Saturday, 5 December 2020

Alasdair Henderson, who led the EHRC Investigation into Labour ‘Anti-Semitism’, Liked Tweets Defending Anti-Semitic Bigot Roger Scruton!

The EHRC Report Should be Rejected - it is not fit for purpose – That's why Starmer has forbidden all discussion of this Flawed Report





In the 1970s Martin Webster, National Organiser of the neo-Nazi National Front wrote that the most important factor in the building of self-confidence among racists and fascists was the publication in 1969 of the views of Arthur Jensen, a psychologist at Harvard University. Jensen had written an article in the Harvard Educational Review that suggested that 80% of intelligence was hereditary and that Black people had a lower IQ than whites.

Sir Cyril Burt - racist and scientific fraud

In the UK, the belief that intelligence is hereditary was debunked in the 1980s when its major proponent, Sir Cyril Burt, an educational psychologist and principal mover behind the introduction of the 11 plus, was shown to have manipulated the data in his research into hereditary intelligence, based on the study of identical twins.

Alasdair Henderson expressed his support for Scruton

In 1992, Robert Joynson wrote a defence of Burt in the Salisbury Review, a magazine edited by Roger Scruton, a far-Right philosopher and academic who was its first editor.

A book by Charles Murray and Professor Richard Hernstein, The Bell Curve, Intelligence and class Structure in American Life argued that African Americans do badly in tests because they are less intelligent than whites, and that average American IQ was falling because of “dysgenic forces” including immigration by non-European stock and the relatively high fertility rates of the white and black underclass. They suggested that welfare payments which encouraged low IQ women to have babies should be stopped.

As the Editorial in CARF No. 23 stated, all that IQ tests measure is the ability to sit IQ tests! They are culturally biased.

Roger Scruton, who Theresa May appointed as Chair of the government's Building Better Building Beautiful Commission was fired for calling Chinese people "robots" and claiming Islamaphobia was "invented by the Muslim Brotherhood”. Scruton also accused Hungarian Jews of being part of a “Soros empire”.

In 2005 he gave a talk in the United States in which he claimed that there is “no such crime” as date rape. He told his audience that:

When a woman cries date rape what she means is the whole thing went too quickly.

In 2007 Scruton wrote a piece for the Telegraph which stated that "although homosexuality has been normalised, it is not normal". His article argued that gay couples should not be allowed to adopt on the grounds it was an injustice to children.

In a 2014 speech published on his website, Scruton said the Jewish “intelligentsia” in Budapest “form part of the extensive networks around the Soros empire” thus echoing the anti-Semitic propaganda of Prime Minister Viktor Orban who won the 2018 General Election on the back of attacks on George Soros, a child survivor of the Hungarian holocaust.

In 2019 in an interview Scruton said that “Anybody who doesn’t think that there’s a Soros empire in Hungary has not observed the facts,”. Soros has for years been portrayed by the far-Right as a Jewish puppet-master. It was this interview that cost him his Government job but it speaks volumes about the Tories opposition to genuine anti-Semitism as opposed to anti-Zionism that he was ever appointed. Scruton was known to be a racist and fascist.

Henderson 'liked' this tweet

Scruton’s views were summed up in an election speech by Orban, which contained every element of what makes up the Jewish Conspiracy Theory:

“We are fighting an enemy that is different from us. Not open, but hiding; not straightforward but crafty; not honest but base; not national but international; does not believe in working but speculates with money; does not have its own homeland but feels it owns the whole world,”[1]

One of the anti-Semitic election posters using  Soros as a Jewish scapegoat for Hungary's ills - that doesn't stop Netanyahu being Orban's good friend

None of this however prevented Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu forging a close friendship and alliance with Orban. Netanyahu too hated Soros for having funded Israeli human rights organisations such as B'tselem. Genuine anti-Semitism has never disturbed Zionists.

Scruton edited the Salisbury Review - a bridge between the Tory far-Right and fascist groups

Scruton was the editor of the Salisbury Review from 1982-2001. It formed a bridge between the politics of the Tory Right around the Monday Club, which advocated the repatriation of Black people from Britain and openly neo-Nazi groups such as the NF and BNP.

The very first issue published a talk by John Casey on the politics of race. The presence of “West Indian communities”, he claimed

 “offends… a sense of what English life should be like…(only the) “repatriation of a proportion of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population” could forestall “the possible destruction of civilised life in the centres of the big cities”.

