Source: https://www.streetnews.one/uk-city-with-large-muslim-population-passes-resolution-to-boycott-jewish-businesses-court-of-appeals-upholds-ban-throws-jewish-council-appeal-out/
Timestamp: 2019-01-16 20:16:00
Document Index: 313171052

Matched Legal Cases: ['EWCA ', 'UKSC ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'UKSC ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ']

UK: City with large Muslim population passes resolution to boycott Jewish businesses, Court of Appeals upholds ban, throws Jewish council appeal out -
Leicester is 18.6% Muslim, and they do this. Imagine what they will do when they have a Muslim majority. Islamic Jew-hatred is in the Quran. Jews are already leaving France and other countries in Europe in large numbers because of the increasingly menacing presence of Islamic antisemitism all around them. Britain is no different. British authorities are busy, as in this case, pandering to their increasingly aggressive Muslim populations, but it won’t help: total submission will still be required.
R. (on the application of Jewish Rights Watch Ltd (t/a Jewish Human Rights Watch)) v Leicester City Council
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) 03 July 2018
[2018] EWCA Civ 1551; Official Transcript;
Keywords: Boycotts; Israel; Judaism; Local authorities’ powers and duties; Occupied Palestinian Territories; Public sector equality duty; Resolutions
Summary: In passing a resolution calling for a boycott of any produce originating from illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank until such time as Israel complied with international law and withdrew from Occupied Palestinian territories, a local authority had not breached its public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010 s.149. It was clear from the proposed motion and ensuing debate at a councillors’ meeting that due regard had been given to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and to the need to foster good relations between the Jewish community and others.
Abstract: The appellant organisation appealed against the dismissal of its claim for judicial review of a resolution passed by the respondent local authority calling for a boycott of all produce from Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
The organisation had been incorporated as a vehicle to challenge rising anti-Semitism in the UK, and had expressed concerns that various groups and individuals were using condemnation of Israel as a means to attack British Jews. Following debate at a council meeting, the local authority’s council members had passed a resolution “insofar as legal considerations allow, to boycott any produce originating from illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank until such time as Israel complies with international law and withdraws from Palestinian Occupied territories.” The organisation had sought to quash the resolution on the basis that, by passing it, the local authority had singled out Israel for different treatment from that adopted in respect of other countries and failed properly or sufficiently to consider its effect on the Jewish community, thereby failing to comply with its public sector equality duty (PSED) under the Equality Act 2010 s.149 to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and harassment of Jewish people and the need to foster good relations between those who were Jewish and those who were not. The Divisional Court held that the local authority had not breached its PSED, nor its obligations under the Local Government Act 1988 s.17.
Application of PSED to local authority resolution – Even though the resolution would not have any substantive effect on the way in which the local authority carried out its procurement functions, in passing the resolution the assembly of elected councillors was acting for the local authority and was exercising a function of the authority for the purposes of s.149, Hazell v Hammersmith and Fulham LBC [1992] 2 A.C. 1 applied. Accordingly, the issue in the instant case was whether the local authority, acting by the assembly of councillors, had had due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation in accordance with s.149(1)(a), and to the need to foster good relations between persons who shared a relevant protected characteristic (being Jewish or practising the Jewish religion) and persons who did not share it, pursuant to s.149(1)(b) and s.149(5) (see paras 24-25, 28 of judgment).
Compliance with PSED – The s.149 duty was not a duty to achieve a result, but a duty to have due regard to the need to achieve the goals identified in s.149(1); the weight and extent of the duty were highly fact-sensitive and dependent on individual judgment, and provided that there had been a proper and conscientious focus on the statutory criteria, the court could not interfere simply because it would have given greater weight to the equality implications of the decision, Hotak v Southwark LBC [2015] UKSC 30, [2016] A.C. 811 followed. It was not necessary for a decision-maker to refer in terms to the PSED, provided that it was addressed in substance, R. (on the application of Baker) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2008] EWCA Civ 141, [2009] P.T.S.R. 809 applied. It was clear from the terms of the motion for the resolution and the content of the debate that the local authority, acting by its assembly of councillors, had complied with the PSED by having due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation and to the need to foster good relations between the Jewish community and others. The motion itself had recognised the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and free from incursion, and was concerned only to condemn certain actions of the Government of Israel. That condemnation was in line with a respectable body of opinion, including the UK government, the United Nations General Assembly, the European Union and the International Court of Justice. The criticism made was temperate and legitimate and the proposed boycott had a limited target in line with that criticism. There was legitimate scope for criticism of Israel without that implying anti-Semitic attitudes, and there was nothing to suggest that the resolution was in fact being proposed as a cover for or incitement to anti-Semitism. The importance of maintaining good community relations in the local area had been a major theme in the debate. Explicit reference had been made to the Jewish community, and how they might feel. On any fair reading of the transcript of the debate it was clear that the elected councillors had had due regard to the matters referred to in the PSED as a matter of substance (paras 29-30, 35, 37-40, 42).
