Campaign Against Antisemitism’s analysis is that Mr Parker’s actions and statements amount to breaches of the International Definition of Antisemitism and qualify as antisemitic discourse according to our methodology.
By endorsing the use of the term “NazIsrael” [1][9a]; by sharing an image which compared Israel’s defence of its border with Gaza to Nazis executing prisoners in a concentration camp [3]; and by endorsing a comment which referred to “the Nazism of the Jews” in relation to Israel [8], he was endorsing and disseminating material which was “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”
By endorsing a statement which claimed that “the Jews assumed that they built a Nazisrael with US money and applause” [1] and another which referred to “the Nazism of the Jews” in relation to Israel [8], he was endorsing statements which were “Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel.”
Zionism is an expression of national self-determination for Jews, and since the establishment of the State of Israel, of support for the maintenance of that State. We note for example, the Labour Party’s guidance, particularly where it states that: “…for many Jews, Zionism represents national liberation. The concepts of Israel, Zion and Jerusalem run deeply in Jewish religion, identity and culture, and…are symbolic of a homeland, refuge, or place of safety. The sensitivities around these concepts should be considered before using them.” The allegation that Zionism is an inherently racist ideology was promulgated by the Soviet Union as part of a deliberate and explicitly antisemitic campaign to persecute Jewish citizens who wished to practise their religion and/or leave the Soviet Union – especially to emigrate to Israel, as well as to demonise and undermine Israel on the foreign stage. A singular purpose of this propaganda was to drive a false distinction between “Jews” and “Zionists”, in which the latter is the enemy of the former. By sharing an article which characterised Zionism as “a variant of white supremacy” [4a]; and by signing and sharing a petition which described Zionism as “a racist ideology” and Israel as a “racist colonial-settler state” [5a] and which demanded the exclusion of Jewish groups who support the existence of Israel from taking part in a public activity [5c], thereby actively demanding discrimination against Jews who identify as Zionists, he was “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).”
By endorsing a tweet which described Facebook as “a weapon of mass Zionist attack”, thereby implying that the company is controlled by Jews or Israel [2]; by suggesting that a Jew who identified as a Zionist would be “naturally interested in distorting history”, thereby invoking tropes of Jewish mendacity or untrustworthiness [4b]; and by invoking the conspiracy theory that Israel ‘controls’ America, by stating that Israel has “sovereignty over the United States of America” [6], he was “making mendacious, dehumanising, demonising, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as a collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.”
By signing and sharing a petition which characterised accusations of antisemitism as an “Israel-backed and reactionary campaign which presents anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism [sic]” [5b]; and by signing a statement which accused a Jewish charity fighting antisemitism of being a “politically motivated external campaign” enacting an “anti-Palestinian agenda” by “systematically [making] accusations of antisemitism against pro-Palestine activists” [7]; by sharing a petition which supported the assertions by Professor David Miller that Jewish students accusing him of antisemitic discourse were doing so falsely and acting as “political pawns” of Israel [10]; and by sharing an article which further characterised those same students and other Jewish groups as “Israel lobby groups” and their allegations of antisemitism as “false” [11], he was not only disseminating and endorsing material alleging large-scale conspiracies which necessarily involved Jews, but was also deploying the so-called ‘Livingstone Formulation’, by accusing Jews who cite evidence of antisemitism of lying, conspiring or having deceitful motives in doing so, when there is clear evidence that there have been breaches of the International Definition of Antisemitism. This further constitutes “making mendacious, dehumanising, demonising, or stereotypical allegations about Jews 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.”
We further note that the report of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) following its statutory investigation into antisemitism in the Labour Party, in which Campaign Against Antisemitism was the complainant, includes a section entitled “Types of antisemitic conduct that amounted to unlawful harassment” with a subsection entitled “Suggesting that complaints of antisemitism are fake or smears”. This subsection states that: “Labour Party agents denied antisemitism in the Party and made comments dismissing complaints as ‘smears’ and ‘fake’. This conduct may target Jewish members as deliberately making up antisemitism complaints to undermine the Labour Party, and ignores legitimate and genuine complaints of antisemitism in the Party. These comments went beyond simply describing the agents’ own personal experience of antisemitism in the Party.”
Additionally, in its report, the EHRC made clear that its judgements apply to all political parties and emphasised that the European Convention on Human Rights does not protect racist speech, which may include antisemitic speech.
On this basis, the EHRC found that denying antisemitism in the Labour Party and making comments dismissing complaints as “smears” or “fake” — such as allegations that complaints of antisemitism are “part of a smear campaign by ‘the Israel lobby’ to stigmatise critics of Israel as antisemitic, and…intended to undermine and disrupt the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn MP” — are not protected by the fundamental right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In other words, such comments are not protected as freedom of speech at all, but amount to unlawful harassment of Jewish people.
Furthermore, the EHRC specified certain examples of antisemitic conduct which would be unlawful on the same basis within the relevant context.
Mr Parker’s endorsement and dissemination of material deploying the so-called ‘Livingstone Formulation’ as described above; his endorsement and dissemination of material comparing Israelis with Nazis[1][3][8][9a]; his endorsement of statements holding Jews collectively responsible for the State of Israel [1][8]; and his comment and endorsement of comments relating to supposed Jewish or Israeli control over media or governments [2][6], appear, under our analysis, to be captured within the examples given in the EHRC’s report.
Moreover, by deploying the so-called ‘Livingstone Formulation’ as described above; by endorsing and disseminating material comparing Israelis with Nazis [1][3][8][9a]; by endorsing statements holding Jews collectively responsible for the State of Israel [1][8] and by endorsing and making comments relating to supposed Jewish or Israeli control over media or governments [2][6], Mr Parker may therefore have caused the Green Party to breach equality legislation, if found to have been acting as an agent of his Party.
