Freedom of speech
‘Landmark’ employment victory for Miller gives anti-Zionist views workplace protection
Prof David Miller wins unfair dismissal case vs Bristol Uni
In what his lawyers have described as ‘a significant triumph’, Professor David Miller has won a ‘landmark’ decision today in one of the most closely monitored Employment Tribunal cases of recent years.
Prof. Miller successfully claimed discrimination on the basis that his philosophical belief that Zionism is inherently racist, imperialist, and colonial is a ‘protected characteristic’ under the Equality Act 2010, alongside a finding of unfair dismissal.
This judgment establishes for the first time ever that anti-Zionist beliefs are protected in the workplace.
In a comprehensive 108-page judgment, Regional Employment Judge Rohan Pirani of Bristol Employment Tribunal ruled in Miller’s, establishing that he had experienced discrimination based on his philosophical belief and had been unfairly dismissed by Bristol University.
David Miller is an academic sociologist specialising in state and corporate propaganda, public relations and lobbying. He was employed by the University of Bristol as a Professor of Political Sociology and continued working for the University until he was dismissed on 1 October 2021 after coordinated pressure from pro-Israel groups, despite two separate lawyer-led inquiries for the university finding that he had said and done nothing antisemitic.
The case has drawn attention to the challenges faced by academics and individuals advocating for justice, fairness, and equality in Palestine. It also underscores the issue of the weaponising of antisemitism by supporters of Israel to stifle discussions on Zionism, the political belief in a Jewish right to establish a state in Israel.
Rahman Lowe’s Zillur Rahman, who represented Miller, said Miller would be seeking ‘maximum compensation’:
This is a landmark case and marks a pivotal moment in the history of our country for those who believe in upholding the rights of Palestinians. The timing of this Judgment will be welcomed by many who at present are facing persecution in their workplaces for speaking out against the crimes of the Israeli state, and the genocide taking place in Gaza.
I am delighted for our client, David, who has been vindicated. His courage in fighting against the vicious campaign that was waged against him by Zionists within and outside the university, now sees him as a trailblazer for others that will follow. What is interesting about this case is that when David expressed his beliefs about Zionism which led to him being dismissed, they weren’t that widely known. However, the genocide Israel is committing at present, has woken the world up to the very belief David holds and was manifesting, which is that Zionism is inherently racist and must be opposed.
Whilst I am happy for David, it is clear that what took place has had, and will continue to have an impact on his career and therefore, we will be seeking for maximum compensation.
David Miller said:
I am extremely pleased that the Tribunal has concluded that I was unfairly and wrongfully dismissed by the University of Bristol. I am also very proud that we have managed to establish that anti-Zionist views qualify as a protected belief under the UK Equality Act. This was the most important reason for taking the case and I hope it will become a touchstone precedent in all the future battles that we face with the racist and genocidal ideology of Zionism and the movement to which it is attached.
The determination that I was sacked for my anti-Zionist views is a huge vindication of my case all the way through this process. The University of Bristol maintained that I was sacked because Zionist students were offended by my various remarks, but it was plain from the evidence of its own witnesses that this was untrue, and it was the anti-Zionist nature of my comments which was the decisive factor. I also want to note that this verdict is a massive vindication of the approach I have taken throughout this period which is to say that a genocidal and maximalist ideology like Zionism can only be effectively confronted by a maximalist anti-Zionism. Apologies, debate, and defensiveness of the sort illustrated by many on the left, and even in the Palestine Solidarity movement will not work. The Zionist movement cannot be negotiated with. It must be defeated. I want to thank the court, Regional Employment Judge Pirani and the two panellists Ms Kaye and Mr Launder for the professional way that proceedings were conducted.
I want to thank my legal team Zillur Rahman of Rahman Lowe and Zac Sammour of 11KBW for their strong commitment to defending the right to be anti-Zionist from the outset.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
Philosophical Norms & Cancel Culture
There are “certain norms that prevail in the discipline of philosophy that are threatened by the new communication environment,” according to Joseph Heath (Toronto).
These are “norms that prevail within the discipline that are not respected in public discourse, and that expose philosophers to cancellation risk,” he says.
They are:
1. Affective neutrality in discussion of moral and political issues. One of the major differences between philosophers and the general public is that most people find it extremely difficult to discuss any controversial moral or political issue without getting upset. Philosophers, on the other hand, typically draw a distinction between entertaining a proposition and affirming it, and so assume that one should be able to debate various questions in a hypothetical register, without triggering any of the emotional reactions that might be appropriate if one actually held them. As a result, there is a disciplinary tradition in philosophy of maintaining a stance of affective neutrality when discussing morally charged issues, and even when contemplating abhorrent conclusions… Over time, a lot of people working in philosophy start to take this sort of affective neutrality for granted… This leads them to forget just how far offside a lot of the views that we debate are with the general public.