Gay sex was another concern of the Salisbury Review under Scruton. “A concern with social order,” Scruton wrote in an editorial, “prompts us to view… homosexuality as intrinsically threatening.”

You might think that anyone associated with the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, whose duty it is to ensure compliance with the Equalities Act 2010 wouldn’t go within a mile of Roger Scruton. In particular anyone who is one of their Commissioners.

Alasdair Henderson - the EHRC's racist Commissioner

However you would be wrong. It would seem that the Commissioners are a repository of bigotry and racism. None more so than Alasdair Henderson, the barrister charged with investigating and producing a report on Labour Party ‘anti-Semitism’.

According to the Guardian and other papers, Henderson was an avid fan of Scruton and an all round bigot. Indeed one might call Henderson a mini-me Scruton.

Earlier in the year Henderson liked a tweet attacking ‘offence-taking zealots’ who accused Roger Scruton of antisemitism, Islamophobia and homophobia. He also liked another tweet by Douglas Murray, who once called for Muslim immigration to Europe to be banned.  Murray is author of the ‘Strange Death of Europe’ which argued that Muslim immigration is literally murdering Europe as we know it. Murray’s book is the basis of the far-Right Identitarian Replacement Theory.

On 3 September, Henderson liked a tweet which read:

It’s amazing to me that Tory ministers still flounder and flub when some media moron incants the magic words ‘misogynist’ and ‘homophobe’, as if those are empirical statements about reality, not highly ideological propaganda terms.”

On 24 June, Henderson liked a tweet by Douglas Murray in which, responding to a statement by Cambridge University defending the right of academic staff to hold personal and controversial views, Murray said:

Nope. Nobody believes that. We remember the cases of Noah Carl and Jordan Peterson. Your institution dropped them in 2 secs once the mob came for them. But it’s interesting you’re standing up for someone who actually is a race-baiter this time.”

In 2006, Murray made a speech in the Dutch parliament, saying “all immigration into Europe from Muslim countries must stop” and “conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board”. Noah Carl was sacked from a Cambridge University college after a panel found he had collaborated with far-right extremists in his writings linking intelligence to race.

As if this wasn’t sufficient Henderson made clear his hatred for Black Lives Matter. Henderson liked a tweet thread that included:

“The Met are clearly treating the (illegal under the Covid regs) BLM protests much more indulgently than they have treated other protests and gatherings. This is poison to an open society, but no-one seems to care.”

Of course to be fair to Henderson, and I always try to be fair to those I criticise, he is not alone amongst the Commissioners. Newly appointed Commissioner David Goodhart has praised the government’s “hostile environment” policy while Jessica Butcher urged women who have been discriminated against at work not to “go cry to someone” but to “take the onus to circumvent the situation”. She has also criticised the #metoo movement.

For good measure the EHRC found that the BBC isn’t discriminating against women when it comes to pay, despite copious evidence to the contrary. It is little wonder that the Parliamentary Human Rights Committee ‘slammed’ the record of the EHRC.

But it is Henderson I want to focus on because this bigot was in charge of the ‘anti-Semitism’ investigation which found that the Labour Party had ignored ‘likes’ on Facebook. They found that:

This was at clear odds with the Labour Party’s commitment to zero tolerance of antisemitism. It meant that repeated sharing of antisemitic material could have escaped investigation

The report concluded that

As a result of its policy, the Labour Party failed to investigate antisemitism complaints based on likes, retweets and shares on social media. This policy contradicted the Labour Party’s commitment to zero tolerance of antisemitism.

One can only hope that the EHRC will now adopt its own recommendations and give this prize racist and bigot the boot.  Meanwhile the fact that the ‘anti-Semitism’ Report was produced under the watch of a racist and bigot clearly discredits it. The Labour Party should now seek to set aside the Report’s conclusions as legally unfounded. What it should have done under the hapless Corbyn was to seek a judicial review of its decision to investigate the Labour Party in the first place.

I do not expect Starmer to resile from the Report he has invested so much political capital in because it is such an important weapon in his armoury in the fight against the Left. However since Starmer has described himself as a ‘Zionist without qualification’ his own racism is also beyond dispute.

A Short Analysis of the Deficiencies of the EHRC Report into Anti-Semitism

I have read the EHRC Report twice and what leaps out is how weak and insubstantial it is.  It is difficult to believe that it has been produced under the aegis of someone who is an employment barrister since its conclusions on harassment are simply at odds with the law. I get the impression that Henderson must have burnt the candle thinking up how to shoehorn ‘harassment’ into the Report’s conclusions.

