Twitter trial: antisemitism campaigners crowdfunding £8k for their own defence

Jewish activists fighting solicitor accusing them of libel after social media post on IHRA definition of antisemitism which he rejects.

Royal Courts of Justice on the Strand in the City of Westminster. Pic: Wikipedia

Two Jewish men, campaigners against antisemitism, Edward Cantor and James Mendelsohn, have launched an £8,000 crowdfunding initiative to fight a case being brought against them by a non-practicing solicitor, James Wilson.

The case arose as a result of social media posts on Twitter, relating to profound differences of opinion about the interpretation of the IHRA definition of antisemitism.

Two years ago, when he first commenced the action, Wilson was also suing Dr Pete Newbon. He claimed that the three men were guilty of libel, harassment, breach of data protection and invasion of privacy.

Dr Pete Newbon, Twitter.

But when Dr Newbon died suddenly in January 2022, Wilson sought — and achieved — a financial settlement from his estate, with Dr Newbon’s widow agreeing to pay him. He had previously written to Dr Newbon’s employer, the University of Northumbria, complaining about his conduct. He has complained on the Skwawkbox website, which is renowned as a supporter of Jeremy Corbyn and an opponent of IHRA, that Cantor and Mendelsohn could have settled with him at the same time.

Dr James Mendelsohn, pic: UWE Bristol

He wrote: “All claims could have settled in August 2020 for zero damages, zero costs and with undertakings to delete and not to re-publish the information. It is both inexplicable and deeply regrettable that matters were not settled and High Court claims for defamation, harassment and misuse of private information had to be issued in July 2021.

“Dr Newbon tragically died in January 2022. His widow and I reached an agreement resolving all claims against Dr Newbon’s estate. The other defendants chose not to engage in realistic negotiations to settle all the claims at the same time”.

Last week, at the High Court, there was a Trial of a Preliminary Issue in the libel claim. Cantor and Mendelsohn wanted the case struck out or summary judgment in their favour, so that they would not be forced to go to a trial which Wilson would not be able to cover financially.

But the Master hearing the case ruled that the matter should go forward to trial, except for the harassment claim against Cantor, which was thrown out. He also ruled that because Cantor described himself (in his Twitter biography) as fighting antisemitism, the GDPR  (General Data Protection Regulation) applied, and therefore for the purposes of Data Protection he should be treated as if he were not just tweeting in his personal capacity. Cantor hopes to appeal against that decision.

Now, says Cantor, his solicitor, Mark Lewis, and his barrister, have advised that he and James Mendelsohn should crowdfund for the next stage of court proceedings. He says: “It is unlikely that Wilson will have any money after the case to pay my legal fees and after two years they cannot just bear the financial burden on their own.

“Mark Lewis, as some of you may know, has a history of successfully fighting cases on behalf of campaigners against antisemitism. He has so far defended me and many others without charge, alongside favours from generous barristers. He should not however, have to fight all the battles that he takes on for the Jewish community and others alone. He and I need your help. The money raised will be used to defend the case”.

According to Cantor, in the last few weeks Wilson “has reported an individual to his employer, and when the employer rejected the claim, he threatened to report the employer”. He adds: “Hopefully the case will be finished with an appeal, if not, then we will fight it to trial. We cannot be forced into silence. One of us is now sadly silent. Those remaining must today come together and fight”.

In comments on Skwawkbox, Wilson wrote: “The costs of the case are likely now over £250,000 for claim which could have settled for zero costs. My understanding is that the defendants’ strategy has been to use the threat of bankruptcy or actual bankruptcy to get me to abandon my claim”.

read more:
comments