2. Reconstructive presentation of arguments. Since the good old days of ancient Athens, philosophers have taken themselves to be more interested in argument than in rhetoric. This is reflected in a variety of disciplinary practices, including the sometimes elaborate efforts undertaken to avoid scoring merely symbolic victory over “straw man” versions of one’s opponent’s position. One of the most basic components of a philosophical education therefore involves learning how to demonstrate, prior to criticizing a position, that one has a correct understanding of it, and that the view is worthy of being taken seriously… Because of this, it is extremely common for philosophers to spend a fair bit of time offering “reconstructions” of positions that they do not actually hold… It is possible to admire the inner coherence of a position and to communicate that to an audience without at the end of the day endorsing it. This generates certain risks, however, that with context collapse, along with the shortened attention spans of online audiences (or uncharitable video editing), one will to be taken to have endorsed a position that one does not actually hold.
3. Stipulative definition of terminology. Because of the somewhat obsessive interest in argument that is central to the profession, philosophy also places a great deal of emphasis on the definition of terms. In order to track inferences it is essential to be clear about what one is and is not committed to in making a particular claim, and in order to be clear about that one must be clear about the terms one is using. This demand for terminological clarity generates both obligations and entitlements. We tend to be more aware of the obligations – there is little tolerance of ambiguity and equivocation, and so philosophers are always under pressure to provide definitions of their key terms. But there is also an important entitlement, which is that philosophy gives its practitioners broad license to engage in stipulative definitions of terms. So if one says that “X =def Y” then for the purposes of the argument that follows, X means Y, and one can only be held accountable for the inferences that follow from that. In particular, the fact that other people use X to mean Z becomes irrelevant to the argument. Again, philosophers have become so used to this disciplinary practice that they often take it for granted. Yet it is also quite unnatural…. Needless to say, this indulgence that philosophers are willing to show one another, when it comes to the use of terms, is not shared by the broader public. Most obviously, speakers who have been targeted for cancellation have been striking unsuccessful in attempting to defend themselves through clarification of their semantic intentions. Context collapse has been something of a field day for those who are keen to engage in uncharitable interpretations of the speech of others, but attempts to clarify one’s meaning through reference to the context of utterance have usually failed to placate online mobs.
Read the whole post, which contains several useful examples, here.
See also “When Philosophizing in Public, Remember How Strange We May Seem,” which also discusses some of the ways in which discussions among philosophers are distinctively risky.
Discussion welcome.
The post Philosophical Norms & Cancel Culture first appeared on Daily Nous.
National broadcaster axes Australian journalist Antoinette Lattouf over Gaza social media post
Staff threatened to strike over management's decision
Originally published on Global Voices
Antoinette Lattouf – Screenshot: TedX Talks YouTube video ‘Reverse Discrimination? It doesn't exist…but ‘tokenism’ does’ October 2022. Fair use.
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) has caused a furore down under after firing Lebanese Australian journalist Antoinette Lattouf on December 20, 2023 for sharing a post on the humanitarian situation in Gaza. Her employment as a short-term radio host was abruptly ended for allegedly breaching social media policy by reposting a Human Rights Watch (HRW) video on Instagram.
View this post on Instagram
Lattouf added the comment: “HRW reporting starvation as a tool of war.” The ABC justified their decision, saying that “she failed or refused to comply with directions that she not post on social media about matters of controversy.” The ABC itself covered the HRW claim on TV News.
The corporation is a government-funded national broadcaster, which has independence within a legislated charter. Its board and chair are appointed by the government.
Subsequently, ABC journalist Nour Haydar resigned over the broadcaster’s coverage of the Gaza conflict and treatment of culturally diverse staff. She posted on X (formerly Twitter):
Does this mean all ABC employees can’t share info from @hrw?
What if it’s about the treatment of Uyghurs in China or protestors in Iran?
Does this rule exist exclusively for findings that are critical of Israel?
Did this directive apply only to @antoinette_news and why? https://t.co/vqsb3ocW82
— Nour Haydar (@NourHaydar) January 16, 2024
Haydar also has Lebanese heritage.
Mastodon user MilennialZero posed a question that was concerning many people on social media:
Artemis went further in their response:
Journalists at the ABC threatened to take strike action. Their union, the MEAA (Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance) has given Lattouf strong backing:
The decision to sack Antoinette Lattouf from her role as an ABC radio presenter over sharing a social media post from a reputable human rights organisation is incredibly disturbing. Read the full statement: https://t.co/B1IAkQkl3W #MEAAmedia pic.twitter.com/a2Xt7wyft3
— MEAA (@withMEAA) December 21, 2023
There were accusations that the ABC management was influenced by a campaign by pro-Israel lobbyists via a WhatsApp group called Lawyers for Israel.
Antoinette has taken an unlawful termination case to the Fair Work Commission. However, mediation talks between Lattouf and the ABC have failed to resolve the issue. Lattouf posted a video response on X. She not only raised the question of free speech but said that her dismissal involved racism:
Some words following my Fair Work Commission conciliation with the ABC today.
