Anti-Ahava activists on trial: A view from the public gallery.

An activist on the floor on 22nd November 2010

An activist on the floor on 22nd November 2010

As has been reported in the Jewish Chronicle, last week four anti-Ahava activists stood trial for entering Ahava. The activists lay down on the floor and locked themselves onto a heavy concrete block causing Ahava to shut down and lose business.

There were two separate incidents.

The first incident, involving two activists, took place on 2nd October 2010 and the second, involving another two activists, on 22nd November 2010.  Fellow activists helped to carry the concrete block into the store on each occasion.

The two incidents were combined into one trial, but the four defendants were charged slightly differently.

The two activists from 2nd October were charged with aggravated trespass under S68 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, while the activists from 22nd November were charged with not obeying a police officer after being asked to leave under S69 of the same act.

The trial lasted three days. I arrived half way through day two and for the remaining one and a half days sat in the public gallery next to anti-Ahava activists. Some were dressed in “boycott Israel” T-shirts and others wore “boycott Israel” badges.

The Ahava staff and relevant police officers had already given evidence but I followed the examination and cross-examination of the four defendants.

I expected debate over the legality of the “settlements”, one of which houses the Ahava factory at Mitzpe Shalem (Ahava’s HQ is in Tel Aviv).

The Defence claimed that the “settlements” were illegal and that this tainted all Ahava’s activity as illegal and that the defendants were merely trying to stop this illegal activity when they entered the store on the dates in question.

Under S69 an offence is committed if a police officer “reasonably believes” that an aggravated trespass has been committed and having asked the people to leave they fail to do so as soon as is practicable, as was claimed happened on 22nd November 2010.

The Defence arguments under S69 centred around the suggestion that the police officer could not have formed such a reasonable belief because he did not, for example, read the leaflets presented to him by the activists or phone up Camden Trading Standards to enquire about the ongoing investigation into Ahava’s labeling.

The defendants also claimed they could not have left when asked as they were locked to the concrete block, although the Prosecution queried whether this defence could apply when the activists had intentionally got themselves into that position.

The Prosecution also queried whether the activists could have asked their friends for help in lifting the concrete block and removing it from Ahava. The Defence said that this was a physical impossibility once the activists had locked themselves to the concrete block. They would have to wait to be cut free by the police.

Ongoing domestic investigations against Ahava were a part of the Defence’s case, although Mr Milner, prosecuting, said that there were no outstanding convictions against Ahava.

On the definition of “lawful activity” in S68 Mr Milner asked each of the four defendants whether it was possible for someone to consider the “settlements” to be legal (in contrast, no one would consider murder to be legal)? Each defendant said it was possible, although they wouldn’t agree with that notion themselves.

He also questioned them as to why, for example, they didn’t wait for the outcome of the investigations against Ahava, particularly that undertaken by Camden.

The Defendants felt that all the investigations were getting nowhere. They felt that Camden was dragging its feet and that questions asked in Parliament about Ahava by Dr Phyllis Starkey and Andy Slaughter MP were not acted upon. Therefore, they felt they had no choice but to do what they did.

Mr Milner also put it to the Defendants that Ahava sold certain products that were not from Israel and that, for example, the staff were employed lawfully. Therefore, the defendants were, at least in part, obstructing “lawful activity”. The Defendants replied that all Ahava’s activities were tainted by illegality.

Mr Milner suggested that the actions of the activists amounted to vigilantism and that in a democracy people do not normally act in this way, but go about other ways of protesting something they dislike.

He quoted Lord Hoffman’s obiter dictum in R v Jones (2006). For example, at paragraph 82 Lord Hoffman said:

“The law will not tolerate vigilantes. If the citizen cannot get the courts to order the law enforcement authorities to act (compare R v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Ex p Blackburn [1968] 2 QB 118) then he must use democratic methods to persuade the government or legislature to intervene.”

CCTV footage was played of the activists entering Ahava. We saw an Ahava member of staff running forward to try to prevent the activists locking themselves to the concrete block. This went to the question of possible intimidation under S68.

The Ahava member of staff was also concerned that she would lose money if she couldn’t reach her bonus target if Ahava had to close while the activists were inside.

The Defence denied there was any intimidation and it was claimed that the police had found the activists a joy to work with. The Defence also denied there was any damage and noted that in the EDO case there was thousands of pounds of damage caused and the defendants were acquitted, whereas at Ahava there was minimal, if any, damage caused.

