University and College Union backs antisemite who incited violence against jews | |||
www.workrep.co.uk | |||
Helping You About Links Contact Site Info HOME | |||
|
04/06/2010 UCU has previously been criticised for its tolerance of antisemitism within the union, a situation that has led jewish members to complain of 'institutional' antisemitism. Many jewish members have since left the union. The UCU union has now at its congress given backing to an antisemite who earlier received sponsorship by the union despite his record for racism and inciting violence against jewish protesters. In December 2009 Bongani Masuku of COSATU condemned by the South African Human Rights Commission (a highly respected government body tasked with eradicating racism in South Africa) was sponsored by UCU to come to the UK to spread anti-israel propaganda on British university campuses. Following outrage over such a sponsored visit by a man responsible for having incited violence a motion was put to the UCU Congress condemning Mr Masuku: The following motion to the UCU Congress was rejected: UCU invited Bongani Masuku to a meeting in December 2009 to discuss Boycott, Disinvestment and Sanctions against Israel; The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) has found that at a rally at the University of the Witwatersrand in March 2009 Masuku ‘uttered numerous anti-Semitic remarks which were seen to have incited violence and hatred amongst the students who were present.’ The SAHRC has determined that these statements, and others made publicly by Masuku, amount to hate speech prohibited by the South African constitution; the SAHRC finding makes it clear that Masuku does not deny making the remarks attributed to him; These remarks were publicly available on the internet well before UCU’s invitation to Masuku was issued. Congress dissociates itself from Masuku’s repugnant views. The South African Human Rights Commission found that:“21. On the day in question Mr Masuku was speaking to students who included both Jewish Zionists and Palestinian supporters. There appeared to already have been noted tension between these two groups. Therefore by Mr Masuku making those remarks he surely intended to incite violence and hatred that was already potentially imminent amongst these two groups. COSATU members of Palestinian supporters present at this rally could easily have been incited to hate, and even attack their Jewish counterparts. This is exactly what Section 16(2) of the Constitution seeks to prevent. 22. Mr Masuku’s heated statements made amidst an already tense audience appeared to advocate hatred against Jews and all other supporters of Israel. This is inciting violence based on religion, an area which freedom of expression does not protect. 23. Mr Masuku in his response to the allegations put to him by the South African Human Rights Commission, states that he was heckled by what he refers to “as a particular section of the audience – most of whom seemed to be members of the South African Union of Jewish Students”. This statement leave little doubt that the references made by him referred to Jews. 24. The statement that “it will be hell” for any group of students, taken in its proper context is intimidatory and threatening. It is conveyed as a warning to the effect that should one support Israel, one would suffer harm. Harm for the purposes of Section 16(2), as confirmed in the Freedom Front decision is wider than mere physical harm. 25. In responding to the allegations relating to the emails sent by him, Mr Masuku fails to deal with the context in which he used the words “…whether Jew or whomsoever does so, must not just be encouraged but forced to leave…” These words in effect come across that unless South Africans agree with his views they should be forced to leave South Africa. 26. In view of the content of the speech made and emails sent by Mr Masuku it is clear that the expressions amount to the advocacy of hatred and thus would not fall under the protection of Section 16(1) of the Constitution. 27. The comments and statements made are of an extreme nature that advocate and imply that the Jewish and Israeli community are to be despised, scorned, ridiculed and thus subjecting them to ill-treatment on the basis of their religious affiliation. A prima facie case of hate speech is clearly established as the statements and comments by Mr. Masuku are offensive and unpalatable to society. Finding:28. In light of the above, the Commission hereby finds that the statements made by Mr. Bongani Masuku amounts to hate speech.” |
|||
