The Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) has today struck off solicitor Farrukh Najeeb Husain after finding a number of his social media posts to be antisemitic and offensive.

The Solicitors’ Regulation Authority (SRA) investigated Mr Husain, an immigration and employment solicitor, following complaints regarding his conduct on X, which was reported to the regulator by Bevan Brittan, a law firm that employed him at the time.

The SRA claimed that Mr Hussain’s conduct online was “offensive” and, in some cases, antisemitic. Stephen Silverman, Director of Investigations and Enforcement at Campaign Against Antisemitism, gave expert witness testimony to assist the SRA in its case.

Mr Husain represented himself over the course of the hearings, which began in September last year.

The tweets in question were directed at Simon Myerson KC, a barrister, and Hugo Rifkind, a journalist. Among the tweets were characterisations of Mr Rifkind as a “Zionist pig”, references to Mr Rifkind’s “eastern European kin” and the claim that Mr Myerson “wreaks of white privilege”.

Throughout the case, Mr Husain made several accusations against the SRA and Capsticks, a law firm that was representing the SRA at the tribunal. He claimed that the SRA was “weaponising new antisemitism” and subverting the International Definition of Antisemitism, and even accused the regulator of being “in bed” with Campaign Against Antisemitism. He also claimed that the solicitor acting on behalf of the SRA was an “imperialist” and asserted that she “bang[ed] on about the Holocaust because [she] wants to hide [her] country’s own crimes,” apparently referring to her British heritage.

During her cross-examination of Mr Husain, he said: “Mr Myerson is a fascist.”

Mr Husain extended his accusations also towards Mr Silverman during cross-examination and said: “It is you who are engaging in the antisemitic trope that there is a collection of Jews who are self-haters, who have turned against their nation and who are spouting conspiracy theories.”

Mr Silverman then asked the defendant if he was calling him an antisemite, to which Mr Husain responded: “Yes.”

Mr Husain also baselessly and conspiratorially accused Campaign Against Antisemitism of being set up and funded by a former Israeli diplomat.

Throughout the proceedings, Mr Husain was repeatedly reminded by the chairperson to conduct himself in an appropriate manner. In one instance, the tribunal panel addressed the defendant directly and accused him of “bordering on being abusive to Mr Silverman at times.”

A spokesperson for Campaign Against Antisemitism said: “This is the right sanction. Farrukh Najeeb Husain’s rhetoric online was vile, and there was no evidence of any regard or remorse for the hurt and disgust that he caused. The SRA was right to bring this case to restore confidence in the legal profession, and we were pleased to be able to contribute expert opinion at the hearing in order to inform the panel and bring about this week’s decision and today’s sanction. The SDT has shown that there is no place for antisemitism in English law.”

A solicitor’s tweets were found to be antisemitic and offensive today by a tribunal.

The Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) has found a number of social media posts by the solicitor Farrukh Najeeb Husain to be antisemitic and offensive.

The Solicitors’ Regulation Authority (SRA) investigated Mr Husain, an immigration and employment solicitor, following complaints regarding his conduct on X, which was reported to the regulator by Bevan Brittan, a law firm that employed him at the time.

The SRA claimed that Mr Hussain’s conduct online was “offensive” and, in some cases, antisemitic. Stephen Silverman, Director of Investigations and Enforcement at Campaign Against Antisemitism, gave expert witness testimony to assist the SRA in its case.

Mr Husain represented himself over the course of the hearings, which began in September last year.

The tweets in question were directed at Simon Myerson KC, a barrister, and Hugo Rifkind, a journalist. Among the tweets were characterisations of Mr Rifkind as a “Zionist pig”, references to Mr Rifkind’s “eastern European kin” and the claim that Mr Myerson “wreaks of white privilege”.

Throughout the case, Mr Husain made several accusations against the SRA and Capsticks, a law firm that was representing the SRA at the tribunal. He claimed that the SRA was “weaponising new antisemitism” and subverting the International Definition of Antisemitism, and even accused the regulator of being “in bed” with Campaign Against Antisemitism. He also claimed that the barrister acting on behalf of the SRA was an “imperialist” and asserted that she “bang[ed] on about the Holocaust because [she] wants to hide [her] country’s own crimes,” apparently referring to her British heritage.

During her cross-examination of Mr Husain, he said: “Mr Myerson is a fascist.”

Mr Husain extended his accusations also towards Mr Silverman during cross-examination and said: “It is you who are engaging in the antisemitic trope that there is a collection of Jews who are self-haters, who have turned against their nation and who are spouting conspiracy theories.”

Mr Silverman then asked the defendant if he was calling him an antisemite, to which Mr Husain responded: “Yes.”

Mr Husain also baselessly and conspiratorially accused Campaign Against Antisemitism of being set up and funded by a former Israeli diplomat.

Throughout the proceedings, Mr Husain was repeatedly reminded by the chairperson to conduct himself in an appropriate manner. In one instance, the tribunal panel addressed the defendant directly and accused him of “bordering on being abusive to Mr Silverman at times.”

The SDT is expected to issue a more substantial judgment in due course, with any sanctions or penalties expected to be announced by the tribunal on Friday.

A spokesperson for Campaign Against Antisemitism said: “We welcome this judgment. Farrukh Najeeb Husain’s rhetoric online was vile, and there was no evidence of any regard or remorse for the hurt and disgust that he caused. The SRA was right to bring this case to restore confidence in the legal profession, and we were pleased to be able to contribute expert opinion at the hearing in order to inform the panel and bring about today’s decision. We expect the SDT to apply the appropriate penalties on Mr Husain to show that there is no place for antisemitism in English law.”

To contact Campaign Against Antisemitism in relation to providing expert opinion or training, please e-mail [email protected].

Following six years of dogged action by Campaign Against Antisemitism, the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) has finally admitted that comments by the pharmacist Nazim Ali were antisemitic, but has still let him off with just a warning.

The GPhC’s Fitness to Practise Committee ruled that Mr Ali’s conduct while leading the pro-Hizballah ‘Al Quds Day’ march in London in 2017 brought his profession into disrepute due to comments made over a public address system that the Committee found to be antisemitic.

Today’s hearing comes after a previous decision by the GPhC to let Mr Ali off with a warning was quashed following action by Campaign Against Antisemitism, which, along with others, took the matter to the Professional Standards Authority (PSA). Campaign Against Antisemitism has also brought a private prosecution, launched a judicial review, and submitted the initial complaint to the GPhC, in our efforts to secure justice.

Ultimately those efforts have succeeded today, much as the final sanction is unacceptably weak.

At the hearing in London today, two of the four comments made by Mr Ali at the ‘Al Quds Day’ march in London on 18th June 2017 were found to have been antisemitic, based on how a “reasonable person” would have understood the comments.

The two comments, made before a crowd holding Hizballah flags and placards proclaiming “We are all Hizballah” were: “Any Zionist, any Jew coming into your centre supporting Israel, any Jew coming into your centre who is a Zionist, any Jew coming into your centre who is a member of the Board of Deputies, is not a Rabbi, he is an imposter”; and “They are responsible for the murder of the people in Grenfell. The Zionist supporters of the Tory Party,” referring to the tragic fire in which seventy-two people had perished four days prior to the march. The Committee found that it was “proved” that the comments were antisemitic.

The Committee made reference to the International Definition of Antisemitism, and determined that a reasonable person could find that the first comment “conveyed [that] there are certain categories of persons who are not [a] proper representation” of Jews, and that the use of the word “imposter” was antisemitic because it “displayed hostility to the Jewish people”.

With regard to the second comment, the Committee found that, given that Zionism had nothing to do with the tragic Grenfell Tower fire, a reasonable person could view “Zionist” in this comment as a synonym for Jews, and that this engaged the Definition, according to which “Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews” is an example of antisemitism. The Committee found that, in this instance, “‘Zionist’ connoted antisemitic tropes.”

The sanction of a warning was considered suitable by the Committee even though it found that Mr Ali’s remarks were given greater “salience” by the fact that he led the rally, rather than merely participating in it, and that his claims about the Grenfell Tower tragedy were made soon after the fire when emotions would have been at their “rawest”. Despite these findings, the next level of sanction — suspension — was not even sought by the GPhC’s counsel.

Disappointingly and inexplicably, an additional two comments, “It’s in their genes. Zionists are here to occupy Regent Street. It’s in their genes. It’s in their genetic code”; and “European alleged Jews. Remember brothers and sisters, Zionists are not Jews,” were “not proved” to be antisemitic. Regarding the first comment, in this case “Zionists” was not deemed to be synonymous with ‘Jews’, and the second comment about Zionists not being Jews was supposedly ambiguous, and the Committee understood it to mean simply that ‘Zionists are not the same as Jews,’ and concluded that that was not an antisemitic comment.

Nevertheless, the Committee deemed that the “nature of what was said amounted to serious misconduct” and that it constituted an impairment to practise “on public interest grounds”, and that it was “entirely likely he would be identified as a pharmacist,” and indeed Campaign Against Antisemitism did identify him as such. It was found that he “did not lead by example,” as is required by all in the pharmaceutical profession, and his “comments brought the [pharmaceutical] profession into disrepute.”

While the Committee did not feel that Mr Ali posed a risk to patients, and even though he did not repeat his comments in subsequent years, the Committee concluded that he had brought the profession into disrepute with his comments, and that his words “had caused damage to the public’s confidence in the pharmaceutical profession.”

Despite the damage to the profession that the Committee found that Mr Ali’s comments caused, the Committee nonetheless decided to issue Mr Ali with only a warning, a weak sanction that a reasonable person would interpret as indicative of an unseriousness toward racist conduct as it pertains to Jews.

In 2020, the GPhC’s Fitness to Practise Committee found that Mr Ali had brought the pharmaceutical profession into disrepute. Although the Fitness to Practise Committee had found that Mr Ali’s words were offensive, it did not find that the words had been antisemitic, and the panel let him off with only a formal warning.

Following the GPhC’s ruling, Campaign Against Antisemitism and others made representations to the PSA, which oversees disciplinary decisions made by the GPhC. We asked the PSA to use its statutory power to appeal the GPhC’s decision to the High Court under the National Health Service Reform and Healthcare Professionals Act 2002, on the grounds that the decision made by the GPhC panel was insufficient to protect the public because it was “irrational and perverse”.

In particular, we asked the PSA to review the GPhC’s ruling that Mr Ali’s statements were not antisemitic, including by attempting to distinguish between “antisemitism” and “antisemitic”. We asked the PSA to consider the International Definition of Antisemitism, which has been adopted by the British Government, and the Guidance to all Judiciary in England and Wales produced by the Judicial College that makes clear that the word “Zionist” or “Zio” as a term of abuse has no place in a civilised society.

The PSA made the referral that we requested, opening the way for the High Court to decide whether to quash the GPhC panel’s decision. Subsequently, the GPhC itself also agreed with Campaign Against Antisemitism and declared that it would not oppose the appeal at the High Court, leaving Mr Ali to do so himself. The High Court allowed the PSA’s appeal, ruling that the case was to be remitted to the Fitness to Practise Committee to redetermine whether Mr Ali’s comments had been antisemitic. Mr Ali subsequently sought leave to appeal the High Court’s ruling in the Court of the Appeal, but permission to appeal was refused.

Stephen Silverman, Director of Investigations and Enforcement at Campaign Against Antisemitism, said: “Today’s ruling marks the culmination of more than six years of work by Campaign Against Antisemitism to secure justice against the leader of the infamous 2017 pro-Hizballah ‘Al Quds Day’ march. It has finally been ruled that Nazim Ali’s address to the crowd contained antisemitic invective, an obvious conclusion that has been resisted for years.

“Despite this admission at long last by the GPhC, Mr Ali has only been given a warning, a slap-on-the-wrist sanction that shows a disturbing lack of seriousness toward racist conduct as it pertains to Jews.

“The road to justice in this case has proved long and winding, but we always said that we would not allow this injustice to stand and we are pleased that this ruling that the comments were antisemitic has at long last vindicated our efforts, even as the sanction shows that enforcement remains unacceptably weak in many cases. British Jews can be assured that we will always be unrelenting in pursuit of justice, and we will be meeting with the GPhC about its approach to antisemitic hate.”

UPDATE: On 14th March 2024, the High Court dismissed the case against the decision of the GPhC, noting that Mr Ali apologised for his rhetoric and the chastening impact of years of legal proceedings, which reduces the likelihood of his repeating his past conduct. The High Court did consider that the GPhC’s warning to Mr Ali could have been worded more clearly to clarify that two of his statements were found to be antisemitic (not just offensive), but the Court declined to order that the wording be substituted, given that the fact that Mr Ali made antisemitic comments has been made clear in a public judgment in the High Court.

A comment made by an LBC host has resulted in a complaint being made to the media watchdog Ofcom.

According to the JC, during a conversation in April about whether Jews count as a race, Richard Spurr asked a listener: “Are Jews a race, would you say?”

The listener replied: “I believe so because…” 

However, Mr Spurr interrupted, stating: “They come from many different countries, don’t they? There’s no such place as ‘Jewland’”. 

The listener replied: “Well, it’s called Israel.”

Mr Spurr continued: “But Jews historically have lived in many countries and have been almost to an extent nomadic.”

Last week, during a conversation with a different listener, Mr Spurr said: “You’re right in saying that in parts of North London – St. John’s Wood, Golders Green, up that way – you do see large groups of Orthodox Jews walking around in their traditional dress and you could describe it maybe as a ‘ghetto’ but certainly as an area concentrated with Jews.”

A spokesperson for Campaign Against Antisemitism said: “To describe areas of London that have larger populations of Jewish residents as ‘ghettos’ is tactless, at best. Richard Spurr should apologise and be sure to avoid such crass comparisons in the future.”

An Ofcom spokesperson said: “We are assessing the complaints against our broadcasting rules, but are yet to decide whether or not to investigate.”

Campaign Against Antisemitism monitors traditional media and regularly holds outlets to account. If members of the public are concerned about reportage in the media, they should contact us at [email protected].

The Government’s new ‘free speech tsar’ appears to have changed his mind on the International Definition of Antisemitism.

Prof. Arif Ahmed, a philosophy professor at the University of Cambridge, will begin his role as Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom at the Office for Students, the independent regulator of higher education in England, later this summer in an appointment that the Department for Education described as “a huge step forward.”

In a blog post in February 2021, he sharply criticised the Definition, writing: “I am strongly against Gavin Williamson’s requirement that universities adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism….This ‘definition’ is nothing of the kind; adopting it obstructs perfectly legitimate defence of Palestinian rights.” He added: “As such it chills free speech on a matter of the first importance. I hope the Secretary of State reconsiders the need for it; but these new free speech duties ought to rule it out in any case.”

It has long been a canard of opponents of the Definition that it restricts freedom of speech on campuses. Campaign Against Antisemitism has previously published a resource explaining why this is not the case. A recent report also showed how there is no evidence of such restriction either.

However, in an article for The Times this week on his appointment, Prof. Ahmed said: “There are urgent threats to free speech and academic freedom in our universities and colleges.” He went on to indicate that the Definition might constitute one of those threats, writing: “The public sector equality duty means institutions must “have due regard” to the need to achieve certain equality aims. They should be clear about equality implications of their decisions. They must recognise the desirability of achieving equality aims, but in the context of the importance of free speech and academic freedom. Similarly, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition [also known as the International Definition of Antisemitism] is an important tool for understanding how antisemitism manifests itself in the 21st century. Adopting it sends a strong signal to students and staff facing antisemitism. But it must not restrict legitimate political speech and protest.

“I have had concerns about this in the past. Since then, I have seen at Cambridge how in practice the working definition can accommodate robust support for free speech and academic freedom. More recently, the report of the Parliamentary task force on antisemitism in higher education indicates that none of the 56 university adopters who were asked reported that its adoption had in any way restricted freedom of speech. I will act impartially. I have no interest in promoting the views of this or of any future government. I have no interest in any ‘culture war’.”

A spokesperson for Campaign Against Antisemitism said: “We are pleased that Prof. Ahmed’s view of the International Definition of Antisemitism has apparently changed in the past two years, and that he assumes his new role with a more accurate understanding of the importance and effects of the Definition and a recognition that the popular criticisms of the Definition have no basis in law or evidence in fact. The Definition plays a crucial role in the fight against antisemitism, and we look forward to working with Prof. Ahmed in securing the rights and safety of Jewish students on campus.”

Prof. Ahmed’s appointment is pursuant to the Freedom of Speech Act, which became law in May. The law is intended to help to protect the status of universities “as centres of academic freedom” and also holds students’ unions to the same legal responsibilities as universities and their colleges, requiring them to “take reasonably practicable steps to ensure lawful freedom of speech.”

Campaign Against Antisemitism monitors the adoption of the International Definition of Antisemitismby universities.

If any students are concerned about antisemitism on campus or need assistance, they can call us on 0330 822 0321, or e-mail [email protected].

Campaign Against Antisemitism will write to the General Medical Council (GMC) over a doctor’s alleged tweets.

The alleged tweets, as highlighted by an online activist, appear to be published from an account between the years of 2019 and 2022 which make references to “Jewish supremacy”.

One alleged tweet claims that “Israel is nothing but a terrorist and Jewish supremacy.”

Another states: “Everyone in this world knows that Jews are the masters of twisting the facts and making the criminals innocent while killing innocent indigenous Palestinian kids and women.”

The individual allegedly also said that “if we say Hitler was a Jew then all sympathy for Israel [sic] will disappear.”

It was later reported by writer Alex Hearn that the individual behind the account is a consultant at University Hospitals Dorset NHS Foundation Trust and an emergency department locum.

Last month, we submitted a complaint to the GMC in relation to a prominent junior doctor with a history of inflammatory posts on social media.

Ofcom has found GB News, the conservative news and opinion channel, to be in breach of broadcasting rules over comparisons made between the rollout of COVID-19 vaccinations to practices carried out in “pre-Nazi Germany”.

The breach referred to Rule 2.1 of Ofcom’s code, which states that “Generally accepted standards must be applied to the contents of television and radio services…so as to provide adequate protection for members of the public from the inclusion in such services of harmful and/or offensive material.”

The incident occurred at 20:00 on the 4th October 2022 edition of the Mark Steyn programme, later reaired at 02:00 on 5th October, when writer Naomi Wolf said of the United Kingdom’s COVID-19 vaccine rollout: “I think we’re there. I mean, Mark, I’m Jewish and you know I can say this. I don’t think you’re going too far. I think you’re going exactly where you should go. It was the doctors in pre-Nazi Germany in the early thirties who were co-opted by the National Socialists and sent to do exactly what we’re seeing kind of replaying now. It was the medical organisations in the early thirties who were emboldened to be the arbiters of, you know, ‘life worthy of life, life unworthy of life’.”

Ms Wolf said of the vaccine rollout that a “mass murder has taken place”.

