So, you’re a poisonous antisemite who admits to peddling dangerous blood libels against Jews. You have something on your mind. Where would you go to get it published? Who would you give a column?
The Guardian, of course. Who else?
Well, to be fair, maybe the New Statesman would be worth a try.
This is what the Court had to say about Salah’s antisemitic incitement:
The appellant is clearly aware of the blood libel against Jews. If his intention had been to draw an analogy between events of the Spanish Inquisition and actions of the Israeli state he could have said so in clearer terms that did not require over ten paragraphs of explanation for his true meaning to be made clear. If he had meant to refer to Christians using the blood of others to make bread, which he seems to consider less offensive than referring to Jews doing so, then he could have inserted the word “Christian” into the text of his the sermon as he does in paragraph 175 of his explanation. Allusion to historical examples of children being killed in religious conflict does not require reference to their blood being used to make “holy bread”. The truth of the matter is that the conjunction of the concepts of ‘children’s blood’ and ‘holy bread’ is bound to be seen as a reference to the blood libel unless it is immediately and comprehensively explained to be something else altogether.
Here’s an article the Guardian didn’t publish. And would never publish.
Why wouldn’t the Guardian publish a piece like this? Simple. It is a promoter of vicious Jew-hatred.
Update: The comments thread, which was hijacked by a couple of nasty and unenlightening commenters, has been closed, and those commenters have been banned.