Its
letter to Change.org is clearly very rushed and shows every sign of panic.  They list 6 points and fail to number the
first point.  They then repeat the first
point in the 6th point.  They also
can’t spell ‘documented’ and their grammar is extremely poor throughout.  It would seem that panic has set in among the
arrogant threesome at CAA.  It has just
dawned on them that vehement and persistent attacks on what they call ‘racist
Labour’, their allegations that Jeremy Corbyn is personally anti-Semitic, their
attacks on Jackie Walker, Shami Chakrabarti and Gerald Kaufman, have nothing whatsoever
to do with charitable activities and are highly partisan.  Hence their panic attack.

Ludicrously
they claim that they don’t libel opponents of Israel when that appears to be
their main if not sole activity.

The CAA
say that their charitable activities are recognised by the Charity Commission which
rather begs the question as to whether the Charity Commission actually know
what the CAA are up to.  Either way they
are going to find out!

The claim
by the CAA that they are ‘scrupulously
not partisan’ apart from being an example of their awkward English is
laughable.  I have compiled just a few
examples of their partisanship and bias.

They
claim not to have elicited or provoked death threats.  There is no doubt that they have caused death
threats.  Whether they have elicited them
is a mute question.  Certainly they haven’t
condemned them. 

Jackie
Walker merits 19 posts accusing her of being an anti-Semite.

Jeremy
Corbyn merits no less than 73 posts!

Gerald
Kaufman can only rack up 21 posts.

Theresa
May also has 8 posts but unlike Corbyn they are complimentary for example CAA CONGRATULATES THERESA MAY and
then they expect us to take seriously their claim that they are non-partisan.

You might
say that the Tory Party today is not anti-Semitic.  But that is not true.  Eric Pickles, the Chairman of Conservative
Friends of Israel is a good example of an anti-Semitic Zionist.  He was Tory Party Chairman when they decided
to abandon their alliance in the European Parliament with the Christian Democrats
and instead form the European Conservatives & Reform group with far Right
parties, at least 2 of which were anti-Semitic. 
The Chairman of the ECR was Michal Kaminski of the Polish Law &
Justice Party.  He was an ex-neo-Nazi who
had opposed a national apology for the burning alive of up to 900 Polish Jews in
the war by fellow Poles.  Another member
was Robert Ziles of the Latvian LNNK, who spent a Sunday every March marching with
the veterans of the Latvian Waffen SS who helped guard concentration camps. 

As even David
Miliband observed:  “Eric Pickles, the Chairman of the
Conservative Party, explained without a hint of shame that we should not
condemn one of their new allies, the ‘For Fatherland and Freedom’ party, who
every year celebrate the Latvian Waffen SS with a march past of SS veterans,
because they were only following orders.’ 

You will
not find even a cursory mention of this type of genuine anti-Semitism on CAA because
their sole concern is anti-Zionism. 

The latest
‘non-partisan’ post of the CAA PALESTINE SOLIDARITY CAMPAIGN SPEAKER CALLS ON JEWS
TO “OVERCOME” SUFFERING OF THE HOLOCAUST is an attack on Bruce
Kent, the former Catholic priest who spoke at the picket of Netanyahu on
Monday.  The CAA are ‘appalled’ because Bruce
Kent called on Jews to “overcome” the trauma of the Holocaust. Apparently ‘it
cannot be overcome’.  Instead they should
continue to suffer and non-Jews should understand that ‘one of its principal lessons is that Jews absolutely must have the
right to self-determination, as embodied in the state of Israel’. I can’t
think of anything more guaranteed to increase anti-Semitism than the
pronouncements of the CAA.  The
non-political CAA assert that ‘It is prejudiced to expect Jews to renounce all
connection to Israel or be judged to be in some way deficient.’  On the contrary, it is a sign that Jewish communities
outside are coming of age in rejecting the poisonous doctrines of Zionism.

Below is
the complaint that the CAA have made against the petition and beneath that is
my response, which is lengthy.