The idea of “life unworthy of life”, although conceptualised before the Nazis rose to power, was heavily utilised by the Party as a means of initially justifying the killing of those with disabilities, but shortly expanded to include Jews and other groups deemed inferior, racially or otherwise. 

In its conclusion, the media watchdog said that “It is important to note that the Code does not prevent the broadcast of controversial or challenging opinions and this includes viewpoints which ‘challenge the status quo’.”

However, it added that “We were particularly concerned about the significant and alarming claim that ‘mass murder’ was taking place through the rollout of the [COVID-19] vaccinations which she repeated three times.

“Taking all the above factors into account, Ofcom did not consider that the programme included adequate protection for viewers from the inclusion of potentially harmful material and it was therefore in breach of Rule 2.1.”

Campaign Against Antisemitism monitors traditional media and regularly holds outlets to account. If members of the public are concerned about reportage in the media, they should contact us at [email protected].

Ofcom has fined the television channel Ahlebait TV £10,000 for “antisemitic hate speech”.

The fine comes less than one year after the regulator put the television channel on notice after deciding that it had breached hate speech regulations.

The media watchdog made the initial ruling last year against Ahlebait TV, which offers “current affairs and entertainment programming with an Islamic perspective”, following a complaint from CST.

The incident occurred on an edition of the programme 20th Hour entitled Money Power, Islam and a Just Order in March of 2021 when David Pidcock, one of the guests on the programme, said: “This is why the Jews have been expelled from 47 different countries and city-states in the last 1,000 years and as they recognise…their antisemitism comes from their actions of impoverishing people and they then respond and then they call it antisemitism but we know that it’s because they do and they get punished and as Allah says, you know, he will expel [sentence incomplete] – send them to all corners of the world to be an excoriation and a hissing and a booing to wherever he had sent them.”

Following this comment, fellow guest Clive Menzies remarked that “It’s worth just noting that antisemitism was created by Theodor Herzl at the back end of the nineteenth century in order to frighten and create the circumstances that would encourage Jews to migrate to Israel so antisemitism is actually a Jewish creation”. 

In a summary of its investigation, Ofcom said that it had “found this episode of 20th Hour contained uncontextualised antisemitic hate speech which justified and encouraged intolerance of Jewish people.”

It added: “We considered the breaches were serious. We considered that the programme contained uncontextualised antisemitic hate speech which amounted to abusive or derogatory treatment of Jewish people. We therefore considered that this programme contained statements which justified the hatred of Jewish people based on intolerance on the grounds of ethnicity, race, religion or belief.”

In a statement, the media watchdog said of the fine: “Ofcom has imposed a sanction on the Licensee of a financial penalty of £10,000, a direction to broadcast a statement of Ofcom’s findings on a date and in a form to be determined by Ofcom, and a direction not to repeat the programme.”

Campaign Against Antisemitism is to submit a complaint to the General Medical Council (GMC) in relation to a prominent junior doctor with a history of inflammatory posts on social media.

Dr Martin Whyte, a Deputy Chair of the Junior Doctors’ Committee who also sits on the Executive of the British Medical Association (BMA), has been suspended from his roles over tweets that he allegedly posted in the past which the union has described as “totally unacceptable” in an e-mail to members.

In a 2018 tweet, Dr Whyte allegedly wrote: “hahaha zeig heil hahaha gas the jews hahaha just kidding but have you seen these youtube videos about the holohoax the’re pretty convincing imo [in my opinion]…”

That same year, he also allegedly tweeted: “Me: It’s important to represent Judaism and Jewish people fairly and respectfully in art. Also me: Jew banker goblins.”

A year earlier, he allegedly tweeted: “Lifehack: promise not to boycott Israel, but do it anyway. Do it out of spite.”

He has also reportedly posted other controversial material unrelated to Jewish people or antisemitism.

He has reportedly now deleted his Twitter account.

Dr Whyte is a registrar at the Royal Victoria Infirmary in Newcastle and was elected to his roles in the BMA. Following his suspension he has reportedly tried to resign from his positions but is unable to do so while he is subject to an investigation by the union.

In an e-mail to junior doctors, the BMA wrote: “Dear member, We unfortunately have distressing information to share. Today we have discovered that a UK Junior Doctors Committee officer has made deeply troubling comments online that are antisemitic. There is absolutely no place in the BMA for antisemitism.

“The comments in question were made by Dr Whyte, who had until today been an officer of the UK Junior Doctors Committee. This was totally unacceptable. We were not aware of these comments, nor of any antisemitic views. Any form of antisemitism is inexcusable. We strive to be a tolerant, diverse and progressive organisation. We want to assure members that we treat antisemitism and all forms of prejudice and discrimination with the utmost seriousness. As soon as this information came to light, Dr Whyte was immediately removed from all BMA activities and has subsequently resigned from the UK JDC. As such, he is no longer involved with any BMA work or communications.”

A spokesperson for the BMA said: “These tweets are totally unacceptable and we condemn them in the strongest possible terms. The views expressed in no way reflect the values of the BMA. Dr Martin Whyte has been removed from taking part in any and all BMA business with immediate effect and the BMA will be undertaking an external independent investigation.”

Campaign Against Antisemitism shall be submitting a complaint about the doctor to the GMC, the regulator of the medical profession.

A spokesperson for Campaign Against Antisemitism said: “These tweets are utterly vile. Imagine how a Jewish patient, or indeed any decent person, would feel on discovering that this is their doctor. The BMA must urgently investigate and dissociate itself from this individual and his views, and we shall be writing to the General Medical Council. Such foul language has no place in the medical profession.”

Image credit: www.independent.co.uk/news/health

The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has “issued advice” to a solicitor following a complaint by Campaign Against Antisemitism about his social media activity.

After a member of the public brought the online conduct of solicitor Michael Walton, formerly of NP Law, to our attention, we submitted a complaint in respect of numerous posts that he appeared to have published.

The posts included myriad descriptions of the Jewish Labour MPs Luciana Berger, Dame Louise Ellman and Dame Margaret Hodge, as well as prominent figures in the fight against antisemitism such as Rachel Riley, as “bitches”, and posts such as: “Sadly, we now know who is really leading the labour party. The Israeli Zionist Jews and Starmer is their puppet [sic].”

Other posts said of Dame Margaret “the poisonous witch IS anti Semitic” and asked: “Why hasn’t the stupid bitch been expelled?” Of Rachel Riley, another post asked: “Can somebody please sue that stupid, spiteful bitch Rachel Riley? How dare she use a photo of Corbyn being led away from an apartheid rally yet in the same breath say he’s anti-Semitic?! It beggars belief. HE IS NOT ANTI SEMITIC WHATSOEVER just rightly critical of Israel [sic].”

To Luciana Berger MP, one post read: “F*** OFF. You are a poisonous little bitch and your slander together with Hodge’s et al is destroying the great Labour Party – MY Labour Party – and that brings ME real pain. Jeremy is the least racist person you could ever meet, as is CW. And you’re doing it by deliberately.” “CW” is likely a reference to Chris Williamson, the disgraced former Labour MP.

These are just a sample of the considerable volume of examples of abusive social media postings, which we provided to the SRA.

Following an investigation, the SRA decided to “issue advice to Mr Walton and confirm that should the conduct or behaviour be repeated or the situation continue, more serious action is likely to be taken.”

His comments on social media were found to be “hostile and offensive” and to be in breach of Principle 6 of the SRA Principles 2011 and Principle 2 of the SRA Principles 2019, as the comments were made between the new and old handbooks. Mr Walton does not have the right to apply to the SRA for a review of this decision.

The SRA advised that this decision will not be published but will remain on Mr Walton’s records and may be considered in any future investigations.

A spokesperson for Campaign Against Antisemitism said: “We are grateful to the member of the public who brought these abominable social media posts to our attention. It beggars belief that a regulated professional could consider such conduct appropriate, and we are pleased that the SRA has taken these concerns seriously. Those who abuse Jewish people should know that we will stop at nothing to bring them to justice.”

If you are aware of a regulated professional who has engaged in behaviour that is hostile to Jewish people, please call us confidentially on +44 (0)330 822 0321 or e-mail us at [email protected].

Ofcom has warned the BBC for its “serious editorial misjudgement” over its abominable Oxford Street coverage, attacking the BBC’s failures over the course of “eight weeks” which were “causing significant distress and anxiety to the victims of the attack, and to the wider Jewish community”.

The result vindicates formal complaints by CAA and others, which also led to CAA holding a demonstration outside BBC Broadcasting House and calls for a Parliamentary inquiry into the way that the BBC handles complaints relating to antisemitism by the JC and others.

Whilst finding that the BBC did not technically breach the Broadcasting Code, Ofcom warned the BBC: “in our view, the BBC made a serious editorial misjudgment by not reporting on air at any point that the claim it had made in the news broadcast was disputed, once the new evidence emerged. This was particularly the case given that the BBC was aware that its news broadcast and online article were causing significant distress and anxiety to the victims of the attack, and to the wider Jewish community.”

A spokesperson for Campaign Against Antisemitism said: “Almost a year after the BBC’s abominable coverage of an antisemitic incident on Oxford Street, Ofcom has seen what every viewer and reader of the BBC’s coverage could but which the BBC itself refused to accept: its reportage added insult to the injury already inflicted on the victims and the Jewish community and abysmally failed to meet the most basic editorial standards. Ofcom’s decision today begins to undo that insult.

“Sadly, the BBC’s stonewalling is exactly what British Jews have come to expect from our public broadcaster. Now that Ofcom has warned the BBC after the BBC disgracefully failed to uphold our complaints against it, it has become clear as day that a Parliamentary inquiry into the BBC focusing on its coverage of issues relating to Jews is warranted, and we have joined the Jewish Chronicle and others calling for one.”

Earlier this year, the BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit (ECU) largely dismissed complaints by Campaign Against Antisemitism and other Jewish community charities over its coverage of the antisemitic Oxford Street incident late last year. The broadcasting regulator Ofcom then announced that it would investigate.

On the first night of the Jewish festival of Chanukah, Jewish teenagers who were celebrating on Oxford Street were attacked by a group of men who hurled antisemitic abuse at them, forcing them to retreat to their bus. The men, who appeared to be of Middle Eastern heritage, proceeded to hit the vehicle with their hands and then their shoes, spitting on it, trying to break windows and performing Hitler salutes. The victims filmed part of the attack.

In its coverage of the incident, the BBC reported that the explicit expressions of antisemitism evident in the footage were merely “allegations”, and simultaneously claimed — alone among all media outlets — that “some racial slurs about Muslims can also be heard from inside the bus,” an assertion made with no evidence to support it and which was even contradicted in the BBC’s own article by a witness from the bus who said that she heard no such slurs. It was also subsequently contradicted by independent audio analysis.

On its BBC London Evening News, the BBC even suggested that “it’s not clear what role [the supposed slurs] may have had in the incident.” After public fury, the BBC amended the article to refer to an “anti-Muslim slur” in the singular, but failed to show any evidence why a supposed slur that nobody could hear with certainty was described as “clearly heard” and reported as fact — and even implied to have been a cause of the antisemitic harassment — while the harassment itself remained mere “allegation”.

Campaign Against Antisemitism and others submitted complaints to the BBC, and we held a rally outside Broadcasting House in London, attended by hundreds of protestors, to deliver the message: “BBC News: Stop Blaming Jews!” Lord Grade, a former Chairman of the BBC and now the Chairman of Ofcom, told Podcast Against Antisemitism that the BBC’s reportage was “shoddy journalism” and called for answers in a video supporting the rally, which was endorsed also by Dame Maureen Lipman.

Campaign Against Antisemitism has joined the JC in calling for a Parliamentary inquiry following growing communal concerns regarding the Corporation.

Polling that we conducted last year for our Antisemitism Barometer revealed that two thirds of British Jews are deeply concerned by the BBC’s coverage of matters of Jewish concern, and 55% by its handling of antisemitism complaints. These figures reflect years of eroding confidence in the BBC on the part of the Jewish community.

Campaign Against Antisemitism monitors traditional media and regularly holds outlets to account. If members of the public are concerned about reportage in the media, they should contact us at [email protected].

Image credit: Nathan Lilienfeld

Campaign Against Antisemitism has joined the JC in calling for a parliamentary inquiry into the BBC.

The public petition, launched by the JC, was prompted by growing communal concerns regarding the Corporation.

Polling that we conducted in 2020 for our Antisemitism Barometer revealed that two thirds of British Jews were deeply concerned by the BBC’s coverage of matters of Jewish concern, and 55% by its handling of antisemitism complaints. It is likely that these figures would be even higher if polled today.

The petition highlights the BBC’s appalling coverage of an antisemitic incident on Oxford Street over Chanukah last year, when a group of Jewish teenagers celebrating the festival were accosted by racist thugs who forced them back onto their bus and began hitting the vehicle with their hands and then their shoes, spitting on it, trying to break windows and performing Nazi salutes, as well as shouting antisemitic insults and swearing, as one such example.

In response, Campaign Against Antisemitism announced a “BBC News: Stop Blaming Jews!” protest outside the BBC’s headquarters at Broadcasting House, which was endorsed by Lord Grade and Dame Maureen Lipman.

In addition, the JC also highlighted the BBC’s repeated platforming of the inflammatory broadcaster Abdel Bari Atwan. 

In September, Campaign Against Antisemitism announced that we were submitting a complaint to the BBC regarding Mr Atwan’s inflammatory comments.

It was also reported that Mr Atwan defended Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’ remark that Israel has committed “50 Holocausts” and his refusal to condemn the 1972 Munich Olympics terror attack on Israeli athletes. 

In 2007, Atwan is reported to have said: “If Iranian missiles strike Israel, by Allah, I will go to Trafalgar Square and dance with delight.” In 2010, it is claimed that Atwan told an audience at the London School of Economics that “the Jewish lobby… [is] endangering the whole world”.

Earlier this year, Campaign Against Antisemitism visited Broadcasting House to tell the Corporation to “switch off the Jew-hate”.

A spokesperson for Campaign Against Antisemitism said: “The BBC’s handling of its coverage of the attack on Jewish children last Chanukah and its platforming of various deeply concerning individuals are among recent examples of the failure to fix the BBC’s problem with the Jewish community. That is why we have been at the forefront of efforts to hold the BBC to account and why we are joining with the JC on this important initiative. As a publicly funded organisation, the BBC should welcome Parliamentary scrutiny of its poor performance.”

Campaign Against Antisemitism monitors traditional media and regularly holds outlets to account. If members of the public are concerned about reportage in the media, they should contact us at [email protected].

Ofcom has put the television channel Ahlebait TV on notice following its breach of hate speech regulations.

The media watchdog made the ruling against Ahlebait TV, which offers “current affairs and entertainment programming with an Islamic perspective”, following a complaint from CST.

The breach occurred on an edition of the programme 20th Hour entitled Money Power, Islam and a Just Order in March of last year when David Pidcock, one of the guests on the programme, said: “This is why the Jews have been expelled from 47 different countries and city-states in the last 1,000 years and as they recognise…their antisemitism comes from their actions of impoverishing people and they then respond and then they call it antisemitism but we know that it’s because they do and they get punished and as Allah says, you know, he will expel [sentence incomplete] – send them to all corners of the world to be an excoriation and a hissing and a booing to wherever he had sent them.”

Following this comment, fellow guest Clive Menzies remarked that “It’s worth just noting that antisemitism was created by Theodor Herzl at the back end of the nineteenth century in order to frighten and create the circumstances that would encourage Jews to migrate to Israel so antisemitism is actually a Jewish creation”. 

Ofcom stated that it “considered these breaches to be serious and therefore we are putting the Licensee on notice that we will consider them for the imposition of a statutory sanction.”

Ofcom has decided against the broadcaster LBC after one of its reporters repeatedly described Israel’s Embassy to the UK as the “Jewish embassy”.

In a report on the radio channel on 15th May 2021, during the antisemitic genocidal terrorist organisation Hamas’s war with Israel, LBC covered one of numerous anti-Israel protests in London, providing coverage over a four-hour period over the course of the afternoon.

Opening the report, the reporter, on the ground, said: “About 40 metres down the road from me is the gates to the Jewish Embassy but between me and them is a sea of protestors. Thousands are down this street with lots and lots of different signs, ‘free Palestine’, ‘long live Palestine’, ‘free Gaza’, and hundreds of Palestinian flags being waved as well. Protestors have climbed up on to the walls of the nearby hotel and about ten of them are on top of a bus stop as well. There is a huge amount of people down here at the moment. It started at Hyde Park Corner at twelve o’clock and then walked all the way here to the Jewish Embassy. Ben Jamal was the Director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. He told me he wants the protest to stay peaceful”.

Ben Jamal was interviewed, saying: “We believe that everyone has equal rights and we believe in principles of freedom, truth, justice, and equality. Those are the principles and firm anti-racist principles that inform why we are marching. And we ask everybody to respect that. Everybody will know when you bring ten, twenty, thirty thousand people on the streets, you will have a few individuals who don’t respect those principles. We ask them to, that’s in their responsibility to adhere to that.”

The reporter then noted: “The Jewish Embassy’s gates are closed. There are lots of police officers outside it. In front of the main gate is a stage where this protest is being conducted from. And the Israeli Embassy sent me a statement which says, ‘Hamas is a radical terrorist organisation that fires rockets indiscriminately on civilian populations. Their charter calls for the establishment of an Islamic state instead of Israel. It is regrettable to see citizens of a democratic country giving legitimacy to such an organisation and its violent actions. Unfortunately, over the last week we’ve seen an incitement to violence and antisemitic signs and slogans chanted in demonstrations. This has forced the Israeli Embassy in the heart of London to need to be barricaded by the police for protection’. That is the Israeli statement. And it’s understood that there are no people in the embassy today. It is Shabbat today as well…” 

According to Ofcom, a recording or version of this report was broadcast three times during the rolling coverage, each time referring to a “Jewish embassy”, sometimes alongside references to the “Israeli embassy” as in the version quoted above.

Ofcom considered that the reports potentially breached Rule 5.1 and 2.3 of the Broadcasting Code, the first covering “due accuracy” and the second referring to “generally accepted standards”, including discriminatory or offensive language. Ofcom’s investigation was prompted by two complaints that the references to a “Jewish embassy” could contribute to antisemitic hate speech and attacks in the UK, which were skyrocketing at the time.

LBC argued that the reporter had “tripped over his words in error during the hear of the moment”, noting “the difficultly of reporting live from a high-stress and tense environment” and observed that the reporter “had to rely on the ‘hostile environment’ training they had received.” LBC also noted that the reporter did correct his language during the initial broadcast and that, once it had identified that the report was repeated twice later on, LBC removed the full four-hour programme as quickly as possible from its catch up services. LBC insisted that “there was absolutely no intent to cause any harm or offence during the recording or broadcast of this report,” noting that, while the error was “far from ideal”, it was “in no way malicious or purposefully intended to offend the Jewish community.” The station also blamed COVID social distancing requirements for causing its usual review procedures to fall short.

