Judge at Passover: “nobody” saw Raed Salah blood libel sermon as harmful

The end of CMG Ockelton’s decision regarding Raed Salah’s appeal against his deportation.

Point 83:

The result of our analysis is that in purporting to apply to the facts of the case the Secretary of State acted under a misapprehension as to the facts. Most importantly, she was misled as to the terms of the poem written by the appellant, a matter on which there is now no room for dispute. As we have decided, she took irrelevant factors into account in relation to the indictments and the Hamas conviction.

According to Ockelton, Raed Salah’s conviction for his fundraising for Hamas and his ties to Hamas, is an irrelevant factor, in determining whether Raed Salah is a sufficient danger to harmony within British communities. This, despite the fact that Hamas is a genocidal, antisemitic organisation who believes it must kill Jews. Not only does Hamas believe so, it does kill Jews and attempt to kill Jews on a regular basis.

Ockelton also claims Theresa May was “misled” over a poem which Raed Salah wrote. “Misled” is an interesting choice of words. Ockleton observes that Raed Salah did write the poem dismissing those whom “the Creator had deemed” to be “monkeys and losers“.

Yet Raed Salah himself, initially denied authoring the poem, and denounced it as antisemitic, before admitting that he did author the poem, and denying that the poem could possibly be seen as antisemitic.

According to Ockulton, the harmlessness of the poem is,

“a matter on which there is now no room for dispute”.*

Point 85:

“As we have indicated, the matters raised by the Secretary of State are not a fair portrayal of the appellant’s views or words as a whole; and they are in essence confirmed to words on one day, that are not shown to have caused any difficulty at the time or since. […]

“The essence… is that because of a few sentences in the sermon in February 2007, which nobody seems to have regarded as harmful at the time, the appellant is to be prevented from being in the United Kingdom…”

Here is what Salah said in 2007, in the sermon that Ockelton refers to:

We have never allowed ourselves, and listen well, we have never allowed ourselves to knead the bread for the breaking of the fast during the blessed month of Ramadan with the blood of the children. And if someone wants a wider explanation, you should ask what used to happen to some of the children of Europe, whose blood would be mixed in the dough of the holy bread.

This is the blood libel. It is well known that Jews in Europe in the Middle Ages – particularly at Passover – were accused of using the blood of Christian Europeans, to bake their matzah bread.

For this and other words, Salah is awaiting indictment in Israel, with the charge relating to the blood libel, thought to have been issued initially in January 2008.

It’s obvious that Israel, and also many British Jews – spearheaded here by the Community Security Trust – do indeed see Salah’s language as harmful, and as an incitement. Yet according to Ockelton,

“nobody seems to have regarded [the sermon] as harmful at the time”

Many Jews did. Israel did. Is this not relevant?

Then again, according to Ockelton in Point 85:

“There is no evidence that the danger perceived by the Secretary of State is perceived by any of the other countries where the appellant has been, nor, save for the very tardy indictment, is there any evidence that even Israel sees the danger that the Secretary of State sees.“

Do you see what has happened here?

Ockelton dismisses the indictment as irrelevant as it is “tardy”, despite the fact that this and other accusations against Salah have been discussed since 2007. Bear in mind:

It [appears that] Salah does face a charge of inciting antisemitism in Israel, and that this charge relates directly to the ‘blood libel’ speech he is alleged to have given in Jerusalem in 2007. CST has obtained a copy of two outstanding indictments against Salah, both issued by the Jerusalem Magistrates Court and signed by the Jerusalem District Attorney. Both are dated 23rd June 2011, although we believe that the first indictment – the ‘blood libel’ – was first issued in January 2008.

Salah had previously been tried and acquitted in 2010 on charges of assaulting a police officer and taking part in an illegal gathering, both of which related to the same 2007 Jerusalem rally. These charges do not appear in the indictment CST has obtained, which appears to cover different allegations. After his 2010 acquittal, Salah was quoted in the Jerusalem Post as saying that “all of the four remaining cases against me should be closed”.

There is plenty of evidence that Israel does see a danger in Raed Salah, yet this is treated as irrelevant by Ockelton, because he wrongly believes it all rests on “tardy” indictments, whilst wrongly insisting that “nobody” sees Salah as harmful.

Ockelton’s logic is contradictory and faulty.

Most unsettling of all, I found, was Ockelton’s claim that the words which Raed Salah has actually said, do not represent his views. If not then why did he say them? If he said them, and does not believe them, then why not retract them or apologise for them? These are not words from one particular day – Raed Salah has consistently expressed antisemitic sentiments and opinions.

Here he is laughing about how he upset a Jewish teacher by drawing a swastika:

But if the blood libel doesn’t matter, then this Jew-baiting doesn’t matter either. None of it does.

Irrelevant. Tardy. Nobody sees it as harmful.

Thankfully, this is not likely to be the end of the matter, as the BBC reports:

The Home Office said it was “disappointed” [with the Salah decision] and planned to appeal.

“We are considering the detailed judgment and, if we can appeal, we will,” a spokesman said.

There is hope yet.

*Israelinurse comments:

Mr Ockelton would have served himself (and his country) well had he taken the time to read the Orr Commission’s remarks regarding Raed Salah’s part in inciting the events of October 2000.

As regards the so-called ‘harmless’ poem, even Ha’aretz found it at the time “horrifying and disgusting”, stating in an editorial that “the writers are not dealing in pure ideology, but drift to expressions of racism, incitement and even open (encouragement to) revolt.”

http://www.haaretz.co.il/misc/1.848724

The said poem – published on June 4th 2002 in the house publication of the Northern Islamic Movement, which was closed down as a result – includes the lines: