The ten year vendetta against Rev Stephen Sizer – updated

JVL introduction

On Monday January 30 the Church of England announced a 12 year ban on Reverend Stephen Sizer who was vicar of Christ Church, Virginia Water in Surrey from 1997 to 2017.

Media reports have suggested that Rev Sizer has been found guilty of multiple antisemitism offences. This is untrue. The Church Tribunal which heard 11 charges from the Board of Deputies of British Jews made an antisemitism finding in only one case, relating to a Facebook post in 2015 for which Rev Sizer immediately apologised. Jonathan Arkush, president of the Board of Deputies at the time, acknowledged then that the matter had been dealt with appropriately.

The CoE Tribunal stated explicitly of Rev Sizer, “the Tribunal does not conclude that the Respondent is antisemitic by nature… to reach the conclusion that he was antisemitic, it would be contrary to all that [he] has said or written and what others have said on his behalf.”

Antony Lerman, who provided expert  witness testimony about antisemitism to the Tribunal, tweeted his outrage at the 12 year ban:

“This disgraceful miscarriage of justice against someone who has never uttered a word of hate against Jews will be a permanent stain on the @churchofengland and the @BoardofDeputies.”

Rev Sizer is known for his opposition to Christian Zionism, the subject of his book published in 2004, Christian Zionism – a roadmap to Armageddon.
His many writings, speeches and online posts on this and related subjects have brought him into conflict with the Board of Deputies which has, over the last decade, lodged a series of complaints against him alleging antisemitism.

This culminated in the CofE Tribunal hearing over several months in  2022. In its conclusions published on December 6, Rev Sizer was cleared on seven of 11 allegations, found guilty of unbecoming conduct on four counts and of antisemitic activity on one of those.

Here we unravel the arguments presented to the Tribunal.

We also link here to Rev Sizer’s statement to the Tribunal  and his response to its conclusions.

 


Leah Levane and Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi write

The case against Reverend Stephen Sizer hinges on allegations from the Board of Deputies of British Jews (BoD) that he has repeatedly, since 2005, behaved in an antisemitic manner by causing offence to Jewish people. The Church of England has twice investigated most the complaints in some detail, reaching agreements with limited disciplinary consequences in 2012 and again in 2015.  Further complaints in 2018 led to a formal investigation of 11 allegations of antisemitism and conduct unbecoming to a Church of England Minister. That investigation resulted in a Tribunal decision on December 6, 2022. One charge of antisemitism was upheld, the other 10 were not.

The complaint was that between 2005 and 2018 Rev Sizer’s conduct “was unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders … in that he provoked and offended the Jewish community and/or engaged in antisemitic activity.”

The Church Tribunal was persuaded by submissions from the BoD and its supporters that Rev Sizer was guilty of unbecoming conduct on four counts, including one that was also judged to be antisemitic. The other seven of the 11 charges against him were deemed unproven. See Appendix A for a summary of the charges and the Tribunal’s judgement. We will examine below the most serious allegation – that he had promoted the idea that Israel was behind the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001.

Offence against “the Jewish community”

For the BoD to be taken as representative of all Jews in the UK is, as JVL has argued on many occasions, an error which leads to a stereotypical perception of Jews as a homogenous bloc with one undifferentiated set of opinions. It is therefore regrettable that the Tribunal seems to have accepted the BoD’s wholesale condemnation of Rev Sizer as provoking and causing offence to “the Jewish community.”

People engaging in public debate on sensitive subjects must of course refrain from hateful or threatening language, but there is no justification for suppressing legitimate comment simply because it is perceived as offensive by some. To its credit, the Tribunal did not draw the conclusion that causing offence was necessarily unbecoming or antisemitic. Hence its conclusion that in seven instances his behaviour was neither of these.

The Tribunal heard evidence and received written statements in support of Rev Sizer from Jews and non-Jews, academics, clergymen, colleagues and former parishioners (ibid p 20). Particularly noteworthy is the expert witness statement from Antony Lerman exploring the relationship between antisemitism and political comment on the activities of the state of Israel.

Lerman does not make any judgement regarding the specific charges against Rev Sizer. He simply notes that recent developments have “made it more difficult and more complicated … to disentangle hate speech and political comment.” Since 2005, there has been a drive to popularise a new definition of antisemitism, where Israel and Zionism are the targets rather than Jewish people simply for being Jews. In attempting to set guidelines for what is acceptable political comment on Israel, the so-called IHRA Wording Definition of Antisemitism has resulted in speech and actions being described as antisemitic which are not. There is growing evidence that this has had a chilling effect on freedom of speech. In the internet age, it has become easier to locate critics of Israel or Zionism and denounce them as antisemites. Lerman relates how the Israeli government has spearheaded moves to institutionalise the fight against the “new antisemitism,” targeting in particular campaigners who support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), who allege that Israel pursues a policy of Apartheid in Occupied Palestinian Territories or accuse it of being a racist state.

