Yet Again, British Justice Fails British Jews


By Jonathan Hoffman
April 2, 2013
Share

Ben Cohen has it right, here

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/03/28/how-british-justice-failed-...

Paragraph 156 of the Judgment:

When a rugby player takes the field, he must accept his fair share of minor injuries. Similarly a political activist accepts the risk of being offended or hurt on occasions by things said or done by his opponents (who themselves take on a corresponding risk).

Jaw-dropping. The Tribunal sees resisting antisemitism as akin to participating in a sport with the 'teams' evenly balanced and the contest played according to some kind of rulebook!

What planet do they live on?

Would they dismiss black or Muslim victims of racism - or female victims of sex discrimination - who oppose their treatment as simply voluntary players in a sport?

Paragraph 150:

Belief in the Zionist project or an attachment to Israel ... is not intrinsically part of Jewishness ...

Is it really possible that Judge A M Snelson, Mr A Grant and Lady Sedley could have sat through 20 days of the hearing, done their post-hearing due diligence and STILL failed to appreciate why Israel was created and the centrality of Israel to the Jewish people?

Postscript:

The most obvious flaw in the Judgment: 'Belief' is a Protected Characteristic under the 2010 Equalities Act.

So belief in the right of Jews to have a Jewish state should be a Protected Characteristic.

The Tribunal demonstrably did not 'get' this ... I'd have thought this alone is strong grounds for an Appeal.

Postscripts

Excellent piece by David Hirsh here:

http://engageonline.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/tribunal-in-the-fraser-case...

FROM ZF - RONNIE FRASER STATEMENT

The ZF was very disturbed to read the Judgement in the Fraser versus UCU (University College Union) case. We were particularly distressed to read the assertion that belief in the Zionist project or an attachment to Israel is not intrinsically part of Judaism.

This part of the Judgement shows a deplorable ignorance of the history of the Jewish people and of Israel . Israel is at the centre of the prayers of Jews and before Israel was created in 1948, there was an unbroken Jewish presence in the land for thousands of years. Moreover, Israel was borne out of centuries of antisemitism towards Jews, similar to the antisemitism that Ronnie Fraser endured at the hands of UCU. Israel is the only country in the world grounded in Judaism and for the Tribunal not to recognise that does a profound disservice to the Zionist cause.

Paul Charney, Chairman of The ZF said “The ZF will always fight antisemitism and applauds Ronnie Fraser - a member of our National Council - who represented not just Jews but all right-minded people in the Tribunal hearing“.

COMMENTS

happygoldfish

Tue, 04/02/2013 - 16:44

Rate this:

2 points

Rich Armbach: I was surprised it was deemed to be an employment tribunal issue since there was no employer / employee relationship ( perhaps our favourite fish could enlighten us).

for some reason, you asked for it so here it is
harassment is defined in s.26 of the Equality Act 2010

26(1)A person (A) harasses another (B) if—
(a)A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and
(b)the conduct has the purpose or effect of—
(i)violating B's dignity, or
(ii)creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.

(4)In deciding whether conduct has the effect referred to in subsection (1)(b), each of the following must be taken into account—
(a)the perception of B;
(b)the other circumstances of the case;
(c)whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.
(5)The relevant protected characteristics are—
age;
disability;
gender reassignment;
race;
religion or belief;
sex;
sexual orientation.

harassment by a trade organisation is prohibited by s.57(3)

57(3)A trade organisation must not, in relation to membership of it, harass—
(a)a member, or
(b)an applicant for membership.

and proceedings for a contravention of any prohibition of Part 5 of the Act (including s.57) are restricted to a complaint before an employment tribunal by s.113(1) and s.120(1)(a)

113(1)Proceedings relating to a contravention of this Act must be brought in accordance with this Part.
120(1)An employment tribunal has, subject to section 121, jurisdiction to determine a complaint relating to—
(a)a contravention of Part 5 (work)

the time limit is in s.123

123(1)Proceedings on a complaint within section 120 may not be brought after the end of—
(a)the period of 3 months starting with the date of the act to which the complaint relates, or
(b)such other period as the employment tribunal thinks just and equitable.

(3)For the purposes of this section—
(a)conduct extending over a period is to be treated as done at the end of the period;
(b)failure to do something is to be treated as occurring when the person in question decided on it.

… and the remedies are in s.124


zaheerayin

Wed, 04/03/2013 - 09:59

Rate this:

-2 points

So what are we hiding today?


