Judgments Down Under Regarding Anti-Israel Activists

There have been two judgments in recent days regarding anti-Israel activities Down Under.

As reported yesterday in the in the Australian, the Australian Press Council has adjudicated complaints by two persons, Dale Mills and Vivienne Porzsolt (on the left of this picture; she is familiar to regular readers of this blog, I'm sure), about headlines in that newspaper's printed and online editions on 28th July this year relating to the BDS campaign against Max Brenner.

'The print version was headed "Anti-Jew protest condemned" and the online version was headed "Prominent Australians fight anti-Semitism with hot chocolate". The articles noted the BDS protest had been condemned as "violent" and "anti-Semitic" and the online version added a quote that it had been "anti-Jewish".

Mr Mills claimed that by describing the BDS protest as "anti-Jew" and "anti-Semitic" the headlines were inaccurate, because it was actually a protest against Israeli government policies. He said these assertions involved matters of opinion being presented as facts. He also said the newspaper should have published the letter to the editor in which he sought to correct the inaccuracy.

The newspaper initially said the headlines were accurate because, if the BDS protest was simply anti-Israeli, it should have been targeted at agencies or representatives of the Israeli government. Mr Mills replied the organisers live in Melbourne and there are no Israeli government agencies in that city.

The newspaper added that concerns about the anti-Jewish nature of the protest, together with the accompanying violence, were at the heart of the story's newsworthiness. It subsequently informed the council, however, that since these articles appeared it had clarified that the BDS campaign should not be described as "anti-Jew" and had advised its staff accordingly.

The council has concluded that the headline on the print version, "Anti-Jew protest condemned", was a clear breach of the council's standards of practice because it reported a matter of opinion as if a fact. It also failed reasonably to convey the tenor of the article itself, in which the original demonstration was described as "anti-Israel" but not as "anti-Jew". Accordingly, the complaint against the headline is upheld on both these grounds.

The council has concluded that the headline on the online version, "Prominent Australians fight anti-Semitism with hot chocolate", is reasonably capable of being read as a description of the prominent Australians' opinions, rather than a statement of fact. This interpretation also means that the headline fairly reflects the tenor of the online version especially as, unlike the print version, it included a quote that the campaign was "not anti-Israel but anti-Jewish". On balance, therefore, the complaint against the online headline is not upheld.'  Hat tip: reader Shirlee

The other judgment from the Antipodes comes from New Zealand.

In January 2010 a small but vocal rabble of Israel-demonising Kiwis calling themselves themselves Global Peace and Justice Auckland gathered with their banners and their nonsensical soundbites. They were led by John Minto, a veteran  of the anti-apartheid movement who had participated in the disruption of the South African rugby tours in 1981 and 1986.

The focus of the group's bullying (as in the previous year) was young Israeli tennis star Shahar Peer, who was due to play her opening match at the ASB Tennis Classic in Auckland, and who had defied their written request to withdraw from the tournament "as a demonstration of your commitment to peace" with the Palestinian Arabs.

She should be prepared "to make the sacrifice," they said, because "the sacrifices being forced onto Palestinians by Israel are far greater."

"I came here to play tennis. I know I’m from Israel and I’m proud of my country," affirmed Ms Peer. to the rage of the activists.

"I don't think there is a place for politics in sport," she later said, adding that she had not experienced protests like the one in Auckland anywhere else in the world.

The upshot was that eight protesters were arrested for making excessive noise that annoyed tennis players and spectators, and six duly were convicted of disorderly behaviour.

There are several videos of the occasion on YouTube. There are the usual ignorant and offensive chants ("Israel is a racist state," "Israel is a fascist state,", of course. One chant demands to know why after "60 years" there's no Palestinian State. The protesters don't seem to know that there would have been one alongside Israel  from the start had the Arabs not spurned it. There are the ridiculous placards, one with the ludicrous message "The Zionists are the Nazis of the Middle East". (Presumably the bloke holding it aloft, or whoever coined it, finds "Zionists" easier to spell "Islamofascists".)

Have a look at this video, made by the protesters following the arrests.

See them in this video targeting Ms Peer with the obnoxious cry "blood on your hands," and intoning other moronic rubbish.

And here's the leader of the pack, who was also destined to be arrested, ranting against the police.  There's nine minutes' worth of footage here, but watch him go, if only for a moment!:

Finally, here's brief footage of demonstrators in support of those arrested, spewing out more bile against Israel, albeit in tones easier on the ear.  Most passersby seem to be not the least bit interested, incidentally.

In the words of that video's uploader:

"The police have claimed the arrests were made due to excessive noise which annoyed those in attendance at the tennis match, however this is unlikely to hold up in court. According to the precedent set by Rees vs Police in 2006;

It is not correct to say that in exercising the right to protest, a citizen has the duty not to annoy. It is permissible, within limits, for a citizen to annoy others while protesting. It is not enough that the conduct is irritating or ill mannered or in bad taste. Protestors often set out to cause irritation, to attract attention to their message. That is not in itself illegitimate, or a breach of the criminal law."

Sure enough, New Zealand's High Court has now overturned the convictions on the grounds that 

"a verbalised protest may offend or disturb a member of the public. But disruption to an individual’s enjoyment of a sporting event is not the same thing as disruption of public order."

Justice Paul Heath argued that the protesters' message was necessarily loud:

"the level of the noise had to be sufficiently loud to impart their views to those inside the stadium".

Read on for article

Read on for articleJustice Paul Heath said in New Zealand’s High Court that  the disruption of an individual’s enjoyment of a sporting event was not the same as disruption of public   ”a verbalised protest may offend or disturb a member of the public. But disruption to an individual’s enjoyment of a sporting event is not the same thing as disruption of public orderJustice Paul Heath told the court that since the intent of the protesters was to inform Ms Peer of their the concerns about Israeli policy "the level of the noise had to be sufficiently loud to impart their views to those inside the stadium".rotester John Minto told stuff.co.nz “Annoyance is not a crime, annoyance is part of being in a democracy.