23/3/16:
"The University of Sydney is refusing to answer questions relating to its short-lived decision to ban a Palestinian American activist, amid claims administrators singled him out for his support of boycotts against Israel. The university first approved, then banned, then approved again less than 24 hours later an address on Monday by Ali Abunimah, a US-born Princeton and University of Chicago-educated author and journalist.
"On Thursday last week the university informed organisers they must cancel the event, then on Friday it said the problem had been Abunimah's lack of a visa and since he now had one the event could go ahead. Jake Lynch, director of the University's Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies and a supporter of the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel, said the explanation 'lacks credibility'.
"The HES (Higher Education Supplement) has obtained the email correspondence regarding Abunimah's visit. The organisers sought to book a lecture hall more than a month in advance and, after filling out an application, were told by university venues acting assistant Samantha Dos Santos that 'everything should be fine.' Ms Dos Santos said that if for any reason the event was not approved, 'a reason will be given.'
"On Thursday after 4pm, Ms Dos Santos wrote to the organisers to say the event 'wasn't approved by the university and you'll have to cancel it,' without stating a reason. Soon after 2pm on Friday, though, after a storm of online protest including a petition signed by more than 750 people, university venues manager Caroline Martin-Edwards wrote to organisers to say the issue was visa-related but since Abunimah now had one, the event could proceed given the university was 'deeply committed to free speech and open debate.' In fact, Abunimah, though he had difficulties getting a visa, had received it about 36 hours before Ms Dos Santos issued the email cancelling the event, and online media such as New Matilda reported on Wednesday that the visa had been granted.
"Sceptics of the university's explanation have pointed out that the abortive move to cancel the event came after considerable reporting of the visa controversy, and a couple of days after Robert Goot, president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ), issued a media statement describing Abunimah as 'a leader and founder of the loathsome BDS campaign.'
"Among questions Sydney University would not answer was whether University of Michigan art history professor Patricia Simons, who also delivered a public lecture on Monday - in her case on Italian Renaissance painter Jacopo Tintoretto's Susanna & the Elders - also had been screened for whether she had a visa, and how this was done. Associate Professor Lynch said: 'The university should clarify whether it is operating a general policy of checking for itself whether intended visitors to the university have visas to enter Australia or whether Mr Abunimah was singled out. If it is the latter, the university should explain why'." (Sydney fails to clear air over activist ban, Ean Higgins, The Australian, 23/3/16)
24/3/16:
"I refer to your article 'Sydney fails to clear air over activist ban' (23/3). It implies that Sydney University's short-lived decision to cancel a speaking event by anti-Israel campaigner Ali Abinimeh was as a result of my comments criticising him. Neither I nor anyone in my organisation has had any contact with anyone at Sydney University at any time in connection with Abunimah. My statement was about Abunimah's repugnant views, and makes no mention of his visa application." (Letter to editor, Robert Goot, Executive Council of Australian Jewry, 24/3/16)
Showing posts with label Jake Lynch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jake Lynch. Show all posts
Friday, March 25, 2016
Friday, May 29, 2015
Another Zmear Campaign Bites the Dust
At last:
"Sydney University academic Jake Lynch, who has attracted controversy over his vocal support for boycotts against Israel, has escaped serious sanction over his involvement in a melee in March when pro-Palestinian students disrupted a public address on campus." (Uni warns Lynch over conduct during melee, Ean Higgins, The Australian, 27/5/15)
... who has attracted controversy...?
This, of course, is Murdochspeak for any public figure who becomes the target for a vicious smear campaign, whipped up by elements of the Zionist lobby, because of their public and principled advocacy for justice for the Palestinians.
A word from Professor Lynch:
"I have twice been cleared of allegations of anti-Semitism: once by an investigation the University of Sydney carried out into the events Ted Lapkin (Replacing Israel with a unitary Arab-Jewish state adds up to political lunacy, 25/5) refers to, and last years in the Federal Court over my support for the academic boycott of Israel. Whenever this slur is cast against me, it is refuted by the evidence. Cries of anti-Semitism are exploited by the pro-Israel lobby in an attempt to silence critics of Israeli policies, in furtherance of a strategic aim to reduce political pressure for an end to the occupation of Palestinian territory. Its power to convince is waning, as witness the rapid growth of boycott activities around the world." (Letter published in The Australian, 27/5/15)
Hopefully, Sydney University (and other such institutions) will now think twice before allowing themselves to become involved in Israel lobby-instigated smear campaigns of the kind that Jake Lynch has just been subjected to.
Unfortunately, however, the matter does not end there:
"Disciplinary processes were still under way in relation to five students." (Uni warns Lynch...)
"Sydney University academic Jake Lynch, who has attracted controversy over his vocal support for boycotts against Israel, has escaped serious sanction over his involvement in a melee in March when pro-Palestinian students disrupted a public address on campus." (Uni warns Lynch over conduct during melee, Ean Higgins, The Australian, 27/5/15)
... who has attracted controversy...?
This, of course, is Murdochspeak for any public figure who becomes the target for a vicious smear campaign, whipped up by elements of the Zionist lobby, because of their public and principled advocacy for justice for the Palestinians.
A word from Professor Lynch:
"I have twice been cleared of allegations of anti-Semitism: once by an investigation the University of Sydney carried out into the events Ted Lapkin (Replacing Israel with a unitary Arab-Jewish state adds up to political lunacy, 25/5) refers to, and last years in the Federal Court over my support for the academic boycott of Israel. Whenever this slur is cast against me, it is refuted by the evidence. Cries of anti-Semitism are exploited by the pro-Israel lobby in an attempt to silence critics of Israeli policies, in furtherance of a strategic aim to reduce political pressure for an end to the occupation of Palestinian territory. Its power to convince is waning, as witness the rapid growth of boycott activities around the world." (Letter published in The Australian, 27/5/15)
Hopefully, Sydney University (and other such institutions) will now think twice before allowing themselves to become involved in Israel lobby-instigated smear campaigns of the kind that Jake Lynch has just been subjected to.
Unfortunately, however, the matter does not end there:
"Disciplinary processes were still under way in relation to five students." (Uni warns Lynch...)
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
The Herald Awakes
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?
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?
Friday, April 17, 2015
The Trouble With Colonel Kemp
I've just been reading the report Investigation into potential breaches of University Codes of Conduct, posted on Sydney University's website, sydney.edu.au/news. I find it a disturbing document with grave implications for universities once renowned as havens for free speech and dissent.
In it we learn that Sydney University is threatening "disciplinary action" against a group of pro-Palestine student protesters, who disrupted a lecture last month by visiting British apologist for Israeli war crimes Colonel Richard Kemp, and pro-Palestine academic Jake Lynch, who sought to challenge the aggressive actions of security staff towards the students whilst fending off the unwanted attentions of a "semi-retired English literature lecturer and sometime stand-up comedienne Diane Barkas, 73," to quote the Australian's description of this enraged, water-hurling, camera-grabbing harpy. (See Woman denies kicking BDS guru in groin, Ean Higgins, 15/4/15).
The threat comes in response to complaints over the incident(s) submitted to the university's vice-chancellor Michael Spence by 386 individuals - only 34 of whom had actually been present at the lecture - as part of an "investigation" into the matter. (See my 18/3/15 post Anatomy of a Beat-Up.)
While we are not party to the names of the 352 "other staff, students and members of the public" who lodged those complaints, or to their content, it is safe to assume that the vast majority are the result of yet another (*sigh*) Israel lobby campaign of confected outrage targeting supporters of Palestine on campus, and, in particular, Professor Lynch, a prominent advocate of boycotting institutional ties between Sydney University and Israeli universities, a brave and principled stance that saw him hauled up before Sydney's Federal Court by the Mossad-connected, Israeli lawfare outfit Shurat HaDin last year.
It'd be most interesting to know whether some of these 'complaints' contained threats of some kind, along the lines of those described in my 26/8/14 post How Zionists Enforce the Party Line on Israel.
Central to the "investigation" are "potential breaches of University's Codes of Conduct," which "require all staff, students and affiliates to be tolerant, honest, respectful and ethical at all times."
Even to the likes of Kemp, it seems, who must be enjoying the progress of the witch-hunt, sorry investigation, immensely, seeing that "the university will send correspondence to Dr Kemp and other initial complainants present at the lecture providing them with an update."
Far from retiring (after also helping out with NSW's United Israel Appeal) to lick wounds supposedly inflicted by an intolerant, dishonest, disrespectful and unethical "BDS guru" and his student minions, Kemp will be appearing at a Shurat HaDin talkfest in Israel in May, Towards a New Law of War Conference.
Apparently, the glorious Israel Defense Forces (IDF) are finding that the Hague and Geneva Conventions, as presently constituted, are cramping their style and hence in dire need of a makeover.
It seems (I'm quoting the conference blurbs here) that "democratic armies" are pretty pissed that "large portions of the Western public and world media have come to assume that any civilian casualties are unacceptable and unlawful," and that the "Rules of Engagement in conflicts such as Afghanistan, Syria, South Lebanon and Gaza are too restrictive and irrelevant to safeguard military forces pursuing legitimate objectives in a terrorist war." (israellawcenter.org)
My fave sentence from these blurbs is this from Panel 5: "[Targeted killings] is an issue that demonstrates the influence of the Israel Defense Forces' position in shaping international law."
The influence of the Israel Defense Forces' position in shaping international law???!!!
That, my dears, is the nightmare vision to which Kemp would be a party. I wonder what Sydney University's Codes of Conduct, with their call for tolerance, honesty, respect and ethics, have to say about such matters.