Ben F

Wed, 04/03/2013 - 10:42

Rate this:

-2 points

He probably doesn't like this one either.

http://hoffmanchronicled.wordpress.com/1675-2/


Advis3r

Wed, 04/03/2013 - 11:06

Rate this:

0 points

I suggest the failed Fraudulant Zionist (aka Arbach) and his motley crew of Jew baiting trolls who unfortunately infest this website purely to vent their hatred read this
http://engageonline.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/tribunal-in-the-fraser-case...

I do not suppose for one moment that anything Mr Hirsch has written will in any way penetrate to redeem their vicious animus but at least one can say one tried.


Rich Armbach

Wed, 04/03/2013 - 11:31

Rate this:

0 points

Yeah read it. That was the one I was looking forward to most. Hirsch is busted nobody cares what he scribbles.


happygoldfish

Wed, 04/03/2013 - 11:59

Rate this:

1 point

reasonableness

the tribunal seems to have erred in law in appying s.26(4)(c) (see above) to the meaning of "harassment"

s26(1) defines "harassment" as including [certain] conduct which has "the purpose or effect" of "creating an intimidating [etc] environment for B"

the issue is whether an intimidating [etc] environment is created … and no more

in deciding this primary issue, s.26(4) requires three secondary issues to be considered …
(a) "the perception of B"
(b) all the circumstances (!)
(c) "whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect"

(c) is not determinative, it is on the same footing as (a) and (b)

yet the tribunal (parapraph 156) seems to have taken it as determinative

(of course, there were alternative grounds: a successful appeal on this point alone would not alter the decision)


Rich Armbach

Wed, 04/03/2013 - 12:04

Rate this:

-2 points

Good question....this.....too funny

I got an email from NLP saying that Jonny Hoff had written to them complaining about one of my comments on their web site and threatening them with a libel action. It was a very nice email so I wrote back thus.

Richard Armbach
1:35 PM (21 hours ago)

to john
Dear John

Hoffman threatens legal action four or five times a day. He has never ever done it. He is probably not referring directly to the link but rather another page on the site it links to.

ie this one

( inserted)

This was published on 22nd May 2012 and he screamed libel and threatened to sue immediately. I am still waiting. Be assured there is no legal action currently taking place, he is lying again.The man is something else. However, you are editing an extremely thoughtful site which I have only just discovered,and he WILL make a nuisance of himself. You have better things to do then engage with Hoffman, it can become extremely time consuming. I would not be at all offended if you were to remove my comment. It wasn't really about Hoffman anyway but rather the Sizer affair and its relation to the UCU case.

Best regards


Advis3r

Wed, 04/03/2013 - 13:31

Rate this:

1 point

As if anyone actually cares what the failed Fraudulent Zionist thinks - Mr Hirsch's left shoe has more intelligence than Armbach and the motley crew of Jew-baiting trolls put together and they prove it every time they post.


Jonathan Hoffman

Wed, 04/03/2013 - 16:49

Rate this:

0 points

Looks like we have outed one of the vexatious jewbaiting trolls here ....


joemillis1959

Wed, 04/03/2013 - 17:51

Rate this:

0 points

GROUNDHOFF DAY. Again


happygoldfish

Thu, 04/04/2013 - 08:03

Rate this:

0 points

third parties

the tribunal (paragraph 27) has confused liability by ucu for (primary) harassment by ucu in failing to take steps n relation to third parties (cf. the conteh case) with liability by ucu for "third party harassment" (cf. s.40)

for example, if an employer selectively sends female employees to make deliveries to a third party premises whose own staff are known sexual predators, then even if nothing happens (ie there are no sexual remarks or gestures, there are no page 3 pictures on the walls, no male-chauvinist-pig ties, etc), the mere perception (which would not be experienced by male employees) would make the (respondent) employer guilty of (primary) harassment even though there is no (primary) harassment by the third party

of course, if there were sexual remarks or gestures by the third party staff, that would be harassment by the third party (and we could then discuss whether the employer has vicarious liability for it) …

but that would not negate the fact that there is already (primary) harassment by the (respondent) employer simply in sending the female employees there

the tribunal correctly observes that "Parliament must be taken to have have intended to substitute s.40 liability for the less clearly defined" case-law on harassment by third parties, but this principle of statutory interpretation does not apply to (primary) harassment by the respondent (because s.40 does not deal with such harassment)

background: there is a difference between liability of an employer and of a trade organisation, for harassment by a third party:

s.40(2) extends liability of an employer to include harassment by a third party where …

(a)a third party harasses B in the course of B's employment, and
(b)A failed to take such steps as would have been reasonably practicable to prevent the third party from doing so.

