British Professor David Miller has been exonerated for the second time from allegations of antisemitism, leaked documents uncovered by the Electronic Intifada reveal.
A report, written by a leading British lawyer, concludes that “there is no formal case to answer against Professor Miller” and that he had not “exceeded the boundaries of acceptable speech.”
Miller was fired controversially from his job at Bristol University last month following a hostile campaign by pro-Israel “proud” Zionist groups who accused the 57-year-old of antisemitism. Their allegation was dismissed by a report which concluded that Miller had “no case to answer”.
We now know Prof David Miller was exonerated not once but *twice* by a lawyer appointed by Bristol University to investigate repeated antisemitism smears made by the pro-Israel lobby to get him sacked.
It made no difference – @BristolUni sacked him anyway https://t.co/RXzCbWzukE
— Jonathan Cook (@Jonathan_K_Cook) November 27, 2021
An expert on the nefarious influence of lobby groups on the democratic process, Miller has exposed the workings of the fossil fuel lobby, the pharmaceutical lobby and the tobacco lobby.
However, it’s his work on the pro-Israel lobby that has made him a target of several Zionist groups, who accelerated their campaign for Miller’s dismissal following a talk he gave as part of a Labour Against the Witch-hunt conference in February.
The newly leaked lawyer’s report concludes that the article was not antisemitic as “defined to include the manifestation of hatred, discrimination, prejudice or hostility against Jews as Jews, or Jewish institutions as Jewish institutions.”
After #Corbyn, #Israel Lobby Turns Its Guns on #UK Academia | by @Jonathan_K_Cook https://t.co/A5oyVUpCII via @PalestineChron
— Ramzy Baroud (@RamzyBaroud) October 19, 2021
In the report, the lawyer reveals that the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism was considered, but acknowledges the chilling effect it has on free speech.
“It does not have the clarity which would be required from such a definition,” says the report when commenting on the use of the IHRA in such cases. “The use of the language is unusual and therefore potentially confusing.” Seven of the eleven examples listed in the IHRA definition conflate legitimate criticism of Israel and its policies with antisemitism.
(MEMO, PC, Social Media)