In it we learn that Sydney University is threatening "disciplinary action" against a group of pro-Palestine student protesters, who disrupted a lecture last month by visiting British apologist for Israeli war crimes Colonel Richard Kemp, and pro-Palestine academic Jake Lynch, who sought to challenge the aggressive actions of security staff towards the students whilst fending off the unwanted attentions of a "semi-retired English literature lecturer and sometime stand-up comedienne Diane Barkas, 73," to quote the Australian's description of this enraged, water-hurling, camera-grabbing harpy. (See Woman denies kicking BDS guru in groin, Ean Higgins, 15/4/15).
The threat comes in response to complaints over the incident(s) submitted to the university's vice-chancellor Michael Spence by 386 individuals - only 34 of whom had actually been present at the lecture - as part of an "investigation" into the matter. (See my 18/3/15 post Anatomy of a Beat-Up.)
While we are not party to the names of the 352 "other staff, students and members of the public" who lodged those complaints, or to their content, it is safe to assume that the vast majority are the result of yet another (*sigh*) Israel lobby campaign of confected outrage targeting supporters of Palestine on campus, and, in particular, Professor Lynch, a prominent advocate of boycotting institutional ties between Sydney University and Israeli universities, a brave and principled stance that saw him hauled up before Sydney's Federal Court by the Mossad-connected, Israeli lawfare outfit Shurat HaDin last year.
It'd be most interesting to know whether some of these 'complaints' contained threats of some kind, along the lines of those described in my 26/8/14 post How Zionists Enforce the Party Line on Israel.
Central to the "investigation" are "potential breaches of University's Codes of Conduct," which "require all staff, students and affiliates to be tolerant, honest, respectful and ethical at all times."
Even to the likes of Kemp, it seems, who must be enjoying the progress of the witch-hunt, sorry investigation, immensely, seeing that "the university will send correspondence to Dr Kemp and other initial complainants present at the lecture providing them with an update."
Far from retiring (after also helping out with NSW's United Israel Appeal) to lick wounds supposedly inflicted by an intolerant, dishonest, disrespectful and unethical "BDS guru" and his student minions, Kemp will be appearing at a Shurat HaDin talkfest in Israel in May, Towards a New Law of War Conference.
Apparently, the glorious Israel Defense Forces (IDF) are finding that the Hague and Geneva Conventions, as presently constituted, are cramping their style and hence in dire need of a makeover.
It seems (I'm quoting the conference blurbs here) that "democratic armies" are pretty pissed that "large portions of the Western public and world media have come to assume that any civilian casualties are unacceptable and unlawful," and that the "Rules of Engagement in conflicts such as Afghanistan, Syria, South Lebanon and Gaza are too restrictive and irrelevant to safeguard military forces pursuing legitimate objectives in a terrorist war." (israellawcenter.org)
My fave sentence from these blurbs is this from Panel 5: "[Targeted killings] is an issue that demonstrates the influence of the Israel Defense Forces' position in shaping international law."
The influence of the Israel Defense Forces' position in shaping international law???!!!
That, my dears, is the nightmare vision to which Kemp would be a party. I wonder what Sydney University's Codes of Conduct, with their call for tolerance, honesty, respect and ethics, have to say about such matters.
Saturday, April 4, 2015
'Deeply Concerned'
I wonder if Sydney University vice-chancellor Michael Spence realises just how energising and entertaining his song and dance routine must be to the usual suspects. I suspect not:
"Like Peter Baldwin, Sydney University is deeply concerned about events that occurred during Richard Kemp's lecture on March 11 (Where the right to speak is howled down, 2/4). We are in the process of finalising an investigation into the incident, having interviewed more than 20 people and reviewed extensive material.
"I'd like to reassure Mr. Baldwin, and all those concerned by the events, that we are committed to defending free speech and the right of all staff, students and invited guests to express their views without fear of bullying, harassment or discrimination.
"Following thorough processes in such cases is vital. It is imperative that we complete these processes before appropriate actions can be taken. We are committed to ensuring this investigation is concluded as quickly as is possible, and will not hesitate to take appropriate action." (Letter to The Australian, 4/4/15)
One likely lad with more than a keen interest in the matter is Dean Sherr of theAustralian Australasian Union of Jewish Students (AUJS). Sherr has reportedly "helped start an online petition calling for Professor Lynch to be sacked." (Pro-Palestinian protest investigated by Sydney University, PM, abc.net.au, 2/4/15)
He may or may not read TheAustralasian Australian Jewish News, but I wonder what he'd make of their 27/3 online poll Should the University of Sydney fire Jake Lynch? and its 58% No vote.
As for the vc's vaunted investigation, Professor Jake Lynch has his doubts: "I've been interviewed by a lawyer whom the university informed me was a neutral person working for an outside law firm. It turned out she was actually moonlighting from her job with the university's own legal department. So my union has written a letter to the vice-chancellor calling that a duplicitous attempt to entrap members. And I fully endorse that view." (ibid)
For the context, see my posts Anatomy of a Beat-Up (18/3/15) and Baldwin's Balderdash (3/4/15).
"Like Peter Baldwin, Sydney University is deeply concerned about events that occurred during Richard Kemp's lecture on March 11 (Where the right to speak is howled down, 2/4). We are in the process of finalising an investigation into the incident, having interviewed more than 20 people and reviewed extensive material.
"I'd like to reassure Mr. Baldwin, and all those concerned by the events, that we are committed to defending free speech and the right of all staff, students and invited guests to express their views without fear of bullying, harassment or discrimination.
"Following thorough processes in such cases is vital. It is imperative that we complete these processes before appropriate actions can be taken. We are committed to ensuring this investigation is concluded as quickly as is possible, and will not hesitate to take appropriate action." (Letter to The Australian, 4/4/15)
One likely lad with more than a keen interest in the matter is Dean Sherr of the
He may or may not read The
As for the vc's vaunted investigation, Professor Jake Lynch has his doubts: "I've been interviewed by a lawyer whom the university informed me was a neutral person working for an outside law firm. It turned out she was actually moonlighting from her job with the university's own legal department. So my union has written a letter to the vice-chancellor calling that a duplicitous attempt to entrap members. And I fully endorse that view." (ibid)
For the context, see my posts Anatomy of a Beat-Up (18/3/15) and Baldwin's Balderdash (3/4/15).
Friday, April 3, 2015
Baldwin's Balderdash
The Australian's tedious Zionist crusade against Professor Jake Lynch of Sydney University's Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies continues in the form of an opinion piece by a former Labor politician with a Zionist bee in his bonnet about Hamas.
Peter Baldwin "was minister for higher education (1990-93) in the Hawke-Keating government." (Where the right to speak is howled down, 2/4/15)
There's the usual tiresome tripe about "mob rule" at Sydney University, "genocide by Hamas," and "the vicious persecution of Christians [presumably by Hamas] most of whom have now fled the territories."
Then there's the following eye-rolling stuff and nonsense:
"Riemer gave a detailed defence of the disruption in a long article in the online journal New Matilda. This piece of casuistic nonsense..."
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. What's casuistry compared to the confusion that stems from a failure to distinguish between polar opposites? (Remember that this bloke's the convener of something called the Blackheath Philosophy Forum):
"My sense is that increasingly anti-Zionism is a mask for occulted anti-Semitism."
Which, of course, is merely the obverse of the classic Zionist conflation of Judaism (faith) with Zionism (political ideology).
Just as bad is Baldwin's failure to see the issue of Gaza in its historical context:
"As for the stuff about failing to promote human flourishing, perhaps Riemer should consider that by turning Gaza into an armed camp... Hamas and its supporters and apologists are failing to 'promote human flourishing'."
Leaving aside the hypocrisy of describing Gaza as an "armed camp" while ignoring the Zionist movement's turning of what was once Palestine into the Middle East's largest and most powerful armed camp, Baldwin blithely ignores the fact that the rise of an armed resistance movement in the Gaza Strip was the inevitable result of Israel's ethnic cleansing of southern Palestine in 1948, the population of which was not only forced to seek refuge there but forced to remain there in violation of international law and common humanity so that their ethnic cleansers could get on with the business of stacking their former homes with Jews from all over.
Maybe he thinks those refugees should have set up a 'Gaza Philosophy Forum' instead.
Peter Baldwin "was minister for higher education (1990-93) in the Hawke-Keating government." (Where the right to speak is howled down, 2/4/15)
There's the usual tiresome tripe about "mob rule" at Sydney University, "genocide by Hamas," and "the vicious persecution of Christians [presumably by Hamas] most of whom have now fled the territories."
Then there's the following eye-rolling stuff and nonsense:
"Riemer gave a detailed defence of the disruption in a long article in the online journal New Matilda. This piece of casuistic nonsense..."
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. What's casuistry compared to the confusion that stems from a failure to distinguish between polar opposites? (Remember that this bloke's the convener of something called the Blackheath Philosophy Forum):
"My sense is that increasingly anti-Zionism is a mask for occulted anti-Semitism."
Which, of course, is merely the obverse of the classic Zionist conflation of Judaism (faith) with Zionism (political ideology).
Just as bad is Baldwin's failure to see the issue of Gaza in its historical context:
"As for the stuff about failing to promote human flourishing, perhaps Riemer should consider that by turning Gaza into an armed camp... Hamas and its supporters and apologists are failing to 'promote human flourishing'."
Leaving aside the hypocrisy of describing Gaza as an "armed camp" while ignoring the Zionist movement's turning of what was once Palestine into the Middle East's largest and most powerful armed camp, Baldwin blithely ignores the fact that the rise of an armed resistance movement in the Gaza Strip was the inevitable result of Israel's ethnic cleansing of southern Palestine in 1948, the population of which was not only forced to seek refuge there but forced to remain there in violation of international law and common humanity so that their ethnic cleansers could get on with the business of stacking their former homes with Jews from all over.