(and s.40(3) requires the employer to have known of at least two previous third party harassments, and s.40(4) excludes employees from being third parties)

however, there is no provision for liability for third party harassment (similar or otherwise) for trade organisations (such as ucu)


happygoldfish

Thu, 04/04/2013 - 09:49

Rate this:

1 point

resignations

the tribunal (and, it seems, the claimant) erred in considering jewish resignations from ucu only as part of the "unwanted conduct", and not as part of the "environment"

the tribunal rejected the resignations of jewish members from ucu as not being harassment itself (paragraph 163) …

"The fact that some Jewish members resigned from the union is part of the narrative in this case but it cannot amount to harassment of the Claimant by the Respondents"

… but they should have gone on to treat it as evidence of environment created by other complained-of harassments

the whole judgment rejects each complaint of conduct in turn as not "creating an intimidating [etc] environment" for the respondent personally

(btw, much can be said against the related "political activist = rugby player" approach, but it is a separate issue, and i shall not deal with it here)

however, the resignations of other jewish members were part of the environment created by the other instances of conduct, and the tribunal did not consider them as such

no matter how immune a jewish "rugby player" is supposed to be, it is still intimidating and hostile for him to see fellow-jewish "rugby players" giving up the game in large numbers …

I feel like one
Who treads alone
Some banquet-hall deserted,
Whose lights are fled,
Whose garlands dead,
And all but he departed
(thomas moore)

No man is an island, …
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
(john donne)


zaheerayin

Thu, 04/04/2013 - 11:18

Rate this:

0 points

You know what they say about litigious people.....


Rich Armbach

Thu, 04/04/2013 - 11:45

Rate this:

0 points

And barrack room lawyers


Rich Armbach

Thu, 04/04/2013 - 11:46

Rate this:

0 points

Looks like we have outed one of the vexatious jewbaiting trolls here ....

Where ?


Advis3r

Thu, 04/04/2013 - 11:55

Rate this:

1 point

fraudulant zionist(aka armbach) you are obviously in the pay of an anti-Israel jew-baiting organisation how else could you possibly afford the time to post your endless drivel?


Rich Armbach

Thu, 04/04/2013 - 12:03

Rate this:

0 points

Jose I am very low maintenance


Rich Armbach

Thu, 04/04/2013 - 12:08

Rate this:

0 points

Tweet of the year so far ?

JewAmericanPrincess ‏@JewAmPrincess 2h
Palestinians throwing rocks? Gee I wonder why? Are they pissed off about something?


Rich Armbach

Thu, 04/04/2013 - 15:08

Rate this:

0 points

That is my understanding


Rich Armbach

Thu, 04/04/2013 - 16:12

Rate this:

0 points

FROM ZF-RONNIE FRASER STATEMENT

Oh yeah I remember the ZF


zaheerayin

Thu, 04/04/2013 - 16:20

Rate this:

0 points

Didn't it used to have a Co-Vice Chair?


Jewish American...

Thu, 04/04/2013 - 16:31

Rate this:

0 points

"The Israel project" isn't integral to my Jewishness nor to that of many others I know.


joemillis1959

Thu, 04/04/2013 - 17:35

Rate this:

0 points

Another glorious failure by way of Showcase litigation, apparently

One lawyer active in Jewish affairs, Jonathan Goldberg QC, commented: “This enormous but legally flawed lawsuit was an act of epic folly by all concerned which will negatively impact our community for a long time to come. You only bring such showcase litigation if you are certain to win.”
Lawsuit will have negative impact on our community for a long time'
The chairman of UK Lawyers for Israel, Jonathan Turner, also questioned the wisdom of bringing the action. “I had deep misgivings and feared it would fail,” he said. But he called it “a reverse, not a disaster”, suggesting that lessons could be learned on “which cases to fight and how”.

And... The funniest line of all...

Anthony Julius, of solicitors Mishcon de Reya, who had represented Mr Fraser, was unavailable for comment this week.

Let me get this straight; the chairman of your board was "unavailable for comment"?


Harvey

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 10:25

Rate this:

1 point

Pleased to see you are able to kvelle over this Joe .
Just imagine the pent up frustration if you were still with UJIA .


