Revealed: The 11 allegations against Stephen Sizer and the verdicts of the tribunal

The allegations levelled at The Reverend Dr Stephen Sizer in the complaint made by Board of Deputies President Marie van der Zyl,  and summaries of the tribunal decisions.

A) Participating in a conference run by the Islamic Human Rights Commission entitled “Towards a New Liberation Theology” in 2005

The Tribunal accepts Ms van der Zyl’s and Mr Arkush’s evidence that members of the Jewish community were provoked and offended by the posting on the Respondent’s website of his participation at the conference, and its republication by the Daily Mail in 2015. It does not, however, consider that his attendance and participation at the conference was conduct unbecoming for an ordained minister. It has also concluded that the Respondent was not engaging in an antisemitic activity.

B) Meeting Sheikh Nabil Kaouk, a senior commander of Hezbollah forces in about summer 2006

The Tribunal considers that the Respondent’s meeting with Sheikh Kaouk is an example of where he did not take into account his role as a public representative of the Church, and showed a lack of sensitivity to the Jewish community. It showed an extraordinary lack of sensitivity to be photographed in clerical dress meeting Sheikh Kaouk.

The Tribunal considers that the matter was conduct unbecoming and inappropriate for an ordained minister. It has also concluded that the Respondent was not engaging in an antisemitic activity.

C) Speaking at a conference in Indonesia in May 2008 alongside Fred Tobin, a Holocaust Denier

The Tribunal accepts Ms van der Zyl’s and Mr Arkush’s evidence that members of the Jewish community were offended by knowledge of the Respondent’s participation at the conference, and his attendance being posted on his website. Once again it is an example of where he did not take into account his role as a public representative of the Church, and showed a lack of sensitivity to the Jewish  community. It does not, however, consider that his attendance and participation at the conference was conduct unbecoming for an ordained minister. It has also concluded that the Respondent was not engaging in an antisemitic activity.

D) In June 2008, promoting Michael Hoffman, a Holocaust denier and anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist

The allegation arises out of the Respondent adding to an email circulation list an Associated Press article about police indifference to the treatment of Israel’s Messianic Jews. The Respondent stated that he had shared the article to an email list which was “An informal network of friends of the Indigenous Christian community promoting justice, peace and reconciliation in the Middle East.” He stated that the Associated Press article reflected his belief that Messianic Jews in Israel suffer harassment and persecution.

It follows that it does not consider that the Respondent’s conduct was unbecoming for an ordained minister or that he was engaging in an antisemitic activity.

E) Citing Holocaust deniers and far-right figures, in particular Dale Crowley in about January 2009

The four- word quote of Dale Crowley was taken from Grace Halsell’s book, Forcing God’s Hand, (Washington, Crossroads International, 1999). He maintained that Dale Crowley was a conservative Christian missionary, broadcaster and evangelist, respected within Christian circles in the USA, who was also a vocal critic of Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians which resulted in his vilification.

The Tribunal accepts Ms van der Zyl’s and Mr Arkush’s evidence that members of the Jewish community were offended by the Respondent’s use of information obtained from Dale Crowley…. in the absence of evidence that the Respondent knew of Dale Crowley’s antisemitic and far right views, it does not consider his reference was conduct unbecoming for an ordained minister.

F) In September 2010, he posted a link to an article entitled “The Mother of All Coincidences”

The Respondent provided a link on his website in September 2010 to an article written by Eric Margolis, under the heading “9/11 The Mother of All Coincidences” and reproduced part of the text as “a flavour” of it. Mr Arkush’s statement said that the article clearly concluded that the “official” version of what happened on 11th September 2001 was not credible, and the article raised the idea that it was a plot by America’s far right or by Israel or was a giant cover-up.