Ofcom decided that the report “was not duly accurate, in breach of Rule 5.1 of the Code.”

Regarding Rule. 2.3, Ofcom decided that “the interchanging use of the terms ‘Israeli Embassy’ and ‘Jewish Embassy’, as well as being clearly inaccurate, conflated Israeli national identity with Jewish, including British Jewish, identity. We considered that this was potentially offensive to some listeners in the context of a series of news items reporting on a protest against the policies and action of the Israeli Government in relation to the Israel-Palestine conflict. We considered that it was potentially offensive as it implied that ‘Jews were collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel’.” This phrasing is one of the International Definition of Antisemitism’s examples of antisemitism.

Ofcom concluded that the report did not constitute antisemitic hate speech, but that there was still the potential to cause offence, and that LBC’s mitigating actions were “insufficient to mitigate the potential offence or justify the broadcast of the potentially offensive content in this programme.” It therefore found that LBC had also breached Rule 2.3.

Campaign Against Antisemitism has previously provided training to Ofcom in the use of the International Definition of Antisemitism.

A spokesperson for Campaign Against Antisemitism said: “LBC has a strong journalistic record of exposing antisemitism. Nevertheless, Ofcom has made the correct decision here. During Hamas’s war against Israel, antisemitism was skyrocketing in Britain, with too many people seeking to hold British Jews collectively responsible for the actions and perceived actions of the Israeli Government. For a major radio station to appear, even if in error, to lend credence to this conflation by describing the Israeli Embassy as the ‘Jewish embassy’, cannot go without unremarked. We have trained Ofcom in the use of the International Definition of Antisemitism and are pleased to see that the regulator has appropriately applied it in this instance.”

Campaign Against Antisemitism monitors traditional media and regularly holds outlets to account. If members of the public are concerned about reportage in the media, they should contact us at [email protected].

UK media regulator Ofcom has sanctioned London-based radio station Rinse FM after they aired a song that was deemed to have contained “antisemitic hate speech.”

On 12th July 2020, Rinse FM’s presenter introduced the song “Better in Tune with the Infinite” by Jay Electronica as “one of my absolute favourites”. A complaint was then made over the following lyrics: “The synagogues of Satan might accuse or jail me. Strip, crown, nail me, brimstone hail me…To the lawyers, to the sheriffs, to the judges. To the debt holders and the law makers. [Bleeped] you, sue me, bill me.”

In their report, published on 19th July 2021, Ofcom stated that it referred to the International Definition of Antisemitism in making their assessment, citing the following paragraph: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

The regulator deemed the lyrics to have negative connotations containing antisemitic tropes, stating: “In our view, the UK listeners would be likely to understand the phrase ‘synagogues of Satan’ to be a reference to the Jewish place of worship, and that it makes an explicit association between Jewish place of worship and Satan. We considered that UK listeners would have understood this association to suggest that Jewish people are evil or worship the Devil, which is a well-established antisemitic trope.

“Immediately following the reference to the ‘synagogues of Satan’ were the lyrics ‘Strip, crown, nail me, brimstone hail me’ which we considered to be a reference to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. In our view, the juxtaposition of the lyrics may have evoked for UK listeners the antisemitic allegation that Jewish people are collectively responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ

“These words were later followed by the lyrics ‘To the lawyers, to the sheriffs, to the judges. To the debt holders and the law makers’, whom the artist addresses with ‘[Bleep] you, sue me, bill me’. In the context of the preceding lines and in particular, reference to the phrase ‘synagogues of Satan’, we considered that some UK listeners may have interpreted these references to be references to the Jewish community.”

Ofcom initially made its decision about Rinse FM’s airing of the song in July 2021. The radio station responded in October that year claiming that it was not always possible for an under-resourced station to “nip in the bud” any material that might be considered “controversial”. This was, however, rejected in the regulator’s most recent ruling, which said: “We consider that Rinse FM was treated fairly during the investigation process and in line with Ofcom’s procedures for investigating breaches of content standards for television and radio. During the investigation process, the licensee made representations in response to Ofcom’s request for formal comments [and] it was given the opportunity to respond to Ofcom’s preliminary view on the breaches”.

This is not the first time the rapper was accused of antisemitism. In 2020, he was criticised over the lyrics: “And I bet you a Rothschild I get a bang for my dollar…The synagogue of Satan want me to hang by my collar.”

Campaign Against Antisemitism monitors traditional media and regularly holds outlets to account. If members of the public are concerned about reportage in the media, they should contact us at [email protected].

The Metropolitan Police has apologised after an investigation from the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) discovered that officers had been sharing jokes about Auschwitz concentration camp.

It was also reported that there was an antisemitic joke made with reference to “killing flies”.

The investigation also uncovered evidence of bullying, misogyny and racist abuse amongst the officers. Police were also found to have made homophobic jokes, islamophobic jokes, and jokes about rape.

Fourteen officers were investigated with two being dismissed on grounds of gross misconduct. 

A statement from the Met said: “The conduct of a team of officers at Charing Cross police station in central London does not represent the values of the Metropolitan Police Service.

“We are deeply sorry to Londoners and everyone they have failed with their appalling conduct and acknowledge how this will damage the trust and confidence of many in the Met.”

The statement continued: “Since this reprehensible behaviour was uncovered in 2017 we have taken a series of measures to hold those responsible to account and stamp out unacceptable behaviour.”

IOPC Regional Director Sal Naseem said that “While these officers predominantly worked in teams in Westminster, which have since been disbanded, we know from other recent cases that these issues are not isolated or historic.

“Our recommendations focus on the identified cultural issues and aim to ensure that those who work for the force feel safe with their colleagues and that communities feel safe with those whose job is to protect them. The MPS has to enjoy the trust and confidence of its own officers from diverse communities before it can hope to bridge the gap in trust and confidence with the communities it serves.”

Mayor of London Sadiq Khan called the officers’ conduct “totally unacceptable” and said that “It is right that the team concerned has been disbanded and the police officers found to be involved have been dismissed, disciplined or have left the police. Anyone found to be responsible for sexism, racism, misogyny, Islamophobia, antisemitism, bullying or harassment does not deserve to wear the Met uniform and must be rooted out.

“While I welcome the IOPC’s recommendations, more is required and I’ve been clear with the commissioner about the scale of change that’s needed to rebuild trust with Londoners.”

A spokesperson for Campaign Against Antisemitism said: “It is deeply disturbing that those who are supposed to be protecting British Jews and other communities could be the very ones discriminating against us. The Met’s statement that it has taken action against those responsible cannot be mere words to make the problem go away, but rather must represent the start of a fundamental change in workplace culture.”

The Bar Standards Board, which regulates barristers in England and Wales, has disgracefully rejected a complaint made by Campaign Against Antisemitism against a barrister who posted social media comments in breach of International Definition of Antisemitism.

Franck Magennis is a barrister at Garden Court Chambers in London. In December 2020, he tweeted that “Zionism is a kind of racism. It is essentially colonial. It has manifested in an apartheid regime calling itself ‘the Jewish state’ that dominates non-Jews, and particularly Palestinians. You can’t practice anti-racism at the same time as identifying with, or supporting, Zionism.”

According to the International Definition of Antisemitism, “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination (e.g. by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour)” is an example of antisemitism.

Mr Magennis was described in his profile on the Chambers’ website as “an expert on the Palestinian struggle for emancipation from Israeli apartheid and occupation.” This has since apparently been changed to: “Franck conducts research on international humanitarian law and international human rights law in the context of the Palestinian struggle for emancipation. In May to August 2019 he was a research fellow in Ramallah, occupied Palestine with the award-winning Palestinian human rights organisation Al-Haq. He is the co-author of a series of forthcoming reports responding to allegations against the Israeli Ministry of Strategic Affairs of attacks against Palestinian individuals and civil society institutions.”

Mr Mcgennis denied that the tweet was antisemitic, asserting that, while offence may have been taken at the views expressed in the tweet, that was not his purpose and that his speech was protected by Article 10(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR).

Campaign Against Antisemitism has previously published a briefing debunking the claim that the ECHR protects the right to make statements that breach the definition.

The Bar Standards Board panel considered that, although the tweet may be “offensive”, it was not “seriously offensive”, because it was merely “criticism of Zionism and Israel”, apparently despite what the International Definition of Antisemitism ­­— which the British Government and the Judicial College have adopted ­— says.

The Bar Standards Board panel concluded that Mr Mcgennis did not in this instance “behave in a way which is likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in you or in the profession,” and therefore did not uphold the complaint.

Campaign Against Antisemitism is reviewing its options.

A spokesperson for Campaign Against Antisemitism said: “Regulators in this country are all over the map when it comes to sanctioning professionals for racism against Jews. Another regulator that we have been dealing with similarly dismissed a complaint that we made against one of their regulated professionals, and we took the case to the High Court, which has quashed that regulator’s decision and forced it to reconsider the case.

“We regret that the Bar Standards Board has disgracefully chosen to ignore the International Definition of Antisemitism, even though it has been adopted by the British Government and the Judicial College. Apparently when it comes to antisemitism, barristers and judges have different standards. We are reviewing our options.”

Campaign Against Antisemitism has launched a new weekly podcast. New episodes of Podcast Against Antisemitism are available every Thursday and can be streamed here or downloaded wherever you get your podcasts.

New measures laid out by Ofcom could mean fines for video-sharing platforms (VSP) like TikTok and Twitch.

The broadcasting watchdog said that one-third of users have seen hateful content on such sites. The new rules state that VSPs must take “appropriate measures” to protect users from content related to terrorism, child sexual abuse and racism. This would mean the platforms must:

  • provide and effectively enforce clear rules for uploading content.
  • make the reporting and complaints process easier.
  • restrict access to adult sites with robust age-verification.

Ofcom stated that the progress taken by the eighteen VSPs in question would be published in a report next year. 

Incidents of antisemitism have been reported on both TikTok and Twitch. 

In July, we reported that according to a new study, antisemitic content on the social media platform TikTok had increased by 912%. According to research from Dr Gabriel Weimann of the University of Haifa and Natalie Masri of IDC Herzliya’s Institute for Counter-Terrorism, antisemitic comments on TikTok grew 912% from 41 in 2020 to 415 in 2021, and the platform saw 61 antisemitic postings so far this year compared to 43 last year. Antisemitic tropes and images that were used in video content included Nazi salutes, diminishing the impact of the Holocaust, and propagating caricatures of Jews with long, hooked noses. 

In August, Twitch, the world’s biggest streaming site for watching video games, announced that it would introduce new measures to prevent “hate raids” that include antisemitic abuse, images of swastikas, and other racist or homophobic abuse. The move follows complaints from users in minority groups after some users of Twitch were subjected to high levels of abuse in recent months in so-called “hate raids.” 

Campaign Against Antisemitism has long called for tougher regulations on social media sites and that social networks proactively search for and remove hate speech from their platforms.

A lawyer has reportedly been struck off the roll after allegedly making racist and sexist comments.

Complaints were reportedly brought by three women against Victor Stockinger, 61, of Bloomsbury. He is reported to have blamed their concerns on “wokeism”, but a panel of the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal found the evidence against him to be “entirely sincere”, leaving with him legal costs of £41,850.

Among the comments attributed to Mr Stockinger at a work event at the High Court, held by the Solicitors’ Association of Higher Court Advocates in 2019, was a question to a Jewish lawyer on whether she really was Jewish. He also allegedly made inflammatory remarks to a procurement boss of African heritage, as well as numerous sexist comments.

The Solicitors’ Regulatory Authority (SRA) argued that Stockinger’s remarks were racially, ethically, and religiously motivated. The Chair of the Tribunal observed that solicitors must conduct themselves in a way “which reflects everyone’s personal characteristics” and they should “embrace the qualities of equality, diversity and inclusion,” in contrast to Mr Stockinger, who had made “stereotypical assumptions and been patronising.”

Mr Stockinger had claimed that his comments were mere “icebreakers”, but the Tribunal found that “the depth of hurt, humiliation and anger felt, even two years later by the young and diverse legal professionals to whom Mr Stockinger misspoke at that meeting was plain by their evidence to us, which we found entirely sincere. People should not be expected to tolerate this on the basis that in the past people did so.”

Mr Stockinger was also reportedly found guilty of dishonesty – a more serious allegation – by misleading the regulator over a client complaint. He had denied all of the charges.

Mr Stockinger was struck off after 31 years of practice, and reacted to the verdict saying “I’m traumatised”.

Ofcom is considering sanctions against radio station Rinse FM after they aired a song that was deemed to have contained “antisemitic hate speech.”

On 12th July 2020, Rinse FM’s presenter introduced the song “Better in Tune with the Infinite” by Jay Electronica as “one of my absolute favourites”. A complaint was then made over the following lyrics: “The synagogues of Satan might accuse or jail me. Strip, crown, nail me, brimstone hail me…To the lawyers, to the sheriffs, to the judges. To the debt holders and the law makers. [Bleeped] you, sue me, bill me.”

In their report, published on 19th July of this year, Ofcom stated that it referred to the International Definition of Antisemitism in making their assessment, citing the following paragraph: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

The regulation company deemed the lyrics to have negative connotations containing antisemitic tropes, stating: “In our view, the UK listeners would be likely to understand the phrase ‘synagogues of Satan’ to be a reference to the Jewish place of worship, and that it makes an explicit association between Jewish place of worship and Satan. We considered that UK listeners would have understood this association to suggest that Jewish people are evil or worship the Devil, which is a well-established antisemitic trope

“Immediately following the reference to the ‘synagogues of Satan’ were the lyrics ‘Strip, crown, nail me, brimstone hail me’ which we considered to be a reference to the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. In our view, the juxtaposition of the lyrics may have evoked for UK listeners the antisemitic allegation that Jewish people are collectively responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ

“These words were later followed by the lyrics ‘To the lawyers, to the sheriffs, to the judges. To the debt holders and the law makers’, whom the artist addresses with ‘[Bleep] you, sue me, bill me’. In the context of the preceding lines and in particular, reference to the phrase ‘synagogues of Satan’, we considered that some UK listeners may have interpreted these references to be references to the Jewish community.”

Rinse FM said that “as a full-time Community Radio station with limited resources it is not always possible to ‘nip in the bud’ any potentially controversial material” and went on to acknowledge that the lyrics “may be seen by some as an antisemitic trope” when taken out of context, but that the wording “Synagogues of Satan” was lifted from the Bible and that, therefore, finding it controversial “would ultimately lead to the accusation that the Bible itself is antisemitic which would open up a much wider and controversial debate.”

However, the station also stated that following the complaint, it was “reviewing [its] Programme Production processes and policies”, including:

• ensuring that at least two people review any potentially controversial track, commentary or statement;

• reviewing the “frequency and specific advice, messages and reminders that we give to all Presenters” in relation to “unconscious bias and the need… to look at themselves and seek greater awareness of any ‘isms’ of their own”, in particular “in the current climate of heightened community tensions and subjective judgements”; and,

• putting a greater emphasis on the types of issues raised in this complaint in all future training and training material.

Ofcom concluded that the radio station was had breached the following broadcasting codes:

Rule 3.2: “Material which contains hate speech must not be included in television and radio programmes […] except where it is justified by the context.”

Rule 3.3: “Material which contains abusive or derogatory treatment of individuals, groups, religions or communities, must not be included in television and radio services […] except where it is justified by the context.”

Rule 2.3: “In applying generally accepted standards broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context… Such material may include […] offensive language, […] discriminatory treatment or language (for example on the grounds of […] religion belief […]). Appropriate information should also be broadcast where it would assist in avoiding or minimising offence.”

This is not the first time the rapper was accused of antisemitism. Last year, he was criticised over the lyrics: “And I bet you a Rothschild I get a bang for my dollar…The synagogue of Satan want me to hang by my collar.”

Campaign Against Antisemitism monitors traditional media and regularly holds outlets to account. If members of the public are concerned about reportage in the media, they should contact us at [email protected].

Jeremy Corbyn is under investigation by Parliament’s watchdog over allegations that he did not properly declare financial support given to him to pay for the legal fees behind antisemitism-related claims. 

The former leader of the Labour Party is being investigated over the “registration of an interest under the Guide to the Rules” by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

This comes after Labour MP Neil Coyle wrote a letter to the Commissioner, alledging that Mr Corbyn may have broken the code of conduct for MPs in regard to support for his legal disputes.

Mr Coyle said that Mr Corbyn had “received financial support for legal cases involving him in various legal disputes, principally surrounding antisemitism” which had not been properly declared. 

Mr Corbyn stated that he would be “liaising with the Commissioner in response to Neil Coyle’s correspondence.” 

Last year, a crowdfunder which raised hundreds of thousands for Mr Corbyn’s legal expenses drew attention after it was reported that the woman behind the initiative was involved with a company that aims to “end the politicisation of Jewish suffering,” and that donations had been received from donors calling themselves “Adolf Hitler” and “B*stard Son of Netanyahu and Starmer”.

Following claims of antisemitism, Mr Corbyn had the whip removed last year. However, according to a newly published YouGov poll, 60% of Labour members think that the antisemitic former leader should have the whip restored.

Campaign Against Antisemitism has lodged a complaint against Jeremy Corbyn, holding him responsible for conduct that is prejudicial or grossly detrimental to the Labour Party, as the Leader during the period of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s (EHRC) shameful findings. Given the serious detriment that this conduct has caused, we are seeking Mr Corbyn’s immediate resuspension and, if the complaint is upheld, we will be requesting his expulsion. On the day of the publication of the EHRC’s report, we also submitted a major complaint against Mr Corbyn and other sitting MPs. These complaints are yet to be acknowledged by the Party, and they must be investigated by an independent disciplinary process that the EHRC has demanded and Sir Keir has promised but has yet to introduce.

The Labour Party was found by the EHRC to have engaged in unlawful discrimination and harassment of Jews. The report followed the EHRC’s investigation of the Labour Party in which Campaign Against Antisemitism was the complainant, submitting hundreds of pages of evidence and legal argument. Sir Keir Starmer called the publication of the report a “day of shame” for the Labour Party.

Campaign Against Antisemitism advocates for zero tolerance of antisemitism in public life. To that end we monitor all political parties and strive to ensure that any cases of concern are properly addressed.

Schools have been warned by their regulator, Ofsted, that they risk failing inspections if they do not act over antisemitism.

Following a meeting with representatives from the Jewish education sector and reports of anti-Jewish bullying at schools – including one teacher whose pupils competed to stick ‘Free Palestine’ stickers in their hair – Ofsted said that there was no place for antisemitism in schools and that it was supporting victims among teaching staff.

Recently, Jewish teachers have also lamented that their union, the National Education Union, has failed them, with a significant number resigning their membership en masse.