This is what you can do

The Campaign Against Anti-Semitism are the wild men
of the Zionist Right.  They are widely
disliked even amongst the more sane Zionists. 
They tread on the turf of the CST, they are loud and  bombastic, they are dishonest in the surveys
they run, they are overtly anti-Muslim. 
There are numerous reasons to make a complaint and more to the point,
this nasty little group is vulnerable because they haven’t taken any care over
what they write or what they say.

Let’s sink them.

Tony Greenstein

TO PROMOTE RACIAL HARMONY FOR THE PUBLIC
BENEFIT BETWEEN JEWISH PEOPLE WHEREVER IN THE WORLD AND OTHER MEMBERS OF
SOCIETY BY THE ELIMINATION OF ANTISEMITISM, INCLUDING RAISING AWARENESS OF THE
OCCURRENCE OF ANTISEMITISM AND PROVIDING ADVOCACY, ASSISTANCE, CARE AND RELIEF
IN RELATION TO THOSE AFFECTED BY ANTISEMITISM. 
TO ADVANCE EDUCATION AS REGARDS THE HISTORY, CAUSES, EFFECTS AND
PREVENTION OF ANTISEMITISM FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT. 

We do not libel opponents of Israel, we factually report the
activities of antisemites. Claiming otherwise is severely damaging to our
reputation.

2. Our charitable activities are recognised by the Charity
Commission and HM Revenue and Customs.  Claiming
otherwise causes donors to doubt that our charity is legitimate and recognised
by the relevant authorities.

3. Our charity is scrupulously not partisan. Recently there has
been a widely-docuemented rise of antisemitism on the left of British politics,
particularly within the Labour Party. We report on anti-Semitism where it
occurs, not according to a political bias. Charities are not permitted to be
political organisations and the clear intention of this petition is to defame
our charity to the Charity Commission.

4. Our charity have not elicited or provoked death threats. If
such threats have occurred they are by no action of our charity. Claiming
otherwise is severely damaging to our reputation.

5. Our charity is extensively engaged in fighting antisemitism
from the far-right, including a private prosecution and judicial review being
undertaken to secure prosecutions of fascists and Holocaust deniers.

6. Our charity does not libel opponents of Israel, we factually
report the activities of antisemites. Claiming otherwise is severely damaging
to our reputation and the clear intention of this petition is to defame our charity
to the Charity Commission.

All of the above statements are factually inaccurate for the
reasons stated.

We cannot know the true identity of the person who created the
petition.

We
request that these details be withheld.

Response to Complaint of the Campaign Against Antisemitism

Thursday,
09 February 2017

Dear Change.org.,

Thank you for sending me a copy
of a Notice of Complaint from the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism.  I reject, in its entirety, their assertion
that the petition to which they object is, in any way, defamatory.  Truth is an absolute defence to a claim for
defamation in the British libel courts. 
I believe that the same is true for the American courts where the legal
hurdles to obtaining judgment for the Claimant are even higher.

I have no objection to the Claimant
having my name and email address.  I
would, however, object to them having details of my address because of death
threats that have already been made against their victims.  Sharing custody of a disabled boy it would
jeopardise the safety of others besides myself.

The Claimant’s Notice of
Complaint has clearly been drafted in a hurry because they forget to number
point 1 of their NoC and then repeat the same point at number 6.  Coupled with their misspellings and poor
English, this suggests that they have been seized by panic at the threat to
their charitable status. 

I will endeavour to explain in my
response why our allegations are fully justified and part and parcel of free
speech.  The CAA believes that they have
license to attack people at will but they object to being the object of
criticism themselves.

The purpose of the NoC is to get
Change.org to take down a petition with which they politically disagree.  The truth often hurts.  There is nothing in it which is libellous and
there is nothing in it which damages their reputation.  Any damage to their reputation stems solely
from their own activities.

However this case will be a test
of whether or not Change.org is willing to stand up for free speech against
those forces which seek to destroy and undermine our basic liberties.  The petition is based solely on the
activities of CAA as I will explain below. 