Advis3r

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 10:51

Rate this:

0 points

Jewish American - says a lot about your Jewishness or more exactly the lack of it. In any event it was not your Jewishness (if you have any) that was under attack, was it?

Armbach - maggots, I am told, also have low maintenance.

Joe - you are getting pleasure out of this? Someone decided not to be a trembling Israelite and by doing so exposed the the establishment distaste for Jewish nationhood by actually being told in all seriousness that Israel has nothing to with Jewishness - how about the number of times it is mentioned in prayers said three times a day or in Grace after Meals etc etc.


joemillis1959

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 11:20

Rate this:

0 points

No pleasure at all, Norman. It is the story of a failure foretold. As those two very staunch israel supporters put it, showcase litigation.

Ronnie was Ill advised and Ill served by his defence and witnesses. But he'll unfortunately carry the can. I haven't seen the CEO of a major communal body falling on his sword despite giving what was described as untrue evidence.

Jewish religion, beliefs, nationhood or peoplehood are not issues for an employment tribunal. It's probably one for a seminar. Israel, after all, has been debating it for 65 years, and is still no closer to a resolution.

Shabbat shalom


Rich Armbach

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 11:38

Rate this:

0 points

The odds are very great that the tribunal members have never given the notion of " Jewish nationhood " a single solitary thought, the vast majority of people haven't. They merely found the claim that Ronnie Fraser had been harassed by his union ludicrous as indeed it is.

They will have been helped to this conclusion not just by the evidence but also by the rabid histrionics of some of the witnesses, not least David Hirsh, and by the untruthfulness of others.

Ronnie Fraser complained in his evidence that the union had taken the EUMC WD drivel off him and " not provided him with a replacement or a promise of one." Has he, I wonder, ever considered investing in a dictionary ?

I for one take no pleasure in Ronnie Fraer's discomfort but welcome the outcome. This bullying and blackmailing of people and organisations with knee jerk faux anti semitism accusations has to stop. Hopefully all of this will help change the environment and be an encouragement to others not to allow themselves to be bullied.


Jewish American...

Fri, 04/05/2013 - 14:49

Rate this:

0 points

Must be a settler.


Rich Armbach

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 08:08

Rate this:

0 points

A must. If you only read one thing about this case read this.

http://cartoonkippah.com/legal-ruling-anti-zionism-racism/


happygoldfish

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 09:50

Rate this:

0 points

Rich Armbach: A must. If you only read one thing about this case read this.
http://cartoonkippah.com/legal-ruling-anti-zionism-racism/

that article is by human rights barrister adam wagner, and lower down claims that the chief rabbi also has got it completely wrong …

Anti-Zionist or pro-Palestinian campaigners are regularly branded as anti-Semites. … But that approach … has clearly failed. And yet it is still wheeled out: watch, for example, this stirring but flawed recent speech by the Chief Rabbi to AIPAC, an American pro-Israel lobby. They hate us, so they would say that. Etc.

btw, adam is founding editor of http://ukhumanrightsblog.com and in his march 17th blog wrote …

… Anas Awwad, 26, was sentenced to a year in jail for “cursing the president” on Facebook .
His father says Awwad is being punished for a comment he made about a picture of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas kicking a soccer ball taken during his visit to Barcelona Football Club in 2011. Awwad apparently wrote “The new striker in Real Madrid.” …
We should be cautious of second-hand reports such as these … But, if the report is accurate, this is a very bad case for free speech indeed and deserves international attention.

happygoldfish

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 10:46

Rate this:

0 points

glib? attachment to israel

the tribunal, although it comments in detail on a lot of evidence which it later dismisses as irrelevant (including dismissing the evidence of two non-jewish anti-racist mps as "glib": paragraph 148), fails to mention any evidence* in relation to its glib finding of fact (paragraph 150) that "attachment to Israelis not an intrinsic part of Jewishness" …

"It seems to us 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 an intrinsic part of Jewishness and even if it was, it could not be substituted for the pleaded characteristics, which are race and religion or belief. "

glib?

or glibberish?
* it deals with the law in paragraph 18 (which i'll comment on later), but it cites no evidence … or other reason … for its glib finding of fact

and what on earth do they think the "Zionist project" is? a part of the Zionist conspiracy?


happygoldfish

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 12:27

Rate this:

0 points

protected characteristic

the tribunal (end of paragraph 18) effectively accused anthony julius of not understanding that he needed to prove that attachment to israel was a "protected characteristic"

julius maintained that jewishness was the "protected characteristic" …

much as, in a claim for harassment in relation to breastfeeding women (my example, not his), sex (not breastfeeding) is the "protected characteristic" …

see s.13(6), (about direct discrimination), stating explicitly that the "protected characteristic" is not breastfeeding, but sex

perhaps some employment lawyer can explain to this ignorant goldfish why a woman's discrimination claim on grounds of breastfeeding does not require breastfeeding to be a "protected characteristic", but a jew's harassment claim on grounds of attachment to israel does require attachment to israel to be a "protected characteristic"?

indirect

the tribunal (end of paragraph 18) makes a puzzling remark to the effect that there is no indirect harassment (compared with there being both direct and indirect discrimination)

the difference between direct and indirect discrimination is that direct discrimination (s13(1)) is "less favourable treatment" on grounds of race [etc], while indirect discrimination (s19(2)) is a "provision, criterion or practice" applied not on grounds of race [etc] ("because of a protected characteristic"), but on other grounds yet "in relation to a protected characteristic"

eg: a rule "jews cannot use the bar" is (obviously) direct discrimination"

a rule "jews and accountants cannot use the bar" is still direct discrimination even though it does not relate solely to race [etc], because it can be considered as two rules, one of which is "jews cannot use the bar"

a rule "accountants cannot use the bar" or "users of the bar must eat a ham sandwich" is not direct discrimination (because not all jews are accountants, and vice versa, and not all jews are non-ham-eaters, and vice versa), but it may be indirect discrimination against a jew who is, or does, because jews generally are disadvantaged by the rule in that they are more likely to be accountants or non-ham-eaters than non-jews

the tribunal's view that harassment is akin to direct discrimination is difficult to reconcile with the tribunal's own extensive comments (paragraph 32), about the difference between "on grounds of the relevant protected characteristic" (in the Race Relations Act 1976) and "in relation to a relevant protected characteristic", including …

… the 'related to' formulation (unlike 'on grounds of') does not require a 'causative' nexus between the protected characteristic and the conduct under consideration: an 'associative' connection is sufficient.

since the difference between direct and indirect discrimination is between "because of" and "in relation to", it is difficult to see how the "indirectness" of harassment is any impediment …

harassment is always "in relation to", exactly as indirect discrimination is!


Rich Armbach

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 12:45

Rate this:

0 points

I agree with Adam, the Chief Rabbi's speech to AIPAC was horrible. Embarrassing even.

Get over it, the hasborafia case collapsed under the weight of its own hubris.


Advis3r

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 13:10

Rate this:

-1 points

Hardly Jewish American - obviously a bigot.

Rich Armbach on the Chief Rabbi = Benny Hill on Einstein - at least Benny Hill was funny.


joemillis1959

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 13:26

Rate this:

0 points

Anyone who knows Adam, Richard, will appreciate he's a very committed Zionist and his absolutely spot on blog comes from place of sorrow, not anger.

The problem in the community leadership is that unfortunately far too much is seen through the "good for israel, bd for israel" prism. Luckily, the new generation coming through - of which Adam is part - are not so minded. They see the problems affecting British Jews directly - ageing, welfare, youth disaffection - a the main problems facing us now.

A British employment tribunal was never the place to adjudicate on Jewish attachment to israel.


Harvey

Tue, 04/09/2013 - 09:40

Rate this:

0 points

OT
You know you are on the right side when you take into account comments such as this

https://mobile.twitter.com/TonyKaron/status/321322733684273152

Ben White retweets sick gloating over the death of Baroness Thatcher .
No surprise that Armbach joins the party # pond life # bottom feeder .


Rich Armbach

Tue, 04/09/2013 - 11:48

Rate this:

0 points

Can always rely on you for a good read Harv. Merely passing on news from my niece who lives in Stockwell. It all seems pretty pointless to me. Thatchers days of social vandalism are long gone. It is of no moment to me and I don't understand why it is to anyone else, whether she presently be dead or alive.

The amount of time you spend sifting through the twittersphere your eyes must be pretty blood shot.You remind me of the Judy Collins song Marat Sade.

Poor old Marat, in you we trust

You write til your eyes are as red as rust.

Ben White is a bickerer just like you. You and he are twins with different mothers.


Harvey

Tue, 04/09/2013 - 13:29

Rate this:

0 points

Thanks for the tip . Suggest you revisit Chicken Little .


