Campaign Against Antisemitism’s analysis is that Mr Jones’s actions and statements amount to breaches of the International Definition of Antisemitism and qualify as antisemitic discourse according to our methodology.
By sharing a post in which Zionist Jews were characterised as habitually lying, especially to non-Jews, and in which the view of one individual was presented as representative of the opinion of all Zionist Jews [1]; by sharing a post in which Zionist MPs (which necessarily includes Jews) were characterised as “[agents] of a foreign power” who should be punished as criminals, thereby suggesting that Israel secretly exercised control over British politics [2]; and by sharing a video whose title alluded to the nefarious action of supposed “Jewish power” [4a], in which it was claimed that Jews would try to “silence”, “threaten” or “terrorise” those who attempted to “interfere with their hegemony” and that there was something in “Jewish identity” which made Jewish groups powerful [4c], and in which British Jews were characterised as “[extremists]” who were a danger to national security [4d], Mr Jones was making, or disseminating material which was making “mendacious, dehumanising, demonising, 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.”
By sharing a post in which Zionist MPs in all political parties (which necessarily includes Jewish MPs) were characterised as “[agents] of a foreign power” who should be subject to arrest [2], he was using “Zionist” as a term of abuse, “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination” and sharing material which was “accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.”
By sharing an image in which it was stated that “Zionism = Nazism” in the context of a pro-Palestinian event [3], he was “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”
By sharing a video in which it was claimed that British Jews calling for the boycott of an individual on account of his egregious and well-documented antisemitism were, in fact, doing so because they objected to the pro-Palestinian content of one of his songs [4b]; by sharing a blog alleging that claims of antisemitism are made indiscriminately against “anyone who criticises this Israeli Government policy” and that this was “a rather sinister example of a smoke and mirrors tactic” which was “designed to shut down discussion” [5]; by responding to an article which criticised the action of Plaid Cymru in failing to discipline an individual with an acknowledged history of antisemitic discourse by suggesting that her comments had merely been “criticism of the State of Israel”, thereby bringing into question the motives of those members of the Jewish community who had objected to her discourse [6a]; and by endorsing a statement which characterised those who made claims of antisemitism in the Labour Party (which necessarily includes Jews) as “Israeli apologists” who were making false claims [6b], he was deploying, or endorsing and disseminating material which deployed the so-called ‘Livingstone Formulation’, by accusing Jews who cite evidence of antisemitism of lying, conspiring or having deceitful motives in doing so, when there is clear evidence that there have been breaches of the International Definition of Antisemitism. This further constitutes “making mendacious, dehumanising, demonising, or stereotypical allegations about Jews…” under the definition.
We further note that the report of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) following its statutory investigation into antisemitism in the Labour Party, in which Campaign Against Antisemitism was the complainant, includes a section entitled “Types of antisemitic conduct that amounted to unlawful harassment” with a subsection entitled “Suggesting that complaints of antisemitism are fake or smears”. This subsection states that: “Labour Party agents denied antisemitism in the Party and made comments dismissing complaints as ‘smears’ and ‘fake’. This conduct may target Jewish members as deliberately making up antisemitism complaints to undermine the Labour Party, and ignores legitimate and genuine complaints of antisemitism in the Party. These comments went beyond simply describing the agents’ own personal experience of antisemitism in the Party.”
Additionally, in its report, the EHRC made clear that its judgements apply to all political parties and emphasised that the European Convention on Human Rights does not protect racist speech, which may include antisemitic speech.
On this basis, the EHRC found that denying antisemitism in the Labour Party and making comments dismissing complaints as “smears” or “fake” — such as allegations that complaints of antisemitism are “part of a smear campaign by ‘the Israel lobby’ to stigmatise critics of Israel as antisemitic, and … intended to undermine and disrupt the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn MP” — are not protected by the fundamental right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In other words, such comments are not protected as freedom of speech at all, but amount to unlawful harassment of Jewish people.
Furthermore, the EHRC specified certain examples of antisemitic conduct which would be unlawful on the same basis within the relevant context.
Mr Jones’s comments in which he deploys the so-called ‘Livingstone Formulation’ as described above; his dissemination of material accusing British Jews of greater loyalty to Israel than Britain [2]; and his dissemination of material referencing “Jewish power” [4] appear, under our analysis, to be captured within the examples given in the EHRC’s report.
Moreover, by deploying the so-called ‘Livingstone Formulation’ as described above; by disseminating material accusing British Jews of greater loyalty to Israel than Britain [2]; and by disseminating material referencing “Jewish power” [4], Mr Jones, as an agent of his Party, may therefore have caused Plaid Cymru to breach equality legislation.