Maybe he thinks those refugees should have set up a 'Gaza Philosophy Forum' instead.
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
Anatomy of a Beat-Up...
... or how the Murdoch press transforms a pro-Palestine protest into a veritable anti-Semitic pogrom.
Last year, Associate Professor Jake Lynch, of Sydney University's Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies (CPACS), was embroiled in a Federal Court action brought by Israeli lawfare outfit Shurat Ha Din for the 'offence' of declining (Lynch is a supporter of the pro-Palestinian BDS movement) to sponsor an Israel academic. Lynch won the case with costs. Now he's just been accused, by the chairman of the Australian Union of Jewish Students (AUJS), Dean Sherr, of ANTI-SEMITISM for allegedly waving a $5 note at a woman who had, in his words, "kicked him 'in the meat and two veg" for the 'offence' of filming a student protest (or 'fracas' in Murdochspeak) against a lecture by visiting British clanking Colonel - and United Israel Appeal star attraction* - Richard Kemp.
Hissed Sherr: "Waving money in the face of Jewish people screams of the classical anti-Semitic falsehood that Jews are obsessed with money."
Hinted Kemp: "I observed [Lynch] waving the money in the face of a Jewish student, a clearly aggressive and insulting act that seemed to invoke the stereotype of the 'greedy Jew'."
The incident has been the occasion for the Murdoch press to once again hound Lynch in a series of articles by the usual suspects, beginning with a piece in The Daily Telegraph of 14/3/15, Professor waved $5 at Jewish woman, by Taylor Auerbach.
This was followed by Sack call over BDS protest (16/3/15) by Ean Higgins in The Australian, in which Sherr was quoted.
In it, we learn that the university's vice-chancellor has launched "an investigation into [the] fracas," during which Lynch "criticised security guards [who] tried to remove the protesters," and that Kemp has written to the university's vice-chancellor claiming that "Professor Lynch and another pro-BDS academic 'were both apparently leading and encouraging the protesters'." It concludes with Lynch reportedly saying that "he held up the bank notes to warn a woman who he said kicked him in the groin that he would sue her if she didn't desist," denying "the action was anti-Semitic," and claiming that "the security guards had shown no interest in curbing her actions."
Uni faces calls for action on protest (17/3/15) by Christian Kerr in The Australian followed. In this a former Labor education minister (190-93) Peter Baldwin is quoted as saying "I visited a great many campuses and was more than once the target of student protest demonstrations. But I never experienced anything quite as repulsive as what I witnessed last Wednesday." Baldwin "warned of 'deeply sinister developments' that had created an 'increasingly poisonous' atmosphere for Jewish students" and "called on [the vice-chancellor] to 'commit to restoring a genuine climate of free debate at Sydney University in which all can participate without fear of intimidation." He concluded as follows: "You have a group who think they have a right of veto on what viewpoints are sayable. Who do these people think that they are, that they can adjudicate what points of view are allowed to be heard?... It warrants the university administration taking serious disciplinary action against those responsible."
On the opinion pages of the same issue, came Protesters disown their university values, by none other than clanking Colonel Kemp himself, in which he alleged that "a group of about a dozen people... stormed into the lecture and started yelling at me and the audience through a megaphone, accusing me of 'supporting genocide', and trying to shut down the lecture. The protesters occupied the lecture theatre, intimidated members of the audience and were intent on preventing the exchange of views my lecture was intending to facilitate. Two of the academics then joined them, one of whom I saw badgering an elderly woman who objected to him photographing her on his iPhone. When she tried to push the iPhone out of her face he grabbed her arm forcibly, and appeared to hurt her. When she retaliated physically, the academic - an associate professor - waved a $5 note in her face and the face of a Jewish student.... This protest had clear anti-Semitic undertones."
The above was apparently sufficient to set off an entire pack (10) of Zionist correspondents who barked and bayed on the letters page of today's Australian.
They were "appalled" at the "shocking spectacle."
They called on the university to show "leadership" and take "appropriate disciplinary action."
They invoked "1930s Nazi Germany" and "the events in Germany culminating in World War II."
They alleged that "demonstrators were hell-bent on being anti-Semitic" and were "rabid anti-Semites."
They accused Lynch of being "a lifelong Marxist" and the protesters of being "his university stormtroopers."
In short, just the usual for the letters pages of The Australian.
What will tomorrow's edition bring?
But why wait?
If you want the real story, rather than the Murdoch beat-up, head across to the New Matilda website and read Michael Brull's painstaking analysis (complete with videos) of the protest: Blaming the victims: what really happened at the Colonel Kemp Usyd Protest (18/3/15).
[*See my 23/2/15 post Menage A Trois.]
Last year, Associate Professor Jake Lynch, of Sydney University's Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies (CPACS), was embroiled in a Federal Court action brought by Israeli lawfare outfit Shurat Ha Din for the 'offence' of declining (Lynch is a supporter of the pro-Palestinian BDS movement) to sponsor an Israel academic. Lynch won the case with costs. Now he's just been accused, by the chairman of the Australian Union of Jewish Students (AUJS), Dean Sherr, of ANTI-SEMITISM for allegedly waving a $5 note at a woman who had, in his words, "kicked him 'in the meat and two veg" for the 'offence' of filming a student protest (or 'fracas' in Murdochspeak) against a lecture by visiting British clanking Colonel - and United Israel Appeal star attraction* - Richard Kemp.
Hissed Sherr: "Waving money in the face of Jewish people screams of the classical anti-Semitic falsehood that Jews are obsessed with money."
Hinted Kemp: "I observed [Lynch] waving the money in the face of a Jewish student, a clearly aggressive and insulting act that seemed to invoke the stereotype of the 'greedy Jew'."
The incident has been the occasion for the Murdoch press to once again hound Lynch in a series of articles by the usual suspects, beginning with a piece in The Daily Telegraph of 14/3/15, Professor waved $5 at Jewish woman, by Taylor Auerbach.
This was followed by Sack call over BDS protest (16/3/15) by Ean Higgins in The Australian, in which Sherr was quoted.
In it, we learn that the university's vice-chancellor has launched "an investigation into [the] fracas," during which Lynch "criticised security guards [who] tried to remove the protesters," and that Kemp has written to the university's vice-chancellor claiming that "Professor Lynch and another pro-BDS academic 'were both apparently leading and encouraging the protesters'." It concludes with Lynch reportedly saying that "he held up the bank notes to warn a woman who he said kicked him in the groin that he would sue her if she didn't desist," denying "the action was anti-Semitic," and claiming that "the security guards had shown no interest in curbing her actions."
Uni faces calls for action on protest (17/3/15) by Christian Kerr in The Australian followed. In this a former Labor education minister (190-93) Peter Baldwin is quoted as saying "I visited a great many campuses and was more than once the target of student protest demonstrations. But I never experienced anything quite as repulsive as what I witnessed last Wednesday." Baldwin "warned of 'deeply sinister developments' that had created an 'increasingly poisonous' atmosphere for Jewish students" and "called on [the vice-chancellor] to 'commit to restoring a genuine climate of free debate at Sydney University in which all can participate without fear of intimidation." He concluded as follows: "You have a group who think they have a right of veto on what viewpoints are sayable. Who do these people think that they are, that they can adjudicate what points of view are allowed to be heard?... It warrants the university administration taking serious disciplinary action against those responsible."
On the opinion pages of the same issue, came Protesters disown their university values, by none other than clanking Colonel Kemp himself, in which he alleged that "a group of about a dozen people... stormed into the lecture and started yelling at me and the audience through a megaphone, accusing me of 'supporting genocide', and trying to shut down the lecture. The protesters occupied the lecture theatre, intimidated members of the audience and were intent on preventing the exchange of views my lecture was intending to facilitate. Two of the academics then joined them, one of whom I saw badgering an elderly woman who objected to him photographing her on his iPhone. When she tried to push the iPhone out of her face he grabbed her arm forcibly, and appeared to hurt her. When she retaliated physically, the academic - an associate professor - waved a $5 note in her face and the face of a Jewish student.... This protest had clear anti-Semitic undertones."
The above was apparently sufficient to set off an entire pack (10) of Zionist correspondents who barked and bayed on the letters page of today's Australian.
They were "appalled" at the "shocking spectacle."
They called on the university to show "leadership" and take "appropriate disciplinary action."
They invoked "1930s Nazi Germany" and "the events in Germany culminating in World War II."
They alleged that "demonstrators were hell-bent on being anti-Semitic" and were "rabid anti-Semites."
They accused Lynch of being "a lifelong Marxist" and the protesters of being "his university stormtroopers."
In short, just the usual for the letters pages of The Australian.
What will tomorrow's edition bring?
But why wait?
If you want the real story, rather than the Murdoch beat-up, head across to the New Matilda website and read Michael Brull's painstaking analysis (complete with videos) of the protest: Blaming the victims: what really happened at the Colonel Kemp Usyd Protest (18/3/15).
[*See my 23/2/15 post Menage A Trois.]
Sunday, July 20, 2014
Jake Lynch Update 12: The Black Knight's Last Stand
"The landmark racial discrimination court case brought by Israeli legal group Shurat HaDin against Sydney University's Jake Lynch was yesterday finally brought to a close, when a judge rejected a last-ditch attempt by an Australian lawyer to keep it alive.
"Federal Court judge Alan Robertson issued orders allowing Shurat HaDin to withdraw from the case after it had accepted it had no natural persons left as plaintiffs, leaving it with no legal standing in an Australian court. He made a general order for costs in favour of Professor Lynch...