A spokesperson for Ofsted said: “Where these incidents occur, we want to see schools deal with them quickly and effectively, and any failure to do so will be reflected in our inspection judgements,” adding: “We also expect a school’s curriculum and teaching to promote equality of opportunity and diversity.”

Ofsted’s warning comes just days after Education Secretary Gavin Williamson wrote to headteachers urging action over antisemitism.

Campaign Antisemitism has produced teachers’ guides for classes on antisemitism, which have been endorsed by the BBC. We have also recently produced a short resource for pupils and parents who encounter antisemitism at schools.

Do you or your friends/family have stories of schoolteachers or pupils facing antisemitism at schools in the UK? We have received a significant number of reports and the Incident Response colleagues would be keen to hear of further examples if you could share them. Contact us at [email protected] or call +44 (0)330 822 0321.

Campaign Against Antisemitism is filing a complaint to the Directorate of Professional Standards after police ignored antisemitic threats among demonstrators on Sunday who were shouting: “We’ll find some Jews there.  We want the Zionists. We want their blood!”

The demonstrators were trying to counter-protest a rally of the Jewish community and allies in solidarity with Israel, in Kensington. However, towards the end of the peaceful gathering, police were required to step in due to the arrival of counter-demonstrators.

After being told to leave the area by the police, the counter-demonstrators were escorted away by officers. But in a video posted online, at least one of the counter-demonstrators can be seen shouting: “We’ll find some Jews there,” before adding: “We want the Zionists. We want their blood.”

The video appears to show policemen walking alongside the perpetrators without taking action against the incitement.

In a rally held just the day before, participants held up antisemitic banners and heard speakers who blamed Israel for antisemitism and were told that “there will be no ceasefire in our campaign”. Crowds also marched in Manchester, Cardiff and elsewhere. Campaign Against Antisemitism is now reviewing a large volume of evidence from rallies and incidents over the past two weeks with our lawyers.

A spokesperson for Campaign Against Antisemitism said: “Over the past two weeks, on too many occasions the Metropolitan Police has failed to intervene against antisemitic crime and incitement on the streets of London, and in some cases officers have even joined protestors despite rules prohibiting such participation. Britain’s Jews need to be proactively protected by the police at this dangerous time.

“We are submitting yet another complaint to the Directorate of Professional Standards, this time in connection with the spectacle of police indifference toward counter-protestors on Sunday screaming ‘We’ll find some Jews there.  We want the Zionists. We want their blood!’. These threats are criminal and the police should know better than merely to escort the perpetrators away from a Jewish crowd: they should be arresting them.”

Campaign Against Antisemitism’s analysis of Home Office statistics shows that an average of over three hate crimes are directed at Jews every single day in England and Wales, with Jews almost four times more likely to be targets of hate crimes than any other faith group.

Campaign Against Antisemitism’s Antisemitism Barometer 2020 showed that three in five British Jews believe that the authorities, in general, are not doing enough to address and punish antisemitism.

Ofcom has dismissed a complaint from Campaign Against Antisemitism regarding a Channel 4 segment that criticised the International Definition of Antisemitism without offering a Jewish perspective. The media regulator said that it found “no issues warranting investigation under its rules.”

Speakers during the segment, which lasted nearly ten minutes, repeatedly stated that the Definition “silenced” debate about Israel, which is precisely the “Livingstone Formulation” that the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) confirmed was used to victimise Jews in the Labour Party to such an extent that it broke equalities law. In using this antisemitic formulation, the segment breached Ofcom’s guidance on harm and offence.

Campaign Against Antisemitism was the complainant in the EHRC’s investigation of antisemitism in the Labour Party.

The failure to include a single representative from the mainstream Jewish community – in which there is a consensus in favour of widespread adoption of the Definition – represented a failure by Channel 4 News to show due impartiality in its programme, which is also a breach of Ofcom’s guidance.

In Ofcom’s response to us, they wrote: “In our view, the editorially-linked interview with Daniel Barenboim provided further context and helped to reflect an Israeli and Jewish perspective to the extent it was necessary given the limited content that had referred critically to the policies and actions of the Israeli Government in the earlier Akram Salhab item.”

Regarding our complaints that the Definition should not have been labelled ‘controversial’ due to its widespread adoption, and that under the Definition criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic, Ofcom replied: “In our view, the programme did not suggest that the Definition does not permit any criticism of Israel whatsoever. It also correctly highlighted that calling the existence of a state of Israel a racist endeavour would fall within the [D]efinition of antisemitism. We also considered that there has been a robust debate around the [Definition] and about the government’s efforts to convince universities to adopt it. In this context, we do not consider it would have been misleading to the audience to have described the [D]efinition as ‘controversial’.”

Campaign Against Antisemitism’s Antisemitism Barometer 2020 revealed that almost half of British Jews consider Channel 4’s coverage of matters of Jewish interest and antisemitism to be unfavourable, while almost a third add that they are unsatisfied with how Channel 4 deals with complaints relating to antisemitism.

Campaign Against Antisemitism monitors traditional media and regularly holds outlets to account. If members of the public are concerned about reportage in the media, they should contact us at [email protected]

The controversial website, Dorset Eye, has dubiously joined the relatively new media regulator, Impress.

Dorset Eye now displays the regulator’s kitemark on its website purportedly guaranteeing its “commitment to the principles of journalism”.

In 2019, the website accused the Jewish television presenter and anti-extremism activist, Rachel Riley, of working for the “Israeli state propaganda machine” and claimed that “her goons” will be responsible for “another Jo Cox moment”, a reference to the murder of the MP by a white supremacist. “Whether she is paid for her hate and propaganda is not for me to say but she is quite obviously (if only to me) a fascist and an Israeli state terrorist sympathiser,” the article went on to say.

Another article on the website described Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis as “a modern day Judas” and “paid agent” of Israel. The article, which has since been removed, also warned of “another Kristallnacht”, referencing the infamous antisemitic Nazi pogrom in 1938.

Impress is officially recognised by the Government’s Press Regulation Panel and is partly funded by the family foundation of Max Mosley. Its members are required to abide by “minimum professionals standards” and must not “make prejudicial or pejorative reference to a person on the basis of that person’s…race, religion…or another characteristic that makes that person vulnerable to discrimination”.

An Impress spokesperson reportedly said: “The role of an approved press regulator is not to endorse the actions of those it regulates but to fairly and neutrally investigate and assess the newsgathering practices and content.”

A spokesperson for Campaign Against Antisemitism said: “Questions must be asked of Impress for this decision. No serious regulator would take on Dorset Eye, a community website and resource which purports to have a warm and fuzzy image to publish antisemitic articles that clearly breach the International Definition of Antisemitism.”

Campaign Against Antisemitism monitors the media and regularly holds outlets to account. If members of the public are concerned about reportage in the media, they should contact us at [email protected].

Campaign Against Antisemitism has submitted a complaint to the Bar Standards Board against a barrister over a tweet asserting that “Zionism is a kind of racism”.

Franck Magennis is a barrister at Garden Court Chambers in London. 

At 21:35 on 17th December 2020, Mr Magennis apparently tweeted from the Twitter handle @FranckMagennis that: “Zionism is a kind of racism. It is essentially colonial. It has manifested in an apartheid regime calling itself ‘the Jewish state’ that dominates non-Jews, and particularly Palestinians. You can’t practice anti-racism at the same time as identifying with, or supporting, Zionism.”

His profile on the Chambers’ website describes him as “an expert on the Palestinian struggle for emancipation from Israeli apartheid and occupation”.

According to the International Definition of Antisemitism, “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination (e.g. by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour)” is an example of antisemitism.

Furthermore, by asserting that “You can’t practice [sic] anti-racism at the same time as identifying with, or supporting, Zionism,” Mr Magennis has besmirched British Jews and the Jewish community, over 90% of which identifies as Zionist according to polls.

Campaign Against Antisemitism has written to the Bar Standards Board to investigate Mr Magennis over the tweet, on the grounds that it breaches the standards expected of barristers and damages trust and confidence in the profession.

The Professional Standards Authority (PSA) has asked the High Court to quash a decision of the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC), over its decision in relation to Nazim Ali, a pharmacist who leads the annual “Al Quds Day” march through London.

Last month, the GPhC’s Fitness to Practise Committee, found that Mr Ali brought the pharmaceutical profession into disrepute, following a two-week hearing that culminated on 5th November arising from a complaint by Campaign Against Antisemitism.

Following the GPhC’s ruling, Campaign Against Antisemitism made legal representations to the PSA asking it to use its statutory power to refer the matter to the High Court under the National Health Service Reform and Healthcare Professionals Act 2002, on the grounds that the decision made by the GPhC’s Fitness to Practise Committee was insufficient to protect the public because it was “irrational and perverse”.

The PSA has now made the referral that we requested. The High Court will now decide whether to quash the decision of the GPhC’s Fitness to Practise Committee, leading to the matter being re-opened.

In particular, we asked the PSA to review the GPhC’s ruling that Mr Ali’s statements were not antisemitic, including by attempting to distinguish between “antisemitism” and “antisemitic”. We have asked the PSA to consider the International Definition of Antisemitism adopted by the British Government, and the Guidance to all Judiciary in England and Wales produced by the Judicial College that makes clear that the word “Zionist” or “Zio” as a term of abuse has no place in a civilised society.

Furthermore, we argued that the ruling misapplied the law when asking whether a “reasonable person” would have considered the comments made by Mr Ali as being antisemitic. The GPhC’s Fitness to Practise Committee ruled that Jewish bystanders who saw the demonstration or watched the recording of it posted online could not be considered to be reasonable persons because of their “selective view of events”.

Campaign Against Antisemitism made its initial complaint to the GPhC related to Mr Ali’s actions in 2017, when he led the pro-Hizballah “Al Quds Day” parade for the controversial London-based organisation calling itself the Islamic Human Rights Commission, just four days after the Grenfell Tower tragedy in which over 70 people were burned alive.

Heading the parade, surrounded by the flags of Hizballah, the genocidal antisemitic terrorist organisation, Mr Ali shouted over a public address system: “Some of the biggest corporations who are supporting the Conservative Party are Zionists. They are responsible for the murder of the people in Grenfell, in those towers in Grenfell. The Zionist supporters of the Tory Party. Free, Free, Palestine…It is the Zionists who give money to the Tory Party to kill people in high-rise blocks. Free, Free, Palestine. From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”

At another point he told marchers: “Careful of those Rabbis who belong to the Board of Deputies, who have got blood on their hands, who agree with the killing of British soldiers. Do not allow them in your centres.”

The events were filmed by members of Campaign Against Antisemitism’s Demonstration and Event Monitoring Unit.

Mr Ali is the Managing Partner of Chelsea Pharmacy Medical Clinic. Campaign Against Antisemitism submitted a complaint to the GPhC, which confirmed that the matter “calls into question the pharmacy professional’s fitness to practise as a pharmacist.”

The Professional Standards Authority told Campaign Against Antisemitism: “The Authority has decided to refer the decision to the High Court because we considered that it may be insufficient to protect the public. The Authority was concerned that the Committee had erred in its approach to a charge that the comments made by Mr Ali were antisemitic. Those errors mean that it is not possible to know whether a different outcome would have been reached in the case had the correct approach been taken, and that therefore decision taken by the Committee was not sufficient to protect the public. For that reason the Authority, by its appeal, is asking the Court to quash findings made by the Committee and remit the case back to the Committee for reconsideration, applying the correct approach to the charge of antisemitism. The appeal has now been lodged with the court.”

Stephen Silverman, Director of Investigations and Enforcement at Campaign Against Antisemitism, said: “Since 2017, we have fought to ensure that Nazim Ali faces the consequences of his actions. As a pharmacist, he is bound by professional rules, and we are pleased that due to our complaint his regulator ruled that he brought his profession into disrepute.

“However, the ruling was deeply flawed, finding Mr Ali’s remarks not to be antisemitic, and considering Jewish bystanders not to be reasonable persons. This was irrational and perverse in the extreme, so we instructed lawyers to ensure that it cannot be allowed to stand due to the example that it sets. Not only that, but the decision to merely issue Mr Ali with a warning was insufficient to protect the public. That is why we asked the PSA to refer this matter to the High Court, and we are delighted that they have now done so.

“There was no way that we could allow this decision to stand due to the dangerous precedent that it set both for British Jews and the public which relies on healthcare professionals to be properly regulated.”

We are extremely grateful to Simon Braun, a partner at Perrin Myddelton solicitors, for acting pro bono for Campaign Against Antisemitism in this matter.

Campaign Against Antisemitism previously sought a criminal prosecution of Mr Ali. When the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) refused to prosecute him, we launched a private prosecution which the CPS disgracefully used its statutory powers to take over and discontinue, protecting Mr Ali from prosecution.

Campaign Against Antisemitism is submitting a complaint to Ofcom regarding a segment on Channel 4 News that aired last night that was devoted to criticism of the International Definition of Antisemitism.

Speakers during the segment repeatedly stated that the Definition “silenced” debate about Israel, which is precisely the “Livingstone Formulation” that the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) confirmed was used to victimise Jews in the Labour Party to such an extent that it broke equalities law (Campaign Against Antisemitism was the complainant in the EHRC’s investigation of the Labour Party). In using this antisemitic formulation, the segment breached Ofcom’s guidance on harm and offence.

The failure to include a single representative from the mainstream Jewish community – in which there is a consensus in favour of widespread adoption of the Definition – represented a failure by Channel 4 News to show due impartiality in its programme, which is also a breach of Ofcom’s guidance.

The segment lasted almost ten minutes.

A spokesperson for Campaign Against Antisemitism said: “It is extraordinary that Channel 4 News could have devoted an entire segment to discussing defining antisemitism without including a single representative of the mainstream Jewish community. If the programme had done, it might have realised that it was promoting the antisemitic ‘Livingstone Formulation’ that was used to such unlawful effect in victimising Jews in the Labour Party. It is precisely this sort of ignorance of what antisemitism looks like that makes widespread adoption of the Definition so important.

“We are submitting a complaint to Ofcom in respect of this outrageous segment, which serves only to confirm to the Jewish community that Channel 4 News is incapable of covering sensitive issues with due impartiality.”

Lawyers acting for Campaign Against Antisemitism have referred the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) to the Professional Standards Authority (PSA) over its decisions in relation to Nazim Ali, a pharmacist who leads the annual “Al Quds Day” march through London.

Last month, the GPhC’s Fitness to Practise Committee, found that Mr Ali brought the pharmaceutical profession into disrepute, following a two-week hearing that culminated on 5th November arising from a complaint by Campaign Against Antisemitism.

However, in our submission to the PSA, we have argued that the ruling of the GPhC’s Fitness to Practise Committee was “irrational and perverse”.

Campaign Against Antisemitism’s initial complaint to the GPhC related to Mr Ali’s actions in 2017, when he led the pro-Hizballah “Al Quds Day” parade for the controversial London-based organisation calling itself the Islamic Human Rights Commission, just four days after the Grenfell Tower tragedy in which over 70 people were burned alive.

Heading the parade, surrounded by the flags of Hizballah, the genocidal antisemitic terrorist organisation, Mr Ali shouted over a public address system: “Some of the biggest corporations who are supporting the Conservative Party are Zionists. They are responsible for the murder of the people in Grenfell, in those towers in Grenfell. The Zionist supporters of the Tory Party. Free, Free, Palestine…It is the Zionists who give money to the Tory Party to kill people in high-rise blocks. Free, Free, Palestine. From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”

At another point he told marchers: “Careful of those Rabbis who belong to the Board of Deputies, who have got blood on their hands, who agree with the killing of British soldiers. Do not allow them in your centres.”

The events were filmed by members of Campaign Against Antisemitism’s Demonstration and Event Monitoring Unit.

Mr Ali is the Managing Partner of Chelsea Pharmacy Medical Clinic. Campaign Against Antisemitism submitted a complaint to the GPhC, which confirmed that the matter “calls into question the pharmacy professional’s fitness to practise as a pharmacist.”

The PSA has the power to review the findings and refer the matter to the High Court under the National Health Service Reform and Healthcare Professionals Act 2002, and we have asked it to exercise its statutory power on the grounds that the decision made by the GPhC’s Fitness to Practise Committee was insufficient to protect the public.

In particular, we have objected to the ruling that Mr Ali’s statements were not antisemitic, including by attempting to distinguish between “antisemitism” and “antisemitic”. We have asked the PSA to consider the International Definition of Antisemitism adopted by the British Government, and the Guidance to all Judiciary in England and Wales produced by the Judicial College that makes clear that the word “Zionist” or “Zio” as a term of abuse has no place in a civilised society.

Furthermore, we have argued that the ruling misapplied the law when asking whether a “reasonable person” would have considered the comments made by Mr Ali as being antisemitic. The GPhC’s Fitness to Practise Committee ruled that Jewish bystanders who saw the demonstration or watched the recording of it posted online could not be considered to be reasonable persons because of their “selective view of events”.

Stephen Silverman, Director of Investigations and Enforcement at Campaign Against Antisemitism, said: “Since 2017, we have fought to ensure that Nazim Ali faces the consequences of his actions. As a pharmacist, he is bound by professional rules, and we are pleased that due to our complaint his regulator ruled that he brought his profession into disrepute.

“However, the ruling was deeply flawed, finding Mr Ali’s remarks not to be antisemitic, and considering Jewish bystanders not to be reasonable persons. This cannot be allowed to stand due to the example that it sets, and the fact that the failure to properly understand the enormity of Mr Ali’s actions and their impact appears to have led to the decision to merely issue him with a warning, which is insufficient to protect the public. That is why we have asked the PSA to refer this matter to the High Court.”

We are extremely grateful to Simon Braun, a partner at Perrin Myddelton solicitors, for acting pro bono for Campaign Against Antisemitism in this matter.

Campaign Against Antisemitism previously sought a criminal prosecution of Mr Ali. When the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) refused to prosecute him, we launched a private prosecution which the CPS disgracefully used its statutory powers to take over and discontinue, protecting Mr Ali from prosecution.

A pharmacist, Nazim Ali, who leads the annual “Al Quds Day” march through London, has been found to have brought the pharmaceutical profession into disrepute following a two-week hearing that culminated today arising from a complaint by Campaign Against Antisemitism.

However, the General Pharmaceutical Council’s (GPhC) fitness to practice tribunal let Mr Ali off with a warning after ruling that his remarks were grossly offensive and that his fitness to practise was impaired, but that his statements were not antisemitic.

Remarkably the GPhC did not present expert testimony from academics or Campaign Against Antisemitism on what constitutes Jew-hatred.

Campaign Against Antisemitism’s complaint related to Mr Ali’s actions in 2017, when he led the pro-Hizballah “Al Quds Day” parade for the controversial London-based organisation calling itself the Islamic Human Rights Commission, just four days after the Grenfell Tower tragedy in which over 70 people were burned alive.