Above all the Report is transparently shallow and insubstantial. I get the overriding impression that it is what you might call political reverse engineering. Henderson first reached his conclusions and then set about finding the evidence.

I know that groups like Jewish Voice for Labour have invested a lot of energy into producing an analysis of the Report. Indeed far too much energy. My advice to them is not to over analyse it.

The Report is, above all, a political report.  By its own admission it decided that it was not ‘proportionate’ to ask for the evidence behind Labour’s Leaked Report. Given the evidence of racism, misogyny and abuse by Labour staff and their cynical manipulation of the issue of ‘anti-Semitism’ this decision is astounding. Since when is it proportionate to ignore evidence?

The other astounding feature of a report into anti-Semitism is that nowhere does it even attempt to define the ‘anti-Semitism’ it is investigating though it does say that its findings were in accord with the IHRA misdefinition of anti-Semitism.

The Campaign Against Antisemitism's Racist Profile of Muslims

This Report came about as a result of complaints by two Zionist organisations. One the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism is a far-Right, Islamaphobic organisation.  Nowhere does the Report even question the motivation or bona fides of the complainants.

The CAA is widely believed to be funded, directly or indirectly, by the Israeli state.  It produced a Report 'Britsh Muslims and Anti-Semitism'. Although the full Report  has been deleted from the CAA's website, a stub remains including a picture of a (presumably) Muslim person holding a ‘Hitler you were right’ poster.  

The clear and obvious implication is that many if not most Muslims are Hitler supporters. The stub contains the sentence that ‘On every single count, British Muslims were more likely by far than the general British population to hold deeply antisemitic views.’ This obnoxious and racist statement was accompanied by a full colour silhouette of the typical Muslim male. This has now disappeared.  If anyone were to post a similar meme of the typical Jew there would be uproar yet the EHRC did no due diligence into their complainants.

The second organisation is the Jewish Labour Movement, the British wing of the Israeli Labour Party which it calls its ‘sister party’. The CAA is widely believed to be funded, directly or indirectly, by the Israeli state.  In essence this is a Report produced as a result of the intervention of the Israeli lobby and the Israeli state into British politics.

The context of the Report is that no investigation was conducted into the Tory Party, nearly half of whose members oppose having a Muslim Prime Minister and two-thirds of whom believe that Islam is a threat to the Western way of life. Instead the Tory Party was left to conduct an investigation into itself. The reasons for this decision are not hard to find. Its Commissioners, including their former Chair David Isaac, were closet Tories.

The failure of Corbyn and the left to call out the EHRC for what it was, a racist state body whose interest was not in combating racism (e.g. it has been silent over the Windrush Scandal) but absorbing and deflecting the anti-racist movement and anti-racism.

Its first Chair, Trevor Phillips, was suspended by the Labour Party for being an Islamaphobic bigot. Two disabled Commissioners resigned when Phillips was reappointed in 2009. In all 6 Commissioners resigned on his watch. A House of Commons early day motion in 2017 with 62 signatures criticised its sacking, with 1 days notice, of 10 staff, 7 of whom were Black.

In 2012, two former EHRC commissioners — Simon Woolley, previously the only black person on the Commission, and Meral Hussein-Ece, the only Muslim, found out that they had not been reappointed to their posts because they took racism too seriously.

In November 2019 BBC’s Newsnight reported the contents of a leaked letter from the EHRC’s chief executive Rebecca Hilsenrath, in which she accused Isaac of being too close to the Conservative government: Isaac, Hilsenrath wrote, “regularly declines to take public positions” on issues that might prove troublesome for the ruling party.

The Report stretches to breaking point the legal definition of ‘harassment’ to include political speech arguing that alleging that anti-Semitism in the Labour Party is ‘fake’ is a form of harassment. It does this in order to scapegoat Ken Livingstone and Pam Bromley. Yet unsurprisingly it fails to find any victims of their harassment.  This is legally untenable.

Likewise its finding that interference by the Leader of the Opposition’s Office into the anti-Semitism complaints was a form of indirect discrimination is untenable.  This action has to be detrimental to those affected yet nowhere does the Report state why that is so or who suffered a detriment. If permanent staff were running their own campaign targeted at e.g. anti-Zionist Jews then such interference is perfectly acceptable.

