David Miller, the former sociology Professor sacked by Bristol University after making a series of hostile public statements about Jewish students at his own university, has won his Employment Tribunal against his former employer. According to the Tribunal’s
I've just been reading Bernard Harrison’s 'Blaming the Jews: Politics and Delusion', in my view an excellent discussion of what exactly antisemitism is, how it has persisted in much the same form for century after century, and how it can be embraced by both right and left. It should be read by anyone who wants to understand the subject, including obviously judges called on to make proniuncements about it.
Dave, I wrote about a dire need for educating Judges at all levels in my first post linked below. You will be very familiar with the first case. The 2nd Immigration tribunal case deeply disturbed me for a long time, where even a blatant anti Jewish trope was considered legitimate political expression by the court. I wished the Primer, a guide used in judges training for judges of every level, could be developed with reference to your work. I lobbied every Jewish source for help. No one was interested. Until the APPGA invited submissions and mine was incorporated verbatim into their recommendations. As a result with the strong support of Danny Stone, my submission that it is antisemitic to say Jews control US gvt etc is antisemitic was included in the Bench book I don’t know what the current Bench Book says, but CST et al need to take this further now re link between antisemitism and Zionism.
You misread my comment , Dave. I didn’t mean to suggest that you have the same power as Biden but that, like them, you refuse to criticise the current slaughter of Palestinian civilians, more than half of whom are children. Also I am not comparing the holocaust to the current Nabka. I am comparing America’s indifference to both genocides. Apart from that, are you unable to muster any criticism of the way that Netanyu’s rightwing gang are not only committing a gross tragedy upon Palestine but playing into the hands of Hamas?In a way that they and Iran surely intended. In my view Nabka Two will guarantee continued havoc in the Middle East and darken the world’s regard for Israel for generations.
I am an employment lawyer and I am currently wading my way through the judgment. However, as much as it turns my stomach on a personal level, I have to say that I am a very strong believer in freedom of speech (within the law). As someone who supports the findings in the Forstater case (re gender critical beliefs) I need to maintain the same reasoning in my evaluation of this case. There are many people who truly believe that Forstater is a transphobe whose beliefs ought not to be protected in the way that you and I believe that Miller is an antisemite and, as such, his beliefs ought not be protected. However, the internal finding following a report prepared by an independent KC was that Miller is not an antisemite but merely holds beliefs which, whilst many understandably find abhorrent, are not unlawful. That is a matter for debate but I think, legally, the judgment is right given the IHCA definition of antisemitism isn't binding in law and given that, even using that definition, there was a finding internally following the seeking of independent legal opinion that Miller's conduct didn't meet the definition of it (although that is questionable in my view).
I reviewed the judgment also and am a lawyer, though not in the UK and my practice was not employment law. Do you not think Forstater is distinguished? I only read the citation in the Miller judgment. Does Forstater therefore stand for the proposition that any sincerely held and cogently presented idea (belief) is protected pursuant to UK employment law ? What about a belief that Africans are less intelligent than White people? There are those with many letters after their names that have argued that proposition in thick books and have taught it.
That belief would fail the test set out that it must be a belief
“worthy of respect in a democratic society, is not incompatible with human dignity, and is not in conflict with the fundamental rights of others. In assessing whether something is “worthy of respect”, the courts have found that only the most extreme beliefs, such as Nazism, should be excluded.”
I don’t accept your comparison between what is happening in Gaza now and the Holocaust. But even putting that to one side - what makes you think I have any power or influence over the Israeli government? I have none at all.
Ah yes, because there's a direct comparison between the Jews of Europe and North Africa circa 1930s-40s and the Nazis' planned systematic genocide that would have carried on globally, and the IDF's weighty tasks of both rescuing the 130 remaining hostages, and who the ICJ said should have been released immediately and unconditionally, and the dangerous undertaking to destroy the massive terror infrastructure Hamas built underneath Gaza over the last decade or so.