Heading the parade, surrounded by the flags of Hizballah, the genocidal antisemitic terrorist organisation, Mr Ali shouted over a public address system: “Some of the biggest corporations who are supporting the Conservative Party are Zionists. They are responsible for the murder of the people in Grenfell, in those towers in Grenfell. The Zionist supporters of the Tory Party. Free, Free, Palestine…It is the Zionists who give money to the Tory Party to kill people in high-rise blocks. Free, Free, Palestine. From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”

At another point he told marchers: “Careful of those Rabbis who belong to the Board of Deputies, who have got blood on their hands, who agree with the killing of British soldiers. Do not allow them in your centres.”

The events were filmed by members of Campaign Against Antisemitism’s Demonstration and Event Monitoring Unit.

Mr Ali is the Managing Partner of Chelsea Pharmacy Medical Clinic. Campaign Against Antisemitism submitted a complaint to the GPhC, which confirmed that the matter “calls into question the pharmacy professional’s fitness to practise as a pharmacist.”

During Mr Ali’s hearing, his defence emphasised his grovelling apology, in which he acknowledged that his comments were grossly offensive and that they could be perceived as being antisemitic. Mr Ali claimed that he had not made the apology sooner because he had apparently been advised not to do so while legal proceedings were underway, even through those proceedings ended in early 2019 and the apology appeared to have only been issued a short time before the GPhC hearing.

Mr Ali’s defence also made much of his warm relationship with the extremist fringe Jewish group, Neturei Karta, as evidence that he would not have knowingly said something antisemitic, even though Neturei Karta condemns most Jews and has actively supported antisemites.

Mr Ali’s counsel spent the better part of two days arguing that the hearing was a breach of Mr Ali’s right to a private life and right to freedom of expression under Articles 8 and 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, however the tribunal took a day to consider these arguments and rejected them.

Stephen Silverman, Director of Investigations and Enforcement at Campaign Against Antisemitism, said: “Since 2017, we have fought to ensure that Nazim Ali faces the consequences of his actions. As a pharmacist, he is bound by professional rules, and we are pleased that due to our complaint his regulator has now agreed that he brought his profession into disrepute. However it is disappointing that the regulator showed so little understanding of the issues at the hearing and only requested that the tribunal issue Mr Ali with a warning, which it did. After more than three years, at least we have succeeded in ensuring that Mr Ali’s record has been publicly marked and his disgrace made official.”

Campaign Against Antisemitism previously sought a criminal prosecution of Mr Ali. When the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) refused to prosecute him, we launched a private prosecution which the CPS disgracefully used its statutory powers to take over and discontinue, protecting Mr Ali from prosecution.

An attempt by ten police officers to prevent disciplinary proceedings against them in connection with antisemitic and racist Whatsapp messages has cost Police Scotland nearly £200,000, it has been reported.

Whatsapp messages described as being “sexist and degrading, racist, antisemitic, homophobic, mocking of disability and included a flagrant disregard for police procedures by posting crime scene photos of current investigations,” were discovered in the course of an investigation into alleged sexual misconduct on the part of another officer, who was later cleared.

After the messages were discovered in 2016, Police Scotland’s Professional Standards department sought to discipline the officers implicated in the messages in November 2017. However, the Scottish Police Federation tried to block the disciplinary proceedings on behalf of the officers on the basis that they were entitled to privacy under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and a common law right to privacy. Last month, however, three appeal judges upheld an earlier ruling that rejected those arguments, claiming that the duty to uphold professional standards on the police force overrode the right to privacy and that it was proportionate for Police Scotland to use the messages.

Following the ruling, The Ferret submitted a Freedom of Information request to Police Scotland, which revealed that its legal bill to date is £189,366.04 (including VAT).

Police Scotland reportedly noted in its reply that “subject to the outcome of any further proceedings, Police Scotland intends to seek an award of expenses in its favour as a result of being successful both in the outer and inner houses of the court of session.”

A spokesperson for Police Scotland reportedly said: “Because of their position, our officers are held to higher standards than ordinary members of the public and this is consistently made clear from the first day of training. The inner house judgment underlined that these high standards also apply to the virtual space. The vast majority of our officers conduct themselves in line with our values of fairness, integrity and respect. Where inappropriate conduct is brought to our attention it will be considered by our professional standards department. All probationary officers still involved in this long running court action have been placed on restricted duties pending further proceedings.”

A spokesperson for the Scottish Police Federation reportedly said: “The SPF does not comment on any individual legal cases.”

A spokesperson for Campaign Against Antisemitism said: “We welcome this judgement, so that the messages in question can be properly investigated and the public can be confident that everyone will receive equal treatment without discrimination by the police in Scotland.”

The Architects Registration Board (ARB) has removed an architect from its professional register following an investigation into his claims that Judaism is a “cult” and Jews should be banned from “important public office”.

On 13 April 2019, Peter Kellow, an award-winning architect, published a long post on Facebook, which read, in part:

“This business of ‘anti-semiticism’ [sic] in the Labour party which is held up as racism. What is it all about really? Let us get a few thing [sic] straight. There is no such thing as the Jewish race. This is one of the many stunts that Judaists have pulled on non-Judaists who have swallowed it whole. There is only the religion/cult of Judaism and I never use the word ‘Jew’ because that implies buying into the myth of racial commonality amoungst [sic] Judaists. […]

“There is no doubt that Judaists have suffered from unfair and cruel treatment at many times in history but this was never racially motivated until the late nineteenth century and bloomed in the ideology of Adolf Hitler. Hitler used the myth of a Jewish race that the Judaists had invented against them. It is not far from the truth to say the Judaists were the inventers of European racism for they asserted they were racially different to the rest of us. […]

“But racism as I have said is a recent phenomenon. Are the so-called ‘antisemites’ in the Labour Party simply ‘racists’ as the popular narrative would have it? I doubt it. The problem people have and always have had with Judaism is not about race. It is because Judaism is a cult. What do I mean by a cult? A cult is a set of people, normally norminally [sic] unified by a religion or quasi-religion, who try to create a society within the general society. Judaism is far from being the only or even the most resented cult in history or the present.”

Mr Kellow identified as other cults similar to Judaism: Freemasonry, Mormonism, Scientology, paganism and Sunni Islam.

He continued: “Cults work against the interest of the general society as its members, in subscribing to a society within the society favour each other over the rest of us….How can you trust such people?…So how should society deal with cults? How should society deal with people who through their cult activity weaken the bonds that the society needs to function well?”

Although Mr Kellow insisted that such “cults” should not be proscribed, he did believe that “we must put restraints on their ability to create a society within a society.” Among these “restraints” was “(1) Registration of the cult in a public register; (2) Registration of all adult members in a public register; (3) No cult member can hold an important public office where they are in a position to descrimiate [sic] between cult members and non-cult members. For instance it is totally unacceptable lo have a Freemason or Judaist as a judge as their decisions will very like work in favour of fellow cult members. Their strong bond in their society within the society will ensure this; (4) Whereas adults are free to choose to belong to a cult, the same cannot reply [sic] to their children….To this end, no cult can run its own “faith” schools; [and] (5) It must be against the law to wear cult clothing in public – except something worn on the top of the head like a hat [e.g. Sikh turbans or Judaist skull caps].[…]”

On 3 June 2019, Architects’ Journal brought the Facebook post to the attention of the ARB, which is the statutory regulator for the industry. The ARB commenced an investigation and found that the post was “was visible as a ‘public’ post. When the Respondent’s profile was clicked, his profile information could be seen which included his profession and a link to his professional website.”

The panel established to investigate the matter concluded that the “comments, which the Respondent continues to stand by, made as they are against two specific established religions and other groups, are discriminatory, potentially offensive and are therefore inappropriate.”

The panel was concerned that the respondent showed a “lack of demonstrable meaningful insight” into his conduct and considered that he had “entrenched discriminatory attitudinal issues”. It concluded that “these failings…are fundamentally incompatible with continuing to be an architect” and accordingly erased Mr Kellow from the register for no less than two years.

Stephen Silverman, Director of Investigations and Enforcement at Campaign Against Antisemitism said: “We applaud the Architects Registration Board for removing the respondent from the register. The panel was absolutely right to find that his suggestions that all Jews should have to join a register or be excluded from holding public office – notions reminiscent of past eras that we all hope have been confined to the dustbin of history – were discriminatory and offensive and damage the reputation of the profession. We call on other professional bodies to follow the ARB in showing zero tolerance for this sort of antisemitic propaganda.”

Campaign Against Antisemitism is writing to the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) after it refused to act against a newspaper that printed a letter comparing Israel to the Nazis because its outdated Editors’ Code of Practice only covers discrimination against an individual.

The Journal, a local newspaper in North-East England, published a letter in May from an individual named Mem Tahir, who regretted that the Jewish community in the region was unable to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Bergen-Belsen due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but then proceeded to say: “When one looks back at history, and looks at the sects that suffered most in the past, one sees that the sufferers in the past are now repeating the atrocities!” The author then expressly compared the effect of Israeli policy to how “the Jewish population suffered under the Nazi regime.”

The letter was a breach of the International Definition of Antisemitism, under which  “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” is an example of antisemitism.

Following an intervention by Campaign Against Antisemitism and CAMERA, the editors published a semi-apology in the latest edition of the newspaper, saying: “In Saturday’s Journal, we carried a letter headlined ‘Ending cycles of suffering’, which referred to Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. The letter did not reflect the views of The Journal and we apologise for any offence caused.”

It has now emerged that the letter also appeared in another newspaper, the Evening Chronicle, leading to complaints to IPSO by the local Jewish community and the Representative Council of North-East Jewry, which made their correspondence with IPSO available to Campaign Against Antisemitism.

IPSO has responded to say that there was no breach of the provisions of the Code with regard to accuracy, as “under the Code, the publications were entitled to publish Mem Tahir’s letter on a highly divisive and complex political issue.”

But IPSO also rejected the complaints in connection with Clause 12 of the Code, dealing with discrimination, because “Clause 12 is designed to protect specific individuals mentioned by the press from discrimination based on their race, colour, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation or any physical or mental illness or disability. It does not apply to groups or categories of people. Your concern did not relate to a specific individual. Because of this, your complaint did not engage the terms of Clause 12.”

A spokesperson for Campaign Against Antisemitism said: “The notion that only individuals but not groups can be discriminated against on the basis of race is not sustainable. For the Code to provide for instances where a Jew or an individual with another protected characteristic is targeted but not for when Jews as a group are targeted leaves the field wide open for antisemitic material to be disseminated in the print media, just as it was in this case. We shall be writing to IPSO urging it to update its Code in line with 21st-century sensibilities.”

We are grateful to the Representative Council of North-East Jewry for bringing this case to our attention and for our collaboration on this matter.

Campaign Against Antisemitism is to write to the National Registers of Communication Professionals working with Deaf and Deafblind People (NRCPD) over a member who has repeatedly compared Israeli policy to that of the Nazis on social media.

An activist in the Jewish community has discovered that Tariq Mahmood, a Birmingham-based hearing professional and BSL interpreter who is registered with and regulated by the NRCPD, made extensive use of Twitter to disseminate antisemitic views from 2015 until earlier this year when he deleted his account.

These include: the promotion of an article entitled The Israeli Holocaust Against Arab Children. Israeli Child Killers: Documentary Proof; numerous other comparisons of Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, in breach of the International Definition of Antisemitism; the promotion of an article on a Holocaust denial website where the murder of six million Jews by the Nazi regime is liberally referred to as “the Holohoax”; and an image with the caption “The Holohoax: a LIE in 1936, a LIE in 1945, and STILL a LIE today!”

Stephen Silverman, Director of Investigations and Enforcement at Campaign Against Antisemitism, said: “NRCPD’s code of conduct requires its registrants to behave with professionalism and integrity and to ensure that their behaviour justifies public trust and confidence. It also cautions against unfair discrimination. It is clear that, through his use of social media to promote anti-Jewish hatred, Tariq Mahmood has demonstrated appalling prejudice that can only serve to bring the NRCPD into disrepute. We trust that after reviewing the material included with this letter, the NRCPD will terminate his association with the organisation.”

(Photo credit: Antisemitism, from the dark side)

Ofcom has sanctioned the television channel London Live for airing an interview with the antisemitic hate preacher and conspiracy theorist David Icke on COVID-19.

The regulator judged that Mr Icke’s views, which were unsubstantiated and went unchallenged in the interview with Brian Rose, “risked causing significant harm to viewers.”

In the interview, which aired on the first night of Passover, Mr Icke claimed that Israel was using the COVID-19 crisis to “test its technology”, among other conspiratorial contentions.

Ofcom commented that “we were particularly concerned by his  comments casting doubt on the motives behind official health advice to protect the public from the virus. These claims went largely unchallenged during the 80-minute interview and were made without the support of any scientific or other evidence.”

London Live will have to broadcast a summary of Ofcom’s decision “on a date and form to be decided by Ofcom”.

Mr Icke uses social media, his books and his stage performances to incite hatred. His preaching is so absurd that since the 1990s he has been dismissed as a crank, but because he is dismissed, there has been no major opposition to him and he has built up a following of thousands upon thousands of disciples whom he has persuaded to adamantly believe that the world is in the grip of a conspiracy run by the “Rothschild Zionists”. His repertoire includes conspiracy myths and tropes classified as antisemitic according to the International Definition of Antisemitism, adopted by the British Government. Campaign Against Antisemitism has successfully persuaded some venues to pull out of hosting his events.

In an article for the Middle East Eye blog lamenting Jeremy Corbyn’s departure from the Labour leadership and Sir Keir Starmer’s accession, the outspoken activist Ghada Karmi makes a series of antisemitic statements.

Dr Karmi, a medical doctor and now a Research Fellow at the University of Exeter, observes in her article that “while much has been made of the capitalist establishment’s role in Corbyn’s downfall due to his socialist economics, it was the pro-Israel lobby that dealt the final blow.” She goes on to say that “persistent campaigning by this lobby since 2016” was “largely mediated” by Labour’s Jewish affiliate, Labour Friends of Israel and a Jewish communal charity and was “likely coordinated by the Israeli embassy”. This ‘campaigning’ achieved its aim: it “transformed [Mr Corbyn] by this propaganda into a racist and antisemite”.

Dr Karmi is suggesting that the Israeli embassy has played an outsized role in British politics and that the Jewish groups calling out Labour’s anti-Jewish racism – of which there are many more than those that she identifies – are doing Israel’s bidding. According to the International Definition of Antisemitism, “Making mendacious, dehumanising, demonising, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective” and “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” are examples of antisemitism.

Moreover, the suggestion that antisemitism in Labour is a ‘smear’ or “propaganda” has been a common trope deployed to deflect criticism of the Party’s institutional antisemitism over the past several years and to imply that the Jewish community has had an ulterior motive in pointing out anti-Jewish racism in Labour, including that it is doing Israel’s bidding.

Dr Karmi goes further, wondering whether Sir Keir’s pledges to “root out” antisemitism in the Labour Party is in “hopes to win over the [Israel] lobby”. “If so,” she warns, “he may find, as Corbyn did, that such zealous appeasement will not insure him against its further demands if he steps out of line.”

Whilst Dr Karmi applauds some of Sir Keir’s appointments and policy statements, she is concerned that he apparently “calls himself a supporter of Zionism” and “says he believes in the State of Israel”. However, she insists that this position is “incompatible” with opposition to “Israel’s legitimacy as an exclusive state for Jews” (whatever she means by that phrase) and that he must understand – as, interestingly, she alleges that Mr Corbyn does – that “terminating Zionism is the only way to a permanent peace.”

She concludes by noting that “these are uncomfortable ideas for Starmer and all Western politicians. They would prefer to persist with the myth of a Palestinian state living ‘alongside Israel’, so as to avoid confronting the true situation.”

Clearly, Dr Karmi believes that Zionism – the ideology underpinning Israel’s creation – is racist, and that Israel is essentially a racist endeavour and should be destroyed. Indeed in the past she has also reportedly welcomed Israel’s destruction.

The Definition specifies that “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination (e.g. by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour)” is antisemitic.

There is no place for an antisemite to teach on campus, and Campaign Against Antisemitism shall be writing to the University of Exeter calling for Dr Karmi to be removed from her position, and to the General Medical Council which regulates doctors.

If any students are concerned about antisemitism on campus or need assistance, they can call us on 0330 822 0321, or e-mail [email protected].

Barristers have been warned to avoid “heated” social media spats in both “a professional and personal capacity” in new guidance issued by the Bar Standards Board, which regulates barristers in England and Wales.

The guidance warns barristers: “Comments designed to demean or insult are likely to diminish public trust and confidence in the profession. It is also advisable to avoid getting drawn into heated debates or arguments. Such behaviour could compromise the requirements for barristers to act with honesty and integrity and not to unlawfully discriminate against any person. You should always take care to consider the content and tone of what you are posting or sharing. Comments that you reasonably consider to be in good taste may be considered distasteful or offensive by others.”

The guidance is a welcome reminder that professionals risk not only their personal reputations but their livelihoods if they promote racist or similarly offensive material.

In 2016, neo-Nazi barrister ian Millard was disbarred for a series of antisemitic tweets.

Ofcom has determined that the Islam Channel broadcasted “very harmful and highly offensive antisemitic content” in its programme, The Rightly Guided Khalifas.

According to its website, the Islam Channel broadcasts from London and describes itself as providing “alt news, current affairs and entertainment programming from an Islamic perspective,” and it broadcasts to over 136 countries worldwide.

The Rightly Guided Khalifas, a religious education series on the history of the Koran and the measures used to preserve its original wording, claimed that Israel printed hundreds of thousands of deliberately distorted copies of the Koran in 1961 for distribution in Africa and Asia, an assertion based on government propaganda from the period.

The Arabic narration also quoted a “telegraph” from the last century accusing Israel of being “formed on the basis of tyranny and aggression…[and it] continues to live in this tyrannical frame of mind…[and] seeks the destruction of our belief and religion” by distorting the Koran. “In this way, it continues to practice what their forefathers [i.e. the Jews] had done before.”

The English translation on-screen also accused Israel of “poisonous acts”, while the English subtitles added that “the occupying state of Israel (the jews)…is still living in this world with the same evil mind…by doing so the new jews tried to do the same thing their ancestors did when they displaced words from (their) right places [sic].”

The Islam Channel said that The Rightly Guided Khalifas series was produced by an overseas third party rather than in-house, and that it did not endorse its content, despite having broadcast it, noting also that the English translations were produced in the Middle East and claiming that terms such as “Israel”, “Israelis” and “Jews” are used interchangeably there, while insisting it did not endorse this conflation.

Ofcom had regard to the International Definition of Antisemitism, noting in particular the following examples of antisemitism:

  • accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews;
  • holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel; and
  • 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.