My rebuttal of the CAA’s
arguments should be read in conjunction with two blog posts which I have
written concerning the activities of CAA.

http://azvsas.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/the-campaign-against-anti-semitism.html

http://azvsas.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/exclusive-lifting-lid-on-campaign.html

http://azvsas.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/more-false-allegations-of-anti-semitism.html

The CAA state that they ‘PROMOTE RACIAL HARMONY FOR THE PUBLIC
BENEFIT BETWEEN JEWISH PEOPLE WHEREVER IN THE WORLD AND OTHER MEMBERS OF
SOCIETY BY THE ELIMINATION OF ANTISEMITISM’.  I disagree. 
The CAA is a deeply racist organisation. 
This is another reason why they should be deregistered as a
charity. 

The elimination
of anti-Semitism and indeed all forms of racism is a noble enterprise and one
to be lauded.  However the making of
false accusations of racism and anti-Semitism against people who are not in the
least anti-Semitic or racist is despicable. 
To falsely accuse someone of anti-Semitism is not only wrong in itself
but it lets those who are anti-Semites off the hook.  Genuine anti-Semites can easily point at the
false allegations of anti-Semitism in order to disguise their racism.  This is not simply theoretical.  When Gilad Atzmon, an ex-Israeli jazz player
who was indeed anti-Semitic, first appeared in Britain a decade ago, many
people rejected the accusation that he was anti-Semitic, despite his using
terms like the ‘Judaic code’ and alleging Jewish conspiracies to take over the
Western world, precisely because people had become immunised by false
accusations of anti-Semitism.  It was
only after a long and hard campaign to convince people, in which I was heavily
involved, that Atzmon was rejected by the Palestine solidarity movement and a
statement was issued by Ali Abunmah and other leading Palestinians and Arabs, Granting
no Quarter A
Call for the Disavowal of the Racism and Antisemitism of Gilad Atzmon. You
can read more about what I called the ‘boy cried wolf’ syndrome in an article I
wrote for the Guardian newspaper, The
Seamy Side of Solidarity.

The activities
of the CAA, far from combating anti-Semitism are likely to lead to an increase
in this form of racism.  As the CAA said
in its  ‘Annual
Anti-Semitism Barometer 2015 Full Report’ it was formed to tackle
anti-Semitism of ‘both a classical ethno-religious nature and also a
political nature related to Israel’.
I suggest that the latter is their main concern.  I do not accept that opposition to Israel’s
endemic and systematic racism has anything to do with anti-Semitism.  I oppose what Israel does to the Palestinians
because of my opposition, as a British Jew, to racism.  It would be utterly hypocritical to oppose
anti-Semitism and then condone racism against the Palestinians.

The CAA are a Zionist
organisation which sees as one of its purposes the engendering of panic in the
Jewish community by talking up ‘anti-Semitism’. 
That is one reason why they search for anti-Semites where none are to be
found.

The CAA has, through adept PR managed to generate headlines and
publicity through the skewed use of opinion polls.  In its 2015
Report it claimed, through the use of distorted statistics, that an opinion
poll showed that ‘almost
half(45%) of British adults believe at least one of the antisemitic
statements shown to them to be true’. It
asked questions such as ‘“Jews talk about the Holocaust too much in order to
get sympathy.”  This is
deemed anti-Semitism.  But this was a loaded question given that
supporters of Israel repeatedly use the Holocaust as a shield to ward off
criticism.  People see that Zionists talk
about the Holocaust in a way that is seen to be politically manipulative. 
Is a positive answer to this an indication of anti-Semitism? I think that is
very doubtful with most people. 

Apparently 1 in 5 people believed that “Jews’ loyalty to
Israel makes them less loyal to Britain than other British people.”  Where
can they have got this idea?  Possibly from Zionists? 

Ha’aretz, Israel’s only liberal daily newspaper reported that on
an Israeli Embassy survey Israel Asks U.S.
Jews, Israelis: Where Do Your Loyalties Lie?  How many times have I
been called a Jewish ‘traitor’ for not supporting Israel?    The whole basis of this accusation is that I
owe a dual loyalty, indeed a higher loyalty, to Israel rather than the UK. 

The CAA also conducted a thoroughly unscientific poll of British
Jews in order to find ‘proof’ that most Jews were thinking about leaving
Britain for Israel.  It found that:

58% of Jews believed that they had no future in Europe.

More than half of all British Jews feel that antisemitism now
echoes the 1930s

1 in 4 British Jews has considered leaving the country in the
past two years because of rising antisemitism. 

45% of Jews questioned feel their family is threatened by
Islamist extremism.

77% of Jews questioned have witnessed antisemitism disguised as
a political comment about Israel.

84% of Jews consider boycotts of businesses selling Israeli products
to be intimidation &

82% say that media bias against Israel fuels persecution of Jews
in Britain.

To say that these were loaded questions would be putting it
mildly.  They were ideas put in the heads of people in order to gain an
answer.  No attempt was made to put countervailing opinions to the
audience.  For example it would have been equally possible to put a
question such as ‘Is it legitimate to boycott settlement goods in order to
pressurise Israel into a political settlement.’

Contrast this with a rigorously controlled, academic survey of
the British Jewish community by the Department of Sociology at City University
(November 2015).  This found that nearly a quarter, 24%, of British Jews
supported sanctions to bring about a peace settlement.  Indeed there is what it calls a
‘sizeable minority’ supporting sanctions (34%-41%) among the young, the highly
qualified academically, and those who are not affiliated to a synagogue; with
much lower support (i.e. strong opposition) among older respondents, non-graduates
and members of Orthodox synagogues11 (11% – 18% support).  The City University survey even more surprisingly
found that whilst 59% identify as a Zionist nearly a third, 31% didn’t see
themselves as Zionists. 

Even the ardently pro-Zionist Jewish Chronicle poured cold water
on the CAA’s findings’ with its own Survation poll.  Some 88% of British
Jews in this poll stated that they had no intention of emigrating.  Jewish
Chronicle 14.1.15. JC poll reveals 88 per cent of British Jews have not
considered leaving UK 

The CAA poll was junk but it had served its purpose, which was
to make Jewish people feel uneasy about their position in this country and whip
up fears of anti-Semitism.  Zionist organisations
see their goal as ‘helping’Jewish people to emigrate to Israel.  Using fears of anti-Semitism is one such
method.

Under the title PROFILE OF BRITISH MUSLIM ANTISEMITISM (the
CAA seem to love the use of capitals – which people normally take to be a form
of shouting online) the CAA publish
a highly racist and offensive cartoon of a typical Muslim
male.  Far from introducing racial harmony,
CAA seem determined to achieve the opposite.

To answer their points in the
order that they made them:

This statement can best be judged
against the posting on the CAA’s site last Friday February 3rd 2017
entitled ‘JUST
ANOTHER DAY FOR RACIST LABOUR AS ANTISEMITIC TWEETS OF PARTY’S CHAIR IN HOVE,
BRUNSWICK AND ADELAIDE REVEALED. This statement should be judged in
the light of not only their first but their third point, viz. ‘Our charity is scrupulously not partisan.’ 

Not only does the above statement libel Becky Massey, who is not in any
way anti-Semitic, but it also describes the Labour Party, the largest party in
the UK, as ‘racist Labour’.  Another post to its side also refers to ‘racist Labour’.  If words mean anything then how can  CAA deny that they are a partisan group.  Do they call the Conservatives ‘racist’?  There is certainly much more evidence for
this proposition, for example Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary’s reference
to Black people’s as ‘piccaninnies’
and their ‘watermelon smiles’.

There isn’t a racist bone in Becky Massey’s body.  The idea that she believes Jews are racially
inferior or that they should be subject to the same treatment in Britain as
Palestinians in Israel is preposterous.  What
is this allegation of anti-Semitism based on? Two tweets:

The first and most obvious point
is that Becky refers to Israel, not Jews. 
The only people who conflate Israel and Jews and hold the latter
responsible for the former are anti-Semites! 
There is a well founded belief that the Israel lobby in this country has
indeed manufactured the false anti-Semitism crisis in the Labour Party.  That is not just my opinion.  It is for example the opinion of Professor
Avi Shlaim, one of Israel’s foremost historians and Professor of International
Relations at St. Anthony’s College Oxford. 
In a recent interview, he stated that:

‘Anti-Semitism is not a real phenomenon within the
Labour Party or any of the other major political parties.  There are anti-Semitic incidents, but they
are usually related to Israel’s behaviour, to Israeli brutality… but I think
that fundamentally that Israel, the Israeli propaganda machine and Israel’s
friends in England, the Israel lobby in Britain deliberately confuse or
conflate, and I stress they do it deliberately, anti-Semitism with
anti-Zionism.’

There could be no clearer
statement than this about the false anti-Semitism narrative that the CAA has
devoted so much of its time and energy to perpetuating.  In their attack on Ms  Massey, the CAA state that:

According
to the International
Definition of Antisemitism, which was adopted by the British Government in December, prompting
Labour to also claim that they adopt it, “Making…stereotypical allegations
about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as…Jews
controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions” is
antisemitic.’ 

Ms Massey didn’t
even mention Jews.  The CAA did!  The idea that the Israeli government somehow
constitutes a ‘Jewish collective’ is in itself an anti-Semitic trope since it is
based on the idea that all Jews, myself included, bear a responsibility for the
actions of the Israeli government.

The ‘International Definition of Anti-Semitism’
that the CAA refer to is actually a reworking of the discredited EUMC Working Definition on Anti-Semitism
which the European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency discarded in 2013.  It was opposed by a large body of public
opinion – including the University College (Lecturers) Union and the National
Union of Students.  The CAA’s
‘international’ definition attempts to conflate criticism of Israel and Zionism
with anti-Semitism.  See The
EU has retired it’s ‘working definition’ of anti-Semitism – it’s about time

In their
response to Becky’s assertion that the Israel lobby had manufactured the false anti-Semitism
allegations against the Labour Party, the CAA alleged
that ‘Since these allegations did not
come from Israel but were from British Jews, the “Israel lobby” is a misnomer:
she means a ‘Jewish lobby’.  This is
an outrageous assertion. 

‘Israel lobby’ is not a euphemism for a ‘Jewish lobby.’  It is how those groups campaigning for Israel
in the West describe themselves.  The
American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful and richest of the
pro-Israel groups in the United States, says
in its own press statement that ‘AMERICA’S
PRO-ISRAEL LOBBY HOLDS ITS ANNUAL POLICY CONFERENCE IN WASHINGTON, D.C.’  Is AIPAC too anti-Semitic?  The CAA says:

‘That Massey she (sic) claims that Labour’s
antisemitism crisis is a fabrication of the “Israel lobby” is truly ironic: for
that antisemitism crisis rests squarely in the black hearts of individuals like
her.’  The restrained language of the
CAA when describing the ‘black heart’
of a woman they have never met and know nothing about proves that the CAA is an
organisation out of control.

There is
considerable evidence, e.g. in the recent Al Jazeera programmes, The Lobby, in
which an undercover reporter spent six months gathering evidence from various
pro-Israel groups, that the anti-Semitism controversy in the Labour Party has
indeed been the subject of Israeli state interference.  Another example was
a well researched article by Asa Winstanley How Israel lobby manufactured UK Labour Party’s
anti-Semitism crisis.  It
showed how the allegations of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party after Jeremy
Corbyn was elected Leader were manufactured by the Israel lobby. 

The CAA followed
the allegations against Ms Massey up with more false allegation of
anti-Semitism, this time against Emeritus Professor Moshe Machover, an Israeli
Jewish Professor of Mathematical Logic at Kings College University in
London.  Another restrained headline was
‘CAA
lodges complaints over professor’s support for genocidal antisemitic terrorists’.  They alleged that ‘Professor Moshe Machover,
who teaches philosophy at the University of London has been exposed for supporting Hamas, ‘a genocidal antisemitic terrorist organisation which is proscribed
under the Terrorism Act.’ The CAA also alleged falsely that Machover said
that Jewish students were under the control of the Israeli embassy.’ 

