

[agricola]

*adds mann and mcshane to shitlist*

There was a shitlist that MacShane wasnt already on?

 

[Pickman's model]

There was a shitlist that MacShane wasnt already on?

You're quite right to question it. I didn't immediately spot him as I was looking for mc not mac.

 

[Lemon Eddy]

Even by New Labour standards McShane is vermin. He supported the fascist coup attempt in Venezuela for example.

He's contemptible on every level. This is a man who'd stoop to using the deaths of his daughter and former partner as an excuse for fiddling his expenses. Just vile.

 

[frogwoman]

Yeah, there's a lot of twattishness in the pro-Palestinian crowd. My enemy's enemy is my friend.

It's actually precisely the same for the Naturei Karta. Anti-Zionist Jews. Yay! Anti-Zionist Jews who don't give a fuck about Palestinians and tell other Jews that they're not real Jews and that Zionism is wrong because the Jews are supposed to put up with being persecuted until the Messiah arrives.

Both of these forms of anti-Zionism are anti-semitic, IMO, as is the kind of Zionism that insists any Jew who disagrees with the actions of the state of Israel must be self-hating.

None of that should be allowed to divert attention from what is happening to Palestinians, but of course, it always does.

you are right in saying that neturei karta don't give a shit about palestinians, their opposition to israel is around the fact that they don't think they are treated with appropriate respect there (most of it seems to be about old cemeteries/gravestones being moved if you look at their websites) and because Israel is not a theocracy. they want a theocracy based on the worst aspects of biblical laws and the reason they are cosying up to anti-semites such as ahmedinejad et al is because they don't think that it applies to them. they believe that it is a punishment from god for not being religious enough and for abandoning judaism. they don't believe they are the victims of it, if they are they are victims of a mistaken identity. some of them accept the anti-semitic conspiracy shit, they would say that all this is a punishment from god. Of course one of the aspects of not being religious enough they are against and think we should all put up with being persecuted for until the end of time is also jews' relationship to non-jews and assimilation/marrying out of the faith. this they think puts the majority of jews beyond the pale.

you are also right in saying that this among other things helps to deflect attention from what's really going on in israel and palestine, and alienates people from getting involved. it's one of the reasons i'm no longer involved.

 

[frogwoman]

A while back Fraser's "organisation" (it turns out to be him and his wife) recommended a paper by Lesley Klaff (who gave evidence at the tribunal), Antisemitism on Campus: A New Look at Legal Interventions.


This was about suing universities because of "discrimination" against students so it's not exactly a blueprint for this action, but I think there have been some (rather incompetent) legal heads planning a lawfare push against universities for a couple of years now.

There is an eerie silence from the usual suspects (Engage, Harry's Place, Jewish Chronicle) who were enthusiastically backing this case.

Anti-zionist expression shouldn't be prohibited ffs. I was a member of the PSC, disagree strongly with their politics and approach these days but they're not a hate group, there are some cunts involved but there are also some very good activists involved. Engage are sometimes good and produce some interesting stuff but David Hirsh (I think that's him) is often a bit annoying and has a tendency to romanticise Jewishness a bit too much.

edited: wrong person sorry

 

[ymu]

It's very easy for people to fall into simplistic narratives, especially when the dispute is as intense as Israel/Palestine.

There certainly are anti-semites within the pro-Palestinian 'lobby', and some others are too willing to tolerate them, but a lot of it is just piss poor analysis and people getting pushed to extremes, in part because nuance is harder to deal with in a discussion dominated by polemics. I think it's also important to recognise the role of the ultra-Zionists and their anti-semitism (in the way that they misappropriate Jewishness by claiming to represent all Jewish people).

It's not unlike the anti-identity politics backlash on the left. A perfectly good analysis of why identity politics cannot and must not be allowed to replace class politics has been simplified by some on the left to a cheap sneer any time someone raises an issue of discrimination which divides the class, and a minority have taken it as permission to indulge their worst prejudices and claim that they are being progressive.

 

[Pickman's model]

It's very easy for people to fall into simplistic narratives, especially when the dispute is as intense as Israel/Palestine.

There certainly are anti-semites within the pro-Palestinian 'lobby', and some others are too willing to tolerate them, but a lot of it is just piss poor analysis and people getting pushed to extremes, in part because nuance is harder to deal with in a discussion dominated by polemics. I think it's also important to recognise the role of the ultra-Zionists and their anti-semitism (in the way that they misappropriate Jewishness by claiming to represent all Jewish people).

It's not unlike the anti-identity politics backlash on the left. A perfectly good analysis of why identity politics cannot and must not be allowed to replace class politics has been simplified by some on the left to a cheap sneer any time someone raises an issue of discrimination which divides the class, and a minority have taken it as permission to indulge their worst prejudices and claim that they are being progressive.

it's also important to point out the large number of wholly racist zionists, who can't imo really be given a get-out card of laziness.

 

[frogwoman]

they can both fuck off to be honest. doesn't mean they do though.

 

[ymu]

It's a bit like trying to ignore Dwyer and Jazzz in order to have a proper grown-up discussion, Difficult, but it has to be done!

 

[Knotted]

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

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/8...y-slippery-slope-antisemitism”-tribunal-hears

Just couldn't help it, could he?

 

[frogwoman]

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/89977/ucu-travelled-“dangerously-slippery-slope-antisemitism”-tribunal-hears

Just couldn't help it, could he?

to be fair when it comes to BDS stuff that's often not far wrong. Although the same could equally apply to a lot of zionists frankly.

 

[Nylock]

Ultra-Zionist 'lawfare' types get ed by tribunal judges over anti-boycott tribunal brought against UCU:

In the 49-page ruling, the three-person tribunal comprehensively considered the 10 points of the detailed complaint, brought on behalf of Fraser by high-profile pro-Israel lawyer Anthony Julius.

After dismissing each one of them in detail (“without substance … devoid of any merit … palpably groundless … untenable … obviously hopeless”), the document appears to foreclose the possibility of another such “lawfare” attack ever being brought to court again (at least using UK Tribunals).

“Lessons should be learned from this sorry saga. We greatly regret that the case was ever brought. At heart, it represents an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means. It would be very unfortunate if an exercise of this sort were ever repeated” (paragraph 178, my emphasis).

It is this key passage of the ruling that means anti-Palestinian activists may rue the day they ever contemplated “the wreckage of this litigation,” as the judge frankly puts it (para. 181).

The judge raises serious concerns that a “hard-pressed” public service like the Tribunals should have “their limited resources … squandered [by Fraser] as they have been in this case.” Nor “should the Respondents [the union] have been put to the trouble and expense of defending proceedings of this order or anything like it” (para. 180).

Another important finding is that “a belief in the Zionist project or an attachment to Israel … cannot amount to a protected characteristic” under the Equality Act of 2010. This properly sets a clear red line between Zionism and Judaism (or Jewish identity).

Julius’s competence was also called into doubt by the panel, after he “referred in support of his argument to a concept unfamiliar to us and not, so far as we are aware, known to our law, namely ‘institutional responsibility’ ” (para. 22).

Continues ... http://electronicintifada.net/blogs...israel-lobby-anti-boycott-litigation-fails-uk

*awaits wave of shrill hysteria from Mel Phillips et al*