The Defence attempted to implicate the Ahava staff in Ahava’s alleged illegal activities and imputed full knowledge to them due to the regular protests outside Ahava. A Defence barrister pointed to the public gallery to the activists who regularly protest outside Ahava as evidence that the employees would have had full knowledege of what Ahava was doing.

The Defence also claimed that the “economic pull” of the Ahava factory at Mitzpe Shalem amounted to a war crime under S49 of the Geneva Convention and that Ahava was in breach of the EU-Israel preferential trade agreement. The judge queried whether, even if Ahava was in breach of this agreement, that would make the actual products sold by Ahava illegal.

Judgement was reserved for a later date.

(Please be careful with any comments while the verdict is awaited)

71 responses to “Anti-Ahava activists on trial: A view from the public gallery.

  1. Thanks for the update Richard. Just to let you know that I cannot be careful with any comments I may make regarding this case, and indeed I regard any exercise of caution when referring to these ‘activists’ as a moral failure. So I’ll refrain.

  2. Sharon Klaff

    Mitzpeh Shalem is a kibbutz not a “settlement”. It has only about 50 families living there in a region which is surrounded by mountainous desert terrain. The only sign of vegetation in that region is on the kibbutz property as it has been cultivated by Jews. I have been there and there is no evidence that anybody ever lived in that particular vacinity before the kibbutz was established in 1977. The nearest Arab village is about 20 kms and life for everybody is generally quiet and peaceful. Monmouth Street sees more activity than the desert regions of Israel!! I met some Palestinians during my last trip and their only wish is that activists and politicians would leave them alone to live their lives in the harmony they used to enjoy with their Jewish neighbours.

  3. Nobody has ever quoted any actual law, as distinct from remarkably ignorant statements by complete idiots such as Hague and the like (I am commenting here exclusively on the laughable prat Hague and on the antisemitic FCO, not at all on the trial or the defendants or their activities or anything to do with that!), that makes the settlements ‘illegal’.

  4. “On the definition of ‘lawful activity’ in S68 Mr Milner asked each of the four defendants whether it was possible for someone to consider the ‘settlements’ to be legal (in contrast, no one would consider murder to be legal)? Each defendant said it was possible, although they wouldn’t agree with that notion themselves.”
    At last, anti-Israel activists compelled, under oath, to concede that their categorical statements of ‘settlements are illegal under international law’ are, in fact, moot. Someone tell the BBC, inter alia…

    • It’s been many years since I studied Criminal Law but my memory of the definition of murder is illegal killing. Once it is legal it is not murder but something else, for example state execution, a soldier’s duty in war, stopping a fleeing criminal, self defence, etc. The question is ridiculous. (I’m sure there is a literary term for this rhetorical device. Someone might help me here).

  5. Daniel Marks

    A very informative and well-written posting. Tell me Richard. If they are found guilty, what kinds of punishment are we talking about? Might they be exiled to Gaza?


    Thanks for the excellent link. It’s strange how those good Christians often seem much better friends of Israel than our bad Jews. Their slogan is taken from Genesis: “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you that all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

    Please G-d- let it be!

    • richardmillett

      maximum of 3 months or a fine. it says in the links to S68 and S69.

      • It would be easier and cheaper than jail to fly these morons to Israel, take them to Mitzpe Shalem, show them the facility, show them where the fakestinians are not in the area and where they never have been. And then drop them off in Ramallah for a tender tete-a-tete with their favourite victims.

    • Actually the source for that article (at the end of it in Ariadne’s link) seems very interesting too. I would advise following it.

  6. This may be one of the most important trials in English legal history. If the defendants are acquitted here every loony demonstrator will use the defence of stopping an illegal act to excuse their law breaking. Yesterday’s occupation of Fortnum and Masons, for example.

    • What happened at Fortnum and Masons? That’s my favourite tea and cheesecake venue. Sacrosanct.

  7. Will/can it act as a precedent, David? We have been assured that the Hove verdict could not (even if the judge had not – rightly – been reprimanded).