For indirect discrimination to be found there first has to be a PCP (provision, criteria or practice) that adversely affects a protected group despite being ostensibly neutral. The Report doesn’t even attempt to point out what that PCP is. This is quite amazing.

The Left should be clear.  This Report is not worth the paper it is written on. Now that we know that it was itself produced by a racist it should be rejected outright.

Starmer has done his best to prevent any discussion about the Report's contents. He suspended Corbyn for having the temerity to suggest that reports of anti-Semitism were deliberately exaggerated by a hostile media. This  suggests that even Starmer knows that the Report is indefensible.

Starmer though did his best to ensure that the Report was as adverse as possible in order that he could wield the anti-Semitism weapon against his opponents. The fact that the Report is anodyne – for example it doesn’t accuse Labour of institutional anti-Semitism – must be a severe disappointment.

Starmer paid off, to the tune of £3/4 million the very Labour staff who had done their best to lose Labour the 2017 General Election. Staff who had waged a constant war against the elected leader for three years were rewarded. The reason for this is obvious. By conceding a case that Labour’s lawyers advised they could win, Starmer figured that the EHRC would then be prevented from criticising the staff in its Report.  There is no other conclusion that can be drawn.  If this were a criminal case Starmer would be guilty of conspiring to pervert the course of justice and be eligible for a hefty prison sentence.

Starmer’s behaviour is both dishonest and shameful and is itself reason enough for his dismissal as Labour leader. To his credit Corbyn made it clear that the decision to settle with the former staff was a political not legal one.

The Report repeatedly refers to ‘Jewish stakeholders’. It never explains who this means – the Board of Deputies?  The Zionist Federation?  Nowhere does the Report acknowledge the large number of Jewish anti-Zionists in the Labour Party who disagree with the JLM's positions.

The Report's finding that ‘denialism’ is harassment is particularly problematic. There is abundant evidence that false allegations of anti-Semitism are ritually made by Zionists. Joan Ryan, the Chair of Labour Friends of Israel was secretly filmed by the Al Jazeera undercover programme The Lobby falsely accusing Jean Fitzpatrick of anti-Semitism. 

Jean was suspended but when the film came out she was reinstated. The accusation that anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism was made by, among others, Jonathan Arkush the previous President of the Board when he accused Corbyn of anti-Semitism despite a plethora of evidence to the contrary. In other words if you support the Palestinians you are anti-Semitic. The Report never once acknowledges that  'antisemitism' is the ritual accusation of Israel's defenders.  I don't know one Palestinen solidarity supporter who has not been accused of 'anti-Semitism'.  To suggest that telling the truth is harassment is a new low, even for a bigot like Henderson.

The Labour Party is a political party which debates political issues. This includes racism.  To suggest that this is harassment debases the English language. People have the right to call out Zionism for the racist creed it is without being accused of anti-Semitism. It is not racist to say that Zionism, the ideology of the world's most racist state has weaponised anti-Semitism.

Another example of how the Report doesn’t understand what it means to be a socialist political party is where it says that indirect discrimination might include holding meetings on a Saturday. Clearly Henderson knows nothing about progressive politics despite being a human rights barrister (like Starmer!). The Report says that

This is likely to be indirect discrimination against Jewish members because of their religion or belief, unless it can be justified as appropriate and necessary for achieving a real need.

This betrays the complete lack of understanding of the right of a political party to declare that it is secular. It is not racist to say that religious superstition should play no part in the proceedings of political parties. I am opposed to paying the slightest heed to religious sensibilities. Whether a meeting is held on Friday, Saturday or Sunday should be irrelevant. I am an atheist and I don’t believe that religion should play any part in a party’s proceedings. This is not discrimination its about freedom to reject religious tyranny.  Apart from the fact that most Jews don't observe the sabbath and those who do are usually the most right-wing Jews.

In practice most demonstrations take place on Saturday as Sunday is a secular day of rest. Most British people don’t go to Church on Sunday they go shopping!

The very concept of denialism is a McCarthyite charge. Again Corbyn, being the chump he is, adopted the very rhetoric of his accusers.  In essence if you deny that there is an anti-Semitism problem then you are part of the problem. Corbyn didn't apply this to himself.  He was most pained to be accused of being an anti-Semite and quite rightly so.

