A second University of Bristol report exonerated Professor David Miller of anti-Semitism, a leaked document shows.
Written by a leading UK lawyer, the document concludes that “there is no formal case to answer against Professor Miller” and that he had not “exceeded the boundaries of unacceptable speech.”
David Miller is one of the UK’s leading experts on the Israel lobby, Islamophobia and the Zionist movement.
The leaked document, obtained by The Electronic Intifada, is dated May 2021. As we revealed in October, an earlier report by the same lawyer also exonerated Miller of anti-Semitism.
You can read the new document in full below, with the lawyer’s name redacted.
A Bristol university spokesperson declined to comment substantively on the leaked document, citing the confidentiality of Miller’s appeal against his dismissal. The university also asserted that it wanted the process to be “treated with integrity.”
The university’s registrar and secretary Lucinda Parr then followed up with a demand that The Electronic Intifada reveal the source of the leaked document, which this publication declined to do.
The second report was commissioned specifically to investigate a public talk Miller gave on 13 February and an article he wrote for The Electronic Intifada a week later.
In the article Miller argued that “Britain is in the grip of an assault on its public sphere by the state of Israel and its advocates.”
It detailed how the Zionist campaign against Miller was only one part of a larger push by Israel and its lobby to impose their will in the UK. The Electronic Intifada thoroughly fact checked the article in our usual manner.
The newly leaked lawyer’s report concludes that the article was not anti-Semitic as “defined to include the manifestation of hatred, discrimination, prejudice or hostility against Jews as Jews, or Jewish institutions as Jewish institutions.”
It also stated the article had not exceeded “the boundaries of acceptable speech.”
Elsewhere in the report the lawyer clarifies that “acceptable speech” was defined in their terms of reference from the university as “unacceptable in the sense that [Miller’s statements] are anti-Semitic or amount to or involve discrimination or harassment of a form which threatens to breach the Equality Act 2010. I have concluded that they are not.”
Attacked by Israel lobbyists
In that talk he argued that the Zionist movement and the Israeli state are enemies of the left and that he had been “attacked and complained about” by the head of Bristol university’s Jewish society.
Israel lobby groups claimed these statements were anti-Semitic, but Bristol’s lawyer disagreed.
The lawyer stated that there was no evidence that Miller’s use of the words “Zionism” and “Israeli state” were code words for “Jews” and as such his talk did not express “hostility towards or hatred of Jews as Jews.”
The lawyer explained that “the statement that Professor Miller had been ‘attacked and complained about by the head of the Bristol JSoc (the Jewish Society) along with the President of the Union of Jewish Students’ is a statement of fact.”
The JSoc president is Edward Isaacs, a right-wing pro-Israel campaigner. Isaacs took part in the elite “Israel Fast Track Program,” which indoctrinates British Jewish schoolchildren by creating what it calls a “lifetime of connection” with Israel.
Bristol’s lawyer explained that Isaacs’ complaint was not his initiative and was actually “made in conjunction with the Community Security Trust,” a pro-Israel lobby group.
As a Bristol university student, it would appear that Isaacs became the complainant after the CST was rebuffed on the basis that the university had no “formal process for responding to complaints from third parties.”
Fired for factual statements
The CST has deep connections to the state of Israel itself, including even its deadly Mossad spy agency.
The lawyer says that Miller’s statement that Bristol JSoc and its parent group the Union of Jewish Students are formal members of the Zionist movement “is a statement of fact which appears to be accurate and about which I do not accept that there is any basis for categorizing it as anti-Semitic.”
As The Electronic Intifada reported in October, none of the complaints against Miller were made by any of his students. They were purely political in nature but packaged as concern about “anti-Semitism,” based on the false premise that opposition to Zionism – Israel’s racist official ideology – is the same as anti-Jewish prejudice.
The second report by the lawyer backs up this point, stating that Miller had not even been accused of discriminating against students or treating them unfairly: “It is not said, for example, that he has graded students unfairly because they are Jewish, or members of Bristol JSoc, [or] even because they are advocates of Zionism or Israel.”
The lawyer found that Miller had no case to answer, because any lawsuit threatened against the university by the complainants would have been likely to fail.
“It is unlikely that a claim of harassment would succeed on the basis that the mere continued presence of Professor Miller at the university violated the dignity of one or more Jewish (or Zionist, or Israeli) students,” the lawyer wrote.
In other words, Miller’s opponents want his political views censored under the guise of concern for supposed anti-Semitism. They wanted him gone, launched a political campaign to have him fired and succeeded.