Harvey

Tue, 04/09/2013 - 13:52

Rate this:

0 points

Galloway and Greenstein pleasuring each other over the death of Thatcher

https://mobile.twitter.com/TonyGreenstein/status/321381730340708352

Two exceedingly vile and sick ghouls


Ben F

Thu, 04/11/2013 - 16:01

Rate this:

0 points

Hoffman, you're a Deputy. What say you? http://hoffmanchronicled.wordpress.com/1692-2/


Harvey

Fri, 04/12/2013 - 09:43

Rate this:

0 points

Oh dear , that romance didnt last long
Greenstein gets the brush off from Galloway # pond life # bottom feeders .com

https://mobile.twitter.com/TonyGreenstein/status/320174748602601472.


Rich Armbach

Fri, 04/12/2013 - 10:50

Rate this:

0 points

Harv serious question. Do you actually know anyone, other than your good self, that cares ?


Harvey

Fri, 04/12/2013 - 11:39

Rate this:

0 points

Try this on for size Armbach # BDS Fail

Two recent victories against BDS in French Courts.

France-Palestine Solidarity Association (AFPS) and the PLO sued Alstom and Veolia for allegedly engaging in illegal and unethical conduct by participating in the Citypass consortium which constructed the Jerusalem Light Railway. Now the Court of Appeal for Versailles has rejected that claim. The judgment contains important rulings on whether companies can be liable for alleged infringements of the Fourth Geneva Convention and other rules of international humanitarian law.

Another French court dismissed a private prosecution brought by AFPS against the importer of Sodastream products, alleging that their labelling as "made in Israel" was misleading.


Rich Armbach

Fri, 04/12/2013 - 12:23

Rate this:

0 points

You are telling ME this why ?


Ben F

Fri, 04/12/2013 - 16:26

Rate this:

0 points

More BOD business: http://hoffmanchronicled.wordpress.com/1703-2/

Hoffman, what say you?


Harvey

Thu, 04/18/2013 - 14:06

Rate this:

0 points

Congratulations #Israel Wembley celebration #BDS fail

http://richardmillett.wordpress.com/2013/04/18/zionist-federation-rocks-...


joemillis1959

Thu, 04/18/2013 - 16:21

Rate this:

0 points

It was unfortunate that only 3000 turned up to the show. Not sure whether the low number (10000 were expected) was due to the lack of household names on the bill or because the ZF dissed progressive Jews in its treatment of Yachad.


happygoldfish

Fri, 04/19/2013 - 10:55

Rate this:

0 points

"vilified"

ronnie fraser (the complainant) says (page 1 of today's jc and here) that the harassment was not in being forced to defend israel, but in being "vilified" for doing so …

“People have implied that Anglo-Jewry was running this case. They were not.
This case was for me and for the other activists who stood up at union meetings and were vilified.
There is a point where you have to say ‘enough’.”

but there is nothing in the judgment about vilification

the only mention of evidence that comes close is set out in paragraphs 126 to 133, and 165, relating to the pleading …

that a culture of institutional anti-Semitism had been manifest at meetings and conferences … and that he and others had experienced public bullying, harassment and humiliation by reason of their Jewish identity

… and the judgment records evidence of only five specific instances:

  • heckling of one jewish union member in 2008 (paragraph 127)
  • booing at a non-union meeting in 2009 at which no jewish union member was present (paragraph 128)
  • rejecting a general complaint of anti-semitism by a jewish union member in 2010 (paragraph 129)
  • calling fraser a racist for being a zionist* in 2006 (paragraph 130)
  • and excluding one jewish non-union-member in 2008 (paragraph 131)

the tribunal spent a day listening to recordings of congress debates, and heard no "atmosphere of intimidation" (paragraph 132)

(* the judgment does not consider whether allowing anyone supporting israel to be called a racist is creating an intimidating environment)
(* the judgment fails to mention that he was called a racist in order to disqualify him from standing as a congress delegate, according to dr david hirsh here)

so, what has happened to the evidence that fraser and other activists "stood up at union meetings and were vilified"?

it would be helpful if ronnie fraser could make clear … in layman's language … how he and others were "vilified", and whether this came out in evidence


StevenKalka

Tue, 04/23/2013 - 14:24

Rate this:

0 points

Every notice how many trade unionist activists are self-appointed experts in areas beyond the pay, benefits, and working conditions of its members? I'm a member of a public employee union in NYC, and I've experienced that, although not as far as Israel is concerned.

POST A COMMENT

You must be logged in to post a comment.

LATEST COMMENTS