Ofcom determined that the material constituted hate speech on the bases that that it conflated Israel and the Jewish people (for both Arabic and English language viewers); held contemporary Jews collectively responsible for allegations (based on a single interpretation) stretching from the establishment of Islam to the 1960s; and ascribed a perpetually negative characteristic to Jewish people (namely corrupting holy books and seeking the destruction of Islam).

Ofcom decided that the broadcast “had the potential to promote, encourage and incite such intolerance among viewers” and that it “represents serious breaches of the [Ofcom Broadcasting] Code”. Ofcom is now considering a statutory sanction.

The Islam Channel, which is reportedly funded by Saudi Arabia, has been found on multiple occasions in the past to have broadcast programmes featuring political bias and advocacy of marital rape and violence, and has been accused of promoting a radical cleric.

The broadcasting regulator, the Office of Communications (Ofcom), has published their sanction decision in relation to Starz, a UK satellite TV channel, for broadcasting an antisemitic caricature.

After an investigation, Ofcom concluded that this is a serious breach of the UK Code of Broadcast Advertising and has issued a sanction.

According to the decision published by Ofcom: “On 11 March 2018 at 14:30 Starz broadcasted an image submitted by a viewer alongside a music video. It depicted a cartoon caricature of a Jewish person which conformed to racist stereotypes. In Ofcom’s view, the image, which could be found on various neo-Nazi websites, was likely to have been interpreted by viewers as being highly offensive and antisemitic. Over the next 51 minutes, the image was repeatedly reshown in rotation with photographs submitted by other viewers.” The image was shown 22 times and in total for seven minutes and five seconds.

The image depicted a cartoon caricature of a man with a large hooked nose, wearing a Jewish skullcap or “kippah” and a prayer shawl or “tallit” bearing a blue Star of David. The caricature was set against a backdrop of gold coins, with the man smiling widely and his hands flat against his cheeks framing his open mouth. Antisemitic caricatures often portray Jews as having large noses and being obsessed with money.

Columbia Pictures Corporation, which owned Starz at the time of the incident, described the broadcast of the image as a “very, very big error”, permanently banned the viewer who submitted the cartoon and issued an on-screen apology one hour and fifteen minutes following the first broadcast of the image. Nevertheless, Ofcom decided that the apology was insufficient in view of the gravity of the incident, and rejected numerous other representations made by Columbia Pictures.

Ofcom directed Starz to broadcast details of its breach, ruling: “Ofcom’s decision is that the Licensee should broadcast a statement of Ofcom’s findings in this case, on a date and in a form to be determined by Ofcom.”

In coming to its decision, Ofcom drew on the International Definition of Antisemitism for guidance. Last year, the definition formed the basis of training given to Ofcom staff by Campaign Against Antisemitism in how to recognise the many manifestations of antisemitism.

A pharmacist, Nazim Ali, who leads the annual “Al Quds Day” march through London is being investigated by the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) following a complaint by Campaign Against Antisemitism.

In 2017, four days after the Grenfell Tower tragedy in which over 70 people were burned alive, Nazim Ali led the pro-Hizballah “Al Quds Day” parade. Heading the parade, surrounded by the flags of Hizballah, the genocidal antisemitic terrorist organisation, Mr Ali shouted over a public address system: “Some of the biggest corporations who are supporting the Conservative Party are Zionists. They are responsible for the murder of the people in Grenfell, in those towers in Grenfell. The Zionist supporters of the Tory Party. Free, Free, Palestine…It is the Zionists who give money to the Tory Party to kill people in high-rise blocks. Free, Free, Palestine. From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”

At another point he told marchers: “Careful of those Rabbis who belong to the Board of Deputies, who have got blood on their hands, who agree with the killing of British soldiers. Do not allow them in your centres.”

Mr Ali is the Managing Partner of Chelsea Pharmacy Medical Clinic. The GPhC has confirmed to Campaign Against Antisemitism: “The GPhC has reviewed all of the available evidence and we have concluded that the matter complained about is a matter that calls into question the pharmacy professional’s fitness to practise as a pharmacist. This case will now be referred to the Investigating Committee for consideration.”

Stephen Silverman, Director of Investigations and Enforcement at Campaign Against Antisemitism, said: “Since 2017, we have fought to ensure that Nazim Ali faces the consequences of his actions. As a pharmacist, he is bound by professional rules, and we are pleased that due to our complaint he now faces an investigation into his fitness to practise by his professional regulator.”

Campaign Against Antisemitism previously sought a criminal prosecution of Mr Ali. When the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) refused to prosecute him, we launched a private prosecution which the CPS disgracefully used its statutory powers to take over and discontinue, protecting Mr Ali from prosecution.

The BBC is embroiled in a scandal after it gave a platform to, Abdullah Patel, an Imam who made several appalling posts on Twitter. Mr Patel, speaking from a BBC studio in Bristol, during the Conservative Party leadership debate last night, questioned and warned the leadership candidates about hate speech, telling them that “words have consequences.”

After the debate, the political blog Guido Fawkes revealed that Mr Patel, had made a series of outrageous posts on Twitter. His account has now been deleted.

It emerged that Mr Patel posted the same image advocating the transport of the Jewish state to the United States that resulted in the suspension of Naz Shah from the Labour Party.

He also tweeted that: “Every political figure on the Zionist’s [sic] payroll is scaring the world about Corbyn. They don’t like him. He seems best suited to tackle them!”

Stephen Daisley, blogging in the Spectator, uncovered more damning tweets, including: “How long are the Zionists going to hide behind the Holocaust cry? It was a tragedy, but Gaza today is a repeat of the oppression.” Another tweet described “the concentration camp in Gaza is the modern day Auschwitz.” Under the International Definition of Antisemitism adopted by the British Government, “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” is antisemitic.

He also claimed that “antisemitism is being abused by the right, to push their own agenda.”

When his antisemitic social media activity was exposed, Mr Patel told the BBC in Gloucester that he could not remember all of his tweets but defended his posts, saying: “I have not criticised the Jewish community. Criticism of Israel is not the same as criticism of Jews.” He continued that he was “100 percent sure” there were no tweets criticising Jewish people but said he would stand by messages critical of Israel’s policies.

Mr Patel was also invited on BBC Radio 5 Live this morning after his participation in the debate. Following the revelation, the BBC presenter, Nicky Campbell, tweeted: “I would like to apologise. We had the Imam from the BBC Tory leadership debate on our programme this morning. His social media comments have been extremely disturbing. We should have checked. We didn’t. I’m sorry.”

The BBC News Press Team also tweeted a statement claiming it had “missed Mr Patel’s comments because they were on a Twitter account that was deactivated at the time but he reactivated it after the programme.” They added: “Had we been aware of the views he expressed there, he would not have been selected.”

However, Guido reported that Twitter users were replying to his Twitter account over the weekend, raising questions about when the BBC actually did its supposed vetting. Rob Burley, an Editor at BBC Live Political Programmes, claimed in a tweet that: “We checked his social media on Monday.”

Mr Patel is the deputy head of a primary school in Gloucester. The school has announced that it has suspended him, pending an investigation. Mr Yakub Patel, Chair of Al-Madani Educational Trust, said in a statement: “Following some of the comments attributed to Mr Patel in the media this morning, the Trust has decided to suspend him from all school duties with immediate effect until a full investigation is carried out. The ‘school’ and ‘Trust’ do not share the views attributed to him.”

Campaign Against Antisemitism is extremely concerned that such an individual was given a national platform. We are following the investigation by Al-Madani Educational Trust with interest and we are seeking confirmation that the case will be referred to the Teaching Regulation Authority.

Correction: A tweet about this case suggested that Mr Patel should also be referred to the Solicitors Regulation Authority as well as the Teaching Regulation Agency. We only seek referral to the Teaching Regulation Agency as Mr Patel is not a solicitor.

Ofcom, the broadcasting regulator, has ruled that former MP George Galloway’s show on TalkRadio has breached impartiality rules. The regulator received complaints for phone-in shows about antisemitism in the Labour Party on July 27th and August 6th 2018.

Mr Galloway’s phone-in focused on antisemitism in the Labour Party, portraying allegations of antisemitism as a smear against Jeremy Corbyn. Mr Galloway said on his show on 27th July that: “Jeremy Corbyn has this week been the victim of a crazed, unhinged assault by the agents of the powerful. A frenzied attack to destroy him for fear that he might win. The proximate method is the exploitation of deep-seated Jewish fear. Literally summoning up the demons of Nazism against Britain’s finest anti-fascist.” He added that “a pig that is the British media and political class that is frightening Jewish schoolgirls in London on a giant Goebbellian lie [referring to Josef Goebbels, the infamous Nazi propagandist] that Jeremy Corbyn not only hates Jews but that the existential future, the existence of Jewish life in Britain, is threatened by this mild-mannered geography teacher in his woolly jumper.”

During the course of his show Mr Galloway ridiculed and attacked those concerned over antisemitism within the Labour Party, branding someone taking the concerns of the Jewish community seriously as an “ignorant woman”.

Mr Galloway was found to have violated Rule 5.11 of the Broadcasting Code which mandates broadcasters to maintain due impartiality and Rule 5.12 requiring that significant views must be included and given due weight. Ofcom also ruled that Mr Galloway had breached the Broadcasting Code on an additional code over his coverage of the Salisbury poisoning case.

Following these three charges Ofcom will now be considering sanctions against TalkRadio.

A spokesperson for Ofcom said: “Our investigation found that these phone-in programmes breached our due impartiality rules. They failed to give due weight to a sufficiently wide range of views on allegations of anti-Semitism within the Labour Party. We are minded to consider imposing a statutory sanction for these breaches. The Licensee now has an opportunity to make representations to us, which we’ll consider before proceeding further.”

Ofcom found that while it was legitimate to broadcast programmes in support of Jeremy Corbyn, principles of balance had to be maintained. They expressed concern that Mr Galloway continues to “express pride” in his broadcasts despite breaching impartiality rules. Sanctions may include a fine of up to £250,000, as Mr Galloway has been found to be in breach of the rules multiple times on the same station.

In response, Mr Galloway demanded that Ofcom itself be investigated for wasting public money for daring to deal with a complaint against him and his TalkRadio show. He described the investigation as an attempt “to silence the only presenter on British radio and television who is prepared to defend the leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition in the teeth of industrialised prejudice and legalised lying when it comes to Mr Corbyn about which Ofcom have precisely nothing to say” he finished by saying he was “proud of my performance on this particular radio show. The people who should be ashamed are Ofcom and its single complainant.”

Mr Galloway has form on the issue of Labour antisemitism. In an interview with Sky News earlier this month, Mr Galloway said that the Labour Party’s antisemitism crisis was part of a “Black Op” and that the media were telling a “Goebbellian lie” by reporting on it, referring to Josef Goebbels, the infamous Nazi propagandist. Presenter Niall Patterson swiftly responded: “We just mentioned Luciana Berger. Do you think it’s entirely appropriate to talk about Goebellian propaganda where we’ve got a Jewish Labour MP leaving because of antisemitism?” However Mr Galloway stood by his comment, retorting: “I don’t believe she’s leaving because of antisemitism. I believe you want people to believe that, and the Goebbels is you, and The Times and the other organs that are pumping out this foul slander against the Labour Party and knowing that it’s untrue.”

Mr Galloway, who blocked Campaign Against Antisemitism on Twitter after we highlighted an antisemitic tweet he had shared, has said that he is applying to rejoin the Labour Party after being expelled in 2003, but the Party told the Jewish News that it had received no such application.

The UK’s Judicial College, which provides the training for the judiciary in England and Wales, has added the International Definition of Antisemitism and a section on the use of the word ‘Zionist’ as a slur to the latest edition of its Equal Treatment Bench Book. The handbook provides guidance for members of the judiciary in relation to equality and discrimination.

In explaining the importance of understanding the definition and the discriminatory uses of ‘Zionist’, the Judicial College cites Campaign Against Antisemitism’s annual Antisemitism Barometer research showing the extent of antisemitism in British society, and our work to ensure that journalist Kevin Myers was removed from his post at the Sunday Times following the publication of his opinion article about why he felt Jewish BBC presenters earned more than their non-Jewish peers.

The handbook, which is provided to all members of the judiciary in England and Wales, contains the full International Definition of Antisemitism, explaining its adoption, as well as a section dedicated to discussion of the use of the words ‘Zionist’ and ‘Zionism’ as slurs, quoting from a report of the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee report which states: “The word ‘Zionist’ (or worse, ‘Zio’) as a term of abuse…has no place in a civilised society.”

We strongly welcome the Judicial College’s intervention to update all members of the judiciary on the impact of the antisemitic crime crisis on the Jewish community, and to ensure that members of the bench are fully informed on the nature of antisemitism and attempts to disguise Jew-hatred by referring to Zionists instead of Jews.

Campaign Against Antisemitism has submitted a complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards after receiving reports that Jeremy Corbyn’s trip to Tunisia in 2014 was not declared in Parliament’s Register of Interests.

According to Parliamentary rules, any payment of more than £300 for a foreign trip must be declared if not paid for by an MP or British public funds.

Mr Corbyn said that the trip, during which he laid a wreath at the grave of antisemitic Black September terrorists and attended a conference at which a senior Hamas member outlined plans for “magnificent” violence, was at the invitation of a Tunisian politician.

Presumably in response to similar reports, political blog The Red Roar meticulously searched other MPs’ records, finding that Lord Sheikh had declared a donation towards a trip to Tunisia at the same time. The blog did not suggest that Lord Sheikh attended the same conference as Mr Corbyn or used the occasion to honour terrorists.

Mr Corbyn has a long history of receiving donations from people with links to extremism, including some who appear to be aligned with Hamas.

In addition to our new complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, we have also referred the Labour Party to the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Stephen Silverman, Director of Investigations and Enforcement at Campaign Against Antisemitism, said: “The public needs to know who paid for Jeremy Corbyn’s trip to honour the antisemitic Black September terrorists. He has a track record of receiving donations from people with close links to terrorist organisations and extremists, and if he received funds which he has not declared for this trip then that needs to be investigated. If he paid for such a trip himself, then that would be extremely disturbing, but if some other entity paid for the trip, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards must tell the public who is pulling his strings.”

The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) has upheld a complaint by Campaign Against Antisemitism over the publication by The Telegraph of a claim that the Rothschild family controlled all of the central banks in all of the countries in the world except for Cuba, Iran and North Korea. The antisemitic myth is frequently used by antisemites to claim that any acts against those nations are in fact secret machinations by world Jewry to overthrow the last strongholds of resistance to Jewish dominance.

Whilst we welcome IPSO’s decision to uphold our complaint, we consider the remedy proposed to be toothless, leaving us concerned that ISPO is unfit for purpose.

We complained directly to The Telegraph after the newspaper’s Travel Editor, Oliver Smith, wrote and published a list of the only three countries in the world which “don’t have a central bank owned or controlled by the Rothschild family”, listing Cuba, North Korea and Iran.

We did not anticipate complaining to IPSO at all, merely seeking action by the newspaper itself to explain how Mr Smith had come to publish the claim, as it can only be found on extreme antisemitic website. Whilst Mr Smith apologised to us in a private e-mail, claiming that he is not antisemitic and picked up the antisemitic myth from a website which looked innocuous, he ignored requests to name the website when it was pointed out that no innocent-looking websites publish such antisemitic material, the only ones that do being specialist antisemitic forums and blogs.

When Campaign Against Antisemitism pushed the point, The Telegraph’s Head of Compliance, Jess McAree, stepped in and said that if we pursued our complaint they would not publish an article already cleared for publication by the newspaper’s compliance team, insisting that the apparent threat was merely the implementation of the newspaper’s policies. In the end we refused to back down and published the article on our own website.

Due to the handling of the matter by Mr Smith and Mr McAree, we complained to IPSO. Whilst IPSO has now ruled in Campaign Against Antisemitism’s favour, the outcome of its laborious complaints process however is that The Telegraph has published a well-buried apology on its website only, and that is all.

We are extremely disappointed in IPSO.

Firstly, IPSO ruled that the complaint should be investigated under the Editorial Code as a matter of “accuracy” only and not “discrimination”, which is beyond perverse. Of course it is not accurate to say that the Rothschild family owns almost all of the central banks of the world’s nations, but to ignore the fact that a variation of that very myth was popularised by none other than Nazi Germany is an abominable dereliction of duty for a regulator.

Secondly, and no less perversely, Campaign Against Antisemitism’s proposed remedies were rejected. We suggested that as a minimum The Telegraph should agree to publish an article by a suitable academic on the provenance of such antisemitic conspiracy myths, and that it should investigate how a claim found only on vehemently antisemitic websites came to be treated as reliable source material not by a rookie journalist but by an editor.

Mr Smith, Mr McAree and The Telegraph have been let off lightly by a toothless regulator that is unfit for purpose. It is hard to see how the Jewish community can have any faith in IPSO.

Mohammed Sawalha, a trustee of the Finsbury Park Mosque in north London, one of Britain’s most prominent mosques, is reportedly a member of the political bureau of Hamas, the terrorist organisation that seeks the genocide of Jews worldwide, including in Britain.

Hamas is was listed as a proscribed terrorist organisation in the UK in March 2001. It is also banned by the United States and the EU.

According to The Times, Mr Sawalha’s role with Hamas was revealed when it was announced that he was part of a Hamas delegation to Moscow in September which held a meeting with Mikhail Bogdanov, President Putin’s Middle East Envoy and a Deputy Foreign Minister. He was allegedly the former military commander of Hamas in the West Bank and was named in a 2004 indictment against another Hamas operative by the United States.

Last week, Boris Johnson, the UK Foreign Secretary, urged Hamas to cease its “violent antisemitic propaganda” and to “renounce terror”.

Mr Sawalha, aged 56, arrived in Britain from the West Bank as a refugee in the early 1990s. He was appointed a trustee of the Finsbury Park Mosque in 2010, making him legally responsible for overseeing its management.

The Sunday Times reported in 2008 that he had been named in US court documents as having previously been “in charge of Hamas terrorist operations in the West Bank.”

The mosque said in statement that it is a “British charity and has no relationship with Hamas”. Mr Sawalha could not be contacted by The Times for comment.

Campaign Against Antisemitism has written to the Charity Commission asking that it investigate the matter urgently.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority has acted to close a loophole following the collapse of a disciplinary case instigated by Campaign Against Antisemitism.

We complained to the Solicitors Regulation Authority after our Online Monitoring and Investigations Unit found multiple antisemitic posts on the Facebook account of solicitor Saleem Afsar, but due to difficulties ascertaining who had posted the material on Mr Afsar’s Facebook account, the Solicitors Regulation Authority could not take the case further.

Now, the Solicitors Regulation Authority has introduced rules stating that: “If it comes to your attention that a third party has accessed your computer and posted an inappropriate comment in your name on a social media network, you should take immediate steps to go online to refute the comment. It is advisable in any event to regularly audit your site to remove any material which makes you uncomfortable.”