This is such an important case because it is not just about me.#NoFearNoFavour pic.twitter.com/gDqlH89CkI— Antoinette Lattouf (@antoinette_news) January 18, 2024
Denis Muller, Senior Research Fellow at the University of Melbourne’s Centre for Advancing Journalism, canvassed some of the issues at The Conversation:
One is the issue of how to deal with journalistic staff posting on social media about issues in the news. Another is whether it has the backbone to protect its journalists and presenters from external attack. A third is whether the organisation is culturally capable of respecting and supporting staff from diverse backgrounds.
Veteran Australian journalist and TV news presenter Mary Kostakidis spoke out in the strongest terms on public policy website Pearls and Irritations:
The Lattouf story shows that the same level of white colonial supremacist attitudes that have forged the bond of western leaders on the Middle East issue permeates the leadership of public broadcasting.
… A one sided narrative in the media cultivates ignorance in the public and enables our leaders to maintain unquestioned entrenched support for Israel, not only with words but with supplies and intelligence, and possibly with armed forces should they see fit to do so. Attempts to interfere and prevent the interrogation of our foreign policy are anti democratic.
The ABC managing director, David Anderson sent an email to all staff, denying Lattouf's claims and rejecting any influence by external pressure.
At the Fair Work Commission mediation, the ABC denied that race or political opinion were part of their decision to terminate her contract.
There is a GoFundMe fundraiser for her legal fees, plus a couple of online petitions calling on ABC to rehire Lattouf.
In the latest twist, the ABC is now claiming that it did not sack Lattouf, according to a Guardian report:
In its submission, the ABC wrote it decided “not to require” Lattouf to perform the last two of her five shifts as a casual presenter of Sydney’s Mornings because she had “failed or refused to comply with directions that she not post on social media about matters of controversy during the short period she was presenting”.
On X, Lattouf mocked what she called the use of a euphemism:
“If I wasn’t sacked what was it? I’m keen to hear all the creative euphemisms that will be used to try and explain this backflip to me, ABC staff and Australians who are very concerned about their public broadcaster. Was I unshackled? Liberated? Untied?”
— Antoinette Lattouf (@antoinette_news) January 22, 2024
A meeting of ABC journalists overwhelmingly passed a motion of no confidence in Managing Director David Anderson. The resolution included:
Winning staff and public confidence back will require senior management:
1. Backing journalism without fear or favour.
2. Working collaboratively with unions to build a culturally informed process for supporting staff who face criticism and attack.
3. Take urgent action on the lack of security and inequality that journalists of colour face.
4. Working with unions to develop a clearer and fairer social media policy.
5. Upholding a transparent complaints process, in which journalists who are subject to complaints are informed and supported.
According to Mediaweek, ABC Global Affairs Editor John Lyons spoke forcefully in favor of the motion. Lyons has been reporting from the Middle East on the Gaza conflict for the ABC.
David Anderson has agreed to meet with staff in the coming weeks to discuss their concerns.
Meanwhile, Pedestrian TV has reported claims of another coordinated lobbying campaign against Lattouf on WhatsApp group J.E.W.I.S.H. Australian creatives and academics. Australian researcher and journalist Claire Connelly posted:
‘Screenshots show a coordinated letter campaign that encouraged the group’s 628 members to complain to Buttrose, ABC Managing Director David Anderson and Federal Communications Minister Michelle Rowland over the ABC’s hiring of Lattouf.’ pic.twitter.com/hSj831HGKQ
— Claire Connelly (@_ClaireConnelly) January 22, 2024
An emergency ABC board meeting on January 23, passed a unanimous vote of confidence in the managing director.
The dispute is ongoing for now. In the meantime, the satirical website The Shovel has a lighthearted take:
The ABC says it is simply adhering to its charter by ending journalist Antoinette Lattouf’s employment, but also not sacking her.
“It is incumbent on us to provide both sides of the story,” an ABC spokesperson said. “So while some may say Ms Lattouf has been fired, others would say she has been freed up to pursue other opportunities. Some will say she has been let go, others will say has been de-hired. All of those views deserve to be heard.
‘As Soon As Comedy Feels Controlled, It Loses Its Power’: The Comedians Afraid of Lawyers
Just the idea of having lawyers pre-approve her jokes makes comedian Rosie Holt break out in a cold sweat. It’s understandable. As Holt says, “intimidation is like poison to comedy” – and legal threats are a particularly insidious form of intimidation.
“You never see them, the public never knows about them, and yet few threats are as powerful as the threat of losing all your money in a lawsuit.”
Holt is writing in the new issue of Index on Censorship, alongside her brother Charlie, a lawyer. The magazine highlights the myriad threats comedians face, from arrests in Uganda, China, Vietnam and Belarus; to comedians being killed at the hands of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
The risks of a good roast landing badly – usually invoking the charge 'offence’ – are high, something we knew when we started to commission this edition. But what we didn’t expect was that some of these risks would come via lawyers. And yet there they were, lawyers, at the centre of several pieces.