Anonymous smears

Rev Sizer has been the victim of a campaign to brand him as an antisemite since long before the 9/11 post for which he apologised in 2015. In a one-year period September 2008-July 2009 more than 100 anonymous articles about him were published on a website called Seismic Shock, attempting to associate him with Holocaust denial, antisemitism and terrorism. A police investigation resulted in an individual being instructed to stop writing defamatory material about him and remove it from their website. Anonymous writings from this same individual have been used by the BoD  against Rev Sizer, in 2012 and again in this most recent case. His lawyers argued that this is an abuse of the Church disciplinary process. They also pointed out that much of the provocation and offence claimed by the Board was likely to result from the sources they relied on loudly publicising their allegations.

Rev Sizer is adamant in rejecting the antisemitism charges levelled against him. He said in his witness statement: “I have repeatedly and unequivocally repudiated racism, antisemitism and Holocaust denial in my lectures, books and website articles.”

Most of the charges relied on biased sources citing little or no evidence in an attempt to brand Rev Sizer as an antisemite. The Tribunal rejected all of the following charges:

  • “close association with and promotion of terrorists” for attending an Islamic Human Rights Commission conference in July 2005 .
  • “promoting Holocaust denier and antisemitic conspiracy theorist Michael Hoffman” in 2008.
  • supporting the views of Holocaust deniers and far-right figures, based on two allegations from the Seismic Shock anonymous blogger, in 2008 and again in 2009.
  • Associating in 2011 with a Palestinian Islamic leader, Raed Salah, who had been accused of “spreading the blood libel claim against Jews and otherwise inciting antisemitism”.
  • Posting links in 2011 to antisemitic websites, based on an unspecified source. (In this case Rev Sizer was subjected to a months-long campaign by members of the pro-Israel Council of Christians and Jews, calling for his dismissal from the Church, copying their complaints to his staff and publicising their grievances on the internet.)
  • breaching the terms of an earlier conciliation agreement with the Church by attending an event in October 2016 chaired by Baroness Jenny Tonge.
  • Sharing on Facebook a Middle East Eye article in 2018 entitled “Is Israel’s hidden hand behind the attacks on Jeremy Corbyn?”
So what did he do wrong?

 Although Rev Sizer was not found guilty of unbecoming conduct or antisemitism in the above cases, the Tribunal said that he had often demonstrated “lack of awareness of his being a public representative of the Church and showed a lack of sensitivity to the Jewish community.”

He had acknowledged this in 2012, when a number of the earlier allegations were resolved in a conciliation agreement which recorded his regret that on occasions his use of language had caused offence. He also accepted that he should have taken more care before linking to certain websites, although he denied that he had intended to introduce his readers to antisemitic material. He committed to having his website and blog monitored in order to check their content and links.

On the following three  counts the Tribunal judgement in December found that he was guilty of unbecoming conduct.

  • being photographed with Sheikh Nabil Kaouk, a senior commander of Hezbollah forces in Southern Lebanon in 2006. The BoD Complaint cites a Daily Mail article dated 9 August 2015, written by Jake Wallis Simons, now editor of the Jewish Chronicle. Rev Sizer says in his witness statement that he was in Beirut for a book launch at the Hagazion Christian University after Israel had invaded and then withdrawn from Southern Lebanon. He was invited to do a TV interview and to meet Sheikh Kaouk, seizing the opportunity “to intercede for the release of Jews [Israeli soldiers captured during the invasion].” The Tribunal said: “It showed an extraordinary lack of sensitivity to be photographed in clerical dress meeting Sheikh Kaouk. The Tribunal considers that the matter was conduct unbecoming and inappropriate for an ordained minister.”
  • In September 2010, he posted a link on his website to an article under the heading “9/11 The Mother of All Coincidences” suggesting that the “official” version of what happened on September 11, 2001 was not credible. In his statement, Rev Sizer drew attention to the article’s conclusion that “but I’ve seen no hard evidence to date that 9/11 was a plot by America’s far right or by Israel or a giant cover-up.” The Tribunal said that Red Sizer “as an ordained minister, should not have been giving the oxygen of publicity” to an article which “raised the issue as to whether 9/11 was a plot by Israel.” The Tribunal concluded, with one member dissenting, that his conduct was unbecoming and inappropriate. This is a separate case to the later posting of a link to a different article about 9/11
  • The BoD alleged that Rev Sizer had defended the 9/11 Facebook post for which he had apologised in 2015, in an Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio interview on March 30, 2018. The evidence cited included an article published by the Australian Jewish News which criticised the broadcaster for providing him “with a credible platform to spew his anti-Israel venom.” During an hour-long interview, Rev Sizer answered questions about the antisemitism allegations against him, saying “With hindsight, I probably wish I hadn’t put a hyperlink to an article about 9/11.” The Tribunal concluded, with one member dissenting, that his conduct was unbecoming and inappropriate.
One finding of antisemitic conduct