    • I’m getting out of my competence here. My understanding (BTW my degree is in Government. Law School is but a distant memory) is that any decision of any court is precedent although there is a hierarchy in determining this. Precedent from foreign courts using a non Common Law system (e.g. France) is overruled by foreign courts using a Common Law system (e.g. Australia, USA); foreign precedent is overruled by local precedent and lower courts are overruled by higher courts up to the House of Lords (which is the only court that can overrule its own precedent as opposed from distinguishing a case on the facts, even if the law is thought to be wrongly decided!).

      If I’m correct about this the decision of a magistrates court although low on the totem pole will act as precedent until overruled either on appeal to a higher court or an a ‘similar’ case is taken to a higher court. As this type of trespass charge is likely to be handled in Magistrates Court (95% of cases are completed there) it is a reasonable assumption that this decision will be taken as precedent for similar cases. Magistrates cannot normally order sentences of imprisonment that exceed 6 months (or 12 months for consecutive sentences), or fines exceeding £5000 so if charges under S68 and S69 are heard it is almost certain they will be heard by a magistrate.

      • There is another crucial issue. If the court rules that arresting Police officers need to properly research the validity of trespassers’ claims rather than assume an offence has been committed and leave it to the courts to accept or reject the defence then police will justifiably avoid making arrests that might see that officer (who has not been trained in International Law and politics) wasting months of his time in courts.

      • richardmillett

        I think that each case is different on the facts and so can be differentiated so as not to make preceding cases precedents. Decisions on findings of law would, however, be binding on other courts.

  8. Thanks, Richard. What was the attitude/response to you from the badge-wearing berks in the public gallery?

    • I meant to comment on this, too. I once attended a political case as a spectator. The judge ordered spectators with supporting T-shirts to cover up or leave the court. They did.

      • richardmillett

        I think it depends if it was just a judge or a jury. This trial had just a judge and a judge would be unlikely to allow himself to be influenced by such things.

    • richardmillett

      It was mostly very cordial. I sat next to the boyfriend of one of the defendants and he was very nice. He filled me in on what i had missed over the first one and a half days and was genuinely concerned when i told him a bomb had just exploded in Jerusalem. Bruce tried to explain to him that i was paid by the Israeli government but i don’t think he believed it. Another guy asked me why i wasn’t helping Israel to invade Libya but apart from that we either ignored each other or there was a bit of banter.

      • Sharon Klaff

        ………Another guy asked me why I wasn’t helping Israel to invade Libya…

        I hope you explained a few things to this very informed person!!

      • Bruce seems to have some very serious personal issues. You almost have to feel sorry for him.

  9. Daniel Marks

    I don’t understand. Was it Bruce’s boyfriend who wanted you to invade Libya or the other one?

  10. One of the major weapons in this propaganda war against Israel is the “Remember these Children” website which compares the numbers of Arab children who have been killed in the conflicts to the number of Jewish children murdered by terrorists. The Arab list totals 1,437 since 2000 and the Jewish list totals 130. Not withstanding that such reporting is unsubstantiated, After visiting the site, I noticed that according to this report, most of the Israeli children were murdered in drive by shootings and human bombs exploding themselves in restaurants, buses and markets. In other words, the Arab terrorists targeted those children and murdered them in cold blood. For all of the Arab children, on the other hand, the site identifies the causes of death as gun shot wounds or explosions during the firefights with Arab Hamas fighters. What were their children doing in the middle of a war zone? That is clear and convincing evidence that the Hamas thugs where using the local children as human shields. Soldiers are trained to return fire when fired upon. The bushwhacking urban guerrillas who fire at enemy troops from a neighborhood full of children are the ones causing the deaths of those children. More at

    • richardmillett

      Thanks, Moshe. And the first name appearing is Muhammad al-Durra, who it has since been proven was very unlikely to have been killed by the IDF.

    • One of the major weapons in this propaganda war against Israel is the “Remember these Children” website

      Or on other words facts showing the number of children killed in the conflict. You only feel it is propaganda because it doesn’t support your side of the argument. ‘Remember these Children’ should not be used as some bargaining chip, but as a testimony to the tragic loss of innocent life for both sides.

      • Sharon Klaff

        Quite – and their parents shoudl keep them away from Hamas and a war zone!

      • I do intend to relate to the question later but in the meanwhile consider this video as at least part of the reason Palestinian children die.
        11 yr old Palestinians: Matyrdom better than this world

      • What utter, mendacious nonsense. When Arab ‘heroes’ hide behind children when firing at Israelis (incl. Israeli civilians), and Israel returns fire, yes, Arab children get killed. The fact that you compare the two situations speaks volumes about your moral degeneracy.

