It is nothing less than a complete shameful disgrace.
The lawyer finds that NOTHING that Miller has said or written either violates the law or is antisemitic! Let’s look at some of his/her reasoning (the only clue to the lawyer’s identity is his/her admission that s/he isn’t Jewish. One can also reasonably assume that it’s not Hugh Tomlinson or Stephen Sedley since they are quoted).
There are two key failings.
One, the reliance on the fake ‘Jerusalem Declaration’ definition of antisemitism (JD). The QC suggests (para 72.4) that the nature of what amounts to antisemitism is contested. Rubbish. No representative Jewish organisation in the world has adopted the fake JD. All the ones I know recognise the IHRA definition. The QC pathetically attempts to legitimise the fake JD by saying that it had ‘over 200 signatories in late March 2021’ and that (para 56) it was ‘developed by a group of scholars in the fields of Holocaust history, Jewish studies and Middle East studies.’
Yeah right, Idiot – I fisked the JD signatories here – They include a corpse, a Semiotics academic and a Gender and Sexuality Studies academic! 40% of them don’t work in the field of Jewish Studies! One third of the 208 suffer from Israel Derangement Syndrome!
Memo to Bristol’s Idiot QC: It is the right of legitimate representatives of Jews to say what is antisemitic. It is not YOUR right!
Two, the QC’s failure to recognise this element of IHRA (s/he never mentions it):
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions
For example the QC (para 74) thinks that these statements of Miller’s are perfectly OK:
Jewish students are being used as political pawns by a violent, racist foreign regime
Britain is in the grip of an assault on its public sphere by the State of Israel and its advocates
And the following two Miller conspiracy statements are – ludicrously – deemed OK because (para 72.2) they ‘pertain to his area of academic research‘ (!!):
An all-out onslaught by the Israeli government … on the left globally
An attempt by the Israelis to impose their will all over the world
In common with many antisemites, the QC asserts that Judaism is a religion but Zionism is an ideology. This statement of Miller’s ….
…. is whitewashed by the QC thus:
Nonsense – Zionism and Judaism are two sides of the same coin – as IHRA recognises.
This apology for a QC even thinks (para 72.7) that it’s not antisemitic to state that ‘Israel is a racist State’:
Note how this moronic QC twists the Wolfson/Brier analysis (from which s/he quotes at para 54). Wolfson/Brier say that describing Israel as a ‘racist endeavour’ is ONLY not antisemitic under the following conditions:
And guess which lawyers’ opinions about IHRA gain this fool’s approbation … Yes, Tomlinson’s (para 45) and Sedley’s (para 49) both of which I fisked here and here. (Note that on reconsideration, I was wrong (in my Sedley fisk) to criticise the Swiss organisation CICAD for attacking what Ossipow wrote, because Ossipow did come close to antisemitism. The ECHR was borderline correct to reject CICAD’s case but for Tomlinson, Sedley and Bristol’s Idiot QC to adduce the ECHR’s decision in support of their claim (that Zionism and Judaism are unrelated) is positively obscene).
Finally this braindead QC asserts that Miller broke no law. However s/he fails to even consider the Malicious Communications Act. At least one email from Miller to a student appeared to contravene that Act. But the student was too intimidated to pursue it – appallingly that’s the depth we have reached in the UK in 2021 ….