In India, for example, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and others within the political establishment appear unable to take a joke, so stand-up comedians are showing scripts to lawyers before performing. “What does it take to be a stand-up comedian?" comedian Neeti Palta mused. "Quick wit, quicker legs and a lawyer on speed dial.”
The UK’s comedians do not have lawyers on speed dial (that we heard of at least). Still, fear of legal repercussions is alarmingly close.
Just say the name Louise Reay to anyone in the UK’s comedic scene and watch their reaction. In 2018, Reay mentioned her estranged husband in a show at the Edinburgh Fringe. She was then sued by him for defamation, breach of privacy, and data protection to the sum of £30,000 plus legal costs. Before the case came to an end – he dropped the charges – comedians throughout the UK were rattled.
The case "raised serious concerns about the perils of drawing on individual experience for artistic purposes,” Andrew Doyle observed. For David Baddiel, “it would be a pity if the outcome... meant that comedians’ versions of their histories would have to be constantly checked by lawyers before they could be told on stage”. Sofie Hagen confessed to legal concerns ahead of the show Dead Baby Frog, which was about her abusive grandfather.
Even in the absence of a courtroom drama, what Reay’s case highlighted was that the supposedly sacred, safe space of a dim room serving cheap drinks to a chortling crowd was not, in fact, quite so sacred or safe.
Reay’s case was personal and some may dismiss it as irrelevant to other comedians. Except comedy is often deeply personal. Mining one’s own experiences and repackaging them for comedic effect is standard practise.
Doyle has described comedians as “parasites”. "If you choose to associate with us, don’t be surprised if some of your more egregious behaviour ends up forming the basis of a routine,” he wrote as he imagined a scenario in which his exes pressed charges too.
The personal is one thing, the political another.
Plenty of sets go beyond riffing bad relatives to public interest stories riffing bad people. And thank goodness for that. In the words of Shalom Auslander, another contributor to this Index issue, comedy “masquerades as folly, but it can take down an empire”. The problem is that, today in the UK, the emperor comes with an army of lawyers.
Our courts are not in the best place, having garnered a global reputation for claimant-friendly libel and defamation laws. The rich and powerful take up lawsuits here with little to no legal merit, their only real purpose being to silence journalists and civil society players from exposing wrongdoing. It would appear comedians are no less immune. Only they’re arguably even more exposed – journalists at least have editors behind them.
“All the best comedy is either unfiltered or appears unfiltered,” said Holt in response to the idea of sets being written in the abstract. “As soon as comedy feels controlled, forced or affected it loses its power.”
In Holt’s article, she describes how, for years, comedians had been whispering about Russell Brand, who in September 2023 was accused of rape and sexual assaults (allegations he denies). Two of her friends had even included Brand in their routines. Both received threatening legal responses.
Holt said she could give countless examples of comedians having “whole passages from stand-up acts, articles or books about celebrity misconduct” scrapped due to legal concerns. Except she can’t say who. She’d be sued.
Comedians peddle in the uncomfortable and ideally take aim at those most deserving of being pilloried. Sometimes they punch up, sometimes down, sometimes sideways, sometimes inwards. Whichever direction they’re punching, fear of lawsuits will and has made some soften their blows.
A concerted effort is underway to close the loopholes that turned the UK into such an appealing place for litigation, and we can only hope the campaign for legal change wins – for comedians as much as others. To paraphrase the great American humourist Erma Bombeck: when humour goes, so too does civilisation.
Jemimah Steinfeld is the Editor-in-Chief of Index on Censorship. Editions of the magazine can be viewed here
Activists labelling Israeli supermarket items as ‘apartheid’ and ‘apartheid Starmer’
Hum(our)ous and deadly serious
Activists have begun labelling Israeli items in supermarkets as ‘apartheid’ products, in a campaign to raise public awareness of Israel’s crimes against Palestinians and promote the peaceful ‘BDS’ (boycott, divestment and sanctions) movement to pressure Israel into ending its apartheid and war crimes – with different versions laid out to match (at least) Sainsburys and Tesco label layouts:
And Keir Starmer has also made himself a target of the campaign for his unstinting support of Israel’s flagrant breaches of international law, after at least one group took the original labels and edited them to reflect his ties to and funding from right-wing and pro-Israel groups and figures, before applying them liberally to supermarket shelves:
The global BDS campaign’s effectiveness can be seen in the fact that Israel created a whole ‘Ministry of Strategic Affairs’ to combat it and the way that Israel’s supporters constantly attack it. The UK government is in the process of passing probably-unlawful legislation to ban local authorities from applying BDS against goods and services from illegally-occupied territories.
The campaign has also been deployed against global brands such as Starbucks and McDonalds, with reportedly substantial impact on their profits.