Judge: Underhill LJ; Floyd LJ; Sales LJ
Counsel: For the appellant: Robert Palmer. For the respondent:
Andrew Sharland QC, Zac Sammour.
Solicitor: For the appellant: RHF Solicitors. For the respondent: In-house solicitor.
Divisional Court; 28 June 2016
R. (on the application of Jewish Rights Watch (t/a Jewish Human Rights Watch)) v Leicester City Council
[2016] EWHC 1512 (Admin); [2017] 3 All E.R. 505; [2017] P.T.S.R. 1433
Court of Appeal (Civil Division); 03 July 2018
[2018] EWCA Civ 1551
Hotak v Southwark LBC
[2015] UKSC 30; [2016] A.C. 811; [2015] 2 W.L.R. 1341; [2015] 3 All E.R. 1053; [2015] P.T.S.R. 1189; [2015] H.L.R. 23; [2015] B.L.G.R. 530; Times, May 25, 2015; SC; 13 May 2015
R. (on the application of Baker) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
[2008] EWCA Civ 141; [2009] P.T.S.R. 809; [2008] B.L.G.R. 239; [2008] 2 P. & C.R. 6; [2008] J.P.L. 1469; [2008] A.C.D. 62; (2008) 105(10) L.S.G. 27; (2008) 152(10) S.J.L.B. 31; [2008] N.P.C. 26; CA (Civ Div); 28 February 2008
[1992] 2 A.C. 1; [1991] 2 W.L.R. 372; [1991] 1 All E.R. 545; 89 L.G.R. 271; (1991) 3 Admin. L.R. 549; [1991] R.V.R. 28; Times, January 25, 1991; Independent, January 25, 1991; (1991) 155 J.P.N. 527; (1991) 155 L.G. Rev. 527; Financial Times, January 29, 1991; Guardian, January 25, 1991; Daily Telegraph, February 4, 1991; (1991) 88(8) L.S.G. 36; (1991) 141 N.L.J. 127; HL; 24 January 1991
R. (on the application of Bracking) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
[2013] EWCA Civ 1345; [2014] Eq. L.R. 60; (2013) 16 C.C.L. Rep. 479; CA (Civ Div); 06 November 2013
R. (on the application of Lewisham LBC) v Assessment and Qualifications Alliance (AQA)
[2013] EWHC 211 (Admin); [2013] E.L.R. 281; [2013] A.C.D. 52; [2013] P.T.S.R. D18; QBD (Admin); 13 February 2013
R. (on the application of Hurley) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills
[2012] EWHC 201 (Admin); [2012] H.R.L.R. 13; [2012] Eq. L.R. 447; [2012] E.L.R. 297; [2012] A.C.D. 50; DC; 17 February 2012
[2010] EWCA Civ 1104; [2011] 2 All E.R. 642; [2011] P.T.S.R. 565; [2010] Eq. L.R. 312; [2011] H.L.R. 3; [2010] B.L.G.R. 944; (2010) 13 C.C.L. Rep. 650; [2010] N.P.C. 98; CA (Civ Div); 12 October 2010
R. (on the application of Brown) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Significant Legislation Cited
[2008] EWHC 3158 (Admin); [2009] P.T.S.R. 1506; DC; 18 December 2008
Equality Act 2010 (c.15) s.149 Equality Act 2010 (c.15) s.149(1)(a) Equality Act 2010 (c.15) s.149(1)(b) Equality Act 2010 (c.15) s.149(5) Local Government Act 1988 (c.9) s.17
Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (c.50) s.49A Disability Discrimination Act 2005 (c.13) s.3 Equality Act 2010 (c.15) s.149
Equality Act 2010 (c.15) s.149(1)
Equality Act 2010 (c.15) s.149(1)(a) Equality Act 2010 (c.15) s.149(1)(b) Equality Act 2010 (c.15) s.149(5) Local Government Act 1988 (c.9) s.17 Localism Act 2011 (c.20) s.1
Race Relations Act 1976 (c.74) Race Relations Act 1976 (c.74) s.71
Muslim men, according to their religion, are pretty much allowed by Islam law to do whatever sexually they want to women outside the faith. And this is the religion the feminists of the West love to support? The “women are property” line of thought isn’t confined to the strict sharia adherents, or the jihadist’s world. […]
At an open forum with the mayor, a grandfather asked what would be done about his 10-year-old granddaughter being harassed by refugees. When the liberal mayor responded that the children shouldn’t provoke the sexual deviants, he quickly realized it was the wrong answer to give to a very protective grandpa. During a town hall meeting […]