Tony Greenstein –v- Campaign Against Anti-Semitism – A Battle is Lost but the War Goes On Against the Fake Anti-Semitism Campaign
Tony Greenstein –v- Campaign Against Anti-Semitism – A Battle is Lost but the War Goes On Against the Fake Anti-Semitism Campaign
Tony Greenstein –v- Campaign Against Anti-Semitism – A Battle is Lost but the War Goes On Against the Fake Anti-Semitism Campaign
High Court Judgment exonerating the McCarthyist Campaign Against Anti-Semitism is based on Judge Nicklin’s racist decision that anti-Semitism is a matter of opinion not fact
In the summer of 2014 Israel launched an attack on Gaza. According to the UN Office for Humanitarian Affairs 2,251 people, the vast majority civilians, were killed. US fighter jets were used to strafe and bomb refugee camps and peoples’ homes. The ‘terrorists’ that Israel was fighting included 551 dead children. The war was supported by 95% of Israel’s Jewish population (rising at one stage to 97%). In Tel Aviv mobs took to the streets chanting‘There’s no school tomorrow,there’s no children left in Gaza! Oleh!’
The reaction of people in Britain and the West was overwhelmingly hostile to a ‘war’ that was so one-sided and disproportionate. The Israelis lost about 70 killed, nearly all of whom were military personnel. A demonstration of 150,000 took to the streets in London.
The Board of Deputies tried to hold a national demonstration in support of the slaughter in Gaza but managed to attract only 4,000 people according to police estimates. Most Jews in Britain weren’t keen on being seen to side with genocidal massacres.
This was the context in which the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism came on the scene. In August 2014, whilst the slaughter of Palestinians was still going on, the CAA held a demonstration against ‘anti-Semitism’. What was this ‘anti-Semitism’? Opposition to Israel’s campaign of mass murder.
With the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party the CAA began focusing on attacking Corbyn and and the left leadership of the Labour Party. One of its first targets was the Jewish MP, himself a Zionist, Gerald Kaufman. During a previous Israeli attack on Gaza, Cast Lead, in 2008-9 Kaufman had famously compared the Israeli blitzkrieg to the Nazi attacks on Jews. He declared, in a speech in Parliament.
‘My grandmother did not die to provide cover for Israeli soldiers murdering Palestinian grandmothers in Gaza.”
“The present Israeli government ruthlessly and cynically exploits the continuing guilt from gentiles over the slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust as justification for their murder of Palestinians.”
When Kaufman made a comment about ‘Jewish money’ from Conservative Friends of Israel being responsible for the Tories’ unflinching support of Israel, the CAA targeted him with no less than 32 articles. They waged a nasty spiteful campaign and when Kaufman died they printed a vindictive and malicious obituary Sir Gerald Kaufman MP’s words have left a rotting stain on our institutions. ‘Have They No Shame?’ I wrote. ‘Whilst his body is still warm – Fake ‘Anti-Semitism’ Charity Continues to Defame Gerald Kaufmann’s Memory’.
My words were reminiscent of the fateful words of US Army Attorney Joseph Welch to Joseph McCarthy at the Senate Permanent Sub-Committee on Investigations. ‘Have you no sense of decency.’ The same can be said of the CAA.
As I became aware of the nefarious activities of this McCarthyist organisation I investigated further and in April 2016 I wrote ‘EXCLUSIVE – Lifting the Lid on the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism’. On February 6 2017 I submitted a complaint to the Charity Commission that the CAA was a bogus charity and should be deregistered. Shortly after I launched a petition on Change.org asking people to support my campaign to deregister the CAA. The CAA was clearly a political organisation and by pretending to be a charity it was defrauding the taxpayer. I wanted to make an honest person of it!
Almost immediately after this, the CAA responded by calling me a ‘notorious anti-Semite’ and referring to minor convictions, 30+ years old. In February 2018, just before the one year time limit was due to expire, I launched an action in the High Court for defamation. A year later, on February 15 2019 Nicklin J decided, at an interim hearing, that the statements (there were 5 articles) that I was a notorious anti-Semite, was a statement of opinion not fact.
