Second legal report exonerated David Miller of antisemitism
JVL Introduction
Last month Asa Winstanley made public a legal report commissioned by the University of Bristol in the first disciplinary case against David Miller around a year ago. Miller was cleared.
A further legal report was commissioned by Bristol for a second disciplinary process, sparked by remarks Miller had made this February. It was delivered in May and Miller was subsequently sacked.
Asa Winstanley has now published this (leaked) report and discusses it below.
It is a long and comprehensive report and includes Prof Miller’s speech and reports of it; relevant legal provisions of the 2010 Equality Act; the University’s Equality and Diversity Policy; the IHRA definition and critiques of it, and the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism.
The report evaluates what David Miller said and wrote at length. It explicitly clears him of all charges regarding unlawful or antisemitic speech, or harassment.
Reading it we find it incomprehensible that the University of Bristol thought it had grounds for dismissal.
This article was originally published by the Electronic Intifada on Fri 26 Nov 2021. Read the original here.
Second Bristol report exonerated David Miller of anti-Semitism
Loading article text…
For the backstory: https://www.academia.edu/62482407/What_is_Going_On_at_Bristol_University
I hope that Miller will sue the Univ of Bristol for unfair dismissal and clailm substantial damages
Splendiferous!
If you read the legal text all the way through, it chops the legs off arguments that the Labour Party and others have used so often to claim that particular individuals or actions are antisemitic.
Miller should have been much more careful about what he said given he knew full well that he was a target for some time.
The QC’s report clearing him of antisemitism is a red herring as, at the risk of repetition, this huge smear has never been about antisemitism.
Bristol University sacked him because he was a liability to the reputation of the university. This isn’t hard to figure out.
dave, there were persistent attempts to attack Miller and get him sacked as an antisemite. The legal text of QCs’ reports that Miller had no case to answer against the various allegations made against him explain those attempts and explain why they’re ill-founded.
Miller mentions similar attacks on similar grounds (by presumably similar actors as in his case) made on an academic at the University of Warwick. The QCs’ reports saying Miller had no case to answer is likely to have made the defence of the Warwick academic somewhat easier. Hope so. From my perspective, the attacks on Miller seem wholly vicious and intended to intimidate.
Linda, the point about the witch hunt is that it is not actually about antisemitism. It’s about marginalising anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian voices, and left-wingers generally, and it has the weight of virtually the entire establishment including the Labour Party behind it.
I’m just saying that one has to very careful about what you say in public in person or social media if you want to remain in certain positions – that is self-evident. This isn’t about self-censorship but being careful about certain use of language and being on some platforms.
I expect David Miller may well get a good settlement out of Bristol but the university has probably decided that falling in line with the establishment was the only way to make ongoing pressure go away. There are people missing in action here of course – where are the students and academic staff at Bristol? I know about 15,000 people have signed a petition though.
In the last few days I have listened to David Miller on Resistance TV (U-Tube) discussing the poisoned roots of the Community Security Trust with Tony Greenstein and Chris Williamson and then read Asa Winstanley’s scoop for the Electronic Intifada. For the second time the learned lawyer found that there was “no case to answer”.
It is increasingly clear that Bristol University’s decision to sack Professor Miller is a political turning point around which great forces hinge. To argue that Miller should have been “more careful” about what he said is precisely what the government of Israel and its various agencies want us to do. Be afraid. Stay silent. They want to close down public debate and discussion because when we are “careful” we lower our heads and become complicit in Israel’s oppression of the Palestinian people.
Speaking the truth can be costly, whether it be Galileo defying the church or Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning telling us that the United States is not the shining democracy that we are taught . Should Julian Assange have been “more careful”? Should Craig Murray leave prison in Scotland this week promising to lay down his pen?
“Being careful” is what today’s Labour Party demands, along with all anti-democratic and authoritarian governments. They want to be the only voice heard.
I am glad that David Miller was truthful rather than careful. He knew the truth of what Israel is doing and he understood how it is poisoning freedom of speech and thought in Britain – through the universities, through parliament, through the Labour Party and through the Church of England.
Journalists and politicians love the cliché about “speaking truth to power.” They rarely do it themselves, of course, which is why they hate those few brave people who have the moral courage to do so.
Excellent post Jacob!
Anyway, I was wondering if David Miller has been reported to the police (given what he’s being accused of), so I did a search on the CAAs website and, as such, discovered that he has been. The CAA article was posted at the end of March, so I naturally assumed it had happened just prior to then, but shortly afterwards I happened to come across an Intifada article by Asa Winstanley, and it turns out it was in the February.
So that’s NINE months now! I mean how long does it take to determine whether or not David Miller committed an offence?! I would say a few weeks MAXIMUM! And there is no reason on this planet why it should take NINE months! And counting!
I wonder what would have happened to Alan Duncan had Al Jazeera not carried out their undercover investigation….. Something that we NEVER hear these MPs who are so ready to condemn David Miller speak about!
Here’s a link to the Intifada article:
https://electronicintifada.net/content/who-are-israel-lobbyists-want-david-miller-fired/32651
Also came across the following article when I was on the Electronic Intifada’s website (from last February):
Kent university Jewish society used as front by Israel’s UK embassy
https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/kent-university-jewish-society-used-front-israels-uk-embassy
The debate here among Dave, Linda and Jacob Ecclestone is a vital one. And must continue to model how the issues can be discussed without anger and accusations.