Israel’s genocidal campaign in Gaza has so far killed at least 33,000 civilians, mostly women and children, and wounded more than twice that number of people – often with life-changing injuries. The country is facing a genocide case brought against it before the International Court of Justice by South Africa.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
A New Zealand Minister’s ‘war’ with the media
He described state-funded journalism as ‘bribery’
Originally published on Global Voices
Minister Winston Peters being interviewed by the media. Screenshot from the YouTube video of Newshub
New Zealand’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters said he is at “war” with the media and has accused public broadcasters of lacking independence.
Peters, currently serving as Deputy PM under Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, is the founder and leader of the populist and nationalist New Zealand First party. He began his tenure by publicly chided the media just days after the country’s new government was formed on November 27, 2023. He questioned, in particular, the USD 55 million public interest journalism fund set up by the previous government during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, which he claimed was used to “bribe” the media.
He asked journalists to stop being “mathematical morons,” and, at one point during a Cabinet meeting, he dared journalists to be “transparent”:
Before you go, can you possibly tell the public what you had to sign up to to get the money? Before you ask one more question, tell the public what you signed up to to get the money.
Peters is a veteran politician whose party lost in the 2020 election. During the October 2023 campaign period, he lambasted some journalists for being “corrupt” and “dirt merchants.” He repeated his charge about the media being biased during a parliamentary session during the first week of December.
Three conservative parties, including Peters’ New Zealand First party, formed a coalition to form a government. The new government has pledged to lower taxes, reduce bureaucracy, train more police, and ease inflation. They dislodged the former ruling Labour Party, which was globally praised for its handling of the COVID-19 pandemic but faced local criticism for the rising cost of living.
In his rebuke of the public interest journalism fund, Peters didn't mention that it aimed to support local media companies that lost advertising revenue during the pandemic. The fund was managed by New Zealand on Air, an independent body. Andrew Shaw, a board member of the body, described Peters’ statement as “malicious” and “not truthful.” He subsequently resigned from his position since his statement undermined the impartiality of the body.
Sir Ian Taylor, founder and managing director of Animation Research and also a former board member of New Zealand on Air, wrote that Peters should apologize for his remarks. He also defended the credibility and independence of the body.
The only way journalists could access those funds was to have their applications approved by the New Zealand on Air board, a completely independent organisation. By making the claim that “you can’t defend USD 55 million of bribery” our Deputy Prime Minister just accused the full board of being complicit in his bribery claim and they, quite justifiably, should expect an apology for such an unwarranted, and potentially defamatory, claim. He certainly deserved much more than the slap over the wrist he got.
Tracy Watkins, editor of the Sunday Star-Times, wrote that Peters is engaging in “misdirection and misinformation” and that he is using his office “to further erode trust and respect in the media.” She also criticized the motives of authorities who echo the baseless claims of Peters about the media:
Why have so many powerful people bought into this argument? Because it muddies the boundary between truth and lies. Because a weakened media is good for them. What politician wouldn’t want that? They don’t particularly like being answerable to the media and they like even less the scrutiny that comes with public office.
Cédric Alviani, the Asia-Pacific bureau director of Reporters Without Borders, urged New Zealand’s Prime Minister Christopher Luxon to affirm the government’s support for a free press. He also condemned the statements of Peters:
By making irresponsible comments about journalists in a context of growing mistrust of the New Zealand public towards the media, Deputy Prime Minister Peters is sending out a worrying signal about the newly-appointed government’s attitude towards the press.
Huge victories for humanity as German courts rule Gaza chants protected speech
‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’ and other chants for freedom and against genocide are freedom of expression, despite government efforts to criminalise pro-Palestinian protest
Image: Die Linke
In a huge victory for human rights, for humanity and for the Palestinian people, the Münster Administrative Court in north-west Germany has ruled that chants and slogans frequently used in pro-Palestinian, anti-genocide rallies and marches are not illegal.
“From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” and “Child murderer Israel” are not only legal but are protected by freedom of expression laws. “Stop the genocide in Gaza” has already been ruled legal by the Cologne Administrative Court.
The German state, which has some of the most extreme laws protecting Israel from criticism of its actions, has used riot police and draconian action to try to quell the protests.
Palestinian legal advocacy group the European Legal Support Center, which has been fighting the cases on behalf of the movement, noted that:
In both decisions, the judge reiterated that criticism of the Israeli state is protected by freedom of expression, stressing that the slogans are directed against Israel & not against the Jewish population of Germany, thus rejecting any inflammatory allegations of antisemitism.
Both court decisions followed protest bans issued by the Police. We congratulate the activists and their lawyers who refused to be silenced and boldly challenged the bans!
