The Sydney Morning Herald has finally bestirred itself to report on the subject of the scandalous persecution of Sydney University's Professor Jake Lynch.
Mind you, the Zionist 'Get Lynch' campaign has been going on now for at least two years, as this, my forty-first post on the subject, testifies.
In brief, Lynch has been under sustained attack by a baying pack of Israeli and Israel lobby outfits (Shurat HaDin/AUJS/AIJAC), assorted Israel-besotted federal politicians, both 'serving' and former (Danby/Bishop/Baldwin), Murdoch's Zionist mouthpiece, The Australian, and lately by a vice-chancellor cluelessly manoeuvred and/or pressured into mounting a witch-hunt against him in the form of an 'investigation' into his conduct at a protest by student activists against a visiting British apologist for Israeli war crimes in March.
Better late than never, you might argue. The trouble is, however, that the Herald's coverage of the affair is confined solely to the university's witch-hunt against Lynch and ignores the vital context of his Federal Court ordeal last year at the hands of the Mossad-linked Israeli lawfare outfit, Shurat HaDin (motto: 'Bankrupting Terror, One Law Suit at a Time'), a case happily won by Lynch with undisclosed costs awarded in his favour:
"Professor Lynch, a proponent of the Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions campaign against Israel, was advised by the university this month that it was not satisfied his conduct 'constituted anti-Semitic behaviour or unlawful harassment on the grounds of an individual's religious belief (or perceived religious belief)'." (Academic Jake Lynch cleared of anti-Semitism in ugly stoush at Sydney University, Peter Munro, 27/4/15)
It goes without saying that the false allegation of anti-Semitism routinely hurled at defenders of Palestine by Zionist dead-enders (Sydney Morning Herald cartoonist Le Lievre was also a recent victim) should never have been taken seriously in the first place.
Anyone familiar with Lynch's hounding by Shurat HaDin would instantly see that the now notorious 'money-waving incident' had nothing whatever to do with anti-Semitism:
"A separate stoush was sparked in the audience between Professor Lynch and Diane Barkas, a Jewish semi-retired English lecturer and stand-up comedian, after she threw water on a protestor. Professor Lynch threatened to sue Ms Barkas - waving a $5 note in her face and saying 'This is going to cost you a lot of money' - after she allegedly kicked him in the groin, a claim she denies."
And yet, the Herald continues to give oxygen to those with a vested interest in flogging this particular dead horse:
"But Julian Kowal, of the Australian Union of Jewish Students, claimed Professor Lynch had compromised the reputation of Sydney University as a 'safe space for Jewish students' and should be sacked. 'In so far as the money-waving actions in the face of a Jewish woman evoked strong images of historically anti-Semitic stereotypes, his actions were undoubtedly highly inappropriate,' he said."
More generally, the initiation of the witch-hunt by vice-chancellor Michael Spence raises the question of how an individual can rise to such a level (salary: $911,575 pa) but apparently have little or no understanding of the issues which underlie the 'Get Lynch' campaign: such basics, for example, as the underlying dynamics of the Palestine/Israel conflict (occupied/occupier); the elementary difference between Judaism and Zionism (religion/political ideology); and the perennial modus operandi of Zionists, on or off campus, (conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism and using the charge to silence legitimate dissent). A simple knowledge of these matters, absent other factors, of course, should enable any vice-chancellor worth his salt to see through the 'Get Lynch' mob and avoid becoming their unwitting accomplice:
"But Prof Lynch... was warned he still faced dismissal or other disciplinary action for possible breaches of the university's code of conduct, under which staff must treat visitors 'with respect, impartiality, courtesy and sensitivity'."
Question is, will Peter Munro's piece be a once-off or will the Herald be returning to this test case for academic freedom and free speech at our universities?