"The court hearing yesterday had been expected to mark the end of an epic courtroom battle pitting different interpretations of free speech and academic expression against one another..."
Don't you just love the Australian's spin on this?
"But at the hearing, the Australian lawyer who originally represented Shurat HaDin, Andrew Hamilton, sought leave to have a six week period in which he would decide whether his electric bicycle company, Green Freedom, would continue the case without Shurat HaDin. Mr Lynch's solicitor, Yves Hazan, told Justice Robertson the court had earlier issued orders that had the effect of taking all plaintiffs except for Shurat HaDin out of the case, and it was absurd for Mr Hamilton to prolong the closure of the matter. 'It's got to stop, your Honour,' Mr Hazan told the court.
"Justice Robertson adjourned the morning hearing saying he would bring down his decision on Mr Hamilton's request after he had re-examined the court transcript. Professor Lynch said at the end of the morning court session, referring to the famous Monty Python skit, that Mr Hamilton's effort to keep the case going was 'like the Black Knight fighting on after King Arthur has chopped off his arms and legs.' Just hours later Justice Robertson issued orders rejecting Mr Hamilton's application for time to consider continuing the case, bringing it to an end for all parties." (BDS case finally brought to a close, Ean Higgins, The Australian, 17/7/14)
This case, unforgivably, was effectively ignored by the Fairfax press and the ABC. It was, however, taken up by Murdoch's Australian, not, I hardly need add, out of any concern for, or interest in "free speech and academic expression," as suggested in the above piece, but as part of the paper's ferocious and relentless campaigning against anyone who calls for the use of the BDS strategy against Israeli apartheid and occupation.
Any full and credible account of this vicious attack on Professor Lynch will reveal how, as Shurat HaDin's case began slowly to unravel, the Australian's once cheerleading, front page treatment became more and more subdued, and its coverage migrated to the inner pages, until finally being consigned to its Higher Education supplement. To see how it was reported at the beginning, check out my 2/11/13 post More Hounding of Jake Lynch 1.
"Federal Court judge Alan Robertson issued orders allowing Shurat HaDin to withdraw from the case after it had accepted it had no natural persons left as plaintiffs, leaving it with no legal standing in an Australian court. He made a general order for costs in favour of Professor Lynch...
"The court hearing yesterday had been expected to mark the end of an epic courtroom battle pitting different interpretations of free speech and academic expression against one another..."
Don't you just love the Australian's spin on this?
"But at the hearing, the Australian lawyer who originally represented Shurat HaDin, Andrew Hamilton, sought leave to have a six week period in which he would decide whether his electric bicycle company, Green Freedom, would continue the case without Shurat HaDin. Mr Lynch's solicitor, Yves Hazan, told Justice Robertson the court had earlier issued orders that had the effect of taking all plaintiffs except for Shurat HaDin out of the case, and it was absurd for Mr Hamilton to prolong the closure of the matter. 'It's got to stop, your Honour,' Mr Hazan told the court.
"Justice Robertson adjourned the morning hearing saying he would bring down his decision on Mr Hamilton's request after he had re-examined the court transcript. Professor Lynch said at the end of the morning court session, referring to the famous Monty Python skit, that Mr Hamilton's effort to keep the case going was 'like the Black Knight fighting on after King Arthur has chopped off his arms and legs.' Just hours later Justice Robertson issued orders rejecting Mr Hamilton's application for time to consider continuing the case, bringing it to an end for all parties." (BDS case finally brought to a close, Ean Higgins, The Australian, 17/7/14)
This case, unforgivably, was effectively ignored by the Fairfax press and the ABC. It was, however, taken up by Murdoch's Australian, not, I hardly need add, out of any concern for, or interest in "free speech and academic expression," as suggested in the above piece, but as part of the paper's ferocious and relentless campaigning against anyone who calls for the use of the BDS strategy against Israeli apartheid and occupation.
Any full and credible account of this vicious attack on Professor Lynch will reveal how, as Shurat HaDin's case began slowly to unravel, the Australian's once cheerleading, front page treatment became more and more subdued, and its coverage migrated to the inner pages, until finally being consigned to its Higher Education supplement. To see how it was reported at the beginning, check out my 2/11/13 post More Hounding of Jake Lynch 1.
Thursday, July 10, 2014
Jake Lynch Update 11: VICTORY
A message from Jake:
"My lawyer and the lawyer for Shurat HaDin have agreed that the proceeding by Shurat HaDin be dismissed for lack of standing. And they have agreed for the court to make orders that Shurat HaDin pay my costs of the application for dismissal of the case, and my costs of the proceedings that are not otherwise subject to earlier cost orders.
"Judge Alan Robertson will make the orders in the Federal Court in Sydney, on Wednesday July 16th at 9.30am.
"This comprehensive legal victory represents complete vindication for the principled stance I have taken in fighting off a despicable attack on political freedom in Australia.
"It gives the green light for many more Australians to take their own action in solidarity with the Palestinian struggle for rights and freedoms we are lucky enough to be able to take for granted.
"Shurat HaDin is a foreign agency, with admitted past links with the Israeli state, which wanted to use the Australian courts to stifle the growing movement of worldwide political activism for Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions.
"The case began with the smear that BDS advocates are motivated by racism. That was accepted by many of Australia's leading politicians, to their discredit, when they signed up to the so-called 'London Declaration on Combating Antisemitism'.*
"But the attempt to make it stick in court proved a bridge too far. Legal process requires evidence, and logical argument. Once exposed to that test, a claim that passed muster in the corridors of Canberra immediately began to crumble.
"I have faced claims that I should be held responsible for decisions by performing artists, such as Elvis Costello and Snoop Dogg, not to tour Israel. There was never a shred of proof to back up any of these allegations.
"On the narrower issue of the request that I received from Professor Dan Avnon to endorse his application for a Sir Zelman Cowan fellowship, Shurat HaDin managed to persuade neither Avnon himself, nor any other academic, to join their ill-conceived action.
"This week's renewed wave of indiscriminate Israeli violence against Palestinian civilians shows the urgency of taking political action to promote peace with justice. Israel will not change its routine recourse to militarism and lawlessness without coming under pressure.
"The disavowal by the Australian government of the international legal consensus on the occupation of Palestinian territory shows this pressure must come from civil society. That is the rationale for BDS, as a symbolic gesture of solidarity.
"This legal victory for me, and thousands of supporters who have stood by me and contributed to my cause, represents both an opportunity and a challenge. Someone has to make a change. If not us, who? If not now, when?
"The case has given rise to the creation of two important groups to take up this cause: Australians for BDS: http://australiansforbds.wordpress.com/ And within the University of Sydney, Sydney Staff for BDS: http://sydneystaff4bds.org/
A message (LOL) from the head of Shurat HaDin, Nitsana Darshan-Litigator in yesterday's Australian:
"Professor Lynch was taking 'a cowardly approach' by 'trying to get the case dismissed on a technicality' rather than run 'a fair and public trial on the merits. He is running away from the fight like the Arabs ran from the battlefield in the Six-Day War'." ('No plaintiffs left' in case against Lynch, Ean Higgins, 9/7/14)
And, lest we forget Shurat HaDin accessory,Andrew Akiva Hamilton:
"A solicitor for Shurat HaDin, Andrew Hamilton, did not respond to requests for comment." (Israeli legal centre abandons lawsuit against Sydney academic, Michael Safi, theguardian.com, 10/7/14)
Roll on BDS!
[*See my 17/5/13 post The Tel Aviv Declaration on Combating Criticism of Israel.]
"My lawyer and the lawyer for Shurat HaDin have agreed that the proceeding by Shurat HaDin be dismissed for lack of standing. And they have agreed for the court to make orders that Shurat HaDin pay my costs of the application for dismissal of the case, and my costs of the proceedings that are not otherwise subject to earlier cost orders.
"Judge Alan Robertson will make the orders in the Federal Court in Sydney, on Wednesday July 16th at 9.30am.
"This comprehensive legal victory represents complete vindication for the principled stance I have taken in fighting off a despicable attack on political freedom in Australia.
"It gives the green light for many more Australians to take their own action in solidarity with the Palestinian struggle for rights and freedoms we are lucky enough to be able to take for granted.
"Shurat HaDin is a foreign agency, with admitted past links with the Israeli state, which wanted to use the Australian courts to stifle the growing movement of worldwide political activism for Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions.
"The case began with the smear that BDS advocates are motivated by racism. That was accepted by many of Australia's leading politicians, to their discredit, when they signed up to the so-called 'London Declaration on Combating Antisemitism'.*
"But the attempt to make it stick in court proved a bridge too far. Legal process requires evidence, and logical argument. Once exposed to that test, a claim that passed muster in the corridors of Canberra immediately began to crumble.
"I have faced claims that I should be held responsible for decisions by performing artists, such as Elvis Costello and Snoop Dogg, not to tour Israel. There was never a shred of proof to back up any of these allegations.
"On the narrower issue of the request that I received from Professor Dan Avnon to endorse his application for a Sir Zelman Cowan fellowship, Shurat HaDin managed to persuade neither Avnon himself, nor any other academic, to join their ill-conceived action.
"This week's renewed wave of indiscriminate Israeli violence against Palestinian civilians shows the urgency of taking political action to promote peace with justice. Israel will not change its routine recourse to militarism and lawlessness without coming under pressure.
"The disavowal by the Australian government of the international legal consensus on the occupation of Palestinian territory shows this pressure must come from civil society. That is the rationale for BDS, as a symbolic gesture of solidarity.