This is a thinly
veiled attempt to use anti-terrorist legislation in order to inhibit and
prevent freedom of speech and debate on university campuses.  CAA is fundamentally hostile to any notion of
a free and democratic civil society. 
Anti-terrorist legislation is designed to prevent terrorism not free
speech.  If it does that then terrorism
has won. 

Machover gave a
nuanced answer to a question about Hamas, which was clearly too complex and
nuanced for CAA’s purposes.   The CAA said
that ‘Universities have an obligation
under the government’s Prevent counter-extremism strategy to ensure that
speakers do not come onto their campuses to spread messages in support
terrorism or hatred. Universities are obliged to stop such speakers from
speaking on their campuses, not to leave students to “judge for themselves”.’  Again this is an outrageous accusation.  Machover was responding to a question about how
and why Hamas exist.  Or is it not
allowed to talk about such groups?

Moshe Machover
is founder of the Socialist Organisation in Israel – Matzpen.  Moshe is also a personal friend.  As a Marxist Moshe certainly does not support
Hamas politically, which he and I regard as a politically conservative and
backward Islamic organisation.  However
we recognise it and the Palestinian peoples’ right to resist Israel’s
occupation.  A right all people living
under occupation have under international law. 

Yes that is the whole point of
the petition!  We are calling upon the
Charity Commission to conduct an investigation into the CAA and reverse their
decision to recognise it as a charity in the light of their uncharitable
activities.  They are a McCarthyite organisation
which targets and demonises individuals that they disagree with.  I realise that the CAA would like to be
granted an immunity against criticism that they don’t accord to others, but we
live in a democratic society.  I expect
Change.org to support our right to make that criticism.

The CAA accuse people of ‘anti-Semitism’ at the drop of a hat but
they have nothing to say about the high levels of racism in Israel,.  Since CAA see opposing
‘anti-Semitism’ of a ‘political
nature related to Israel’ as their goal, then they
have to face certain facts about Israel. 
According
to the Pew Research Centre’s Report Israel’s
Religiously Divided Society a plurality, 48% of Israeli Jewish citizens
support the physical expulsion of Israeli Arabs. 

Anyone who dares
to point out the staggeringly high level of racism in Israeli society is
automatically pilloried as anti-Semitic by the CAA through a tendentious
analysis of their speech and the making of quite unwarranted assumptions.  Only yesterday there was a report in the
Israel’s Ha’aretz An
Israeli Bar Put a Palestinian Beer on Tap. Then the Depressingly Expected
Happened the
subtitle is ‘Angry social media backlash
and calls for a boycott followed the sale of Ramallah-made brew at a pub in
Haifa.’  What kind of society is it in
which an Arab beer causes a Boycott?  Yet
this is standard in what is termed a Jewish
state.  Because I oppose a Jewish
state, which means Jews have privileges over non-Jews, I too according to the
CAA am an ‘anti-Semite’.  Denying the
collective right of Jews to a nation state, is also anti-Semitic.  100 years ago saying that Jews form one
collective was an anti-Semitic proposition! 

Far from
combating anti-Semitism the CAA is responsible for increasing it by encouraging
people to make the association between Israel’s racism and British Jews.

When the Charity Commission
agreed to register the CAA they had no idea of what they were going to do.  I and a number of other people have made
formal representations to the CC that the CAA are not a bona fide charity.  It is their fear of deregistration that is
responsible for this bogus and patently false complaint to Change.org.

I expect Change.org to reject
what used to be called a gagging writ, viz. an attempt to use the British libel
laws to inhibit freedom of speech.  That
great British crook, Robert Maxwell was well
known for
indulging in just this practice.  If
Change.org bow to the CAA’s patently false complaint then they will irreparably
damage their reputation in the United Kingdom.

The misspelling, poor English and
repetition of paragraphs demonstrate that this complaint is the result of
panic.   They are well aware that their defaming of
individuals, their partisan political attacks against public personalities and
their hysterical McCarthyite language will not bear scrutiny.  Their logic chopping and attempts to confuse political
concepts and social categories convince only themselves.  Their abuse of the term ‘anti-Semitism’ as a
political weapon against anyone who criticises Israel is not a charitable activity.

The statement that the CAA ‘is scrupulously not partisan’ demonstrates
that at least the CAA possesses a sense of humour.  Every action of theirs is designed to be
partisan.  I will give some examples, but
they really are only a small selection:

This conclusion was highly inconvenient
to the CAA which is in the business of proving that anti-Semitism is everwhere
in the Labour Party.  However this isn’t
the experience of Labour Party members themselves. When Owen Smith, in a debate
with Jeremy Corbyn, alleged
that the Labour Party ‘had a shameful anti-Semitism problem’ members of the
audience heckled him.  Why because no one
treats this media manufactured story seriously.

Baroness Royal sat on the Chakrabarti
tribunal.  She produced a Report
into allegations of anti-Semitism at Oxford University Labour Club.  Royall found in her Report that ‘I do not
believe that that there is institutional antisemitism within OULC.’

The CAA however dismisses all such evidence as ‘laughable’ because it doesn’t fit into
its preconceived narrative of widespread anti-Semitism in the Labour Party.

These are just a
few samples of CAA’s naked political partisanship.  The suggestion that they are apolitical
simply doesn’t stack up.

I accept the fact that the
allegations made may damage the reputation of the CAA, however it is a fact
that the tweets making unabashed threats of violence against Becky Massey were
a direct consequence of the false
and defamatory article that CAA put up on its website.   They occurred the same day.  The CAA did not contact Ms Massey or  Professor Machover before pillorying
them.  Their behaviour has been
outrageous and has caused Ms Massey to fear for her physical safety since supporters
of Israel are often extremely violent.

The fact that there is no mention
of the main fascist party in Britain, the British National Party or the English
Defence League on their web site speaks volumes.  When searching for the EDL, it came up with 2
results – none of them to do with the EDL! 
The above mentioned legal work is trivial.  Britain has tiny fascist organisations
because organisations like the Anti-Nazi League and Anti-fascist Action made
sure that their demonstrations never went unopposed.  The CAA are unknown in anti-fascist circles.

Tony Greenstein

 E-mail from Change.org to Tony Greenstein concerning petition

Hello,

Thank you for using Change.org.
We’re writing to let you know that we received a ‘Notice of Complaint’ from the
Campaign Against Antisemitism requesting to remove certain statements of
the petition on the grounds that this content is defamatory of the
organization. We are enclosing the formal Notice of Complaint for your review.
At the request of the claimant, we have removed his/her name and contact
information.

Change.org is an open platform
and we care deeply about free speech and empowering our users to create the
change they want to see. However, when you use Change.org, you agree to our Terms
of Service and Community
Guidelines, and
this includes agreeing not to violate third party rights such as defaming
others.

This Notice of Complaint compels
Change.org to act within five days of receiving it, and therefore we require a
response from you as soon as possible. We want to make sure you have the facts
for your own protection and to give you the opportunity to amend or remove the
petition.

Please let us know by February
13, 2017 if you:
consent to the removal of the allegedly defamatory statements as identified in
the Notice of Complaint; or
alternatively, if you wish to maintain the petition
consent to Change.org sending your user name and email address to the claimant;
or
alternatively, if you would like to provide other contact information so that
you and the claimant can correspond directly about this claim.

Please be assured that if you do
not consent to sharing your contact information with the claimant, we will not
share this information unless instructed by a court order. We will also notify
you of such a court order to give you a chance to oppose it.

If we do not hear from you by
February 13, 2017 with all of the information listed above, we will be obliged
to remove the petition per the Notice of Complaint.

We are sorry that your petition
resulted in legal claims and we wish there was more that we could do to support
you but, as mentioned, unfortunately we are legally compelled by this Notice of
Complaint.

Please do let us know if you have
any questions, and thank you again for using Change.org.

Sincerely,
Change.org
(From US Office/Help desk)