      • Sharon Klaff

        Wouldn’t it help if parents didn’t rejoice when their children dress up as human bombs and explode themselves to kill as many Jews as possible? I do feel for the children as they are abused by their parents, by Western media, the Left, their own society and their supposedly democratically elected government – as bombs, as human sheilds and as Pallywood actors for propaganda purposes. What about the millions who don’t die but are indoctrinated to hate and kill? Thats the real crime for if their parents taught them to love and if their schools schooled them in civil society and if Western leaders and the media would say we will not tollerate that, then we wouldn’t have this probalem and the 1400 odd kids would be alive and playing the piano or football or simply singing in the park!

  11. Daniel Marks

    “And what about the other 1,436 children Sharon?”

    Maybe I’ll answer that question. Judaism has rejected child sacrifice as a means to an end at least since G-d told not to do so. In Judaism parents traditionally make sacrifices for their children, not of them. When there is danger we seek to distance our children from it and to protect them.
    This is to my mind the natural and normal way for human beings and indeed animals to behave. About a year ago a stray cat gave birth to kittens on our balcony and we couldn’t get rid of them. I asked a friend, who has a large dog, to bring it hoping she’s see it and run away. To my shock she thought he would attack her off-spring and lunged at the dog. She was not concerned for one second as what might happen to her. Like I said, parents protecting their children are as basic an occurrence as there is, besides everything else our children are our main hope of ensuring that something of us survives into the future.

    On the other hand, some radicalized parts of Arabic Moslem society have chosen to sacrifice their children rather than make sacrifices for them. It is not a uniquely Palestinian phenomenon as the world was recently shocked to discover Pakistani children playing suicide bombers:

    Neither is this a Moslem version of cowboys and Indians. In cowboys and Indians or cops and robbers the children are acting out or role-playing an adult activity. In the Moslem version they are preparing themselves.

    The parents who send their kids to blow themselves up are the minority and most extreme. However, lives of children are often not valued as witnessed by rockets being launched into Israel from school yards with nobody even bothering to tell the children to leave. On the contrary every dead Palestinian youth is seen as a victory for the cause – politically they achieve as much by sacrificing their own children as by killing Jews. Perhaps that was what Golda Meir had in mind when, “Peace will come to the Middle East when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us.”

    When barbarians are intent on to sacrificing Palestinian children’s lives, the number you quote, if it is accurate, may not be high. Regarding the fact that it is unquestionably greater than that of Israeli children killed, I make no apology for loving and protecting my children. I’ve never tied sticks of dynamite to Amichai or sent Ariel to play football in a battle zone. Neither Dina or Rachelle are allowed to throw stones at vehicles or to build bombs. That’s just the kind of family we are.

  12. Good one Daniel demonise a whole religion and people to detract from the actions of the occupier. Palestinians love their children as much as you do, difficult concept for you I am sure. You probably hate the Palestinians for making you have to kill their children. What a sick and warped sense of reality.

    • “Palestinians love their children as much as you do …. What a sick and warped sense of reality”

      What an utter moral degenerate and liar you are. No Jews have ever strapped explosives to their children in order to murder non-Jewish children. You really slither at the bottom of the moral sewer.

  13. Richard
    thank you as usual for informing me so well

  14. Daniel Marks

    Hi Mostly Harmless,

    I do not wish to make this personal. I shall reply to you as long as you talk respectfully and to the point. Attack my opinions, refute the facts I bring – don’t call me silly names.

    Now I wrote:

    “On the other hand, some radicalized parts of Arabic Moslem society have chosen to sacrifice their children rather than make sacrifices for them.”

    And you call that “demonizing a whole religion”. Not all Moslems. Not all Arabs. Not all Arab Moslems – just the radicalized ones. Not all radicalized Arab Moslems – parts of them. Not all parts – just some radicalized parts of Arabic Moslem society.

    Forget for a moment the adversarial nature of this discussion and reread carefully what I wrote. Am I really “demonizing a whole religion”?

    Maybe you maintain that I am wrong and that no radical Moslem Arabs behave in this way at all. If so, feel free to say so again in a calm respectful manner.

