Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. [2025] EWHC 1170 (Admin) AC-2024-LON-001310 HUSAIN v SRA what a Zionist is and how that is defined; would know the IHRA definition of anti- Semitism and its associated guidance; would know the dictionary definition of “antisemitism” etc. This reasonable person would have no strong views on the Israel/Palestinian question; would not otherwise be unduly sensitive; would be open-minded, balancing what they had heard and seen before reaching a conclusion...” It followed that a finding of antisemitism required an objective assessment of the words in their context and that the respondent’s good character was not relevant: see [27.29][27.30]. 38. In assessing whether any of Mr Husain’s statements were antisemitic and/or offensive and/or inappropriate, the Tribunal considered individual phrases both in isolation and also by taking account of their cumulative impact, bearing in mind the guidance given by the Supreme Court in Stocker v Stocker [2019] UKSC 17, [2020] AC 593, a defamation case. The core principle was that it was essential to consider context and to take into account the medium, style and environment in which the statements were made. In Stocker, the statement was made on a Facebook wall, where people would scroll through quickly, gaining fleeting impressions of the posts made. The same was true here. Reference was also made to Jeynes v News Magazines Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 130. The approach would be: to consider each tweet individually and determine whether its meaning was inherently antisemitic, offensive or otherwise inappropriate; to stand back and look at the context of the Twitter conversation to determine whether this would undermine or support the initial conclusion; to view all the tweets on a macro/cumulative level to determine recurring and persistent patterns of expression and/or coded language; to avoid any over-elaborate analysis; and to resolve any doubt in favour of Mr Husain: [27.31]-[27.34]. 39. The Tribunal found Mr Silverman to be, on the whole, a “satisfactory and dispassionate witness”, but viewed his evidence as informative only and not determinative of the issues which fell to be considered. His evidence was helpful in providing wider context (e.g. noting the antisemitic trope that Jews in Israel originated from Eastern Europe), but beyond that, the Tribunal came to its own conclusions about whether the tweets were, objectively, antisemitic. The Tribunal added: “In a divergence from Mr Silverman’s opinion the Tribunal concluded that expressing anti-Zionist views alone was not necessarily antisemitism without this also demonstrating a hatred or prejudice towards Jews, with this latter being engaged where, for example, the anti-Zionist views were couched in Nazi terminology or by reference to well-known Jewish slurs, stereotypes and tropes and/or called for the wholesale destruction/abolition of Israel as a country as opposed to engaging in a political debate regarding its borders and/or the actions of the Israeli government vis a vis Palestinians and/or Hamas.” See [27.35]. 40. The Tribunal considered Mr Myerson to be credible: see [27.36].