It is extremely regrettable that whoever posted the antisemitic material on Mr Afsar’s Facebook page will now likely go unpunished, however we are very pleased that the Solicitors Regulation Authority has taken this matter extremely seriously and we commend them for ensuring that in the future, solicitors will be held accountable for antisemitic material appearing on their social media accounts unless they refute it.

In this case, the material itself was highly disturbing. For example, on 26th November 2015, Mr Afsar’s Facebook account was used to post a link to a picture referring to the US military being controlled by Israel, along with the comment: “Know that is saying something! More research needed.”

On 25th February 2016, Mr Afsar’s Facebook account was used to share a video with the caption “Interesting!” The video asserts that the number of victims during the Holocaust was exaggerated. It claims only 100,000 – 600,000 Jews were killed by the Nazis. The video then asks: “What did the Jews do to deserve this?” The answer given is that Jews control the media, law and academia, Jews were responsible for the financial crash during the 1930s, and Jews are sexually immoral.

On 12th March 2016, Mr Afsar’s Facebook account was used to share a video and newspaper headline claiming that Mossad was behind the 7/7 London terror attacks.

On 23rd March and 7th April 2016, Mr Afsar’s Facebook account was used to share a video from “The Free Thought Project” which was entitled: “The Rothschild Conspiracy Explained in 4 minutes.” As the title suggests, the video argues of a worldwide conspiracy by the Rothschild family to organise 9/11, the invasion of the Middle East and a monopoly of the world banks. The Rothschild family has often been used as a mask for Jewish conspiracy theories and this video captures this sentiment.

On 9th April 2016, Mr Afsar’s Facebook account was used to share a video entitled: “9/11 Real Truth in 2 minutes!! Wake up and Know the Real Enemy.” The video came from a page called “From Darkness To Light” which is antisemitic. The video asserts that that Mossad was behind the attacks on 9/11. The narrator makes offensive statements such as: “Israel will flat-ass disappear from this earth”, and that Israel will be “scrubbed off the earth and they are not going to give a rat’s arse what the cost is”.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority recently met with Campaign Against Antisemitism to learn more about antisemitism and discuss how we can help educate their solicitors about the complexities of antisemitism.

Mr Afsar did not respond to a request for his comments.

Campaign Against Antisemitism has lodged a formal complaint with the Charity Commission and written to donors to the Reading International Solidarity Centre after it hosted a launch for antisemite Gilad Atzmon’s new book, Being in Time — A Post-Political Manifesto. Organised by Reading Friends of Palestine, the event was part of the Reading International Festival and took place yesterday evening.

Campaign Against Antisemitism had already written to the Reading International Solidarity Centre to alert them that Gilad Atzmon is a notorious antisemite who has, for a number of years, used social media as a vehicle to harass and bait Jewish people.

The Centre responded by blocking us on Twitter and apparently upgrading the event to the largest room in the building.

In March this year, Mr Atzmon attended a talk at the London School of Economics with Richard Falk, the discredited and disgraced fringe antisemitic conspiracy theorist and the former UN envoy, where he reportedly told those around him that “the Jews were expelled from Germany for misbehaving.” Stunned audience members asked him to repeat what he had said and he did. Mr Atzmon also was heard recommending the works of disgraced historian David Irving, who in 2000 was proven in court to be an antisemite, a Holocaust denier and an admirer of Hitler. It is also reported that Mr Atzmon later said, “Jews are always expelled for a reason.”

In December 2014, he told a Jewish Twitter user, “I am not a Jew any more. I indeed despise the Jew in me (whatever is left). I absolutely detest the Jew in you.”

Another of his books, The Wandering Who, was described in 2011 as “quite probably the most antisemitic book published in this country in recent years.”

He has stated that Jews were responsible for their persecution by the Nazis, Jews should apologise for making gentiles hate them, burning synagogues is “a rational act”, Jews are trying to control the world, Jews are harming the planet, Jews caused the credit crunch, and Israel is worse than Nazi Germany. He has also trivialised the scale and impact of the Holocaust.

The International Definition of Antisemitism, adopted by the British government, states, among other things, that the following are antisemitic:

  • 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.
  • Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
  • Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

In March 2012, a collective of Palestinian writers and activists disavowed Mr Atzmon for his attacks on Jews and Judaism, as well as his denial of the Holocaust.

You may wish to make your own complaints to the Charity Commission, as well as the Reading International Solidarity Centre’s donors, Reading Borough Council, the Earley Charity, the European Union, the Naturesave Trust, Food 4 Families and the Big Lottery Fund.

The broadcasting regulator, Ofcom, has dismissed complaints by Campaign Against Antisemitism and others against “The Lobby”, a so-called documentary on Al Jazeera English. Ofcom launched a formal investigation into “The Lobby” following a complaint from Campaign Against Antisemitism in Janaury and three other complaints.

“The Lobby” was premised on a remark by a junior Israeli Embassy employee and an MP’s former adviser. From one brief conversation, the programme attempted to extrapolate the existence of a full-bodied conspiracy, including the suggestion that swathes of the British Jewish community are in league with the Israeli government to subvert British democracy. In our complaint, our Regulatory Enforcement Unit alleged that the programme breached several core Principles of the Broadcasting Code, including accuracy, impartiality, fair treatment of individuals, harmful material and incitement.

However, this morning, Ofcom told us that: “Following careful consideration of the issues raised, Ofcom has decided not to uphold the complaints received”.

Ofcom has published its ruling that “The Lobby” was not in breach of broadcasting rules 2.3 and 5.5 on impartiality and discrimination. Though Ofcom did apply the International Definition of Antisemitism, it stated that it “did not consider that such a critical analysis of the actions of a foreign state constituted antisemitism, particularly as the overall focus of the programme was to examine whether the State of Israel was acting in a manner that would be expected of other democratic nations.” Furthermore, Ofcom ruled that “the programme had included a range of viewpoints on this matter of political controversy…and in light of the nature of the programme and its particular subject matter, we considered that the programme had maintained due impartiality.”

Campaign Against Antisemitism had argued that the programme:

  • Argued that the accusation of antisemitism is simply a means by which the Israeli government slurs its enemies, and that by extension Jewish complaints about antisemitic prejudice are disingenuous;
  • Proposed that the Labour Party’s antisemitism crisis is manufactured;
  • Belittled genuine and legitimate Jewish concerns;
  • Portrayed a particular Jewish individual as a thug cynically pretending to be a victim of antisemitism;
  • Spun routine internal political discussion and external organising in relation to Israel as conspiratorial and malign;
  • Portrayed the Israeli Embassy as controlling a wide network of Jewish and non-Jewish organisations; and
  • Placed Shai Masot, a junior Israeli Embassy employee, at the centre of a network, reminiscent of the well-known, historic antisemitic “Jewish Spider” claim with no evidence other than an arrogant offhand remark made by Mr Masot.

Whilst we welcomed Ofcom’s decision to launch a formal investigation, we are extremely disappointed that it has decided to allow Al Jazeera English to escape without rebuke. The suggestions of an overarching conspiracy run by the Israeli Embassy, and that the Labour Party’s antisemitism is manufactured, are very concerning due to the flimsy basis on which they were made, and the overall message of the programme.

The only way to appeal Ofcom’s decision is by bringing an action for judicial review, in which it would have to be proved that Ofcom’s ruling was so unreasonable that no reasonable person acting reasonably could have made it.

The Sunday Times has removed from its online edition a column by Kevin Myers which brazenly deploys an antisemitic trope about Jews and money.

Kevin Myers’ column about the BBC pay row contained the following paragraph: “I note that two of the best-paid women presenters in the BBC — Claudia Winkleman and Vanessa Feltz, with whose, no doubt, sterling work I am tragically unacquainted — are Jewish. Good for them. Jews are not generally noted for their insistence on selling their talent for the lowest possible price, which is the most useful measure there is of inveterate, lost-with-all-hands stupidity. I wonder, who are their agents? If they’re the same ones that negotiated the pay for the women on the lower scales, then maybe the latter have found their true value in the marketplace.”

Myers is already known as a particularly unpleasant journalist who has called the children of single parents “bastards” and claimed that “Africa is giving nothing to anyone — apart from AIDS”. He has also devoted an entire column in the Belfast Telegraph to claiming that there was no Holocaust on the basis that not all of the Jews murdered by the Nazis were cremated, and attempting to nitpick over whether six million Jews really were murdered, claiming that the Holocaust had become a “dogma”. He wrote: “There was no holocaust, (or Holocaust, as my computer software insists) and six million Jews were not murdered by the Third Reich. These two statements of mine are irrefutable truths, yet their utterance could get me thrown in the slammer in half the countries of the EU.”

It is clear that Kevin Myers should not have been invited to write for the Sunday Times, and his editors should never have allowed the column to be published. That they removed the column within hours of publishing it is proof that the decision was irrefutably wrong.

It is clear that the column breached clauses 12(i) and 12(ii) of the Independent Press Standards Organisation’s Editors’ Code by making discriminatory comments about Jews and also mentioning the religion of the Jewish BBC presenters at all. We have called on the Independent Press Standards Organisation to require the Sunday Times to prominently print apologies in the next edition; investigate the editorial process that allowed this column to be printed in the first place; and recommend that Kevin Myers no longer be employed by any newspaper as a columnist or journalist.

The broadcasting regulator, the Office of Communications (Ofcom), has revoked the license of Sheffield radio station, Iman FM, for broadcasting antisemitic and hate-filled speeches by Anwar Al-Awlaki, the “widely known terrorist leader and Al Qaeda recruiter.”

The station was suspended earlier this month pending representations to Ofcom by the radio station, however the radio station’s arguments that it should be allowed to continue to operate did not sway the regulator. In its revocation notice, Ofcom wrote: “On balance, after considering all the relevant factors, it is Ofcom’s Decision that the contraventions of the [Broadcasting] Code and failures to comply with the [Broadcasting Act] Licence conditions in this case are so extremely serious, and that the Licensee’s conduct was so extremely reckless that we have no confidence that the Licensee would be capable of complying with its [Broadcasting Act] Licence conditions or that similar breaches would be prevented in the future. On this basis, in Ofcom’s view it is necessary in the public interest to revoke the [Broadcasting Act] Licence…”

In its 18-page revocation notice, Ofcom confirmed Iman FM admitted to Ofcom that they had broadcast 25 hours worth of lectures by Al-Awlaki. The radio station had claimed that it was “not aware of the background of the preacher and had no knowledge of him being proscribed by the United Nations,” adding that “had this fact been known” they would not have broadcast the lectures.

In one speech broadcast by Iman FM, Al-Awlaki said that “Our problem is not with [Jews’] ethnicity but their mindset.” In another antisemitic comment condemned by Ofcom, Al-Awlaki referred to a highly controversial event in Islamic history relating to the Prophet Muhammad’s alleged order to kill a Jewish opponent. He stated: “Ka’ab was a Jew but ethnically an Arab, so that shows that our negative attitude towards Jews is not based on racism, not based on their ethnicity, so that proves we are not antisemitic. Our problem is not with their ethnicity but their mindset…the issue of the Muslims is not the ethnicity of the Jews but their mindset which leads such a people to become blasphemous against Allah, to speak against the prophet, and to reject his message, to plot against Muslims, cause disunity. It is against their evil actions themselves.”

Ofcom found that this statement would have been interpreted as justifying a “negative attitude” and critical view towards Jewish people, based on what it termed as Jews’ “mindset” and their “evil actions”. Ofcom wrote: “We considered this statement would have been perceived by listeners as justifying hatred or violence towards Jewish people, and therefore is a clear example of hate speech as defined by the Code.”

Ofcom first began to investigate Iman FM after a listener complained that they had aired lectures encouraging violence and religious hatred during Ramadan. Al-Awlaki, who advocated violent jihad against the United States, was killed in a drone strike in Yemen, authorised by President Obama, but his writings and sermons remain available online.

Campaign Against Antisemitism applauds Ofcom’s firm enforcement in this case,m which sends a strong message that the broadcasting of antisemitic hate speech will not be tolerated.

The radio station no longer appears to be broadcasting.

The broadcasting regulator, the Office of Communications (Ofcom), has suspended Sheffield radio station, Iman FM, for broadcasting antisemitic and hate-filled speeches by Anwar Al-Awlaki, the “widely known terrorist leader and Al Qaeda recruiter.”

In one speech broadcast by Iman FM, Al-Awlaki said that “Our problem is not with [Jews’] ethnicity but their mindset.”

According to Ofcom’s breach decision posted online: “Overall Ofcom considered the breaches in this case to be extremely serious and has today issued a Notice under section 111B Broadcasting Act 1990 suspending the Licence.” According to the suspension notice, Iman FM has 21 days to provide an explanation for the broadcast before the station is shut down.

Iman FM confirmed to Ofcom that they had broadcast 25 hours worth of lectures by Al-Awlaki, claiming that they were “not aware of the background of the preacher and had no knowledge of him being proscribed by the United Nations.” They added that “had this fact been known” they would not have broadcast the lectures and accepted the material breached the Broadcasting Code.

Ofcom began to investigate Iman FM after a listener complained that they had aired lectures encouraging violence and religious hatred during Ramadan. Al-Awlaki, who advocated violent jihad against the United States, was killed in a drone strike in Yemen, authorised by President Obama, but his writings and sermons remain available online.

In one antisemitic lecture condemned by Ofcom, Al-Awlaki referred to a highly controversial event in Islamic history relating to the Prophet Muhammad’s alleged order to kill a Jewish opponent. He stated: “Ka’ab was a Jew but ethnically an Arab, so that shows that our negative attitude towards Jews is not based on racism, not based on their ethnicity, so that proves we are not antisemitic. Our problem is not with their ethnicity but their mindset…the issue of the Muslims is not the ethnicity of the Jews but their mindset which leads such a people to become blasphemous against Allah, to speak against the prophet, and to reject his message, to plot against Muslims, cause disunity. It is against their evil actions themselves.”

Ofcom found that this statement would have been interpreted as justifying a “negative attitude” and critical view towards Jewish people, based on what it termed as Jews’ “mindset” and their “evil actions”. Ofcom wrote: “We considered this statement would have been perceived by listeners as justifying hatred or violence towards Jewish people, and therefore is a clear example of hate speech as defined by the Code.”

Campaign Against Antisemitism welcomes the finding from Ofcom and the strong message that it sends that the broadcasting of antisemitic hate speech will not be tolerated.

The Charity Commission for England and Wales is investigating the lawfulness of efforts by students’ unions to force a boycott of Israel. The Charity Commission investigation was opened following an exposé by the BBC, which was extensively assisted by Campaign Against Antisemitism. The BBC spent months interviewing students about the effects of the so-called Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel.

Through introductions to students, we were able to demonstrate that whilst BDS has no appreciable effect on trade between Britain and Israel, which continues to grow, it has an immense effect on the British Jewish community, and particularly Jewish students. Campaign Against Antisemitism is regularly approached by Jewish students whose experience has been ruined by bullying, intimidation and abuse directed at them in the context of BDS activities such as the invitation of extremist speakers to campuses, violent or intimidatory demonstrations and the isolation of ‘Zionist’ students from the rest of the student body.

Israel is the place from which Judaism originates and where half of the world’s Jewish population lives. Since its establishment it has been the one country that offers persecuted Jews from around the world unconditional safe haven. It is the religious and cultural heart of Judaism. To tell Jews that they will be treated as pariahs unless they renounce all religious and cultural connection to Israel and Israelis is antisemitic.

As we wrote to the Charity Commission, boycotting a country is neither illegal nor racist per se, the problem with BDS is that it is no mere boycott. Supporters of BDS routinely engage the International Definition of Antisemitism by:

  • Setting political tests which Jews must pass, or face being treated as a pariah, especially by demanding that Jews renounce their cultural and religious ties to Israel, the physical centre of the Jewish religion, the world’s only Jewish state, and the country in which almost half of the world’s Jewish population lives;
  • Attempting to isolate and shame Israeli Jews, but not non-Jews, who do not support BDS when they visit Britain or come to study or teach at British universities;
  • Treating the entirety of the State of Israel as occupied land, and thereby asserting that the existence of the state of Israel is a racist endeavour;
  • Working with genocidal antisemitic terrorist organisations;
  • Claiming that Israeli policy is to deliberately kill babies, or harvest the vital organs of non-Jews, which revives ancient blood libels;
  • Attempting to portray Israeli Jews as having created a Nazi state in the model of Nazi Germany, and of ‘using’ the Holocaust as political cover for purported Jewish crimes;
  • Defending against claims of antisemitism by proposing that the allegations are a ruse used by Jewish victims, not to call out racism but to silence criticism of Israel;
  • Projecting antisemitic conspiracy myths about nefarious Jewish power onto the Jewish state.

We are grateful to the BBC for drawing attention to this problem and for bravely highlighting the pervasive antisemitism within the BDS campaign.

We await the results of the Charity Commission’s investigation with interest.

If you have experienced antisemitism at university or would like to help us fight antisemitism on campus, contact [email protected].

The broadcasting regulator, Ofcom, has confirmed in a letter to Campaign Against Antisemitism that it has launched a formal investigation into Al Jazeera’s so-called documentary, “The Lobby”, following our complaint. Ofcom has completed their assessment of the programme they have launched a formal investigation into the programme’s compliance with the Broadcasting Code.

The investigation has been officially listed in Ofcom’s Broadcast and On Demand Bulletin. In particular, Ofcom is investigating whether the programme complied with rules in Sections Two (harm and offence) and Section Five (impartiality) of the Broadcasting Code. In addition, they are also investigating complaints of unfair treatment and infringement of privacy of a number of individuals featured in the programme.

“The Lobby” was premised on a remark by a junior Israeli Embassy employee and an MP’s former adviser. From one brief conversation, the programme attempted to extrapolate the existence of a full-bodied conspiracy, including the suggestion that swathes of the British Jewish community are in league with the Israeli government to subvert British democracy. In our complaint, our Regulatory Enforcement Unit alleged that the programme breached several core Principles of the Broadcasting Code, including accuracy, impartiality, fair treatment of individuals, harmful material and incitement.

Campaign Against Antisemitism welcomes this formal investigation and keenly awaits the outcome.

Campaign Against Antisemitism’s Regulatory Enforcement Unit has filed a complaint with Ofcom, the media regulator, over Al Jazeera English’s so-called investigation entitled “The Lobby”.

The four-part programme broadcast earlier this month is premised on an arrogant remark by a junior Israeli Embassy employee and an MP’s former adviser. From one brief conversation between two junior employees, the programme attempts to extrapolate the existence of a full-bodied conspiracy. It suggests that swathes of the British Jewish community are in league with the Israeli government to subvert British democracy, and that any action by Israel to promote its interests is not simply normal diplomacy but a nefarious conspiracy.