    Regarding your final comment about my hating the Palestinians, I would only comment that unlike yourself, I suspect, I live among Palestinians and know many. To me the Arab-Israeli relations are not a blog or a collection of clichés, but my life and that of my children. There are Palestinians among my neighbours, my friends, my students and my colleagues at work. Neither does this in any way make me special or unusual.

    I try not to hate anyone. I certainly have no hate for unfortunate brainwashed children who are sent on suicide missions to kill me. Sadly for them, however, I will not refrain from actively defending myself from anyone who wishes to harm me or any other Israeli – Jew, Arab or Christian Bible translator. As to parents who allow or even encourage their children to be sacrificed on the altar of radical politics or religion, I may not hate them as fellow human beings, but a parent myself, I have nothing but contempt.

    All the best,

    • Let’s not pussyfoot around here. I am quite happy to demonise the whole of Islam. It’s easy. You know why? Because it is a demonic belief system full of hatred and violent intentions towards Jews, Christians and othe non-Muslims. This is a no brainer and the Koran and Hadith speak for themselves, as does Mein Kampf. It’s precisely and only because of this vicious totalitarian and supremacist ideology, passing itself off as a religion, that Israel is having, and has had since before the foundation of the Jewish state, such a hellish time with the fakestinians. If the Arabs you associate with Daniel,are not murdering you, then that is in spite of what they believe. There must be some expedience involved on their side.

    • Daniel, the comments I made directed at you were not warranted, I can see that from your response to my and other posts.

  15. Even allowing for inflated figures due to ‘children’ on the list who died other than through the action of the IDF (there is a strong financial and social advantage in being the parent of a shahid and blaming the Israelis is a good defence to murder of a family member) and through listing as ‘innocent’ children youth who die as soldiers in armed clashes, there is no doubt there are many more Palestinian casualties than Israeli. The question is why.

    The Palestinian answer is that Israelis/Jews are homicidal maniacs. I would say there are more practical reasons, some instrumental, some ideological and some strategic for the difference.

    1) Israel has invested heavily in defensive measures such as bomb shelters and early warning. The residents of Sderot have a crucial 15 seconds notice to run for cover that the residents of Gaza apparently don’t have.
    2) Most Palestinian artillery is a one time random strike at large soft target, like towns and villages. They know they may be killed before launch or if they remain too long after. In addition they have no way of knowing where the rocket or mortar has landed and correct aim. This is the reason why 50 mortars in one day does so little damage. Israel generally hits what it aims at, although even that has its limits.
    3) Israel keeps its military activity away from civilian areas. Palestinian both as tactics and strategy keeps it close, hoping that the use of voluntary or involuntary human shields will stop attack and if it doesn’t expecting to use the casualties for propaganda purposes. In addition there are many documented cases of Palestinians using their homes, mosques, hospitals, etc to store and manufacture munitions, as command posts, etc. turning them into military targets.
    4) Palestine encourages its children to take part in military activities. Israel forbids it.
    5) Palestinians have built up a death cult where death in battle is honoured. Israeli military tactics are designed to reduce Israeli casualties. Death of its soldiers is avoided where possible even at the cost of more death of the enemy. No Israeli child would look forward to martyrdom.

    Under these conditions is it any wonder there is such a difference in the casualty rate?

  16. Daniel Marks

    Hi Roger,

    I do not agree with what you say. European civilization has been responsible for countless pogroms and indescribable persecution culminating in the holocaust. Christianity and Christians have murdered hundreds of times more of my people than believers in Islam, but even at the worst moments of Jewish history I never concluded that “it is a demonic belief system full of hatred and violent intentions towards Jews”.

    In our worst hour there were good Christians, good Europeans, even good Germans who risked their lives to help us. Never enough but they were there. Likewise, I do not believe that every Moslem would kill me given the chance but for “expedience”. Some, definitely. Many probably. All – never!

    I have no idea what a man’s true motivations are, so I judge him by his actions. Don’t worry, I’m still an Israeli settler and my views are still my views. I have just never believed in demonizing my enemies, nor those who might not be.

