The GPhC judgment (‘determination’) which was read out at the hearing on Thursday is on the website. It is every bit as bad as I wrote then, based on my notes.
David Collier (p51) is not considered an impartial witness in identifying antisemitism because he had recently returned from Israel and his daughter had volunteered for the IDF.
As for me, I am also not (p51-52) considered an impartial witness in identifying antisemitism because I am Jewish; because I have a conviction for shouting at an antisemite (a sham conviction based on lies); and because I visited Nazim Ali’s pharmacy in order to expose the hypocrisy of an Israel hater who nevertheless stocks Israeli products.
IN OTHER WORDS THE EVIDENCE OF ANY JEW IN IDENTIFYING ANTISEMITISM IS UNRELIABLE AND MUST BE IGNORED!
(Of course a Neturei Karta Jew or a Jewish Voice for Labour Jew denying antisemitism would not only be believed, but embraced……….)
This is a version of the Livingstone Formulation which says that supporters of Israel knowingly falsify charges of antisemitism in order to suppress criticism of Israel. Indeed in writing off the evidence of two Jews on antisemitism, the committee is committing a criminal offence (harassment), as stated (p28) in the recent EHRC Report on the Labour Party. Suggesting that complaints of antisemitism are fake or smears is harassment. It’s akin to the Corbynites who claim (still) that allegations of antisemitism in Labour are false, being designed to undermine Corbyn because of his support for the Palestinians.
The ugly truth is that David and I were inconvenient obstacles to the committee’s intention to exonerate Ali on the antisemitism charge. So we were dumped.
And piling absurdity on absurdity …. the fact is that when David wrote his Witness Statement (not long after the march in June 2017) he had not been to Israel for 13 years and his daughter was a 16 year old intending to do A levels and go to a UK university.
#1 It’s in their genes. The Zionists are here to occupy Regent Street. It’s in their genes, it’s in their genetic code.
And more: In assessing comment #1 for antisemitism, the committee ruled that Ali’s justification for the ‘genes’ comment (that it was a metaphor, like David Cameron speaking of the Conservative Party) ‘was not simply a post hoc rationalisation’. Why come to that conclusion? It is blatantly obvious – given the hatred we saw on the march – that it was a pretext cooked up with the help of his lawyer.
(see here for an explanation why the four statements ARE antisemitic).
The Committee’s assumption that antisemitism should be judged by a ‘reasonable person’ (who is definitely NOT Jewish, p53) leads to some ridiculous conclusions:
#2 European alleged Jews. Remember brothers and sisters, Zionists are not Jews.
Instead of concluding what any activist against antisemitism knows – that ‘alleged Jews’ refers to the Khazar trope beloved of Jew haters – – the Committee concludes that it cannot be antisemitic because the reasonable person wouldn’t understand it!
#3 Any Zionist, any Jew coming into your centre supporting Israel, any Jew coming into your centre who is a member of the Board of Deputies, is not a Rabbi, he’s an imposter.
They say much the same about this one: the ‘reasonable person’ ‘would trouble to seek to understand the underlying context’.
#4 They are responsible for the murder of the people in Grenfell, the Zionist supporters of the Tory Party.
And for this one they conclude that it’s not antisemitic because it’s criticism of the government!
The committee gets thoroughly confused (pp 58-59) about ‘intention’. It claims it’s inconsistent to (on the one hand) claim that the four comments are antisemitic regardless of Ali’s intent but on the other to say that he deliberately made antisemitic comments.
This is sheer legalistic crap. It is perfectly consistent to say that a statement is antisemitic regardless of intent and at the same time to say that the same statement was made with antisemitic intent.
Finally the committee says the four statements are offensive but not antisemitic. Eh? If they’re offensive to the mythical ‘reasonable person’ (not Jewish) then they are CERTAINLY offensive to Jews. Which means they’re antisemitic!
An appalling determination which cannot go unchallenged!
Please consider donating through my Patreon page. Every penny will go toward Israel advocacy and fighting antisemitism.