All broadcasters in the UK are obliged to abide by Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code, however we have alleged that the programme breached several core Principles of the Broadcasting Code, including accuracy, impartiality, fair treatment of individuals, harmful material and incitement. Amongst other breaches of the Principles, the programme:

  • Argues that the accusation of antisemitism is simply a means by which the Israeli government slurs its enemies, and that by extension Jewish complaints about antisemitic prejudice are disingenuous;
  • Proposes that the Labour Party’s antisemitism crisis is manufactured;
  • Belittles genuine and legitimate Jewish concerns;
  • Portrays a particular Jewish individual as a thug cynically pretending to be a victim of antisemitism;
  • Spins routine internal political discussion and external organising in relation to Israel as conspiratorial and malign;
  • Portrays the Israeli Embassy as controlling a wide network of Jewish and non-Jewish organisations; and
  • Places Shai Masot, a junior Israeli Embassy employee, at the centre of a network, reminiscent of the well-known, historic antisemitic “Jewish Spider” claim with no evidence other than an arrogant offhand remark made by Mr Masot.

Under the terms of the International Definition of Antisemitism, “The Lobby” crosses the line from legitimate discourse about Israel and becomes antisemitic by:

  • “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”;
  • “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”; and
  • “Applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”

We await Ofcom’s response.

An investigation by Campaign Against Antisemitism into the activities of the “European Forum for Ethnic Minority Individuals, Communities and Organizations” (EFEMICO) has revealed that it is in fact a front organisation run by an antisemite.

EFEMICO is in fact a one man band run by Schumann. Draped in the flag and colours of the EU, its official-sounding website, efemico.eu, claims to represent all minority “migrant settlers to the EU” but explicitly excludes Jews.

But the man behind the website, Jason Schumann is an antisemite who recently told a Jewish Facebook user: “It is Jews who are the real nazis. [sic] No group of people more insidious, more evil, or more pernicious. An eternal curse upon them.” His personal Twitter account has been suspended.

EFEMICO came to our attention when it targeted three organisations, Campaign Against Antisemitism, the Community Security Trust and Jewish Human Rights Watch, accusing them all of harassing innocent individuals and menacing them with a Charity Commission investigation, repeatedly tweeting: “Whilst antisemitism is wrong, anyone harassed by @CST_UK, @antisemitism or @jhrwatch, please contact us to take further. @ChtyCommission”

https://twitter.com/efemico_online/status/801379608331489280

Additionally, EFEMICO believes in the existence of a nefarious “Jewish lobby”. According to the International Definition of Antisemitism, “Making mendacious, dehumanising, demonising, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective” is antisemitic.

Our investigators contacted EURid, the EU’s website domain registration service, enquiring as to the ownership of efemico.eu, but found that the owner had entered no name, a non-functioning telephone number and the address of a serviced office centre in Manchester. We instigated the formal process to force the owner of the website to reveal their true identity, establishing that the owner of the website is Jason Schumann.

We contacted Schumann via his efemico.eu e-mail address, inviting him to comment on his antisemitic Facebook remark, and for transparency, all of our correspondence with him is reproduced below.

He has now taken down the efemico.eu website, blaming “cyber attacks”, whilst also penning a blog post in which he refers to Campaign Against Antisemitism’s private prosecution of Alison Chabloz and threatens: “If you read this, Gideon [Falter, Chairman of Campaign Against Antisemitism], despite the fact that I disagree with Alison [Chabloz]’s methods and many of her views, because of your recent threats to me and subversive efforts to misuse the law to push a wider agenda; be mindful that I haven’t finished with you or CAA yet, so watch this space. I promise you it will not end well!”

Through EFEMICO, Schumann has tried to intimidate organisations which fight antisemitism by falsely suggesting that they engage in harassment of innocent individuals. This incident shows the sophisticated techniques now being used against Jews, even to intimidate them from taking action against antisemitism.

Now that they are aware of the situation, EURid, which granted Schumann his official-looking online presence, should cease to play a part in the EFEMICO charade. You may wish to contact EURid about this matter through their website.

Jason Schumann is an antisemite and he should face the consequences of his hatred. We have reported his antisemitic comment to the police.

Our Correspondence with Jason Schumann

E-Mail to Schumann

From: Campaign Against Antisemitism <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 at 01:17
Subject: Request for comment
To: <***********@efemico.eu>

Jason,

We have been passed the attached screen capture of a conversation on Facebook.

In particular, we draw your attention to the following passage:

“Jason Schumann: Rakel, It is Jews who are the real nazis. No group of people more insidious, more evil, or more pernicious. An eternal curse upon them.”

We note that the comment is not on Facebook now.

We may make the screenshot public.

If you have any comments, please send them to us by e-mail in the next 24 hours.

Campaign Against Antisemitism

Response from Schumann

From: efemico.eu <***********@efemico.eu>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 at 07:35
Subject: Re: Request for comment
To: Campaign Against Antisemitism <[email protected]>

Without Prejudice and In Confidence

Dear Sir or Madam,

You will kindly refer to me as Mr Schumann.

You do not have the right or privilege to refer to me by my first name.

Furthermore, if you wish me to respond, you will reply to this email as a named individual.

Lastly, any more threats will be considered harassment and reported to both the Charity Commission and the police.

(I had planned to email you about the Charity Commission. All in good time)

To be clear, unless you are willing to reply as a named person, you will receive no further communication about this particular matter.

I do hope that I have made myself clear.

Sincerely,

Mr. Schumann

Further Response from Schumann

We have removed the names of various private individuals and a limited company which Schumann incorrectly believes to be associated in some way with Campaign Against Antisemitism, but we have not concealed the names of other Jewish organisations Schumann appears to be interested in.

From: Jason Schumann <**************@gmail.com>
Date: 13 December 2016 at 21:07
Subject: For Comment
To: Campaign Against Antisemitism <[email protected]>

Without Prejudice and In Confidence

Dear CAA,

Please respond to the following questions:

  1. Why are your ‘volunteers’ engaged in covert activity to spy on Alison Chabloz, including via her Facebook page?
  2. Has either Gideon Falter or CAA itself instructed them to do so?
  3. What are Gideon Falter and CAA’s connections with R****l (R****l D****k) D*******a, Eye On AntiSemitism, CST, and A*******e ‘Shittyknickers’ S*****t?
  4. Re point 3, are A*******e and R****l ‘volunteers’ for CAA?
  5. If point 4 is not applicable, please describe relations between said parties?
  6. Why is CAA and Gideon Falter spying on Alison Chabloz, Jason Schumann, and EFEMICO?
  7. Why has CAA and Gideon searched EFEMICO’s website?
  8. Why has CAA and Gideon made a malicious report to EURID regarding the contact details of EFEMICO’s website?
  9. Why, after EFEMICO’s contact details (via EURID) were updated, after enquiries and a complaint made by Gideon and CAA, did CAA send a threatening email to Jason Schumann?
  10. Why, after this complaint, did Gideon send an email to EFEMICO after 01:00 a.m GMT, dated the 11 December 2016?
  11. Why has CAA instigated a DDOS attack upon EFEMICO’s website?
  12. Has or does CAA condone DDOS?
  13. Does CAA have a volunteer code of conduct policy? If so, please disclose a copy
  14. What authority or law of the land does CAA have to act as a lawyer enforcer and vigilante?
  15. Re point 12, please provide evidence granting such permissions by authority of her majesty or her representative.
  16. Re 12 and 13, how is this compatible with charity law in the UK?
  17. Please describe how spying, vigilantism, and covert operations are compatible with charity law and CAA’s Objects?
  18. Is the Charity Commission aware of 12 – 17? Please provide evidence.
  19. Are the police and UK govt aware of 12 – 17? Please provide evidence.
  20. Who are the registered Trustees of CAA and on what grounds have the been hidden from public view. Please provide supporting evidence.
  21. Does CAA have any connection to or with ‘S*****t T*****e Limited’ and/ or its Directors?
  22. Are any parts of CAA’s business or operations registered offshore?
  23. Please provide full accounts for CAA and its partners or subsidiaries for the last 10 years.
  24. How many UK politicians and civil servants have CAA staff met with in the past 24 months?
  25. What are CAA’s links and communications with R****t F*******n of Jewish Human Rights Watch, employees, volunteers, or Trustees of?
  26. How many police officers has CAA met with in the past 24 months?
  27. Disclose details of any gifts, including accommodation, meals, flights, tickets, holidays provided to supporters of CAA, including police, Mps, charities, EU officials and all other beneficiaries?
  28. How many private prosecutions has CAA been involved with in the last 24 months? Provide details.
  29. How much financial support and resources has CAA provided to pursue such private prosecutions?
  30. Why has CAA condoned attempted social media hackings on anti-Zionist accounts?
  31. A list of donees since 2010 over and above £5K.
  32. Disclosure of personal information held by CAA and Gideon Falter related to Jason Schumann, including all social media, electronic and manual filing systems.
  33. Disclosure of data regarding CAA’s time, resources, staffing, and financial contribution toward funding Gideon Falter’s private prosecutions?
  34. A signed response in compliance with the attached Notice of Cease of Desist regarding Harassment?

I am not done with you, yet; and your response to each of the above will determine how I may choose to deal with you.

You should be mindful never to ever again threaten me.

I will not tolerate such infringements on my liberty by any one or any organisation.

NEVER poke a bear!

Regards,

Jason Schumann

!!!Zionism IS Racism!!!!

The Charity Commission has published a report confirming that it will not punish Abdurraheem Green, the founder and Chairman of the Islamic Education and Research Academy over comments captured on video in which he demanded that a Jewish man be removed from his sight.

Green was recorded saying: “Why don’t you take the Yahoudi [Jew] over there, far away so his stench doesn’t disturb us?” The charity said that the comment was “aimed at a habitual heckler in Hyde Park Speakers’ Corner, in a highly charged forum of debate, who happened to be Jewish. It was not aimed at any community or meant to be antisemitic in any way. However, recognising that it could be misconstrued, he has apologised openly for such errors of judgement made more than 20 years ago.” The comment was referred to the Commission as part of a report by the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain.

The Commission wrote in its report that it will not act over the incident because it found Green’s comments to have been made in a “personal capacity and not on behalf of the charity or at an event it organised,” though it did concede that the comments exposed the charity to risks.

For over a year, the Commission has been investigating cases referred to it by Campaign Against Antisemitism in which we have alleged serious misconduct and maladministration due to the promotion of antisemitism by the charities, but the Commission has yet to reach decisions.

This year the Commission sought and received new powers which it claimed would enable it to adopt a firmer regulatory stance.

The Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA) has condemned Sheffield Hallam University for failing to properly address a Jewish student’s complaint about antisemitism, and has ordered the university to pay him compensation of £3,000.

The student made a formal complaint to the university over its tolerance of anti-Israel activity that crossed the line into antisemitism and harassment, including tweets and Facebook posts by the university’s Palestine Society reportedly comparing Bethlehem to the Warsaw Ghetto and “Zionists” to Nazi criminals, and accusing Israel of harvesting the organs of Palestinian civilians. After deliberating for nearly nine months, the university comprehensively rejected the complaint, but the student took his case to the OIA.

The OIA strongly criticised the university’s handling of the complaint and found that the Palestine Society’s activity did cause him distress and inconvenience. The OIA cited the International Definition of Antisemitism which states that “using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterise Israel or Israelis” and “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” is antisemitic.

In a highly-significant move, the OIA reportedly described the definition as being “of particular relevance” and said the university should have engaged with the complainant’s request that it formally adopt the definition. The recognition by the OIA of the International Definition of Antisemitism in accordance with calls by Campaign Against Antisemitism, the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, and others sets an important precedent.

The university has been ordered to pay compensation of £3,000 to the student, review its policies and work with the students’ union to ensure complaints are dealt with fairly, and raise awareness across campus of the legal framework governing freedom of speech and the university’s responsibility to ensure that staff, students and others are “protected from discrimination, harassment and victimisation.”

We commend the student for making the complaint, and solicitor David Lewis and lecturer Lesley Klaff for assisting him. The precedent set by this decision will help Jewish students who are harassed and victimised by antisemites claiming merely to be critical of Israel. If you know of anybody who has suffered from antisemitic harassment, please contact us.

Campaign Against Antisemitism has complained to the Advertising Standards Authority and the Evening Standard over the inclusion this week of an advert about refugees.

The advert is headlined “Millions of refugees have fled war and persecution last year”, followed by a quotation from Adolf Hitler’s propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels: “The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that has now overtaken them.” The advert then ends: “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it”, with the hashtag #WhatWillWeDo.

The advert, sponsored by online organic food company Etefy, apparently tries to equate the Holocaust with the current migrant crisis, however the inclusion of the quotation, without context, explanation or rebuttal, is inexcusable.

Some have interpreted the advert as agreeing with Goebbels and others have even interpreted it as blaming Jews for the crisis.

You may wish to contact the Advertising Standards Authority and the Evening Standard.

We would like to thank everyone who has reported this ill-considered advert to us.

Abul “Abz” Hussain has resigned from the magistracy before he could be removed from office by the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice, following proceedings instigated by Campaign Against Antisemitism. In December 2014, the Sunday Telegraph published an exposé revealing that Hussain, was a serving magistrate, despite having published antisemitic comments on Facebook.

Campaign Against Antisemitism immediately contacted the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office which agreed with Hussain that he could not continue to serve as a magistrate until their investigation concluded. The investigation has taken more than a year, but the result is the right one, even though Hussain resigned from office before he could be removed by the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice.

The comments were first brought to light by Ted Jeory, who blogs about politics in the East End of London. Jeory’s revelation in 2010 of Hussain’s antisemitic views led to him being expelled from his senior position in George Galloway’s Respect Party, but it was not until the Sunday Telegraph exposé that we found out that he was still passing sentence as a Justice of the Peace.

The Facebook comments related to Abul Hussain’s facial hair and degenerated into slurs against Jews, including “u know the worlds coming to an end when a jew accuses another of being his kind!” and “jews like u are boring so find everything lame, here’s a penny go put it in the bank and u just might get a pound after ten years interest!”

We commend the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office for its ruling that antisemitism must be treated with zero tolerance, our only regret being the protracted nature of this investigation.

The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office told Campaign Against Antisemitism: “Mr Abul Hussain, a magistrate appointed to the North East London Area, has resigned from judicial office following an investigation into an allegation that he had posted racist and antisemitic comments on social media. A Disciplinary Panel recommended that Mr Hussain be removed from the judiciary, but he resigned before the disciplinary process had been formally concluded. His resignation took effect from 26 August 2015. Had he not resigned, the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice would have removed him from judicial office.”

The Charity Commission for England and Wales has announced that it is launching a statutory inquiry into alleged misconduct and mismanagement by the Ghulam Mustafa Trust.

The decision follows a complaint by Campaign Against Antisemitism.

Full statutory inquiries into charities are relatively rare. In 2012-13 there were just fifteen inquiries.

Campaign Against Antisemitism originally reported the Ghulam Mustafa Trust to the Charity Commission in September after a video was posted on the charity’s official Facebook page. The video was made by a trustee of the charity and showed viewers how to remove a supposed tracking device planted by “the f***ing Jews” in Samsung smartphones. The video urged viewers to check their smartphones for the tracking device, which is in fact the circuit that handles near-field communication. A young child was present during the filming of the video and can be heard speaking off camera.

Following an investigation by the Charity Commission, the video was removed and the charity was instructed to put in place a social media policy and code of conduct for trustees, but the trustee was left in his post, no apology was issued and the video had already been online for months, during which the charity had ignored complaints by Facebook users that it was antisemitic.

Campaign Against Antisemitism supplied detailed documentation to the Charity Commission in support of a statutory inquiry, and following this, the Charity Commission has decided that a statutory inquiry is warranted.

The Charity Commission can only use its powers to remove and permanently disqualify a trustee if recommended to do so by a statutory inquiry.

We commend the Charity Commission for taking the decision to launch a statutory inquiry into this serious misconduct and mismanagement by a trustee of the Ghulam Mustafa Trust. This step allows the Charity Commission to use the full extent of its powers, including removing and disqualifying the trustee, and that is what we hope the inquiry will decide is the appropriate measure in this matter.

When charities engage in inciting hatred, it is vital that the firmest regulatory action is taken and we are very pleased to note the Charity Commission’s decision to use powers reserved for the most serious concerns in dealing with this vile antisemitic incident. We await the outcome of the inquiry with interest.

The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Kathryn Hudson, has written to Campaign Against Antisemitism to say that she will not investigate the antisemitic comments made by Sir Gerald Kaufman in a speech because she does not believe that they bring the House of Commons or its members into disrepute.

Campaign Against Antisemitism had sent a complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards under clause 16 of the Parliamentary Rules of Conduct for MPs which states: “Members shall never undertake any action which would cause significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole, or of its Members generally.”

At a meeting last week at 1 Parliament Street, David Collier, a blogger who attended a meeting of the Palestine Return Centre, said that Kaufman claimed that “Jewish money, Jewish donations” dictate government policy on Israel. Kaufman reportedly began his speech by claiming that the wave of antisemitic stabbings in Israel which has seen Jews stabbed, axed, run over and shot in the streets for being Jews, was “fabricated”.

Kaufman’s claim that British Jews use “Jewish money” to subvert the government so that Israeli Jews may shoot innocent people combines antisemitic conspiracy theory with antisemitic blood libel. The fact that Kaufman, who is known as the Father of the House as the longest standing MP, made such comments and the fact that other MPs sat in taciturn acceptance of those comments patently brings the House into disrepute. How are Jewish people supposed to have faith in an institution whose members engage in such conduct?

We are appalled that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has examined the evidence put before her and found that the offence is not sufficiently grave to merit action.

All eyes must now return to the Labour Party itself, which we and others have asked to take disciplinary action. We remain in contact with the Labour Party which has so far only confirmed that the Opposition Chief Whip has met Kaufman today to “discuss” his comments, but not that disciplinary action is being taken.

Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards’ Letter

Dear Mr Falter,

Mrs Harrison has forwarded to me her email exchanges with you.  I have reviewed them very carefully and can confirm that she is correct. Generally, I may not look into complaints about the expression of a Member’s views and opinions and the bar for bringing such complaints into my remit is a high one.

I understand the distinction you seek to draw between the expression of views and opinions on the Middle East conflict and the words used by Sir Gerald to explain the position of the UK government. However, I agree with Mrs Harrison that this was an expression of his views and opinions – reflecting his interpretation of events – and so your allegation is caught by the general bar on my investigating complaints about the expression of views and opinions.

While many will disagree profoundly with Sir Gerald’s words, I do not consider that that in itself means they reflect either on the House as a whole or on its Members generally.

Yours sincerely,

Kathryn Hudson
Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards

Extracts from Sir Gerald Kaufman’s Speech