"This legal victory for me, and thousands of supporters who have stood by me and contributed to my cause, represents both an opportunity and a challenge. Someone has to make a change. If not us, who? If not now, when?
"The case has given rise to the creation of two important groups to take up this cause: Australians for BDS: http://australiansforbds.wordpress.com/ And within the University of Sydney, Sydney Staff for BDS: http://sydneystaff4bds.org/
A message (LOL) from the head of Shurat HaDin, Nitsana Darshan-Litigator in yesterday's Australian:
"Professor Lynch was taking 'a cowardly approach' by 'trying to get the case dismissed on a technicality' rather than run 'a fair and public trial on the merits. He is running away from the fight like the Arabs ran from the battlefield in the Six-Day War'." ('No plaintiffs left' in case against Lynch, Ean Higgins, 9/7/14)
And, lest we forget Shurat HaDin accessory,
"A solicitor for Shurat HaDin, Andrew Hamilton, did not respond to requests for comment." (Israeli legal centre abandons lawsuit against Sydney academic, Michael Safi, theguardian.com, 10/7/14)
Roll on BDS!
[*See my 17/5/13 post The Tel Aviv Declaration on Combating Criticism of Israel.]
Friday, June 6, 2014
Jake Lynch Update 10
"Sydney University academics have narrowly voted against supporting or even discussing boycotts of Israel, after the head of their union staged an unusual intervention which left the faculty deeply divided. A general meeting on Wednesday saw a motion to continue a discussion of the pro-Palestinian Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions campaign defeated by 68 votes in favour to 56 against, after a vigorous debate. A second motion put by the general secretary of the National Tertiary Education Union, Grahame McCulloch, to not endorse BDS or devote union resources to debate it, was passed by a similar margin... Mr McCulloch is understood to have told the closed-door meeting that launching a debate about the BDS campaign would prove divisive at a time when the union needed unity to fight immediate issues like federal budget cuts..." (Unionists at Sydney side-step debate on Israel boycott, Ean Higgins, The Australian, 6/6/14)
OK, so that's the official line, is it? The NTEU must stick to "immediate issues like federal budget cuts"?
Another iteration of same came from Sydney University Professor Dianna Kenny:
"I believe that the proper agenda of the NTEU is the survival of higher education - particularly in light of the... budget." (Academics at war over Israel boycott, Ean Higgins, The Australian, 4/6/14)
If the NTEU general secretary or the 68 Sydney University staff who voted to gag discussion on this issue as a distraction from "the proper agenda of the NTEU," defined as "budget cuts," maybe the National President of the NTEU, Jeannie Rea*, should be censured for devoting union time and resources to her recent (2/6) condemnation of the military coup in Thailand, which can be read at the NTEU's website under the heading: Condemnation of the coup in Thailand.
But is the old core business furphy really just a cover for someone with a soft spot for Israel? The following sentence from Higgin's 6/6 report suggests so:
"[McCulloch] suggested supporters of BDS were really pushing a radical 'one state' outcome in the Middle East."
[*"NTEU president Jeannie Rea said Sydney University had a 'good record' on supporting freedom of intellectual inquiry." (Dalai Lama's office 'suggested' venue change, John Ross, The Australian, 19/4/13) Not any more!]
OK, so that's the official line, is it? The NTEU must stick to "immediate issues like federal budget cuts"?
Another iteration of same came from Sydney University Professor Dianna Kenny:
"I believe that the proper agenda of the NTEU is the survival of higher education - particularly in light of the... budget." (Academics at war over Israel boycott, Ean Higgins, The Australian, 4/6/14)
If the NTEU general secretary or the 68 Sydney University staff who voted to gag discussion on this issue as a distraction from "the proper agenda of the NTEU," defined as "budget cuts," maybe the National President of the NTEU, Jeannie Rea*, should be censured for devoting union time and resources to her recent (2/6) condemnation of the military coup in Thailand, which can be read at the NTEU's website under the heading: Condemnation of the coup in Thailand.
But is the old core business furphy really just a cover for someone with a soft spot for Israel? The following sentence from Higgin's 6/6 report suggests so:
"[McCulloch] suggested supporters of BDS were really pushing a radical 'one state' outcome in the Middle East."
[*"NTEU president Jeannie Rea said Sydney University had a 'good record' on supporting freedom of intellectual inquiry." (Dalai Lama's office 'suggested' venue change, John Ross, The Australian, 19/4/13) Not any more!]
Sunday, June 1, 2014
Jake Lynch Update 9
According to the Murdoch press, the head of the National Tertiary Education Union, Grahame McCulloch "will intervene to try to stop its Sydney University branch from moving towards a boycott of Israel*... In an email to members issued yesterday, he said the branch 'has been caught in a destructive and confusing debate about the Middle East conflict'." (Union bid to end war over BDS, Ean Higgins, The Australian, 31/5/14)
Hello? A member of the Sydney University branch of the NTEU, Professor Jake Lynch, has been dragged before an Australian court by Israeli lawfare** outfit, Shurat HaDin, over his principled opposition to links with Israeli universities, his branch rallies to his defence with a resolution to widen said opposition, and this is deemed "destructive and confusing" by the union's general secretary?
This is most puzzling, coming from the leader of a union dedicated to, among other things, "intellectual freedom." (See Policy Advocacy, nteu.org.au)
Even more puzzling is why there is no mention of, let alone expression of support for, Professor Lynch, on the NTEU's website.
[*See my JL Updates 6 & 7; **Shurat HaDin's motto is: Bankrupting terrorism one lawsuit at a time.]
Hello? A member of the Sydney University branch of the NTEU, Professor Jake Lynch, has been dragged before an Australian court by Israeli lawfare** outfit, Shurat HaDin, over his principled opposition to links with Israeli universities, his branch rallies to his defence with a resolution to widen said opposition, and this is deemed "destructive and confusing" by the union's general secretary?
This is most puzzling, coming from the leader of a union dedicated to, among other things, "intellectual freedom." (See Policy Advocacy, nteu.org.au)
Even more puzzling is why there is no mention of, let alone expression of support for, Professor Lynch, on the NTEU's website.
[*See my JL Updates 6 & 7; **Shurat HaDin's motto is: Bankrupting terrorism one lawsuit at a time.]
Friday, May 30, 2014
Jake Lynch Update 8: Damage Control
Unable to credibly paint Sydney University's Professor Jake Lynch as some kind of BDS mastermind, Israeli lawfare outfit, Shurat HaDin, has now decided, in an apparent exercise in damage control, to focus its attack solely on his decision to factor in the Palestinian call for an academic boycott of Israel when approached by Israeli academics seeking his endorsement for Sydney University fellowships.
(Interestingly, it looks as though Shurat HaDin's Ozraeli lawyer, Andrew - Call me Akiva! - Hamilton, is OUT, and heavyweight New York lawyer, Robert Tolchin, fresh from threatening the American Studies Association (ASA) over its recent decision to boycott Israeli academic institutions, is IN.)
The following report - Shurat HaDin narrows its target in Lynch standoff by Ean Higgins - comes from The Australian of May 28*:
"Israeli legal activist [sic: lawfare] group Shurat HaDin, having had much of its case against University of Sydney academic Jake Lynch struck out, has abandoned its ambitious bid to have the Federal Court declare the entire boycott, divestment [and] sanctions campaign against Israel discriminatory. Instead, under new lawyers, Shurat HaDin will narrow its racial discrimination case to Professor Lynch's snub of Hebrew University of Jerusalem professor Dan Avnon, who had sought his endorsement for a fellowship at Sydney University.
"In other developments, the four other applicants, including Israeli academics and lawyer Andrew Hamilton, have indicated to the court they want to withdraw from the case. Shurat HaDin has also been ordered to put up a $100,000 bond for costs should Professor Lynch win... Shurat HaDin argues Professor Lynch has breached the academic freedom of Professor Avnon while Professor Lynch argues Shurat HaDin is trying to breach his...
"Professor Lynch, who heads Sydney University's Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies, has claimed the latest developments in the case to be further tactical victories. 'This legal action was conceived as an attack on political freedom in Australia by a foreign agency, so we should all be relieved that it is now failing in court,' Professor Lynch told The Australian. 'Its effect has been to draw interest and support from many more people here for the Palestinian call for an academic and cultural boycott of Israel.'
"Shurat HaDin issued a statement insisting that its case was still on track, but under a different approach. 'The new statement of claims will be sharply streamlined to include only the uncontested allegation that Lynch refused employment to Professor Avnon solely based on his citizenship,' Shurat HaDin said. 'By refusing employment to an Israeli professor simply because he is an Israeli, Lynch plainly violated Australia's anti-racism law, which was legislated to protect against discrimination based on national origin and religion,' Shurat HaDin's US-based lawyer Robert Tolchin said. 'There are only two questions to be answered. Did Lynch discriminate against an Israeli professor because based on his national origin and, secondly, is such conduct a violation of Australia's anti-racism laws?
"Professor Lynch has strenuously denied he discriminated against Professor Avnon, who took up the fellowship in another Sydney University department. He says his stand on BDS is directed against the policies of the Israeli state and not individual Israelis. Shurat HaDin's original statement of claim sought to argue that Professor Lynch's support for the global BDS campaign was itself a breach of the Racial Discrimination Act. The BDS campaign, it said, had led international performers to refuse to appear in Israel, depriving Israelis of being able to watch performers including actors Meg Ryan and Dustin Hoffman, and musicians Snoop Dogg and Elvis Costello. Justice Alan Robertson struck out many of the key clauses of the statement of claim, accepting the argument of Professor Lynch's lawyer... that they lacked sufficient specifics of the 'when, where, how' Professor Lynch had breached the act."