The IDF isn't targeting unarmed non-combatants. Hamas is certainly using unarmed non-combatants as human shields though, including the hostages they abducted on October 7th. The Sinwar brothers could end the war by ordering the release of the hostages and surrendering, but they won't, and the ceasefire that they are demanding is one they fully intend to break at their earliest opportunity as they have again and again since taking complete control over Gaza.
I dunno. Why didn't the United States stop killing Japanese children after the attack on Pearl Harbor? Why did the Allies persist in murdering German children after the Nazi invasions of Poland, Belgium, and France?
I'm sure the Germans had a good reason for starting the Second World War -- Lebensraum, I think they called it.
And golly, the Japanese really needed to murder all those Chinese women and children in Nanking.
Of course, some people claim there was no Rape of Nanking, that 30,000 were not slain at close range in five days and over 100,000 more in the next three months.
You know, the way pro-Hamas types claim that October 7 was an Israeli hoax.
I've just been reading Bernard Harrison’s 'Blaming the Jews: Politics and Delusion', in my view an excellent discussion of what exactly antisemitism is, how it has persisted in much the same form for century after century, and how it can be embraced by both right and left. It should be read by anyone who wants to understand the subject, including obviously judges called on to make proniuncements about it.
Dave, I wrote about a dire need for educating Judges at all levels in my first post linked below. You will be very familiar with the first case. The 2nd Immigration tribunal case deeply disturbed me for a long time, where even a blatant anti Jewish trope was considered legitimate political expression by the court. I wished the Primer, a guide used in judges training for judges of every level, could be developed with reference to your work. I lobbied every Jewish source for help. No one was interested. Until the APPGA invited submissions and mine was incorporated verbatim into their recommendations. As a result with the strong support of Danny Stone, my submission that it is antisemitic to say Jews control US gvt etc is antisemitic was included in the Bench book I don’t know what the current Bench Book says, but CST et al need to take this further now re link between antisemitism and Zionism.
http://hurryupharry.net/2012/05/07/antisemitism-a-primer-for-judges/
It's a problem that has come round repeatedly over many years.
This was my follow up post on the APPGA and Bench book revision.
(As for my comments on IFN you will be aware that the gvt very recently has declared an intention to defund it )
http://hurryupharry.net/2015/05/05/let%e2%80%99s-pour-more-money-into-the-interfaith-industry-say-all/
This is going to take Jewsplaining what antisemitism is and isn't to a whole new level.
England is just a cesspool of antisemitism. It rots with it.
Very concerned by this ruling. He has very strong connections to the Iranian regime which clearly uses its influence in Bristol University.
Dave: can I republish this post on my blog Shiraz Socialist (Second Run) ?https://shirazsocialism.wordpress.com/
With full attribution and a link, of course.
You misread my comment , Dave. I didn’t mean to suggest that you have the same power as Biden but that, like them, you refuse to criticise the current slaughter of Palestinian civilians, more than half of whom are children. Also I am not comparing the holocaust to the current Nabka. I am comparing America’s indifference to both genocides. Apart from that, are you unable to muster any criticism of the way that Netanyu’s rightwing gang are not only committing a gross tragedy upon Palestine but playing into the hands of Hamas?In a way that they and Iran surely intended. In my view Nabka Two will guarantee continued havoc in the Middle East and darken the world’s regard for Israel for generations.
I am an employment lawyer and I am currently wading my way through the judgment. However, as much as it turns my stomach on a personal level, I have to say that I am a very strong believer in freedom of speech (within the law). As someone who supports the findings in the Forstater case (re gender critical beliefs) I need to maintain the same reasoning in my evaluation of this case. There are many people who truly believe that Forstater is a transphobe whose beliefs ought not to be protected in the way that you and I believe that Miller is an antisemite and, as such, his beliefs ought not be protected. However, the internal finding following a report prepared by an independent KC was that Miller is not an antisemite but merely holds beliefs which, whilst many understandably find abhorrent, are not unlawful. That is a matter for debate but I think, legally, the judgment is right given the IHCA definition of antisemitism isn't binding in law and given that, even using that definition, there was a finding internally following the seeking of independent legal opinion that Miller's conduct didn't meet the definition of it (although that is questionable in my view).
