A few months ago, I blogged how antisemite Gilad Atzmon had been sued for libel by Campaign Against Antisemitism’s chairman Gideon Falter.
It turns out Atzmon was handed a humiliating defeat.
One of Britain’s most vocal antisemites was handed a humiliating court defeat in London on Monday.
Gilad Atzmon, an Israeli-born jazz musician and conspiracy theorist who refers to himself as a “former Jew,” was forced to deliver an apology in the High Court to Gideon Falter, the chairman of the UK’s Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA). Atzmon will also have to pay undisclosed costs in legal fees and damages that the CAA described as “substantial.”
The CAA sued Atzmon for libel over an article he published in July 2017 entitled “Antisemitism is a Business Plan.” In the piece, Atzmon falsely claimed that “Falter and the CAA obviously fabricate antisemitic incidents” and that “Falter and the CAA need the Jews to be hated so they can collect more and more British taxpayer money.”
Unable to substantiate these and other charges against the CAA as summarized by High Court Justice Matthew Nicklin, Atzmon capitulated. Falter said afterward in a statement that he was “delighted” to have “been able to set the record straight and expose one such antisemitic liar for what he truly is.”
Atzmon has written a blog post in the wake of the ruling, contending the judge was wrong but accepting the ruling, while schnorring for more money.
Dear friends and supporters,
As you know, three months ago I was sued in the High Court of England by the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism’s Chairman Gideon Falter regarding a paper that I published on my website. I asked for your support and was thrilled to find out how vast and kind your support was.
Before the trial could begin, the court held a preliminary hearing to do with the meaning of the words of my article. There was a dispute between the sides about how far my words went, and what the allegations I made were. This dispute had to be resolved by the court before the actual trial could take place.
The judge in the case, Mr Justice Nicklin, applied his own meaning to my article at the preliminary hearing, which included a ruling from him that my article claimed that the funds collected by Mr. Falter and the CAA were obtained by “fraud” on Mr. Falter’s part.
I did not (and do not) believe that Mr. Falter was motivated by fraud and I do not think that there is anything I said that suggested it. However, I have to accept the ruling that the court made.
Even taking the case to this point had been costly on both a financial and personal level, and after this ruling it was clear to me that I had no option but to apologise and settle the case.
The overall battle for free speech has been very expensive and it is probably far from over.
The case has re-confirmed to me the crucial importance of freedom of expression and the restrictions imposed on it by the libel courts in this country.
Despite what has been suggested earlier today by Mr Falter in a press release, the court didn’t make any finding that I myself am an anti-Semite.
Thank you again for your support.
In case you want to support my legal fees
I think it is pretty clear that Atzmon was claiming that the funds collected by Mr Falter and the CAA were obtained by “fraud” – that is certainly the implication of a simple reading of his words. Atzmon has a lot of chutzpah to suggest otherwise.
Then again, Atzmon is also claiming he is not an antisemite.
A simple look at his recent social media activity also shows otherwise.
He’s certainly full of hot air.