Main menu:

Recent posts

Categories

Archives

Donate

To help keep HP running

 

Or make a one-off donation:

The Stupid Bravado of Raed Salah

Middle East Monitor (“MEMO”), a pro Hamas lobbying outfit, just can’t admit defeat.

Have a read of their comic analysis of the reasons they failed in their attempt to get a racist, extremist and funder of Hamas admitted to the United Kingdom:

The immigration tribunal ruling against Raed Salah is a classic example of what happens when judges follow politicians instead of the law. Contradictions and double-speak abound as they drag their profession into the mud. This particular judgment is unique because while it appears to have the trappings of legal finesse it negates the fundamentals of the law. Evidently, the aim was not to act justly but rather to create a set back to the appellant so that he would become frustrated and throw in the towel. This will not happen with Raed Salah.

Raed Salah fortunately doesn’t have a choice in the matter. He’s not supposed to be here. His case is very weak indeed. He can appeal, but his appeal will fail. He is an obnoxious and nasty man, and no court is going to allow him to remain in this country.

Dr. Hanan Chehata, who is Raed Salah’s PR at MEMO disagrees. She is a very foolish woman, who has failed to understand the judgement of the Tribunal. She has fixated on one particular line of the ruling, here:

[The Tribunal] determined that “it is not necessary to satisfy the criteria of unacceptable behaviour for words and actions to be racist as such…” and that this criteria “might be achieved by words and actions which are not necessarily racist”

That is correct. The test for exclusion is not “is this man a racist?”. Rather, it consists of a series of other tests, which the Tribunal has found have been met:

We are satisfied that the appellant has engaged in the unacceptable behaviour of fostering hatred which might lead to intercommunity violence in the UK.

“We are satisfied that the appellant’s words and actions tend to be inflammatory, divisive, insulting and likely to foment tension and radicalism.

Failing to understand the nature of the case against Salah, Chehata makes a comic boast today:

The right-wing, pro-Israel lobby claimed in its compliant media outlets that he is a racist; that he is anti-Semitic. The tribunal has not found any of these allegations to be true and has, unintentionally for sure, cleared the way for Salah to continue to challenge those who he believes have libelled him.

The Tribunal has nothing to say about the truth of the allegation that Salah is a racist. That is because the question for the court is: will he foster hatred leading to intercommunity violence in the UK, are his words  inflammatory, divisive, insulting and likely to foment tension and radicalism. The answer to that question is, unequivocally: yes.

Why does Chehata think that her racist friend has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning a libel case against anybody? Why does she believe that the Tribunal’s judgement strengthens, rather than hugely weakening, his case?

I think she has possibly simply failed to understand the judgement at all. Take this paragraph:

The tribunal acknowledged that “the Appellant is supported by anti-Zionist and Jewish organisations such as Jews for Justice for Palestine” and that a poem written by him that was alleged to be racist was in fact clearly not “directed at the Jewish people as a whole but only at those among them who aim at Israeli territorial expansion and control at the expense of Palestinians”. Nevertheless, the tribunal still saw fit to uphold May’s banning order.

The judgement – which is not yet online – does indeed contain various passages which “acknowledge” Salah’s arguments. They also “acknowledge” the position of the Home Secretary. These passages consist of no more than the pro forma summary of the evidence. What matters, is that having heard all arguments, the Tribunal determined that Salah  is a fosterer of hatred, and a fomenter of tension and radicalism.

So, when is this famous Salah libel threat going to materialise? Because in the unlikely event that it does, it will fail for the following reasons:

  • He has claimed that Jews baked “the blood of children” into their “holy bread” – the ancient and vicious blood libel.
  • He has claimed that 4,000 Jews skipped work at the World Trade Centre on 9/11 and suggested that Israel carried out the 9/11 attacks.
  • His political party published a paean to “the Martyr, Sheikh Osama Bin Laden“, whose killers had “sold their consciences to Satan”.
  • He has cited so-called Franklin Prophecy: a Nazi forgery in which Benjamin Franklin supposedly warns America about Jews
  • He attended the launch of the Mavi Marmara and incited violence on board. At the launch ceremony and on board Mavi Marmara passengers chanted a notorious extremist slogan, commemorating a massacre of Arabian Jews: “Khaybar! Khaybar! Oh Jews! The army of Mohammed will return!”.
  • The Mavi Marmara escapade was organised by the Turkish charity IHH, one of the biggest and most keen material and political supporters of Hamas in the world. Salah is closely linked to IHH.
  • He chuckled at the memory of taunting a Jewish teacher with a Swastika in a friendly chat with fellow extremist Azzam “Kaboom” Tamimi on Al-Hiwar TV, a TV channel based in London that serves the Muslim Brotherhood .
  • He wrote an antisemitic poem which used various theological references to Jews, including: “The Creator meant for you to be monkeys and losers … you are the bacteria of all times”, which clearly refer to Jews generally.
  • He has admitted funding Hamas, for which he served two years in prison. Hamas leaders have hailed him and rallied to his cause. Recently the terrorist group named a football pitch after him.
  • He has been named as a trustee of the Union of Good, a Hamas funding organisation, and has worked closely with Interpal, the British charity that serves Hamas.
  • His hosts in the UK have included some of the country’s worst extremists, such as Daud Abdullah and Ismail Patel, and a fellow speaker on his ill-fated tour was to be Ahmad Nofal of the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood. Nofal too has been banned from the UK.
  • He claims that homosexuality is a “great crime” which signals “the start of the collapse of every society”.

That’s the charge sheet against Salah. Can you imagine a libel trial in which all of this material is rolled out? The court would also be made aware of Raed Salah’s initial lying denials, and his subsequent change of position when it was proved that he wasn’t telling the truth.

How are you going to plug those holes in the case? Certainly not with Professor David Miller: with his history of attacking Muslim liberals, and his publication of the neo Nazi Kevin MacDonald’s analysis of ‘Jewish traits’. Not with Bob Lambert, the discredited police spy who is funded by an organisation run by a founder of Hamas and who has a wanted terrorist on his board of advisers! Even Raed Salah supporter, Asa Winstanley, doesn’t trust Lambert any more.

I have to say, I’m enjoying the refusal of Raed Salah and his supporters to accept that they’ve been rumbled. It provides further opportunities to show how deeply mired this politics is in the promotion of racism and extremism.

Still, the circus is now over. Raed Salah: time to give up and go home.

Incidentally, the judgement is now up, here.