Meanwhile, in another part of the forest, different shriller voices. They explain why Professor Miller, Bristol University, the QC, and the scholars who drafted the Jerusalem Declaration, were all wrong. In some cases possibly acting in bad faith? But anyway, the last bunch being “malicious”.
https://twitter.com/daverich1/status/1465429194201047042
The twitter thread is deeply depressing. It has been picked up by people in my borough, who claim that Labour Party branch meetings are “unsafe”. (They don’t say why. Maybe they are? How would I know? I’ve never lived in dangerous Muswell Hill.)
On a cheerier note, I am finding the writing of Avraham Burg insightful on fear and a siege mentality.
P.S.
My not mentioning others commenting doesn’t mean I disagree with them. On the contrary. For example, I’m delighted to see Chris Friel posting. I’ve never met him but have been following his generous detailed work.
As the parable of the blind men and the elephant teaches, all of you are right.
There are different beliefs with slightly different versions of the elephant story. I’ve not yet come across it, but am certain there’s one with blind rabbis in polite respectful conversation. But with two elephants. One to touch; and one to have nothing to do with.
My issue is mainly that I would prefer to see David Miller in post in an influential academic position doing his research and teaching on power structures. If this means being careful on social media in the current climate then I would say that is a lesser price to pay than being cast out. It’s daft to give enemies ammunition.
But I suspect I’m in a minority here.
I know what Jacob Ecclestone is saying but it is hyperbolic to compare this with Gallileo(!) or even Snowden and Assange. Zionism/Palestine is a crucial issue for us and needs to be made much more than the relatively small one it no doubt is in the general public. But it is only one element of Miller’s research and that’s why I don’t think it is on balance good or productive to see him taken out for expressing truth in the way he did.
The way forward in my view is for example the more collective way that the IHRA ‘definition’ is being opposed by students and academics, with some success. There’s strength in numbers but when you’re on the back foot facing a hostile attack it’s best not to hit a futile six and lose a star player.
Dave, in what sense has a ‘star player’ been lost? David Miller may have lost his job, but THAT doesn’t mean he’s ‘out’. Far from it I would suggest.
When it’s revealed in a documentary that the Israeli Lobby were planning to ‘take down’ Alan Duncan, the Tories and the MSM come to his defence, but when a left-wing supporter of the Palestinians is elected leader of the LP and is targeted, not only do the Tories and the MSM *NOT* come to his defence, but they conspire in the black op A/S smear campaign against him, AND the smearing of the left-wing membership.
Dave, Thanks for strong points cogently and calmly reasoned. I anticipate many more fruitful comments.
My 4 initial points
1. I recommend reading Chris Friel’s posted articles not only about David Miller, but on the smearing of Jeremy Corbyn.
Neither are quick reads.
Friel often uses timelines effectively. Also in his other writing (e.g. the Australian case of Cardinal Pell.) He traces when a campaign begins and who may be involved. For me this implies questions about whether conceding or compromising would actually work. Will attackers back-off? Or is their aim total defeat of their ‘target’?
Perhaps some people thought toppling Corbyn & accepting the ten “pledges” would restore calm. Ending Labour’s largely inflated “antisemitism crisis”? We know it did not. Even “kneeling down and begging forgiveness” (Emily Thornberry) won’t do it.
2. In a different and fairer time with no pandemic and lockdowns I might perhaps have visited Bristol and listened to David Miller. Making up my own mind. That’s what I did when Jackie Walker spoke locally. (Despite advice to stay away.) But now why should anyone trust others not to record and distort what is said? Public debate has been poisoned and distrust sown.
Worse: we now know about the existence of spycops.
3. As a former local councillor I’ve 16 years experience of self-censorship in the “larger interest”. I was lucky having once been a lawyer (in the mists of the last century). So weighed my words with care; narrowly sidestepping Party whips. But, phew, It was a relief not having to bother.
4. Most important if all, isn’t this up to David Miller himself? And if he is now “a star?” then perhaps it’s the attack on him which bestowed that international fame?
Dave, I can understand where you’re coming from but can’t agree with you. Suppressing the truth by not speaking it is simply playing into the hands of those who want it suppressed. Miller is a courageous man who stuck by his academic principles and beliefs. He has become a martyr to the cause and provides a focus for the academics and students you cite who oppose the IHRA definition. Furthermore, I suspect we’ve not heard the last from David Miller. He hasn’t bowled yet, to pick up on your metaphor.
The success of divide and rule is it makes everything a binary choice, are you with us or against us, if your against us then we are going to destroy you by fair means but mostly foul
We the nice and largely ineffective leftists must fight back on their terms, our version should be you can no longer rely on the might of being right and virtuous, we must force people to take sides and stand up and fight
The stupidest thing I have ever heard is ‘when they go low we go high’
How’s that going
Please start doing the dirty work
There’s a misunderstanding – I am not in favour of suppressing the truth. That would be against everything I stand for.
I am making what I think should be a compelling point – that in this case the truth is best expressed through the research of a senior academic. Miller’s research made him a target – and his post has been thrown away through giving extra ammunition to his (and our) enemies.
Are people seriously saying that they’d trade a precious chair of sociology for saying what Miller said about J-Socs, pawns, Israel, Zionism etc in the way he did, no matter how much it is true?
He’s free of course to continue his research – but no other university will be rushing to give him a post and without his professorship he becomes a much more marginal figure, destined to be a star only on the likes of Chris Williamson’s Youtube channel and the Electronic Intifada.
I may be wrong and we could see a turning point in which universities start to abandon say the IHRA ‘definition’, but currently more are signing up (200+ institutions, including 95 universities) and the momentum is with them not us. There’s no chance of this changing under a Starmer government of course.
In this climate we need every academic like David Miller at the crease and not dropped for good from the team by the Zionist selectors.
It’s also similar to whether you want to stay in Labour at present. There is a surefire way of getting expelled.