    • My experience of ‘palestinians’ has been far far from easy. I have visited East Jerusalem,Bethlehem and Hebron. Talking to the Arabs there was like walking on eggshells. One mention of the fact that Mohammed was a demented mass murdering warlord, bandit, rapist, plunderer, compulsive liar and pedophile and that the Jews rejected him because of his psychotic fraudulence, thus unleashing the awful burden we face of islamic antisemitism, and you’re a dead duck. Any questioning of the absurd and farcical claims that Muslims have on Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, which rest entirely on the tacky, kitsch story of Mohammed’s miraj on al-Buraq to the ‘farthest mosque’ (not even Jerusalem) for a get-together with Moses and sundry prophets, and you’ll be pushing up the daisies in no time. Any suggestion that Judea and Samaria are indeed Arab occupied Jewish land, and you’ll be on your way to meet your maker pronto. No Daniel, intelligent and truthful communication was not on the cards with any ‘palestinians’ I encountered. It is like conversing with a paranoid schizophrenic who will do you serious harm if you even slightly chip at his delusions and if you want to stay alive or in one piece, you are obliged to play his game.

      In the meantime however, I was surprised today to see this:

      A pro-Israel British Muslim group

  17. Daniel Marks

    “One mention of the fact that Mohammed was a demented mass murdering warlord, bandit, rapist, plunderer, compulsive liar and pedophile and that the Jews rejected him because of his psychotic fraudulence, thus unleashing the awful burden we face of islamic antisemitism, and you’re a dead duck.” – Roger

    I’m pretty speechless. Although I’ve had countless discussions with Moslems regarding varying topics including theology, politics, etc, I have never mentioned any of those “facts” to them. Nor do I think that not doing so necessarilly means “walking on eggshells”. I believe that one can exchange opinions in a frank and honest way without insulting what other people hold sacred.

    In general I find this need to name-call hard to understand – maybe I’m just getting old.

    “Small people talk about other people. Average people talk about material things. Great people talk about ideas.”

    • @Daniel: It renders me speechless that you can accept the sacred status of someone who amongst many other atrocities, helped decapitate with his own hands an entire Jewish tribe (900 men), the Banu Quraysha, in one day. There is no difference between Hitler and Mohammed….they were both genocidal Jew haters. I find it extraordinary that you object to anyone insulting such monsters. It is incumbent upon any sane and intelligent individual to insult Mohammed and those who hold him sacred as a perfect model of conduct and messenger of God. It is our obligation to do this and not appease evil but to fight it and destroy it.
      By the way, are you armed?

    • “Small people talk about other people. Average people talk about material things. Great people talk about ideas.”

      I confess to belong to “Small People”.

      When I think and/or talk about Israel I talk about the people of Sderot …

    • “Small people talk about other people. Average people talk about material things. Great people talk about ideas.”

      Don’t you just love the oily smugness.

  18. I have just returned from Jordan. No one there mentions “Palestinians” and no one seemed to want Judea/Samaria or East Jerusalem under Jordanian control. They seem very happy with their Intel powered computers and Motorolla phones (which were heavily advertised). Also, when I asked how to get to Israel from Aquaba the tour guide said “just walk across the border into Eilat, you will have a wonderful time!”

    Fakestinians:Don’t you just love them…………..

    • I hope he was talking metaphorically. The Wadi Araba/Yitzhak Rabin crossing is 3KM North of Eilat and about the same from Aqaba. That’s a long walk.

  19. Daniel Marks

    Hi Roger,

    There seems to have been a misunderstanding here, if I did not explain myself clearly, I apologize. I wrote:

    “I believe that one can exchange opinions in a frank and honest way without insulting what other people hold sacred.”

    You appear to have inferred from this that I “accept the sacred status of someone (Mohammed)” Of course I do not accept Mohammed as being a true prophet of G-d any more than I accept Jesus to be “God the Son”. I am an Orthodox Jew, I believe in G-d and try to adhere to the Torah. I make no secret of any of this, on the contrary, it is a source of pride.

    Leaving aside the historical figure of Jesus, I know that many of those who are seen as his followers slandered, persecuted and even murdered Jews – they were often sainted for it. These two are well-known facts, denied by few. Clement I, (Saint) Justin Martyr, Tertullian of Carthage, Quintas Spetimus Florens Tertullian, (Saint) Hippolytus, Origen, (Bishop) Cyprian, Eusebius of Caesarea, (Saint) Hilary, (Saint) John Chrysostom, (Saint) Gregory, (Saint) Augustine of Hippo, (Pope) Sylvester I, (Saint) Ambrose,
    (Pope) Valentinian III, (Emperor) Justinian, John Damascene, (Pope) Gregory VII, (Saint) Bernard of Clairvaux, (Saint) Thomas Aquinas, (Pope) Innocent III, (Pope) Gregory IX, (Saint) John Capistrano, (Pope) Benedict XIII, (Pope) Sixtus IV, Bernardino of Feltro, Pope) Clement VIII, (Pope) Julius III, (Pope) Paul IV, (Pope) Pius, (Pope) Gregory XIII, (Pope) Benedict XIV, Maria Theresa Hapsburg, (Cardinal) Joszef Mindszenty to name but a few. Many of whom make Mohammed’s statements sound like those of the Board of Deputies.