The decisions come as the UK government continues to try to demonise protesters and to use anti-terror laws to persecute activists working for human rights and justice in Palestine and to stop Israel’s mass slaughter and ethnic cleansing of civilians, which has taken approaching 30,000 innocent lives so far, around half of them children. Many more have been hideously wounded and more than seven out of ten of Gaza’s 2.2 million people are reported to be in severe hunger.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
Exclusive: police try to gag Greenstein, invade privacy through bail conditions
Human rights activist arrested by anti-terror police for a single tweet faces censorship and snooping for speaking out against genocide
Image: S Walker
Brighton-based Jewish left-winger and human rights activist Tony Greenstein faces censorship and an assault on his privacy after he was arrested last week for a single tweet supporting Palestinian resistance in Gaza against Israeli genocide.
Greenstein was bailed until spring after a nine-hour detention and the confiscation of his electronics, but Skwawkbox understands that the bail conditions imposed upon him represent a severe invasion of his privacy and an assault on his freedom of speech:
- Greenstein must reside at his flat and sleep there every night – a significant issue when he has a son with special emotional needs living at a separate address
- He is banned from commenting on Twitter/X about Gaza and Palestine
- If he buys a new phone – his previous one remains with police – he must notify police of the phone number and also of the IMEI number of his handset
Phone manufacturer Blackview strongly recommends that anyone with a mobile phone keep their IMEI number – the unique 15-digit identifier of the physical handset – private and do not share it with anyone untrustworthy(!), because of the grave security risks, because possession of the IMEI allows a third party to:
- Track your phone. If your phone is stolen, the person who stole it can use your IMEI number to track your phone’s location [even if it is switched off or the SIM card is swapped]
- Block your phone from being used on a network. If you report your phone as stolen, your phone carrier can block your IMEI number from being used on their network. This will prevent the phone from being used to make calls, send text messages, or use the internet.
- Use your phone to commit fraud. Some criminals use stolen phones to commit fraud, such as making unauthorized calls or sending spam messages. They can also use your phone to access your personal information, such as your bank account details.
- Clone your phone. It is possible to clone a phone’s IMEI number. This means that the criminal can create a duplicate of your phone that has the same IMEI number. This can be used to commit fraud or to track your movements.
Of perhaps even greater concern is the ban on posts about Gaza and Palestine. As one of the UK’s most outspoken Jewish advocates of Palestinian rights and Israel advocates’ war on freedom of speech in the UK and elsewhere – and a fearless critic of Israel’s fake news and invented evidence used to justify its genocide in Gaza – Greenstein’s importance to the political debate is considerable – which may well be a contributing factor to his targeting by police, presumably acting on complaints from pro-Israel right-wingers.
Greenstein was given a suspended sentence in September after a farcical trial at Wolverhampton Crown Court in which he and fellow Palestine Action activists were convicted of criminal damage against Israeli arms manufacturer Elbit despite no damage being done, and so faces the imposition of that sentence if convicted of the latest accusation. The pro-Israel lobby, however, has no qualms about seeing troublesome opponents jailed for speaking out against mass murder and apartheid.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
Australian journalist pushes back against anti-LGBTQ+ trolls
Media groups expressed solidarity with queer journalist Patricia Karvelas
Originally published on Global Voices
Patricia Karvelas. Screenshot from YouTube video posted by ABC
Prominent TV and radio news anchor Patricia Karvelas was targeted by homophobic trolls after sharing her experience as a queer Australian journalist who had to guard her sexual identity for many years. Media groups expressed solidarity with Karvelas as they condemned the online abuse against the journalist.
Australia’s national broadcaster ABC interviewed several journalists, including Karvelas, who narrated the challenges they faced as LGBTQ+ individuals working in the media industry. After this, Karvelas was viciously trolled on social media. She wrote on X (Twitter):
Trolls target me for hours with vile stuff.
The stuff I’ve read is truly shocking I didn’t even share the worst. Sexualised homophobia it made me sick
My family is really proud of me thanks.
The last line refers to the nasty comments she received alleging that her Greek family is embarrassed about her sexual identity.
ABC news director Justin Stevens defended Karvelas and criticized media outlets that amplified the comments against the journalist.
It is disturbing, saddening and angering that Patricia should find herself the target of online trolling and abuse, much of it sexualised, homophobic and racist, just for speaking publicly about her life.
Media outlets should be combatting dangerous online abuse and gender-based and sexual bullying, and standing in solidarity with peers experiencing it, not disingenuously serving to amplify it.
The Coalition For Women In Journalism urged authorities to investigate the attacks against Karvelas as it highlighted how online harassment can gravely affect the personal and professional lives of journalists.
We strongly condemn the mistreatment she has faced and urge authorities to thoroughly investigate these acts of aggression and ensure those responsible are held accountable.
The attacks against Karvelas serve as a reminder of the importance of standing up against online harassment and fostering an inclusive and respectful environment for journalists.
This abuse can have severe professional and personal consequences, leading to self-censorship, avoidance of certain topics, or even departure from the industry, adding to the existing gender disparity.
Karvelas discussed how she hid her sexuality from politicians and even some colleagues who seemed hostile to LGBTQ+ rights in her ABC interview. She said:
I was very careful among my colleagues who I perceived not to be supportive, [and] among politicians who I knew were hostile to gay rights, which were many.
