THE HON. MRS JUSTICE TIPPLES Approved judgment Greenstein v Campaign Against Antisemitism [2020] EWHC 2951 (QB) 26. The particulars of honest opinion are set out at paragraph 9 of the amended defence. The IDA definition is alleged at paragraph 9.1 and 9.2. At paragraph 9.4 the defendant alleges that Baroness Chakrabarti in her report for the Labour Party in June 2016 concluded that the use of the word “Zio” has been accepted to be antisemitic. The claimant does not dispute this, but seeks to dispute the allegation that “this conclusion on the use of the word is also widely accepted”. 27. The defendant alleges at paragraph 9.5 that the claimant has a twitter account with the handle @TonyGreenstein, on which he has posted over 20,500 tweets since he joined the social media platform in May 2012. The claimant does not dispute that fact, but alleges that the defendant “deliberately misrepresents” his tweets (paragraph 8 of the amended reply), which the defendant alleges are “almost all … about Jews and Israel and they are unremittingly hostile towards, and abusive about, Jews, Israel, and supporters of Israel”. However, apart from one tweet posted on 7 September 2016 (which the claimant says was the result of his account being hacked, and which the defendant does not rely on for the purposes of this application), Mr Greenstein admits that he wrote all the tweets alleged between 15 December 2014 and 22 January 2017 (paragraphs 9.5.1-9.5.4, 9.5.6-9.5.13 of the amended defence), and therefore pre-date the First Article. These tweets are therefore all what the claimant says in the language he has chosen to use. The examples are not disputed in Mr Mitchell’s skeleton argument. 28. For example, at 11.21pm on 6 May 2016 the claimant tweeted: “AmYisraelChai is the Zionest equivalent of HeilHitler”. AmYisraelChai means “The people of Israel live”. The claimant does not dispute that he wrote this statement, rather he maintains that it is artificial to treat a tweet in isolation (paragraph 9.2.2 of the amended reply) and that the context of this tweet was “the case of Itamar Ben Gvir who shouted “Am Yisrael Chai” at the Temple Mount in September 2015. Gvir glorifies the terrorist Baruch Goldstein who murdered 29 and wounded 125 Palestinian Muslim worshippers in Hebron in 1994”. However, the context or the additional facts that the claimant wishes to rely on are irrelevant in relation to honest opinion defence: see Carruthers at [28] to [30]. The claimant’s tweet compares the people of Israel to the Nazis and, on any objective assessment, an honest person could have held the opinion that that was an antisemitic statement from the claimant. 29. On 15 December 2014 the claimant wrote: “I loathe racist scum and Jewish Nazis like you.” The claimant accepts he wrote that tweet. On 16 September 2016 the claimant wrote “yes the holocaust did happen and you Zios have been milking it ever since even though u collaborated with the Nazis” and this tweet was sent in response to a tweet from ‘joe soap’ which said “what bollocks. Any excuse to hate Jews. You are no better than neo Nazis. I suppose the holocaust didn’t happen”. On 8 January 2017 the claimant tweeted: “of course Zios have no shame. That is why they use the holocaust victims to justify their own racist barbarism”. The claimant accepts he wrote all of these tweets, but seeks to rely on context to defend them (paragraph 10.1 and 10.5 of the amended reply). That is no answer and, on any objective assessment, an honest person could form the view that these tweets, in 9