[*It should be noted that the above report was buried in The Australian's Higher Education supplement (p 29). No other branch of the ms media is even bothering to report on this extraordinary case, in which an Australian academic, known for his defence of brutalised and dispossessed peoples, is being pursued by a foreign law firm (with intelligence connections) in an Australian court for alleged racism. Nor is this an isolated case. For an overview of Israeli lawfaring on a global scale, see Israel's incompetent global campaign of 'lawfare', Asa Winstanley, Electronic Intifada, 2/4/14)]
(Interestingly, it looks as though Shurat HaDin's Ozraeli lawyer, Andrew - Call me Akiva! - Hamilton, is OUT, and heavyweight New York lawyer, Robert Tolchin, fresh from threatening the American Studies Association (ASA) over its recent decision to boycott Israeli academic institutions, is IN.)
The following report - Shurat HaDin narrows its target in Lynch standoff by Ean Higgins - comes from The Australian of May 28*:
"Israeli legal activist [sic: lawfare] group Shurat HaDin, having had much of its case against University of Sydney academic Jake Lynch struck out, has abandoned its ambitious bid to have the Federal Court declare the entire boycott, divestment [and] sanctions campaign against Israel discriminatory. Instead, under new lawyers, Shurat HaDin will narrow its racial discrimination case to Professor Lynch's snub of Hebrew University of Jerusalem professor Dan Avnon, who had sought his endorsement for a fellowship at Sydney University.
"In other developments, the four other applicants, including Israeli academics and lawyer Andrew Hamilton, have indicated to the court they want to withdraw from the case. Shurat HaDin has also been ordered to put up a $100,000 bond for costs should Professor Lynch win... Shurat HaDin argues Professor Lynch has breached the academic freedom of Professor Avnon while Professor Lynch argues Shurat HaDin is trying to breach his...
"Professor Lynch, who heads Sydney University's Centre for Peace & Conflict Studies, has claimed the latest developments in the case to be further tactical victories. 'This legal action was conceived as an attack on political freedom in Australia by a foreign agency, so we should all be relieved that it is now failing in court,' Professor Lynch told The Australian. 'Its effect has been to draw interest and support from many more people here for the Palestinian call for an academic and cultural boycott of Israel.'
"Shurat HaDin issued a statement insisting that its case was still on track, but under a different approach. 'The new statement of claims will be sharply streamlined to include only the uncontested allegation that Lynch refused employment to Professor Avnon solely based on his citizenship,' Shurat HaDin said. 'By refusing employment to an Israeli professor simply because he is an Israeli, Lynch plainly violated Australia's anti-racism law, which was legislated to protect against discrimination based on national origin and religion,' Shurat HaDin's US-based lawyer Robert Tolchin said. 'There are only two questions to be answered. Did Lynch discriminate against an Israeli professor because based on his national origin and, secondly, is such conduct a violation of Australia's anti-racism laws?
"Professor Lynch has strenuously denied he discriminated against Professor Avnon, who took up the fellowship in another Sydney University department. He says his stand on BDS is directed against the policies of the Israeli state and not individual Israelis. Shurat HaDin's original statement of claim sought to argue that Professor Lynch's support for the global BDS campaign was itself a breach of the Racial Discrimination Act. The BDS campaign, it said, had led international performers to refuse to appear in Israel, depriving Israelis of being able to watch performers including actors Meg Ryan and Dustin Hoffman, and musicians Snoop Dogg and Elvis Costello. Justice Alan Robertson struck out many of the key clauses of the statement of claim, accepting the argument of Professor Lynch's lawyer... that they lacked sufficient specifics of the 'when, where, how' Professor Lynch had breached the act."
[*It should be noted that the above report was buried in The Australian's Higher Education supplement (p 29). No other branch of the ms media is even bothering to report on this extraordinary case, in which an Australian academic, known for his defence of brutalised and dispossessed peoples, is being pursued by a foreign law firm (with intelligence connections) in an Australian court for alleged racism. Nor is this an isolated case. For an overview of Israeli lawfaring on a global scale, see Israel's incompetent global campaign of 'lawfare', Asa Winstanley, Electronic Intifada, 2/4/14)]
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
Jake Lynch Update 7
Here's a wonderful letter from yesterday's Australian on the decision by the Sydney University branch of the National Tertiary Education Union to back Professor Jake Lynch's courageous stand for Palestine and against Israeli bullying and intimidation:
"The threat by Shurat HaDin lawyer Andrew Hamilton that Sydney University staff will be next in the firing line shows that he prefers bullying and intimidation over rational discussion (Jewish group warns uni on BDS, 19/5) Like Shurat HaDin's Federal Court case against Jake Lynch, these tactics are intended to drain critics of resources, and silence other advocates of the peaceful boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign. In coming to Lynch's defence, Sydney University's National Tertiary Education Union is upholding members' rights to a working environment free of such harassment, as any union should. Its resolution, moreover, is in line with the university's administration which recognises Lynch's support for BDS as a legitimate exercise of his intellectual freedom. NTEU members have voted to begin a broad discussion on the issues surrounding the Israel-Palestine conflict, and in particular the university's links to Israeli institutions. These ties do not exist in an ethical vacuum. Our institution's global conduct is a matter that staff have every right to discuss and take positions on - up to and including support for BDS." David Brophy, history lecturer, Sydney University, NSW
"The threat by Shurat HaDin lawyer Andrew Hamilton that Sydney University staff will be next in the firing line shows that he prefers bullying and intimidation over rational discussion (Jewish group warns uni on BDS, 19/5) Like Shurat HaDin's Federal Court case against Jake Lynch, these tactics are intended to drain critics of resources, and silence other advocates of the peaceful boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign. In coming to Lynch's defence, Sydney University's National Tertiary Education Union is upholding members' rights to a working environment free of such harassment, as any union should. Its resolution, moreover, is in line with the university's administration which recognises Lynch's support for BDS as a legitimate exercise of his intellectual freedom. NTEU members have voted to begin a broad discussion on the issues surrounding the Israel-Palestine conflict, and in particular the university's links to Israeli institutions. These ties do not exist in an ethical vacuum. Our institution's global conduct is a matter that staff have every right to discuss and take positions on - up to and including support for BDS." David Brophy, history lecturer, Sydney University, NSW
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
Jake Lynch Update 6
Israeli lawmongers, Shurat HaDin, currently seeking to intimidate Sydney University's Professor Jake Lynch in the Federal Court over his support for such fundamental human rights as freedom from military occupation, equality between people regardless of religious affiliation, and the right of refugees to return to the homes and lands from which they were once driven, are now threatening those who stand with him:
"The Israeli legal activist [sic: lawfare] group Shurat HaDin has warned Sydney University academics against joining their colleague Jake Lynch in supporting sanctions against Israel, saying they would be 'next in the firing line' for a lawsuit." (Jewish group warns uni on BDS, Ean Higgins, The Australian, 19/5/14)
Next in the firing line for a lawsuit, eh? How typically Zionist!
Remember the Zionist movement's motto during the period of its creeping colonisation of Palestine (1917-48) - 'dunum by dunam, goat by goat'? Having snapped up every remaining Palestinian dunum (and goat) between the River and the Sea in 1967, the movement is now in the process of covertly* colonising global free speech. Perhaps its motto should now be: Pressure tactic by pressure tactic, lawsuit by lawsuit? But I digress:
"University staff last week voted overwhelmingly to support Professor Lynch's right to promote the global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel, and will consider joining the BDS campaign as a block.** The vote led lawyer Andrew Hamilton, who represents Shurat HaDin in its lawsuit against Professor Lynch, to warn that the Israeli organisation would take the academic union to court if it throws its weight behind BDS. A general meeting of the Sydney University branch of the National Tertiary Education Union on Thursday passed a resolution defending Professor Lynch's 'right to exercise his intellectual freedom', and called on the university to support him 'in every way possible'. The second resolution alleged..."
Alleged?
"... Israel engaged in 'serious and ongoing violation of the Palestinian people's human rights', particularly to 'study, teach and conduct research'. It called on the union management committee to 'open a broad discussion' among the 2000-strong NTEU membership at Sydney University on whether the branch should support the BDS campaign, with a vote to be taken by the end of the year. But Mr Hamilton warned: 'If the NTEU wants to be next in the firing line when Lynch loses then we're happy to supply the ammunition.' Nick Riemer, one of the organisers of a new group at the University of Sydney, Sydney Staff for BDS, said Mr Hamilton's threat was outrageous. 'This intimidation is just what is to be expected from Shurat HaDin who want to stifle the very political freedoms BDS supporters are committed to defending whether in Palestine or Australia,' Dr Riemer, a senior lecturer in English, said. Shurat HaDin last year launched an action in the Federal Court seeking orders that Professor Lynch apologise for advocating BDS."
*I say covertly because just how Australia's Israel lobby goes about making friends and influencing people - to put it euphemistically - is rarely reported, with the exception, of course, of Murdoch's Australian, where the lobby's ways and means are always spun as a reaction to a resurgent anti-Semitism.
**The resolutions read as follows:
1) That this meeting of NTEU members:
Notes that NTEU member Associate Professor Jake Lynch's right to exercise his intellectual freedom in response to the Palestinian call for the academic boycott of Israeli institutions;
Supports Associate Professor Jake Lynch's right to exercise his intellectual freedom and calls on the university to support him in every way possible.
