Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. [2025] EWHC 1170 (Admin) AC-2024-LON-001310 HUSAIN v SRA unvarnished antisemitic racism. Again, I doubt that it was necessary to categorise it also as an instance of the “trope that Jews do not originate from Israel”. 125. There was a significant debate in the hearing about the about the tweet on 4 June 2021 in response to someone who had tweeted a link behind a paywall: “Typical Zionist always have damn walls and want to take ur money”. The Tribunal thought “walls” could be a reference to the Western or Wailing Wall and therefore a thinly veiled reference to Judaism. Mr Magennis for Mr Husain submitted that it was obviously a reference to the wall which separates the Occupied Palestinian Territories from Israel (the legal consequences of which were examined by the ICJ in 2004) and therefore a proper subject for political comment. I do not think that it matters much what exactly was meant by the reference to “walls” because the Tribunal was on any view entitled to regard the words “want to take ur money”, in context, as a reference to the antisemitic trope that Jews are greedy or obsessed by money. (This trope is likely to have emerged when access to professions other than banking was restricted for Jews in many parts of Europe, but remains a mainstay of antisemitic discourse.) 126. There are parts of the Tribunal’s judgments which could be seen as reflecting a view that speech which denies the Jewish people their right to self-determination and/or claims that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour is ipso facto antisemitic. If and to the extent that the Tribunal took that view, they were in my view wrong to do so for the reasons I have given. But any such error was not material, because the many examples I have given above amply justify the Tribunal’s ultimate conclusion at [28.39.8] that: “the accretion of the Respondent’s Tweets over a spread of months; their frequency, sustained intensity, and the cumulative impact of the language used by the Respondent made it more likely than not that when viewed collectively the Tweets were founded on hatred or hostility towards Jews”. Indeed, the Tribunal could not rationally have reached any other conclusion than that Mr Husain had, over a long period, repeatedly tweeted in terms that were both grossly offensive and antisemitic. 127. The Tribunal made clear that it did not accept all of Mr Silverman’s evidence. One part which it found helpful was his explanation of “an antisemitic trope which asserted that Jews in Israel originated from Eastern Europe”: see [27.35.4]. As I have sought to show, many of the tweets which referred to Eastern Europe and Poland can be seen on their face to be racist and antisemitic even without the assistance of Mr Silverman’s evidence on this point. 128. Parts of the table at [28.39.7] indicate that separate reliance was placed on the idea that references to Eastern Europe are used to delegitimise the State of Israel by saying that Jews do not originate from there. As I have said, however, in many of the cases where the Tribunal referred to this “trope”, the tweet contained obviously racial language and this provided a distinct reason why the tweet in question was antisemitic. Overall, the Tribunal’s very detailed judgment shows that its reliance on Mr Silverman’s evidence was relatively modest. Its conclusion that many of the tweets were antisemitic could in any event be seen to be correct, and indeed indisputable, for other reasons. 129. As to allegation 1.2, there can be no real doubt that the tweets were not just offensive but seriously so. The Tribunal was fully entitled to find them “puerile, hurtful, and gratuitously offensive”: see at [27.38.15]. If and to the extent that Mr Husain had legitimate political points to make, he had no need to couch them in crude, derogatory,