Under the Defamation Act 2013 there are two principal defences to libel – truth or honest opinion. You can either claim that what you said was true (under section 2) or that it was a statement of ‘honest opinion’ (section 3). You might imagine that the CAA were confident enough in their belief that I was a ‘notorious anti-Semite’ to defend their articles on the basis that it was true.
However you would be wrong. They chose instead the ‘honest opinion’ defence because it didn’t matter whether what they said was true, all that was necessary was to show that they were honest persons. Or rather it was up to me to prove that they were dishonest and malicious. In other words the burden of proof was reversed.
You might find this surprising given the welter of accusations in recent times of ‘anti-Semitism’ Surely given the flood of accusations, the Zionists would have no difficulty in proving that us anti-Zionists were anti-Semitic? Not a bit of it. When push comes to shove Zionists are extremely reluctant to prove the truth of their allegations.
In fact they are a bit like Donald Trump with his allegations of ballot rigging and fraud. The more allegations he makes the less evidence there is. So too with the fake ‘antisemitism’ campaign.
In the Labour Party where these allegations are made regularly one of the most remarkable features of the ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign is that there are no victims. Given that British Jews are said to have been terrorised by this campaign you might imagine that the broken victims of anti-Semitism might be everywhere. In fact they are nowhere. There are no victims, which is another reason why it is possible to say that there is no such phenomenon as Labour anti-Semitism.
In the initial stages I sought help to launch the action from the Bar Pro Bono Unit, which is now called Advocate. I also launched a crowd funding appeal without which it would have been impossible to continue the litigation. I estimate that nearly a thousand people have contribute to my appeal and for that I am extremely grateful.
At the end of October, in a ghostly, almost deserted Royal Courts of Justice because of the coronavirus pandemic, Justice Tipples heard an application by the CAA to strike out my claim because, under Part 24 of what is called the Civil Procedure Rules, my application had no prospects of success. Last Friday the judgement was issued upholding the CAA’s application.
Why the High Court’s Decision to Strike-Out My Claim Against the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism was itself a part of the Fake Antisemitism Campaign
The decision of Tipples J to strike out my libel claim against the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism was based on the ruling of Nicklin J last year that anti-Semitism is a matter of opinion not fact. This ruling, if nothing else, proves that the judiciary is institutionally racist.
It represents a trivialisation and dismissal of racism. Racism is objective not subjective, a fact not an opinion, a reality not an illusion. Tell anyone who is the victim of a racist attack or racial harassment that what they experienced is subjective. Of course to a conservative judiciary racism probably is just a matter of opinion.
The CAA, a Zionist organisation masquerading as a charity, claimed that their avoidance of a full trial was ‘humiliating’ to me. I feel anger not humiliation that the High Court gives carte blanche to an organisation whose only purpose is closing down free speech. The CAA was established with one purpose and one purpose only. To paint supporters of the Palestinians and anti-Zionists as anti-Semitic. It has no other purpose. My only regret is that I have let down the hundreds of anti-racists who funded my action.
Despite being limited by Nicklin’s judgment, which was entirely devoid of any reasoning, Tipples decision was nonetheless a text-book lesson in how the judiciary can twist, distort and simply ignore any evidence that runs contrary to their own Establishment prejudices. In particular Tipples determination to ignore ‘similar fact evidence’ unfavourable to the CAA.
i. I stated that the chant by far-Right settlers,‘Am Yisrael Chai’ (long live Israel) is equivalent to ‘heil Hitler’. Tipples equated this (para. 26) with comparing all Israelis to Nazis. What I actually said was in the context of Israeli settlers supporting Baruch Goldstein, a fellow settler who murdered 29 Palestinians and injured 125 who were worshipping in the Ibrahimi mosque in Hebron. Tipples said that ‘the context or the additional facts that the claimant wishes to rely on are irrelevant in relation to honest opinion defence.’ According to this batty decision any evidence demonstrating that honesty is not something one normally associates with the CAA, was ruled out a priori.
As a matter of logic if I had said all Israelis are comparable to Nazis then that is not anti-Semitic. It’s wrong but being wrong is not the same as anti-Semitism, a point her ladyship clearly didn’t understand.
ii. Another example of evidence that Tipples ignored related to Jackie Walker, who the CAA has attacked 132 times on its web site. In one post, which they deleted when they realised their mistake, the CAA attacked Jackie for saying that Hitler wasn’t responsible for the Holocaust and that the Holocaust might be justified. What Jackie had actually done was to repeat a quote from David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister:
Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country…. There has been antisemitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?
