Gideon Falter , by boasting about winning a court case with Gilad Atzmon, reveals the nature of his character. If he thinks making a man destitute because his views are different to his own is something to crow about, it tells you everything. Because Falter had the infamous Mark Lewis instructing William Bennett, his barrister, the odds were stacked against Mr Atzmon and his conceding the case (I’m guessing) was damage limitation. In the piece i’ve linked to above, quote :
Mr Atzmon, is an antisemite who is reported to have blamed the Grenfell Tower tragedy on “Jerusalemites” as well as reportedly telling university students that “the Jews were expelled from Germany for misbehaving.” He is not shy about his antisemitism, telling a Jewish Twitter user in 2014: “I am not a Jew any more. I indeed despise the Jew in me (whatever is left). I absolutely detest the Jew in you.”
Using the words ‘reported’ and ‘reportedly’ are classic smear tactics. I assume he can’t prove them. Stating that one rejects the religion they were born into (in this case Judaism) can hardly constitute anti semitism, unless the sentence was taken out of context, as it is in the excerpt above. Without the surrounding words, the one sentence quoted is made into an inflammatory remark. This is nothing new, mainstream media get most of their shocking headlines from doing exactly the same. In my view it’s a deception and does it’s job by capturing the eyes of those likely to skim over the news.
National AntiSemitic Crime Audit 2016.
In the Campaign Against AntiSemitism report for 2016, the figures revealing incidents of anti semitism reported to police are laid out in graph style. Words like ‘plummet’ are used when describing reduced prosecutions, which actually means there weren’t many the previous year but there were even less this year (2016). The inclusion of ‘non criminal antisemitic incidents’ means it wasn’t a crime and has no place in the ‘crime audit’. The rest of us have to rely on the integrity of our police forces to prosecute criminals amongst us, Mr Falter is by the inclusion of the ‘incidents’ implying (to me) that the police have failed the Jewish community by not pursuing prosecution. Maybe I misinterpret it.
Is Mr Falter suggesting that victims being burgled are less important than someone being slightly unpleasant to another person because of religion or culture? Many police forces simply give out a crime number for insurance purposes. Mr Falter has apparently not seen the massive loss of police officers in the UK. His insistence that crimes related to his particular religion should be prioritised and then pressurising the CPS to prosecute (using up further limited resources) if they initially reject the case, suggesting to me a dismissive approach to the more common victims of crime. Over a million households a year have been burgled since the eighties in the UK, sometimes much more. Any victim will tell you, it’s devastating. Serious discrimination should be investigated but Mr Falter’s charity will not help. I wonder, will he campaign for zero tolerance against racism and discrimination in Israel? Perhaps expand the CAA charity into an international operation?
Every different group or minority demand that crimes against themselves are more important and should be more vigorously policed, I presume they would all have a justifiable argument. But we don’t live in such a distinguishable world where something is just black or white. There aren’t enough resources available to have adequate services for everyone. A good example would be what used to be called ‘legal aid’. Funds were reduced to such a degree that many of us do not qualify, subsequently Mr Falter and his organisation are fortunate to have the finances to threaten and indeed aggressively use litigation. I do struggle to understand how a charity can behave in such a way. The clue is in the word ‘charity’.
Community Trust Report, 2015.
In the Community Security Trust report of 2015, there are some bizarre examples of ‘hate speech’ and some random doodles of graffiti are described as anti Semitic when there is no real evidence that the particular drawing of a Swastika sign is deliberately referring to hatred of Jews. This doesn’t mean there aren’t people who despise Jews, simply for being Jewish, there are. However when some vague connection that ‘might’ be inferring anti semitism is used, in my opinion there has to be reasonable evidence. ‘My feelings were hurt’ does not constitute being a victim of a crime, otherwise none of us would be able to go in to a crowded building without the distinct possibility of becoming another statistic.
Here is their description of anti Semitism which occurred in London, February, 2015.
• London, February: A white male with an
East European accent attacked a man on
a London Underground train. He asked
for money and then shouted “you f**king
Jews”, “f**king Jewish b*****d”, “get off
my train you f**king Jewish b*****d” while
punching the man repeatedly in the face.
The Police told CST that the assault would
be treated as GBH. However when the
offender was arrested he was instead dealt
with under the mental health act. The victim
of this incident was not Jewish.
This sounds like a particularly violent attack by (what turned out ot be) a man with severe mental health issues. When the victim is not actually Jewish, I struggle to understand how it can be an anti semitic event, especially considering the offender’s state of mind. Perhaps East European accented man came from a country with particular views regarding Jews. Does this mean that the British are overtly anti semitic?
What is hate crime? I don’t know the legal definition. However, puerile name calling happens to thousands of people every day and if someone muttered ‘fat bastard’ or ‘four eyed twat’ to me I certainly wouldn’t interpret it as ‘hate crime’. Similarly, if my religion from birth was mentioned in an insulting manner, I couldn’t care less. People are weird and say weird things, being over sensitive to such remarks is a recipe for living your life in utter misery. Our ‘civilised’ society can be totally uncivilised at times. That’s life.