The Tribunal accepts Ms van der Zyl’s and Mr Arkush’s evidence that members of the Jewish community were offended by the Respondent posting this article on his website. Once again it considers that the posting of the link to this article demonstrated the Respondent’s lack of awareness of his being a public representative of the Church and showed a lack of sensitivity to the Jewish community. The article raised the issue as to whether 9/11 was a plot by Israel and did not specifically refer to Jews. The final sentence, however, did not contain a clear rejection of Israel’s involvement. Whilst the article did not go as far as the 9/11 article, and blame American Jews for 9/11, the Tribunal considers that the Respondent, as an ordained minister, should not have been giving the oxygen of publicity to such an article. The Tribunal has concluded, one member dissenting, that his conduct was unbecoming and inappropriate. It does not consider, however, that the Respondent was engaged in antisemitic activity.

G) Accompanying and defending an Islamic Movement leader Raed Salah in June 2011

While it was suggested that he had been banned from leaving Israel in 2005, this does not appear to be supported by the 2005 judgment in evidence. The briefing exhibited in the evidence also post-dated the visits. It is, therefore, unclear why the Respondent should have known of Raed Salah’s background at the time of his visits. In those circumstances, the Tribunal has concluded that his conduct was not unbecoming for an ordained minister. It does not consider that the Respondent was engaged in antisemitic activity.

H) Promoting the idea that Israel was behind the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001 by posting a link in January 2015 to the article entitled “9-11/Israel did it” that blamed Israel for the attacks

The most serious allegation against the Respondent relates to posting a link on Facebook in January 2015 to the article blaming Israel for 9/11. The Tribunal finds the article in its tone and content truly shocking. It has not set out extracts from a highly repellent article in this decision. After careful consideration, it finds the Respondent’s evidence that he had not read the article in full before he posted the link to be implausible and untrue. The Respondent is an intelligent man, familiar with the conflict in the Middle East, and the sensitivities over criticism of the Jewish race.

The Tribunal is satisfied that the Respondent reposted the article in the knowledge that it would provoke and offend the Jewish community. The Tribunal considers that… on this occasion the Respondent crossed the line, and in reposting the article, he was engaging in antisemitic activity.

I) Attending an event in October 2016 chaired by Baroness Tonge in breach of an agreement with the Bishop of Guildford which required him to refrain from writing or speaking on any theme that related directly or indirectly, to the current situation in the Middle East or its historical backdrop

The Tribunal accepts Ms van der Zyl’s and Mr Arkush’s evidence that members of the Jewish community were offended by the Respondent’s presence at the event. Once again it demonstrated his lack of awareness of his being a public representative of the Church and showed a lack of sensitivity to the Jewish community. It has, however, concluded that his attendance alone was not conduct unbecoming for an ordained minister.

J) In an interview on 30 March 2018 on Australian radio, by defending the link he posted to the article blaming Israel for the 11 September 2011 terrorist attacks

Of particular concern is the Respondent’s assertion that “the particular article was a list of Israelis who had benefited from 9/11 and I simply put it out there and said this is serious; it’s got to be considered.” As previously pointed out above, the article did not refer to a list of Israelis but to members of the American Jewish community.

It was also disingenuous of the Respondent to defend the article on the basis that “so far no one has come back to me and contradicted anything that was in the article.” In fact Bishop Watson had ordered him to take it down shortly after the Respondent posted the link on Facebook.

The Tribunal has concluded, one member dissenting, that his conduct was unbecoming for an ordained minister. It does not consider, however, that the Respondent was engaged in antisemitic activity.

(K) Posting an item on his Facebook page in August 2018 in relation to Jeremy Corbyn being a victim of the hidden hands of Zionists

The article was published by Middle East Eye on 24 August 2018. The article contained the observation that attempts to undermine Jeremy Corbyn were “part of a wider campaign by the Israeli government to harm Palestinian solidarity activists.” The Respondent did not resile in his statement from his view that evidence of Israeli lobbying in British politics is overwhelming, setting out in detail the media organisations that he considered demonstrated lobbying, and criticising Mr Corbyn for his association with him. He rejected the notion that posting a comment and link to Mr Cook’s article about the campaign to discredit Jeremy Corbyn was in any way antisemitic.

The tribunal has concerns about the Respondent’s judgment in posting the article, it does not, however, consider that it was conduct unbecoming or inappropriate for an ordained minister. It has also concluded that the Respondent was not engaging in an antisemitic activity.