The CAA were unaware that this quote was from Ben Gurion not Walker. This quotation first appeared in a book by Nahum Goldman, The Jewish Paradox. Despite being a former President of the World Jewish Congress and the World Zionist Organisation, it is clear that the CAA had never heard of Goldman. And why should they? Most Zionists are completely ignorant of the history of their own movement. The only thing they know about is the latest Israeli hasbara (propaganda).
The CAA saw the words Hitler and Auschwitz, and using their bastardised version of the IHRA put 2 and 2 together and got 6. Clearly if the CAA could twist a quote of Ben Gurion into that of a holocaust denier they are capable of distorting and twisting anything, which is exactly what they have been doing throughout their miserable existence. But the blinkered Tipples preferred to turn a blind eye. In her judgment no mention was made of this example of how the CAA can turn the most innocuous statement into anti-Semitism.
It demonstrated that the CAA deliberately smears and lies about anyone who is critical of Zionism or Israel. Tipples refused to accept anything that was probative of the CAA or questioned their honesty.
iii. Another example was when Tipples found (para 41), in respect of a letter to the Guardian, in which I was the lead signatory, that
‘an honest person clearly could express the opinion on 26 February 2017… that the claimant had lied when he claimed in The Guardian newspaper that the IDA definition prevents criticism of Israel.’
Firstly there is no such thing as the IDA (International Definition of Anti-Semitism ). Bad as it is, the IHRA has two preceding paragraphs preceding the 11 illustrations of ‘anti-Semitism’, 7 of which define anti-Semitism in terms of Israel. They read:
Manifestations (of anti-Semitism) might include the targeting of the state of Israel…. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic….Contemporary examples of antisemitism… could, taking into account the overall context, include…
The CAA when branding someone as an anti-Semite deliberately strips out any context and takes any superficial breach of the 11 illustrations as proof of ‘anti-Semitism’. Professor Ze’ev Sternhell for example, who was a child survivor of the holocaust, wrote an article in Ha’aretz titled In Israel, Growing Fascism and a Racism Akin to Early Nazism. To the Zionist McCarthyists of the CAA, even a holocaust survivor is anti-Semitic yet the blinkered Tipples saw nothing wrong in this.
Nor did our letter to the Guardian claim that the IHRA definition prevented criticism of Israel. What we said was that the IHRA was ‘designed to silence public debate on Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians.’ Clearly the distinction between the 2 statements above was too subtle for Tipples.
This letter was signed by 62 people including 3 Jewish Professors. Over half the signatories were Jewish. Presumably they too were liars.
The IHRA states that it is anti-Semitic to ‘require of Israel behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.’ But Israel is not democratic. It is an ethno-nationalist Jewish state. In the West Bank there are 2 systems of law – one for Jews and military law for Palestinians. That is normally known as Apartheid.
Palestinians living in Israel are tolerated guests in a state that says they have no national rights. In the words of Benjamin Netanyahu:
‘Israel is not a state of all its citizens. According to the basic nationality law we passed, Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people – and only it.’
That is why Israel actively pursues a policy of ‘Judaisation’ of the Galilee, Jerusalem and the Negev, i.e. reducing the concentration of Arabs in the Galilee, Jerusalem and the Negev and surrounding them with Jewish communities (most Israelis live in Jewish only communities).
What we said in the letter was no different to what numerous people have said. Is the idiot Judge Tipples saying that an honest person could brand all of them anti-Semitic?
People such as the renowned human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson QC who described how the
‘looseness of the definition is liable to chill legitimate criticisms of the state of Israel and coverage of human rights abuses’.
Or Hugh Tomlinson QC who stated that the IHRA has ‘a potential chilling effect on public bodies’.
Not forgetting the Jewish former Court of Appeal judge, Sir Stephen Sedley. According to Tipples he too must be a liar for stating, in an article about the IHRA that
‘Endeavours to conflate the two [anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism] by characterising everything other than anodyne criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic are not new.’