2) That this meeting of NTEU members:
Notes that the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine constitutes a serious and ongoing violation of Palestinian people's human rights, especially their ability to study, teach and conduct research;
Notes that the Palestinian call for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel, including the call for an institutional academic boycott, has already been endorsed by a wide range of unions and other organizations internationally;
Instructs the Branch Committee to open a broad discussion among members about whether to endorse the BDS call and, if so, in what form. This will include facilitating meetings on BDS, communicating about it with members, and publicising events, with a view to voting on whether the branch should endorse some form of BDS by the end of the year."
"The Israeli legal activist [sic: lawfare] group Shurat HaDin has warned Sydney University academics against joining their colleague Jake Lynch in supporting sanctions against Israel, saying they would be 'next in the firing line' for a lawsuit." (Jewish group warns uni on BDS, Ean Higgins, The Australian, 19/5/14)
Next in the firing line for a lawsuit, eh? How typically Zionist!
Remember the Zionist movement's motto during the period of its creeping colonisation of Palestine (1917-48) - 'dunum by dunam, goat by goat'? Having snapped up every remaining Palestinian dunum (and goat) between the River and the Sea in 1967, the movement is now in the process of covertly* colonising global free speech. Perhaps its motto should now be: Pressure tactic by pressure tactic, lawsuit by lawsuit? But I digress:
"University staff last week voted overwhelmingly to support Professor Lynch's right to promote the global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel, and will consider joining the BDS campaign as a block.** The vote led lawyer Andrew Hamilton, who represents Shurat HaDin in its lawsuit against Professor Lynch, to warn that the Israeli organisation would take the academic union to court if it throws its weight behind BDS. A general meeting of the Sydney University branch of the National Tertiary Education Union on Thursday passed a resolution defending Professor Lynch's 'right to exercise his intellectual freedom', and called on the university to support him 'in every way possible'. The second resolution alleged..."
Alleged?
"... Israel engaged in 'serious and ongoing violation of the Palestinian people's human rights', particularly to 'study, teach and conduct research'. It called on the union management committee to 'open a broad discussion' among the 2000-strong NTEU membership at Sydney University on whether the branch should support the BDS campaign, with a vote to be taken by the end of the year. But Mr Hamilton warned: 'If the NTEU wants to be next in the firing line when Lynch loses then we're happy to supply the ammunition.' Nick Riemer, one of the organisers of a new group at the University of Sydney, Sydney Staff for BDS, said Mr Hamilton's threat was outrageous. 'This intimidation is just what is to be expected from Shurat HaDin who want to stifle the very political freedoms BDS supporters are committed to defending whether in Palestine or Australia,' Dr Riemer, a senior lecturer in English, said. Shurat HaDin last year launched an action in the Federal Court seeking orders that Professor Lynch apologise for advocating BDS."
*I say covertly because just how Australia's Israel lobby goes about making friends and influencing people - to put it euphemistically - is rarely reported, with the exception, of course, of Murdoch's Australian, where the lobby's ways and means are always spun as a reaction to a resurgent anti-Semitism.
**The resolutions read as follows:
1) That this meeting of NTEU members:
Notes that NTEU member Associate Professor Jake Lynch's right to exercise his intellectual freedom in response to the Palestinian call for the academic boycott of Israeli institutions;
Supports Associate Professor Jake Lynch's right to exercise his intellectual freedom and calls on the university to support him in every way possible.
2) That this meeting of NTEU members:
Notes that the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine constitutes a serious and ongoing violation of Palestinian people's human rights, especially their ability to study, teach and conduct research;
Notes that the Palestinian call for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel, including the call for an institutional academic boycott, has already been endorsed by a wide range of unions and other organizations internationally;
Instructs the Branch Committee to open a broad discussion among members about whether to endorse the BDS call and, if so, in what form. This will include facilitating meetings on BDS, communicating about it with members, and publicising events, with a view to voting on whether the branch should endorse some form of BDS by the end of the year."
Monday, April 28, 2014
Jake Lynch Update 5
An unusual article this, for The Australian:
"A Jewish association has branded the racial discrimination case against University of Sydney's Jake Lynch counter-productive, saying it has only raised the profile of his support for the Boycott, Divestment [&] Sanctions campaign against Israel. Since the Israeli legal activist group Shurat HaDin launched the lawsuit in the Federal Court, Professor Lynch's stand has become a cause celebre in sections of the academic community, claiming the right to freedom of speech and academic expression is under attack... Two new groups have been established to support him and the global BDS movement, including one among university staff. One of the organisers of the Sydney Staff for BDS group, lecturer Nick Riemer, said he and other staff decided to create it 'because of what's happened to Jake'. The groups have helped raise about $20,000 towards Professor Lynch's legal defence, he has been invited to address BDS public meetings around the country, and one recent BDS event in Sydney in his support drew about 200 people. One of the pro-Lynch speakers at the Sydney fundraiser, Jewish Israeli academic Marcelo Svirsky who is a lecturer at the University of Wollongong, says he will walk from Sydney to Canberra later this year to raise awareness of the BDS campaign. Dr Svirsky said he would stop in towns along the way to deliver public addresses and then lodge a submission in parliament calling on the government to back BDS. Executive Council of Australian Jewry executive director Peter Wertheim said Shurat HaDin's legal action against Professor Lynch was 'the wrong way to oppose BDS. Regardless of the outcome, the Shurat HaDin court case would give a very marginal BDS campaign in Australia undeserved exposure and a shot in the arm,' Mr Wertheim said. 'Our organisation's strategy has been to expose the aims and methods of the BDS campaign in the marketplace of ideas'..."
Regarding that last sentence, the aims of the BDS movement, for those still wondering, are quite simple: to pressure Israel to end its occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip; grant full equality to the Palestinian minority in Israel itself; and allow Palestinian refugees, expelled from their homeland in 1948 and again in 1967, to return to their homes and lands in Palestine/Israel. BDS is therefore about implementing basic human rights. How one can oppose these is frankly beyond me.
As for "exposing" BDS in the "marketplace of ideas," this has so far manifested itself in mobilising Australian politicians, both state and federal, to smear supporters of BDS as anti-Semites and Nazis, ongoing attacks of like nature in the Murdoch press, the establishment of links with the police (see my 28/10/11 post Israel 101 for Cops), and most significantly, the actual or threatened blocking of funding to academics such as Jake Lynch who support BDS (see my 29/1/13 post The Punishing of Jake Lynch). So much for the "marketplace of ideas."
To continue with the above report:
"Dr Svirsky, a political scientist who grew up in Argentina but moved to Israel after being conscripted during the Falklands War, said 'there is increasing support for Lynch because of this particular court case. For me the BDS is about not just ending the Israeli occupation, but also the rules of apartheid in Israel', he said." (Discrimination case 'raising profile of BDS', Ean Higgins, The Australian, 26/4/14)
All credit to Dr Svirsky.
"A Jewish association has branded the racial discrimination case against University of Sydney's Jake Lynch counter-productive, saying it has only raised the profile of his support for the Boycott, Divestment [&] Sanctions campaign against Israel. Since the Israeli legal activist group Shurat HaDin launched the lawsuit in the Federal Court, Professor Lynch's stand has become a cause celebre in sections of the academic community, claiming the right to freedom of speech and academic expression is under attack... Two new groups have been established to support him and the global BDS movement, including one among university staff. One of the organisers of the Sydney Staff for BDS group, lecturer Nick Riemer, said he and other staff decided to create it 'because of what's happened to Jake'. The groups have helped raise about $20,000 towards Professor Lynch's legal defence, he has been invited to address BDS public meetings around the country, and one recent BDS event in Sydney in his support drew about 200 people. One of the pro-Lynch speakers at the Sydney fundraiser, Jewish Israeli academic Marcelo Svirsky who is a lecturer at the University of Wollongong, says he will walk from Sydney to Canberra later this year to raise awareness of the BDS campaign. Dr Svirsky said he would stop in towns along the way to deliver public addresses and then lodge a submission in parliament calling on the government to back BDS. Executive Council of Australian Jewry executive director Peter Wertheim said Shurat HaDin's legal action against Professor Lynch was 'the wrong way to oppose BDS. Regardless of the outcome, the Shurat HaDin court case would give a very marginal BDS campaign in Australia undeserved exposure and a shot in the arm,' Mr Wertheim said. 'Our organisation's strategy has been to expose the aims and methods of the BDS campaign in the marketplace of ideas'..."
Regarding that last sentence, the aims of the BDS movement, for those still wondering, are quite simple: to pressure Israel to end its occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip; grant full equality to the Palestinian minority in Israel itself; and allow Palestinian refugees, expelled from their homeland in 1948 and again in 1967, to return to their homes and lands in Palestine/Israel. BDS is therefore about implementing basic human rights. How one can oppose these is frankly beyond me.
As for "exposing" BDS in the "marketplace of ideas," this has so far manifested itself in mobilising Australian politicians, both state and federal, to smear supporters of BDS as anti-Semites and Nazis, ongoing attacks of like nature in the Murdoch press, the establishment of links with the police (see my 28/10/11 post Israel 101 for Cops), and most significantly, the actual or threatened blocking of funding to academics such as Jake Lynch who support BDS (see my 29/1/13 post The Punishing of Jake Lynch). So much for the "marketplace of ideas."
To continue with the above report:
"Dr Svirsky, a political scientist who grew up in Argentina but moved to Israel after being conscripted during the Falklands War, said 'there is increasing support for Lynch because of this particular court case. For me the BDS is about not just ending the Israeli occupation, but also the rules of apartheid in Israel', he said." (Discrimination case 'raising profile of BDS', Ean Higgins, The Australian, 26/4/14)
All credit to Dr Svirsky.