I reviewed the judgment also and am a lawyer, though not in the UK and my practice was not employment law. Do you not think Forstater is distinguished? I only read the citation in the Miller judgment. Does Forstater therefore stand for the proposition that any sincerely held and cogently presented idea (belief) is protected pursuant to UK employment law ? What about a belief that Africans are less intelligent than White people? There are those with many letters after their names that have argued that proposition in thick books and have taught it.
That belief would fail the test set out that it must be a belief
“worthy of respect in a democratic society, is not incompatible with human dignity, and is not in conflict with the fundamental rights of others. In assessing whether something is “worthy of respect”, the courts have found that only the most extreme beliefs, such as Nazism, should be excluded.”
https://www.farrer.co.uk/news-and-insights/blogs/competing-protected-characteristics-in-the-workplace-where-to-draw-the-line/
In addition, section 10 EqA is required by virtue of section 3 of the Human Rights
Act 1998 to be read so as to be consistent with the rights protected by the
Convention, and in particular Articles 9 (freedom of conscience) and 10 (freedom
of expression). In Forstater v CHG (Europe) [2022] ICR 1, Choudhury P
summarised the relevant principles to be derived from the jurisprudence of the
European Court of Human Rights so far as concerns the question whether a
belief falls within s.10 EqA 2010. The summary was as follows (see at paragraph
55):
a. Freedom of expression is one of the essential foundations
of democratic society…
b. The paramount guiding principle in assessing any belief
is that it is not for the Court to inquire into its validity…
c. The freedom to hold whatever belief one likes goes handin-hand with the State remaining neutral as between
competing beliefs, refraining from expressing any judgment
as to whether a particular belief is more acceptable than
another, and ensuring that groups opposed to one another
tolerate each other....
d. A belief that has the protection of Article 9 is one that only
needs to satisfy very modest threshold requirements. As
stated by Lord Nicholls in R (Williamson), those threshold
requirements "should not be set at a level which would
deprive minority beliefs of the protection they are intended to
have under the Convention." In other words, the bar should
not be set too high…"
I find Everyday Hate interesting but I am puzzled, Dave.
Why do you, Joseph Biden and the rest of the West's leaders refuse to stop Israel's slaughter of Palestine's children?
It reminds me of the 'civilized' world's indifference to the Holocaust.
I don’t accept your comparison between what is happening in Gaza now and the Holocaust. But even putting that to one side - what makes you think I have any power or influence over the Israeli government? I have none at all.
Ah yes, because there's a direct comparison between the Jews of Europe and North Africa circa 1930s-40s and the Nazis' planned systematic genocide that would have carried on globally, and the IDF's weighty tasks of both rescuing the 130 remaining hostages, and who the ICJ said should have been released immediately and unconditionally, and the dangerous undertaking to destroy the massive terror infrastructure Hamas built underneath Gaza over the last decade or so.
The IDF isn't targeting unarmed non-combatants. Hamas is certainly using unarmed non-combatants as human shields though, including the hostages they abducted on October 7th. The Sinwar brothers could end the war by ordering the release of the hostages and surrendering, but they won't, and the ceasefire that they are demanding is one they fully intend to break at their earliest opportunity as they have again and again since taking complete control over Gaza.
I dunno. Why didn't the United States stop killing Japanese children after the attack on Pearl Harbor? Why did the Allies persist in murdering German children after the Nazi invasions of Poland, Belgium, and France?
I'm sure the Germans had a good reason for starting the Second World War -- Lebensraum, I think they called it.
And golly, the Japanese really needed to murder all those Chinese women and children in Nanking.
Of course, some people claim there was no Rape of Nanking, that 30,000 were not slain at close range in five days and over 100,000 more in the next three months.
You know, the way pro-Hamas types claim that October 7 was an Israeli hoax.
Really? Slaughter of Palestinian children? And your source is - the Hamas ministry of savagery.