Even the person who drafted the IHRA, Kenneth Stern, claimed in testimony to the US Congress, that the CAA’s targeting of a Jewish lecturer, Rachel Gould, for writing an articleBeyond Anti-Semitism’ was ‘egregious’. The CAA called on Bristol University to dismiss her. Stern described their behaviour as ‘chilling and McCarthy-like’. Clearly Tipples believes that targeting academics for writing articles that fail their contrived ‘anti-Semitism’ test are the actions of honest people. Tipples has a strange definition of honesty.
iv. Gideon Falter, Chairman of the CAA stated, in his witness statement, that ‘Mr Greenstein is seeking to shut down the CAA’ in reference to my complaint to the Charity Commission. This was a clear and obvious lie. In my own witness statement I said that:
I merely wish to give it the same rights as any other political organisation, including the opportunity to pay its taxes. It is fraudulent to hide behind a charity’s tax shield when you are a political group.
Clearly Tipples thinks nothing of tax avoidance, despite it being, theoretically at least, a crime.
v. Gideon Falter alleged that I lied in my complaint to the Charity Commission claiming:
On a date unknown, the Claimant told the Charity Commission that the CAA was not concerned with fascist groups who were Holocaust deniers.
I said no such thing. What I did say was that:
The CAA might be expected to concentrate on the far-Right and holocaust deniers if it was genuinely concerned about anti–Semitism. Instead it focuses almost solely on the Labour Party and to a lesser extent on the Lib Dems (my emphasis)
I followed this up on 10th February writing:
the CAA is not a charitable organisation. It is a political group masquerading as a charity, whose primary purpose is to libel and label critics of Israel and Zionism as anti-Semitic. It devotes most of its time to making false and damaging accusations against anyone who is supportive of the Palestinians and opposed to Zionism. Its web site is dominated by articles and allegations to this effect….
vi. The CAA waged a war against Corbyn contrary to Charity Commission rules about Charities remaining party politically independent, for example their call on July 22nd for Corbyn’s suspension (which Starmer has been only too happy to grant).
vii. I described how the CAA is not interested in calling out the anti-Semitism of supporters of Israel or Zionism giving Boris Johnson and his novel 72 Virgins as a specific example. Johnson claimed that it is a ‘Jewish cabal who run the American media complex’ and that Jewish media moguls in Russia ran the TV stations and were engaged in ‘some kind of fiddling of the (election) figures.’
There are numerous other examples. For example they not only say nothing about Zionist figures like Jonathan Hoffman who openly work with fascists and racists, as long as they support Israel, but they themselves work with these elements. The CAA have nothing on their website which even mentions Tommy Robinson. I also provided as exhibits, photographs of the CAA’s Investigative Officer Steven Silverman in the company of Daniel Thomas, Robinson’s bodyguard.
The CAA said nothing about Jacob Rees-Mogg’s retweet of Alice Weidel, the Leader of Germany’s far-Right AfD whose former leader Frauke Petry’s call for refugee boats to be sunk led to its expulsion from the European Conservative & Reform Group in the European Parliament. AfD members also march regularly alongside neo-Nazis. There is just one mention of Rees-Mogg on D’s web site and that is in an article attacking Ken Livingstone! It is a party full of holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis but it also ardently pro-Israel.
Even the Jewish Chronicle had an articleJacob Rees-Mogg faces fury over ‘disgraceful’ promotion of ‘antisemitic’ German party. The CAA also failed to mention what Michael Berkowitz, Professor of Modern Jewish History at UCL, described as ‘an expressly antisemitic sentiment’, again by Rees-Mogg, who described two Jewish Conservatives, Oliver Letwin and John Bercow as “Illuminati who are taking the powers to themselves.” The Illuminati are at the centre of many anti-Semitic theories.
viii. Tipples found that calling or comparing Jews or Zionists to Nazis anti-Semitic despite my giving a host of examples as to why this is not so. She chose not to refer at any stage to my rebuttal and accepted, on the basis of blatant misquoting of the CAA’s assertions. For example
a. Rabbi Dov Lior, the settlers Chief Rabbi said that ‘a Jewish fingernail is worth more than a thousand non-Jewish lives.’
b. Eli Dahan, Israel’s former Deputy Defence Minister said of the Palestinians that ‘To me, they are like animals, they aren’t human.’ explaining that ‘“A Jew always has a much higher soul than a gentile, even if he is a homosexual,”
c. In 2016 an Israeli soldier Elor Azaria shot a captive prisoner dead. A demonstration in his support was held in Tel Aviv where a crowd of thousands chanted‘Death to the Arabs’. A banner ‘Kill them all’ was held high amongst the demonstrators. Another banner proclaimed ‘My honour is my loyalty’, the slogan of the Nazi SS.
d. Military Chief Rabbi Rontzki in 2008 gave soldiers preparing to enter Gaza a booklet implying that all Palestinians are their mortal enemies and that cruelty is sometimes a “good attribute”.
e. Rabbis Kastiel and Radler, who teach at the Eli pre-military academy told their students that ‘Hitler was right’ although ‘he was on the wrong side, meaning against the Jews’. Radler also stated that ‘the Holocaust was a divine punishment designed to make the Jewish people leave the diaspora…’
f. When Israeli mobs chant ‘Death to the Arabs’ how is that different from the chant ‘Death to the Jews’ in pre-war Germany?
g. Israeli politicians repeatedly invoke the Holocaust. For example Menachem Begin, Prime Minister of Israel, described Yasser Arafat of the PLO, during the siege of Beirut in 1982, as ‘Hitler in his bunker.’ Matan Vilnai, a former Deputy Defence Minister, declared that the people of Gaza ‘will bring upon themselves a bigger Shoah…’
If I had said that what Israel was doing was the same as the Nazis then that would clearly be wrong but not anti-Semitic.
h. Until Operation Barbarossa, the invasion of Russia, in June 1941, the Nazi policy towards the Jews had been expulsion not genocide. That is certainly comparable to Israeli policy.
i. Yair Golan, Deputy Chief of Staff, compared Israel today to Nazi Germany pre-1939 and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak endorsed his comments.
j. Daniel Blatman, a Professor of Holocaust Studies compared Israel’s deportation of Black refugees to the West’s refusal to admit Jewish refugees during the Nazi era and developments in Israel to those which led to the Nuremberg Laws. Supreme Court President Esther Hayut invoked the Nazi period while Dr Ofer Cassif, a Hebrew University politics professor compared Israel to Nazi Germany and called the Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked a ‘a filthy neo-Nazi.’ Are all of these anti-Semites?
k. The CAA suggested that my description of Louise Ellman and Luciana Berger as ‘MPs for Tel Aviv’ is ‘a naked anti-Semitic trope.’ Perhaps I was being anti-Semitic when I accused the non-Jewish Joan Ryan of being the MP for Jerusalem Central? Was it racist for people to describe John Carlisle, Conservative MP for Luton North and a supporter of South African Apartheid as the MP for Bloemfontein West, Jerusalem?
l. I also provided evidence that in 2018 Falter had attended a Hindu nationalist meeting at the House of Commons called by Tory MP Bob Blackman, a well known Islamaphobe. Falter was reported as ‘assuring the meeting that he and his supporters would do all they could to help eradicate the ‘duty’ on the government to make Caste an aspect of race’.There is a certain logic in a racist Zionist supporting racist Hindus in India as represented by the BJP Government of Narendra Modi. Taking a leaf out of the Zionist book, Hindu chauvinists in this country have coined the term ‘Hinduphobia’. Opponents of India’s military rule in Kashmir are really motivated by hate of Hindus just a opponents of Israel are motivated by ‘antisemitism’. It having nothing to do with torture, administrative detention, land theft etc.
m. Falter described the comments of a Zionist, George Yusuf on Twitter saying ‘shame your family survived world can do without cunts line (sic) you’. as an ‘unseemly exchange’. thus demonstrating that Zionist anti-Semitism is of no concern to the CAA.
n. Gideon Falter has form when it comes to making false allegations. He reported Rowan Laxton, a senior civil servant, to the Police for shouting at a TV screen ‘fucking Jews’. Laxton was convicted at first instance but cleared on appeal at Southwark Crown Court. Laxton is currently British High Commissioner to Cameroon.
o. On 20 February 2017 D published an article headlined Expel Malaka Shwaik’. All the black arts were used to portray Malaka, a student at Exeter University from Gaza, as a she-devil. The CAA accused Shwaik of being ‘a terrorist-supporting antisemite’. It was of course a lie.