Sunday, April 27, 2014
Jake Lynch Update 4
"Sydney University professor Jake Lynch has claimed significant early victories in the landmark court case brought against him by Israeli legal group Shurat HaDin for his academic boycott of Israeli universities. In the Federal Court in Sydney yesterday, judge Alan Robertson rejected allegations Professor Lynch was a leader of the global boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign in Australia. Justice Robertson also struck out Shurat HaDin's allegation that Professor Lynch called for a boycott of Israeli academic Dan Avnon... Justice Robertson also struck out a paragraph claiming 'a purpose of BDS movement campaigns is to inflict pain on Israeli persons or organisations'. He gave Shurat HaDin 28 days to re-plead the paragraphs he struck out, and also ordered it to pay Professor Lynch's costs. The judge also said he would order Shurat HaDin to put up a bond to cover Professor Lynch's legal costs should it lose the case, unless its lawyer, Andrew Hamilton, agreed to provide advance notice if he intended to sell... his house and other assets." (Professor gets legal boost in BDS case, Ean Higgins, The Australian, 25/4/14)
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
Jake Lynch Update 3
"Lawyers for a Sydney University academic who is accused of unlawful discrimination for his boycott of Israel say the case against Jake Lynch is full of 'pumped-up claims' that are 'embarrassing in the legal sense, and embarrassing in the non-legal sense'... In court on Tuesday, Lynch's solicitor, Yves Hazan, said the statement of claim brought against his client was 'completely infected with... general narrative', rather than material facts, and that it failed to explain exactly how Lynch's conduct had breached laws against racial discrimination. As an example, Hazan read from Shurat HaDin's statement that Lynch had allegedly 'refused to sign documents that would have provided Professor Dan Avnon access to a funded fellowship, because of the respondent's support for the BDS movement'. 'What was the respondent's obligation to sign documents?' he asked the court... Shurat HaDin's solicitor Andrew Hamilton, who is also an applicant to the case, is arguing that the statement of claim has been brought under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act, not the Racial Discrimination Act, and therefore 'one doesn't have to plead out every element', he said. 'You'll have to do a lot of work to persuade me of the correctness of that position', the judge, Alan Robertson, said. In a day that was otherwise thick with legal technicalities, Hazan prompted laughter in the courtroom, filled largely with Lynch supporters, when he quoted the applicant's claims that the Sydney University academic's support for BDS had contributed to artists such as Santana, Elvis Costello and Snoop Dogg choosing to boycott Israel on their tours. 'What are the primary facts that link these artists not performing in Israel with Jake's conduct?' he asked. Robertson told the solicitors that he was aware of the case's high profile and that he wanted it to stick to material facts, and not 'get carried away with labels and slogans'. The case was adjourned until 24 April." (Israeli boycott case: Sydney academic's lawyers say claims are pumped up, Michael Safi, theguardian.com, 25/3/14)
Thursday, March 6, 2014
Ding-dong, Avnon Calling
Dan Avnon, "a Hebrew University political scientist whose initial bid for a fellowship application was rejected as part of a boycott against Israel has arrived in Australia expressing outrage at the action taken by Sydney academic Jake Lynch." (Boycotted Israeli embraced by other fellows, Ean Higgins, The Australian, 5/3/14)
But what's this? Contrary to what I'd expected, it seems the Avnon Lad's not over here to promote a range of Israeli propaganda lipsticks and cosmetics for Australian consumption. Or to swan around Sydney University going 'Nyah nyah nya nya nya, Jake Lynch'.
No, in Ean (with an 'e') Higgins' "exclusive interview," he describes himself as someone "devoted to overcoming certain undemocratic practices in Israel."
"Undemocratic practices"?
What? Israel? The Middle East's ONLY DEMOCRACY? The very model of a modern "liberal, pluralist democracy" as our dear leader is wont to refer to it.
Nooo... surely it cannot be!
But, hey, what would I know? Thanks to the Avnon Lad calling around my eyes are now open!
Hm... "undemocratic practices"?
Might these be such things as:
1) Occupying and colonizing someone else's land?
2) Booting out the indigenous population and denying it the right of return?
3) Relegating the remnant indigenes to second class status?
You'd imagine so. But wait, isn't that what BDS is all about?
This is all sooo confusing!
But what's this? Contrary to what I'd expected, it seems the Avnon Lad's not over here to promote a range of Israeli propaganda lipsticks and cosmetics for Australian consumption. Or to swan around Sydney University going 'Nyah nyah nya nya nya, Jake Lynch'.
No, in Ean (with an 'e') Higgins' "exclusive interview," he describes himself as someone "devoted to overcoming certain undemocratic practices in Israel."
"Undemocratic practices"?
What? Israel? The Middle East's ONLY DEMOCRACY? The very model of a modern "liberal, pluralist democracy" as our dear leader is wont to refer to it.
Nooo... surely it cannot be!
But, hey, what would I know? Thanks to the Avnon Lad calling around my eyes are now open!
Hm... "undemocratic practices"?
Might these be such things as:
1) Occupying and colonizing someone else's land?
2) Booting out the indigenous population and denying it the right of return?
3) Relegating the remnant indigenes to second class status?
You'd imagine so. But wait, isn't that what BDS is all about?
This is all sooo confusing!
Friday, February 21, 2014
Jake Lynch Update 2: Bigger Than Ben Hur
Some of the juicier bits from Suit against Israeli boycott supporter Jake Lynch 'too unwieldy' for court. The rest is just reiteration:
"Justice Alan Robertson told the lawyer for plaintiff Shurat HaDin, Andrew Hamilton, to work with Professor Lynch's solicitor... to try to simplify the case to avoid it dragging on... at huge expense. 'This is unlikely to be heard this year on the current rate of progress,' Justice Robertson told the court... 'It seems to me at the moment that the proceedings are remarkably complex,' Justice Robertson told yesterday's directions hearing in Sydney. Justice Robertson asked Mr Hamilton, who participated in the directions hearing by telephone, why this was the case. 'Why so many actions, why a class action, isn't there a simpler way,' Justice Robertson asked. Mr Hamilton responded that it was a 'class action against a group of people discriminated against' who were 'not able to bring their class action themselves.' Mr Hamilton started to say Shurat HaDin argued that Professor Lynch's stand adversely affected not just individuals but whole categories of people* when Justice Robertson cut him off. 'I don't want speeches, I just asked you a question, and the answer is no,' Justice Robertson said. Justice Robertson set down a yet to be decided day in mid-March for an interlocutory hearing of applications by both sides... Mr Hamilton, who informed the court he has a property in the Sydney beachside suburb of Coogee, said he would be happy to provide a statement of his own assets and liabilities, which he said were about $3 million and $1 million respectively." (Ean Higgins, The Australian, 12/2/14)
[*Memo to Andrew - sorry, Akiva - Hamilton. Don't forget to include in your list of claims the crippling transgenerational trauma experienced by the children - even unto the third and fourth generations - of those Israelis brutally robbed by Professor Lynch of the opportunity to attend Pink Floyd and Santana concerts.]
"Justice Alan Robertson told the lawyer for plaintiff Shurat HaDin, Andrew Hamilton, to work with Professor Lynch's solicitor... to try to simplify the case to avoid it dragging on... at huge expense. 'This is unlikely to be heard this year on the current rate of progress,' Justice Robertson told the court... 'It seems to me at the moment that the proceedings are remarkably complex,' Justice Robertson told yesterday's directions hearing in Sydney. Justice Robertson asked Mr Hamilton, who participated in the directions hearing by telephone, why this was the case. 'Why so many actions, why a class action, isn't there a simpler way,' Justice Robertson asked. Mr Hamilton responded that it was a 'class action against a group of people discriminated against' who were 'not able to bring their class action themselves.' Mr Hamilton started to say Shurat HaDin argued that Professor Lynch's stand adversely affected not just individuals but whole categories of people* when Justice Robertson cut him off. 'I don't want speeches, I just asked you a question, and the answer is no,' Justice Robertson said. Justice Robertson set down a yet to be decided day in mid-March for an interlocutory hearing of applications by both sides... Mr Hamilton, who informed the court he has a property in the Sydney beachside suburb of Coogee, said he would be happy to provide a statement of his own assets and liabilities, which he said were about $3 million and $1 million respectively." (Ean Higgins, The Australian, 12/2/14)
[*Memo to Andrew - sorry, Akiva - Hamilton. Don't forget to include in your list of claims the crippling transgenerational trauma experienced by the children - even unto the third and fourth generations - of those Israelis brutally robbed by Professor Lynch of the opportunity to attend Pink Floyd and Santana concerts.]
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Jake Lynch Update 1
The latest on the current Israeli offensive against free speech in Australia:
"A landmark court case over whether the Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel is racist and discriminatory will begin sooner than expected, with the parties to debate potentially decisive orders this week. What was expected to be a routine directions hearing in the Federal Court on Wednesday will now see substantive argument, with lawyers for the pro-BDS defendant, academic Jake Lynch, applying to have the case brought against him by an Israeli legal organisation struck out. Professor Lynch will also seek a security of costs order arguing that the plaintiffs are not living in Australia." (BDS legal battle lines drawn, Ean Higgins, The Australian, 10/2/14)
"A landmark court case over whether the Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel is racist and discriminatory will begin sooner than expected, with the parties to debate potentially decisive orders this week. What was expected to be a routine directions hearing in the Federal Court on Wednesday will now see substantive argument, with lawyers for the pro-BDS defendant, academic Jake Lynch, applying to have the case brought against him by an Israeli legal organisation struck out. Professor Lynch will also seek a security of costs order arguing that the plaintiffs are not living in Australia." (BDS legal battle lines drawn, Ean Higgins, The Australian, 10/2/14)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)