    I do not hold every Christian responsible for them and if non-Jews consider them to be sacred I will not seek to upset him by name-calling. I will judge him by his words and his actions.

    Finally you ask me whether I am armed. Yes, I am. And the truth of a man, my friend, is a formidable weapon.

    • Hi Daniel..thanks for the list of Christian Jew haters. You missed out Martin Luther, a vicious antisemite who Hitler admired and dedicated Kristallnacht to. I have recently read Malcolm Hay’s ‘Europe and the Jews’, a devastating account of 2000 years of Christian brutality towards the Jews.
      Nevertheless, it should be noted that Christians have acted with violence and hatred in spite of what Christ taught, whereas Muslims are violent and hateful because of Mohammed’s teachings. The Koran, and hence Allah, lays down that Muhammad’s life must be imitated. The consequences of this are horrendous and can be witnessed on a daily basis. Christians are no longer murdering people en-masse in the name of their God. They have moved on, evolved. Islam has not, and the main reason is that the Koran mandates eternal war against non-believers and Muslims believe that Allah himself wrote it and that it was dictated to Muhammad in the original version, the Umm al-Kitab, which is kept on a table in heaven.

      Consequently one cannot argue with the contents. And this is why you are armed.

      Here’s the lowdown on Mohammed the psychopath from Geert Wilders.

  20. Daniel Marks

    Hi Roger,

    You make an interesting point:

    “Nevertheless, it should be noted that Christians have acted with violence and hatred in spite of what Christ taught, whereas Muslims are violent and hateful because of Mohammed’s teachings.”

    The comparison seems problematic for two reasons. Firstly, because while Mohammed was consciously attempting to create Islam, there is no reason to imagine that Jesus saw himself as the forerunner of a new religion. If we are going to seek a Christian character as a point of comparison, someone who was clearly fashioning a new faith, Paul the Apostle is a much more appropriate choice. As a historic personality he was far more hating of Jews than Mohammed.

    Regarding the New Testament, it is a wholly anti-Semitic (in the broader sense of the word) document being basically a story of the wicked and corrupt Jewish people sinning and ultimately being responsible for committing deicide. For this they are abandoned by G-d and damned forever.

    The history of the Judeo-Christian relations over 2,000 years have been of persecution, pogroms, expulsions, inquisitions, blood libels and finally the Holocaust. In comparison under Islam had up and downs but nothing approaching the gas chambers of Auschwitz.

    You are right that Christians are no longer murdering Jews in the name of their G-d. Since World War Two final solutions are out of fashion in Western Europe as is the church itself. The right wingers in these countries seem to hate the Muslims more than they do us and it always amuses me to see Fascists waving Israeli flags in order to annoy the Left wing and Arabs – good luck to them all!

    • richardmillett

      Good to see you get some pleasure out of life, Mostly.

      • Richard
        I still can’t give up hope that the Brits will be the Europeans who stand up against that nonsense.

        Thinking of how valiantly they behaved in WW2 they should be ashamed that something like that can be the truth about them

        Richard Millett, who attends the counter-demonstrations, said: “Maybe the neighbours could have had a more positive role and spoken to the protesters, rather than take it out on Ahava.
        “It’s sad that this country will allow a lawfully trading shop to be chased out because of the politics of people who disagree with Israel’s basic existence.

    • You mean, racists and fascists. Interesting to know that you support that side – but not surprising.

  21. mostly harmful, it is a victory for fascism and antisemitism.

  22. To the person who suggested that all the defendant should just be taken to Mitzpe Shalem etc…Richard could have reported that, as was said in evidence, all the defendants have indeed been there and have visited both the Ahava factory and surrounding areas several times. Their case is certainly not weaker as a result.