Looking back, she shared her feelings about it.
I think back on those years with a great sense of sadness, that I wasn't able to be my full self at work.
I'm not dead yet so I can be myself now. But I don't think it should have been the case that I didn't get that experience in my youth.
She explained why she didn’t come forward to call out the LGBTQ+ discrimination in her workplace:
People would be surprised by that, because I think I'm well known in the public, and to anyone reading this piece who knows me, as being someone who does stand up and isn't really afraid of people.
But that's not what happens when you're in a social environment where people think gay jokes are funny. You just find it very hard to say anything without, you know, making yourself vulnerable, but also just being considered difficult all the time.
Finally, she acknowledges her role as a public figure and also her right to affirm her “authentic self”:
I don't want people to feel like I'm not their broadcaster. But equally if I'm not my authentic self, I can't do my job well.
Liverpool council bans Jewish woman from speaking on Gaza ceasefire
Read below for her full speech – and the council’s excuses for its attack on democracy and free speech
Helen Marks protesting for Gazans during October’s Labour conference (image rights S Walker)
Liverpool City Council has withdrawn Jewish resident Helen Marks’s speaking slot at tonight’s meeting of the council, where she had successfully applied to address the council to ask it to call for a ceasefire and peace deal in Gaza, where Israel has slaughtered around 15,000 people, half of them children, in a relentless campaign of bombing homes, hospitals and schools.
Ms Marks had been told by the council’s Principal Democratic Services Officer:
You will be able to speak for 3 minutes at the Council Meeting, would you be able to send me a statement as to what you are going to say to the meeting please?
We are also ticketing the meeting, so you will need to be sent a ticket via email for the meeting. You will be allowed 2 tickets if you need another one and I would also need the name of the person attending with you.
As requested, Ms Marks sent a draft of her planned speech. It reads:
My name is Helen Marks. I am secretary of Liverpool Friends of Palestine. I am from a Jewish family. My mother was brought up in mandate Palestine and my Polish Jewish father lost his parents, a brother, aunts , uncles and cousins in the holocaust.
I have asked to speak today to urge you to call for an immediate ceasefire . However, I want you to go further if a ceasefire is agreed and insist that it is accompanied by genuine peace talks to find a lasting solution to this endless cycle of violence.
When the holocaust took place during the 2nd World War most people in the world could justifiably say that they were unaware of what was taking place. They were also incredulous when they learned the facts. They couldn’t believe that any one or any country could behave in such a calculated, despicable way.
Fast forward to the current situation in Gaza. We have no such excuse. Every day we see on our TV screens Gaza being bombed and innocent men women and children being killed in the most calculated, brutal way ; thousands of body bags, children screaming for their mummy. An acronym has been coined. WCNSF Wounded Children No Surviving Family. There are now more than 33,000 Palestinian orphans living in Gaza.
I abhor the killing of innocent Israeli civilians at the hands of Hamas on the 7th October and feel especially sad that some were from a Kibbutz where the residents were critical of the injustices suffered by the Palestinians. However the Israeli response is disproportionate, inhumane and must be stopped.
How can this be happening in this day and age? Did all this violence start on October 7th or must we put it in context ?
Hajo Meyer, holocaust survivor, spent his adult years warning us that holocausts don’t just appear. They happen because of a process of dehumanising the other and that is what successive Israeli governments have been doing in relation to the Palestinians, never calling them Palestinians just Arabs, labelling them all as terrorists, calling them human animals. When I was in Hebron in 2008 I saw daubed on the doors of Palestinian houses “ Kill all Arabs” with a star of David alongside. In 2014, Justice Minister Ayalet Shaked said that the mothers of Palestinian martyrs should go ,as should their homes “ otherwise more little snakes will be raised”.
It is much easier to kill your enemy if you view them as sub human.
In 2022 Amnesty International published a report based on 4 yrs of research which concluded that Israel was an Apartheid state according to the legally accepted definition. This report was backed up by reports by Human Rights Watch and the Israeli human rights organisation B’tselem. They saw the expansion of illegal settlements, the theft of land for military purposes, the denial of planning permission for housing, the restricted access to water, the numerous checkpoints that denied free movement, the imprisonment of adults and young people under military not civil law and the killing of Palestinians without proper investigations. Over 160 Palestinians have since been killed in the West Bank following 7th October.
What is happening now in Gaza, like the recent bombing of a school in the Jabalia refugee camp killing 200 children and staff is not self defence or helping to root out Hamas. It must stop.
If you fail to call for an end to the occupation a lifting of the siege of Gaza, a solution to the over 6,000 refugees languishing in camps in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Palestine itself then the cycle of violence will continue.
There were ceasefires after 2008/9, 2012, 2014, 2018 but the Western Powers continued to protect Israel, pretend it did not have nuclear weapons, backed the false PR that it had the most moral army in the world and was the only democracy in the Middle East and rewarded it with prestigious hosting of events irrespective of its behaviour. And the US and UK continue to send it arms .