| 2010 University and College Union backs antisemite who incited violence against jews Retirement and re-employment is a reasonable adjustment - Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police v. Jelic [2010] UKEAT 0491_09_2904 Histadrut condemns violence, describes extent of cooperation with palestinian trade union Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions (PGFTU) Where an employer is contemplating disciplinary action the thoroughness of the investigation needs to reflect the seriousness of the consequences to a worker - Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust v Roldan [2010] EWCA Civ 522 Damages are not limited to the term of the breached fixed term contract (but reflect the total loss caused) - Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2010] EWCA Civ 571 The disclosing of without prejudice communications - Woodward v Santander [2010] UKEAT/0250/09/ZT Criterion for awarding uplifts under the Dispute Resolution Procedures - Lawless v Print Plus [2010] UKEAT/0333/09/JOJ A local council is a single establishment thus allowing white collar workers to use manual workers as comparators - City of Edinburgh v Wilkinson & ors [2010] UKEATS/0002/09/BI A compromise agreement can be valid even though the claimant does not understand it - McWilliam & Others v Glasgow City Council When using the closed procedure for national security purposes the claimant must still be provided with the gist of the employer's case - Home Office v Tariq [2010] EWCA Civ 462 An employer can not repair a fundamental breach of contract. It is up to the employee whether to resign and claim constructive unfair dismissal. - Buckland v Bournemouth University Higher Education Corp [2010] EWCA Civ 121 A worker can not claim constructive dismissal if he is in breach of the duty of trust and confidence - Bateman & Ors v. Asda Stores Ltd [2010] UKEAT 0221_09_1102 A worker can not claim constructive dismissal if he is in breach of the duty of trust and confidence - Aberdeen City Council v McNeill [2009] UKEAT 0037_08_1011 BA dress code forbidding the open display of faith symbols was not discriminatory - Eweida v British Airways Plc [2010] EWCA Civ 80 When deciding whether to allow an amendment the lateness of the application is only one factor to be taken into account by the employment judge - Baker v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis [2010] UKEAT 0201_09_0502 National courts should should strike down discriminatory legislation - Seda Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH & Co. KG [2010] ECJCase C-555/07 Judges restrict employers' use of the illegality defence against employee unfair dismissal claims - SAN LING CHINESE MEDICINE CENTRE v LIAN WEI JI - [2010] EAT UKEAT/0370/09/ZT There is a right to legal representation at a disciplinary which might result in the loss of the right to practise a profession - G, R (on the application of) v X School & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 1 Cabin crew spending 5% of their time in the UK were considered to have worked partly at an establishment in Great Britain. - BA v Mak EAT [2010] UKEAT/0055/09/SM The 'genuine occupational requirement' rule may apply to a maximum age for employment - Wolf v Stadt Frankfurt am Main [2010] Case C-229/08 ECJ Different dress codes do not necessarily amount to sex discrimination - Dansie v. The Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis [2009] UKEAT Certain conditions must exist for the obligation to carry out a risk assessment for a pregnant worker to arise - ONeill v. Buckinghamshire County Council [2010] UKEAT 2009 An employment tribunal may decide if a compromise decision is unenforcable - Industrious Ltd v Horizon Recruitment Ltd & Anor [2009] UKEAT Registrar claiming right to refuse to officiate at civil weddings loses religious discrimination case - Ladele v London Borough of Islington [2009] EWCA Civ 1357 A philosophical belief based on science is protected by the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 - Grainger Plc v Nicholson [2009] UKEAT/0219/09/ZT Christian counsellor who would not help same sex couples was not discriminated against - McFarlane v Relate Avon Ltd [2009] UKEAT 0106_09_3011 Under TUPE the obligation to inform always applies, even when no measures are contemplated relating to the transfer - Cable Realisations Ltd v GMB Northern [2009] UKEAT The Court of Appeal rules on Harassment and 'Oppressive and Unacceptable' behaviour Veakins v Kier Islington Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 1288 For s4A(3) of the DDA to apply the employer must have known (or ought to have known) that the employee was disabled and that the disability would affect him in the manner described in section 4A(1) - DWP v Alam [2009] UKEAT 0242_09_0911 A discrimination case may not proceed on the mere possibility that evidence might emerge during cross examination - ABN Amro Management Services v Hogben [2009] UKEAT 0266_09_0111 In cases of discriminatory dismissal tribunals may reduce compensation if the worker would in any event have been dismissed - Chagger v Abbey National Plc & Anor [2009] EWCA Civ 1202 |
|||
| |
|||
|
© 2010 Workrep | |||