Lessons should be learned from this sorry saga. We greatly regret that the case was ever brought. At heart, it represents an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means. It would be very unfortunate if an exercise of this sort were ever repeated … We are also troubled by the implications of the claim. Underlying it we sense a worrying disregard for pluralism, tolerance and freedom of expression. (See here)
Cohen, Julius and MacShane must have celebrated this ruling long into the night. When Cohen published a book defending free speech in 2012, Julius and MacShane wrote extravagantly positive reviews. Julius said the book deserved to stand beside “Milton’s Areopagitica and Mill’s On Liberty” (see here); MacShane saluted Cohen as heir to Voltaire and other “giants of the 18th century” (see here). That’s why they must have been so pleased by the university ruling in March. But what was the case about? Here are the details:
A Jewish academic who claimed the University and College Union’s policy on Palestine constituted harassment has been rebuked by an employment tribunal for misusing the legal process. Ronnie Fraser, a further education lecturer and founding director of Academic Friends of Israel, argued that the UCU [University and College Union] was institutionally anti-Semitic owing to motions passed in favour of a boycott of Israel.
Despite enlisting the services of Anthony Julius, best known as Diana, Princess of Wales’ divorce lawyer and a partner at Mishcon de Reya, all of his 10 claims of harassment have been “dismissed in their totality”. During the 20-day hearing in December, Mr Fraser called several witnesses to give evidence, including Howard Jacobson, the Booker Prize winning novelist, John Mann MP, the former MP Denis MacShane and numerous leading Jewish academics. …
The action is branded by tribunal panel members as “an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means” and a case which showed a “worrying disregard for pluralism, tolerance and freedom of expression”. Scorn is also invoked for Mr Julius’s decision to pursue certain points, with complaints variously dismissed as “palpably groundless”, “obviously hopeless” and “devoid of any merit”. (Tribunal slams academic for bringing anti-Semitism case, Times Higher Education Supplement, 27th March 2013)
There you have it: Julius and MacShane were part of a determined assault on “pluralism, tolerance and freedom of expression.” Just to be clear: I don’t support left-wing boycotts of Israel. But Ronald Fraser’s claim was indeed an “impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means.” The absurdity of the case is underlined here:
Evidence given to us [the tribunal] about booing, jeering and harassing of Jewish speakers at Congress debates was also false, as truthful witnesses on the Claimant’s side accepted. One painfully ill-judged example of playing to the gallery was Mr Newmark’s preposterous claim, in answer to the suggestion in cross-examination that he had attempted to push his way into the 2008 meeting, that a “pushy Jew” stereotype was being applied to him. (UCU cleared of antisemitism – Anthony Julius charged with ‘being rubbish’, New Left Project, 26th March 2013)Jan with a Plan
The participation of Julius and MacShane in this farce is proof that neither has the slightest belief in free speech. Indeed, MacShane invoked the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism, which he chaired in 2006 and which argued that merely reading “racist” material on the internet should be made a criminal offence (see here and here). It’s plain that Julius and MacShane are experts in duplicity and double-think.
It’s also plain that they’re Jewish supremacists and think that Jews should always get their own way. MacShane has never admitted to any Jewish ancestry, but it’s highly probable that he is part Jewish. He’s just found it useful to pretend otherwise. In The Jewish Chronicle, the journalist Martin Bright called him “one of the community’s greatest champions” and argued that “we should mourn Denis MacShane’s fall from grace” (see here). MacShane’s mother was Irish Catholic, but his father was a Pole called Jan Matyjaszek and came to the UK after the Second World War. Was his father Jewish? Many people think so. Some suggest that Matyjaszek was a communist agent too:
It looks like there was all sorts of dodginess about his father’s background that Denis MacShane is trying to cover up. … Looks like his dad was recruited by the communists as early as 1944 and sent on a mission to the UK. … The KGB was actively recruiting in the 1960s and 1970s. A major target was East European emigrés and their families. Who paid for MacShane’s private education that conveyed him through to Merton [College, Oxford]? Then a job with the BBC, a change of name, infiltration into Polish Solidarity and a political career. (Comments posted at MacShane Jailed for 6 Months, Guido Fawkes blog, 23rd December 2013 – see here, here and here)
MacShane’s “political career” was devoted to two things above all others: he campaigned tirelessly both for Jews and for the European Union. Obviously then, he sees the EU as good for Jews. So does Peter Mandelson, who was a minister in the New Labour government just like MacShane. Mandelson is now Britain’s Commissioner to the EU. Like many other prominent figures in New Labour, Mandelson was an active Marxist in his youth: he and the New Labour journalist David Aaronovitch were both communists (see here and here).
Traitors at the Top
The communists wanted to open the UK’s borders to the Third World. When New Labour’s “former” communists came to power, they did exactly that:
Labour sent out “search parties” for immigrants to get them to come to the UK, Lord Mandelson has admitted. In a stunning confirmation that the Blair and Brown governments deliberately engineered mass immigration, the former Cabinet Minister and spin doctor said New Labour sought out foreign workers. He also conceded that the influx of arrivals meant the party’s traditional supporters are now unable to find work. Lord Mandelson’s remarks come three years after Labour officials denied claims by former adviser Andrew Neather that they deliberately encouraged immigration in order to change the make-up of Britain. Mr Neather said the policy was designed to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”. He said there was “a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural”. (Immigrants? We sent out search parties to get them to come…, The Daily Mail, May 13, 2013)
Friend of Free Speech