I am sure as councillors you will not mistakenly conflate this criticism of Israel with antisemitism.
I call on you to demand an immediate ceasefire that is followed by a clear programme that delivers justice for the Palestinians.
However, this straightforward and factual speech fell foul of the council’s City Solicitor Daniel Fenwick, who claimed that it would breach the so-called ‘IHRA definition’ of antisemitism – a definition that does not actually define, and which has been criticised by Jewish legal experts and even its author as a means of chilling free speech on and legitimate criticism of Israel. Fenwick wrote, withdrawing Marks’s permission to speak at the meeting:
Dear Ms Marks,
Council Public Speaking Rights
I write with regard to your request to speak at the above meeting and your draft statement which has been passed to me as the Council’s Monitoring Officer for assessment under the Council Procedure Rules (rule 12).
Unfortunately, the Council already had three speakers registered to speak for the Council meeting by the time you registered to speak. For completeness, whilst you emailed the Council on 7th November, the Council replied to you on the same day advising you how to make your request to speak after the publication of the agenda on 14th November. A third and final request to speak was received on 17th November at 9.46am and your request was received at 10.54am on that day. I am sorry this was not communicated earlier to you but, unfortunately, having check the times of the emails, this is the correct order in which they were received and as Monitoring Officer I have no authority to waive this rule..
I believe you have tickets for the public gallery and we look forward to seeing you at the meeting.Your Statement
Thank you for the draft of your statement. For completeness, I have reviewed your statement under the Council’s procedure rules and thought it would assist you if I gave you my views for future reference, if you had been able to speak at the meeting. As currently drafted, your statement could not accepted as it breaches the following rules on the acceptance of public statements:
12.8 The Monitoring Officer may reject a request to speak if:
…
12.8.3 it is defamatory, frivolous or offensiveIt is my view as the Council’s Monitoring Officer that whilst it is legitimate freedom of expression to criticise the Israeli government’s policies and actions in Gaza, there are significant elements of the statement’s content that risks a breach the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of Anti-Semitism, which was adopted by the Council as its definition of anti-Semitism in January 2018. Your statement is therefore likely to be offensive to the Jewish community and others in the city and beyond. For this reason, the Council cannot place itself at risk of breaching its own policies and potentially discriminating unlawfully against any person by making a decision to allow it to be read in its current form.
The statement if read out would further place the Council at risk of breaching its public sector equality duty under s.149 of the Equality Act 2010. The Council must have due regard to the achievement of this duty and, as one example, the statement as worded is also unlikely to foster good relations between Jews, Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims and with those without those protected characteristics under the 2010 Act in Liverpool and beyond, noting the context of the horrific rise of anti-Semitic and Islamophobic attacks since 7 October.
Thank you for showing an interest in speaking at the Council meeting.
Skwawkbox wrote to Fenwick to ask him to be specific about why he was taking this action and exactly what in Marks’s speech he considered to breach the ‘definition’:
Mr Fenwick,
You contacted Jewish activist Helen Marks by email informing her that she would not be able to speak at tonight’s council meeting – despite, though your email did not acknowledge this, her having received confirmation of a 3-minute slot from the council’s Principal Democratic Services Officer. You claim there are too many speakers and that her speech might breach the IHRA ‘definition of anti-semitism’, but do not say why. I have seen the statement and it is self-evidently legitimate criticism of Israel for its actions and merely being offensive to someone is not a breach of the IHRA, which in any case has been criticised by legal experts and even its founder for its chilling effect on free speech.
Apologies for the short notice, but as the meeting takes place at 5pm I will be covering this imminently so ask for your response no later than 2pm on the following – as you have already made these deliberations before writing to Ms Marks, it should not be onerous to provide the information:
- Why are you denying a Jewish resident her right of democratic expression on a matter of obvious public importance concerning Israel and Gaza?
- What precisely in her planned statement do you think breaches the IHRA and why?
- Were you instructed or pressured by anyone inside or outside the council to withdraw permission?
He did not answer the questions, instead saying only that the council meeting will be livestreamed and directing the enquiry to the council’s communications team, who did not respond even well after the press deadline. Opponents of Israel’s genocide in Gaza are mounting a protest outside Liverpool’s City Hall before the 5pm council meeting.
Ms Marks, who was one of two Liverpool Jewish party members smeared by Labour officials in a widely-condemned 2019 BBC Panorama programme, told Skwawkbox that the council’s manoeuvres were ‘feeble but predictable’:
I was given permission to make a 3-minute statement at today’s council meeting but this permission was withdrawn for very feeble but predictable reasons. I was speaking in support of Alan Gibbon’s motion calling on councillors to vote for an immediate ceasefire. I have since sent all councillors the statement I would have read out.
Labour’s betrayal of Palestinian civilians continues even in a city whose people have shown strong solidarity with those Gazan women and children facing genocide and ethnic cleansing.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.