p. Malaka spoke at a demonstration called in protest at a spate of anti-Semitic incidents on campus suggesting that D’s allegation were false. The CAA used the opportunity to mock Exeter students ‘They did naturally what comes to them...’
q. These allegations against Malaka were widely reported. She was cleared after an investigation of the CAA’s allegations by the Students’ Guild at Exeter University.
r. Whilst the Daily Mail, Daily Express and Devon Live accepted the findings of the Guild investigation, apologised and retracted their allegations, D brazened it out.
s. The CAA has engaged in a deliberate policy of fear mongering amongst British Jews. In 2015 D produced a Report which concluded that 45% of British people hold anti-Semitic views. The Institute of Jewish Policy Research said of D’s claim that the majority of British Jews considered antisemitism today an echo of the 1930s that it “verges into irresponsible territory – it is an incendiary finding, and there is simply no way to ascertain whether or not it is accurate.’ It also claimed that Report was ‘littered with flaws”. Anshel Pfeffer in Ha’aretz was even blunter.
Jews are represented in Britain in numbers that are many times their proportion of the population in both Houses of Parliament, on the Sunday Times Rich List, in media, academia, professions…. To compare today’s Britain, for all its faults, with the Jews’ situation in 1930s exhibits a disconnect from reality which borders on hysteria.
t. The Jewish Chronicle’s Survation poll poured scorn on D’s ‘findings’ that over half the British Jewish population were thinking of leaving. Some 88% of British Jews stated that they had no intention of emigrating.
u. The CAA is also a deeply Islamaphobic organisation which sheds light on its claim to honesty. In 2016 D brought out a Report ‘British Muslims and Anti-Semitism’. It spoke of how:
the gradual build up of understanding and friendship between Britain’s Jews and Muslims has been utterly eclipsed by growing antisemitism amongst British Muslims. On every single count, British Muslims were more likely by far than the general British population to hold deeply antisemitic views. It is clear that many British Muslims reserve a special hatred for British Jews…’
v. This claim is not only a racist generalisation but a deliberate attempt to stir up divisions between Jews and Muslims.
w. On the cover of D’s Report was a picture of a Black person holding a poster with the slogan ‘Free Gaza – Hitler You Were Right’. I have been on dozens of Palestine solidarity demonstrations and have never seen anything remotely similar. This photograph can only have been intended to infer that such views are the norm amongst Muslims.
x. The CAA produced a graphic ‘Profile of British Muslim Anti-Semitism’. If a similar drawing of a typical Jewish male had been printed by Muslims then Falter would be the first to cry ‘anti-Semitism’. 4 years on and the CAA is still using the same ‘Hitler’ poster:
y. Perhaps most remarkable of all. It seems that most of Britain’s anti-Semites are Jewish! In my witness statement I listed just a few of the CAA’s targets such as Moshe Machover, Naomi Wimborne-Iddrissi, Rachel Gould, Mike Cushman, Gerald Kaufman, Glynn Secker and Jenny Manson. This is a phenomenon that has never been known before. Only cynics however would claim that it had anything to do with the fact that the above are Jewish anti-Zionists!
z. But when it comes to racism there is no better example than Gideon Falter. He is Vice Chairman of the Jewish National Fund, a body which owns and controls 93% of the land of Israel. This is land which bars non-Jews from accessing it. Not only that but Jews who lease land from the JNF are forbidden, on penalty of a fine and eventual termination of the lease, from employing non-Jews? Just imagine that a lease in Britain made the same stipulation concerning Jews. Then the CAA could, for once, rightly claim anti-Semitism.
All of this and more the myopic Tipples preferred not to see. In her opinion the CAA in the form of Gideon Falter, was an honest person.
I gave multiple examples of the deep racism of the CAA and Pickles deliberately chose to ignore them. One can only assume that she thinks that being a racist and an honest person are perfectly compatible. This in itself demonstrates that the judgment of Tipples, like that of Nicklin, is also fundamentally racist and Zionist.
The question, of which today’s US Supreme Court is an example, is who judges the judges?
I will be applying for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. We shall see if they are willing to upset Tipples. Below are some of my previous posts concerning the CAA.