If he’s so upset, why doesn’t he threaten to sue? (see Sue Blackwell, passim). Presumably because he’d have to sue lots of people and can’t afford it – or perhaps because he knows he did _actually_ say those words and can’t deny them, and this is a case where factuality is a real defence.
Of course, it could be because the SWP don’t believe in using the bourgeois courts – they are a infringement on the right to free speech, or something. Yeah, right.
His free speech, our right to shut up and take his nonsense without complaint.
Well given your strange idea of libel law over there, if he gets the right judge he can pretty much light a box of victory cigars with the money he’ll get from Engage’s deep pockets, courtesy of the amount of “untraceable” money taken from Lehman Brothers to go to the anti-boycott cause. He should be going legal all over Engage’s and Harry’s fannies.
Unless of course, Wallis never believed the crap about “untraceable” money… and what he had initially said (for which he’s been “misquoted verbatim” was to further build his bonafides with the more rabid parts of the boycott community… if you wanna score points with the suckers, play the conspiracy card.. just as political hacks play the race card.
Yup, what a hole he’s dug, and what a sad little tool he is.
Wallis won’t, and couldn’t, sue. He easily could threaten to and it wouldn’t surprise anyone in the least. Bullying and bluster are plainly his style.
Going to court requires money, which I expect Wallis would have to get, if he can, from his union, and it takes hard work and stamina. Above all, it takes belief in your case and judging by what he has said — and more by what he hasn’t — Wallis knows he’d lose, because the allegation against him is true.
Why would Wallis subject himself to all that? If pressed to put up or shut up, he has a cheaper and much more attractive option: The easy way out is to claim that (1) He could sue, and the law is on his side, but (2) his attachment to free speech requires him to rise above such cheap tactics, and anyway (3) it wouldn’t be a fair fight, because the Zionists have all the money and money buys court verdicts.
Damn those conspiring, bank-owning, media-controlling, child-killing, many-tentacled, er, Zionists.
b) Palestine: Following much debate an amended motion seeking legal ways to impose an academic boycott was passed.”
“IMPOSE an academic boycott”?!?!?!
…Not just PERMIT faculty-of-“selective-conscience” to boycott Jews-who-don’t-agree-with-them-and-only-Jews-who-don’t-agree-with-them…. Now they’re going for the gold ring!
and how do they propose to do that?
While I’ve always grudgingly accepted that anyone can have a “boycott-of-one” for whatever reason so long as they openly hold to RRA/EEOC rules (you can always just say “no”), now we have language that implies a “bocyott-for-all.” At first you could say that it’s just being “imposed” upon Jewish Israeli faculty and researchers. But in all likelihood boycotters aren’t collaborating with them now (and no doubt any that are will get waivers), so it follows reason that the goal would inevitably expand any idea of a boycott to those local faculty and researchers not supporting it.
So please do share the details on whom this boycott will be “imposed”… UCU members as that cohort continues to decline in membership? the general faculty? staff? researchers? students? And especially do tell us how this “imposition” will be “legally” attempted on any of the above group…