In the 17th century Salem Witchhunt, denial of being a witch was taken as proof of the same. As Elizabeth Reis wrote:

“During examinations, accused women were damned if they did and damned if they did not. If they confessed to witchcraft charges, their admissions would prove the cases against them; if they denied the charges, their very intractability, construed as the refusal to admit to sin more generally, might mark them as sinners and hence allies of the devil.”

Likewise under McCarthy. It’s like saying that if you are charged with an offence, go to court and plead that you are innocent then that in itself is proof of your guilt! It is an interesting legal concept that only racist barristers like Henderson or Starmer could dream up.

The Report points to a ‘culture’ that permitted anti-Semitism without every saying what this culture might be, (p. 10) I think he means socialism.

The Report recommends an independent disciplinary process for the Labour Party. Given the fact that the present disciplinary system is a conveyor belt of injustice I can see some merit in this idea. Peter Mandelson has criticised what is one of the main EHRC proposals. Has Starmer suspended him for not accepting the Report lock, stock and bloody barrel?  Like hell he has, thus demonstrating that Starmer is a lying toe-rag.

The Report lay stress on the right of Labour Party members to freedom of speech under Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights. On page 27 it states:

Speech does not lose the protection of Article 10 just because it is offensive, provocative or would be regarded by some as insulting

No one can surely disagree with this but then I turned to page 30, a mere 3 pages on and what did I find?

It gave as examples the speech of Naz Shah and Ken Livingstone.  Neither of them mentioned Jews. Naz Shah, in what was a humorous remark, suggested that Israel would be better off being relocated in the United States! Ken Livingstone pointed to the undoubted historical fact that the Nazis supported the German Zionist  movement in preference to non-Zionist Jews. That is documented by serious historians such as Francis Nicosia in his book Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany.

Yet the Report endorsed the comments of the JLM that:

Labour Party members told us that the comments by Ken Livingstone in relation to Naz Shah (referred to above) caused shock and anger among Jewish Labour Party members. They felt his comments were appalling, highly offensive and very distressing. They said the effect of these comments was humiliating, denied the victims’ experience, diminished the issue, and had the effect of stirring up and fuelling hatred for Jews. Labour Party members also told us that Pam Bromley’s conduct, including the Facebook posts above, contributed to a hostile environment in the Labour Party for Jewish and non-Jewish members.

So which is it?  Does the Report support freedom of speech or doesn’t it?  Or does it support it when that criticism doesn’t include anti-Zionism?

It is noticeable that the JLM members don't alleged that Livingstone's comments were untrue.  It is just that they were offended and distressed.  But that is the essence of free speech.  The right to offend.  I supported Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses. Without doubt it offended many Muslims. Was that a reason to ban it?  Was it Islamaphobic on that count alone? These are very slippery and dangerous ideas that this Report is propagating at the behest of Labour's right-wing. Let us be honest Labour's Right and the Zionists have never believed in free speech.

On page 29 the Report stated that

The comments made by Naz Shah went beyond legitimate criticism of the Israeli government, as she acknowledged, and are not protected by Article 10. Neither is Ken Livingstone’s support for those comments.

It gave as an example the fact that

In April 2019, Pam Bromley posted on Facebook: ‘Looks like fake accusations of AS [antisemitism] to undermine Labour just aren’t working, so let’s have Chris Williamson reinstated’. On 15 December 2019, she posted on Facebook about Jeremy Corbyn:‘My major criticism of him – his failure to repel the fake accusations of antisemitism in the LP [Labour Party] – may not be repeated as the accusations may probably now magically disappear, now capitalism has got what it wanted’

On what possible basis can either of these comments be deemed as not being covered by Article 10 of the ECHR? The Report simply doesn’t say still less explain. Pam Bromley is expressing a political comment on the witchhunt. That is obviously protected speech.

The Report concludes that the remarks were ‘conduct creating a hostile environment for Labour Party members.’ It provides no evidence for this assertion.  Presumably it means Jewish members but plenty of Jews are making just these accusations. It is abundantly clear that the Report is partial, wrong, biased and instead of making evidence based accusations relies on assertions alone. These are all the hallmarks of a politically biased Report.

The Report defines a list of examples of ‘unwanted conduct’ which is the definition of harassment in s.26 of the Equalities Act.

