Lord Mann and antisemitism: from the archives

I wrote the blog below in 2013. I have reproduced it, prompted by the recent publication of the “Lord Mann review of antisemitism and other forms of racism in the NHS and healthcare regulatory system”, which can be found here.

The blog is almost entirely composed of extracts from what was at the time a landmark case seeking to establish whether a trade union of which I had been a senior official was "institutionally antisemitic" due to conference resolutions supporting an academic boycott of Israel.

As the former head of the higher education section of the union, I was a witness for the union. John Mann MP (now Lord Mann) was a witness for Mr Fraser.

The verbatim extracts below from the y findings and conclusions of the Tribunal include comments on both of us. The Tribunal's findings were not appealed and a claim by UCU for costs was settled out of court.

You may draw your own conclusions as to whether what the judgement may be relevant today

John Mann MP and a landmark Tribunal on antisemitism. 

In Fraser v. UCU (University and College Union) Jewish academic and pro-Israel campaigner Ronnie Fraser sued the UCU for £1.2m, claiming the union was institutionally antisemitic. 

Ronnie Fraser was represented by the Mishcon de Raya, ultra expensive lawyers to members of the royal family amongst others, and the case was seen by leaders of the union (of whom I had been one) as an attempt to bankrupt the union.   

After a lengthy hearing, the employment tribunal judge’s 49-page judgment comprehensively dismissed Mr Fraser’s case, describing the litigation as "an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means" and warning of a "worrying disregard for pluralism, tolerance and freedom of expression".

Mr Fraser had called two Labour MPs as witnesses, both claiming to be experts on antisemitism. The judge’s comments about the two MPs called to give evidence against the union was scathing. At Para 148 Judge Snelson wrote

“We did not derive assistance from the two Members of Parliament who appeared before us.  Both gave glib evidence, appearing supremely confident of the rightness of their positions. For Dr MacShane, it seemed that all answers lay in the MacPherson Report (the effect of which he appeared to misunderstand).

“Mr Mann could manage without even that assistance. He told us that the leaders of the Respondents were at fault for the way in which they conducted debates but did not enlighten us as to what they were doing wrong or what they should be doing differently.  He did not claim ever to have witnessed any Congress or other UCU meeting.  And when it came to antisemitism in the context of debate about the Middle East, he announced, “It’s clear to me where the line is …” but unfortunately eschewed the opportunity to locate it for us. Both parliamentarians clearly enjoyed making speeches.  Neither seemed at ease with the idea of being required to answer a question not to his liking.”

At Para 149 the tribunal wrote by contrast:

“ For their part, the Respondents’ witnesses were rather less colourful than the Claimant’s. They were after all called for the mundane purpose of telling the Tribunal about facts rather than ventilating their opinions, In so far as they were tested on matters of fact, we found all of them careful and accurate witnesses.” 

At Para 148, the Judge identified three witnesses in particular rather differently:

“Some witnesses were most impressive. These include, but are not by any means limited to, Professor Yudkin, Mr Kline and Dr Seymour.  They gave careful, thoughtful, courteous evidence and were clearly mindful of their obligations as witnesses in litigation. Unfortunately, others appeared to misunderstand the nature of the proceedings and seemed more disposed to score points or play to the gallery rather than providing straightforward answers to the clear questions put to them.”

The nine claims were all dismissed as follows (verbatim conclusions):

152 Complaint (1) is without substance

157 Complaint (2) is also devoid of any merit

160 There is nothing in complaint (3)

161 Complaint (4) is palpably groundless.

170 complaint (5) is no more sustainable than any of the others.

163 Complaint (6) is obviously untenable.

164 Complaint (7) fares no better.

165 There is nothing in complaint (8).

166 In respect of complaint (9) the Claimant again fails to make out any arguable complaint

A final thought

Antisemitism is a dangerous ideology which has cost millions of lives over recent centuries. It remains dangerous despite the evidence of where, like all forms of racism, it can lead. Mr Fraser confused criticism of Israel’s approach to its non-Jewish citizens and to citizens of Palestine with being evidence of antisemitism. Mr Mann and Mr MacShane did the same. Despite the extraordinary legal and political resources mobilised in support of the claim, the Tribunal decision was a landmark decision at the time in rejecting such confusion.

Judge Snelson’s closing comment at Para 178 may have relevance in the future::

“Lessons should be learned from this sorry saga.  We greatly regret that the case was ever brought. At heart, it represents an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means. It would be very unfortunate if an exercise of this sort were ever repeated.”

Roger Kline was formerly Head of the Higher Education Sector of the University and College Union. He is Jewish.