Ø   diminished the scale or significance of the Holocaust

Ø   expressed support for Hitler or the Nazis

Ø   compared Israelis to Hitler or the Nazis

Ø   described a ‘witch hunt’ in the Labour Party, or said that complaints had been manufactured by the ‘Israel lobby’

Ø   referenced conspiracies about the Rothschilds and Jewish power and control over financial or other institutions

Ø   blamed Jewish people for the ‘antisemitism crisis’ in the Labour Party

Ø   blamed Jewish people generally for actions of the state of Israel

Ø   used ‘Zio’ as an antisemitic term, and

Ø   accused British Jews of greater loyalty to Israel than Britain.

The idea that referring to a witchhunt, or using the shortened form of Zionist ‘zio’ is anti-Semitic is absurd. Since it is integral to Zionism that Jews should show more loyalty to the Israeli state then it is the JLM which is anti-Semitic! As for blaming Jewish people for Israel’s actions unfortunately the Israeli state makes this claim.

I would doubt that simply expressing doubt about the Holocaust is harassment.  It is many things but harassment?  It would depend on the context of where such a statement was made.

Strangely enough there is no criticism of Chris Williamson in the Report.  That was because Chris, once he received a draft of the Report, took legal action, so the criticism was removed. That shows just how shoddy the Report is.

The thinking behind the Report is bizarre.  It defends its assertion that Labour’s actions were indirectly discriminatory by saying that:

Jewish members are proportionately more likely than non-Jewish members to make a complaint about antisemitism. Consequently, the practice of political interference in antisemitism complaints, and in ‘politically sensitive’ complaints generally, put Jewish members at a particular disadvantage compared to non-Jewish members.

This whole paragraph is a non-sequitor in that there is no connection between the statement that Jews are more likely to complain of antisemitism than non-Jews and suggesting that political interference puts Jewish members at a disadvantage. It is a dogs dinner of a report.

The comparator above is indeed non-Jewish members but the Report doesn’t say why Jews would be disadvantaged. Would e.g. Muslims making a complaint also be disadvantaged? There is no reason to believe that political interference in itself is disadvantageous. Although it is true that Jews are more likely to complain about anti-Semitism the question is which Jews. In Brighton former Councillor Caroline ‘poison’ Penn made 60 complaints of ‘anti-Semitism’ yet she is not Jewish so even this statement may not be factually correct.

Interestingly, although I am not named, the injustices in my case are highlighted on page 63 where it states as an example:

In 2016, a member was suspended with no details about the underlying allegations. Despite requesting this information on several occasions, the member was not informed about the specific allegations until months later. Following an application for an injunction to allow the member more time to prepare for the disciplinary proceedings, the High Court held that the Labour Party’s approach to the timing of the NCC hearing was procedurally unfair and granted an injunction. The member was later expelled.

On this basis I shall have to apply for readmission. Since Starmer is pledged to implement the Report fully, I confidently expect to be readmitted after Corbyn’s unfair expulsion!

Another example of ‘anti-Semitism’ is the statement by one member that:

‘How can we not have empathy with the Palestinians when they are up against these murdering, Zionest [sic] bastards. Their NAZI masters taught them well’. (p.79)

I’m still having problems working out where the anti-Semitism is.  It is never explained.  Another example is where

A member shared a meme in March 2018, which expressed that ‘an antisemite is now someone Jews hate’

Although the investigation was not to know this, this meme was the brainchild of the late Hajo Meyer, a Dutch survivor of Auschwitz. If anything is anti-Semitic it is the Report's accusation.  Hajo’s full quote was that anti-Semitism used people hating Jews. Now it is someone the Jews hate! Clearly that is not anti-Semitic and racist barrister Henderson is the last person to accuse holocaust survivors of anti-Semitism.

Pam Bromley’s statement on Facebook that

‘A huge sigh of relief echoes around Facebook’ (comment accompanying a shared BBC News story with the headline ‘Israeli spacecraft crashes on Moon’, 12 April 2019)

is certainly amusing, with more than an element of truth to it.  But anti-Semitic?  Is Israel a Jew?  They then go on to say

We find that Pam Bromley’s comments were unwanted conduct related to Jewish ethnicity,

If Henderson believes that being an Israeli and a Jew is synonymous then it is he who is anti-Semitic.  Which may well be true since he is a fan of Roger Scruton. In so far as Henderson completely ignored Jewish anti-Zionists and therefore equated Jews and Zionists he is guilty of the same anti-Semitism that he accused others of.

As I said at the beginning I have spent more time than I intended on this defective Report but we should waste no more time on it.  It was produced by a racist lawyer and is only fit for the wastepaper bin.

Tony Greenstein 








No comments:

Post a comment

Please submit your comments below