 The most serious allegation concerned the link to one particular article about 9/11 which Rev Sizer posted in 2015. The Tribunal found the tone and content of the article shocking and repellent – so much so that it did not include extracts in its decision. It differed from the earlier article which hinted that Israel played a role in 9/11. This one blamed Israel and referred to a number of people who “are members of the American Jewish community.” The Tribunal said that posting it was in breach of the 2012 conciliation agreement; it was not convinced by Rev Sizer’s claim that he had not read the article in full before posting it, nor that he was unaware how offensive it was.

It said that neither Rev Sizer’s writings nor statements express antisemitic views, but “on this occasion [he] crossed the line, and in reposting the article, he was engaging in antisemitic activity. … The article goes far beyond the criticism of Israel and is virulently antisemitic in its content. It fulfils all the tropes of classic antisemitism.”

It is on the basis of this judgement alone that the Board of Deputies is claiming victory for its denunciations of Rev Sizer, even though most of its allegations, often derived from malicious sources with an axe to grind, were not upheld. By and large the Tribunal has taken care to – in its own words – “consider context when distinguishing between antisemitism and criticism of the State of Israel.” It could teach the Labour Party a thing or two!

It says of Rev Sizer, “the Tribunal does not conclude that the Respondent is antisemitic by nature… to reach the conclusion that he was antisemitic, it would be contrary to all that [he] has said or written and what others have said on his behalf.

“he is someone who believes passionately in the rights of Christian Palestinians, and other Palestinians, sometimes to the exclusion of values that he knows or should have known that he is required to uphold as an ordained minister.”

It also says, hinting at disciplinary measures which may be intended to placate a Board of Deputies wounded by the failure of most of its allegations: “It does consider that there is regrettably a pattern of behaviour which falls short of the standard to which the Respondent should have aspired as an ordained minister.”

Despite straining to appear fair to Rev Sizer, the Church cannot avoid the consequences of ceding to the BoD the role of unchallengeable representative of “The Jewish Community”. It has granted the Board the right to dictate what shall be deemed offensive to Jews. It has bowed to pressure by reviving old charges against Rev Sizer, most particularly in the case of the 2015 post about 9/11.

He removed the post as soon as he was contacted about it by the Rural Dean. On 30 January 2015, the Diocese published a press statement on his behalf in which he asserted, “I have never believed Israel, or any other country was complicit in the terrorist atrocity of 9/11, and my sharing of this material was ill-considered and misguided.” He agreed to cease using Facebook for six months. The Bishop of Guildford then introduced sanctions, to which Rev Sizer consented, banning him from “writing or speaking on any theme that related, directly or indirectly, to the current situation in the Middle East or its historical backdrop.” These severe limitations were in place for almost three years until Rev Sizer retired from his parish in April 2017.

Jonathan Arkush, president of the Board of Deputies at the time, acknowledged that the matter had been dealt with appropriately. So we must ask, why was the same allegation revived in the latest round of charges?

Comments (10)

  • David Hawkins says:

    Suggesting Israel was behind 9/11 may we’ll be idiotic but it is not racist. If you said “Jews were behind 9/11” that would be racist but how can an accusation against a state be racist ?
    This “crime” only makes sense if you believe Israel is the embodiment of the Jewish people or the Jewish nation. The problem with this is there is no such thing as a Jewish nation.
    If we weren’t all still feeling guilty about the slaughter of six million Jews the idea that White European Jews, Jews from Iraq and Iran and Ethiopian Jews were part of the same race would seem totally preposterous.
    And even if we suspended rationality and believed that Jews are a people then the idea of a homeland for them is inherently racist. Palestine was full of an indigenous Palestinian population in 1948 so if you were going to create a homeland for Jews in 1948 that had by definition to involve ethnically cleansing most of them.
    So far from purging itself of racism, this decision proves that the Church of England is institutionally racist.

    0
    1
  • Anthony Sperryn says:

    I don’t think Archbishop Desmond Tutu would have tolerated all this time-wasting rubbish in his Diocese.

    0
    0
  • Janet Crosley says:

    The Anglican Church here is too quiet about the situation in Israel and Palestine. They have a Cathedral, in Jerusalem, and parishes all over the area. One of the priests started the Clergy for Peace group with a Rabbi and an Imam. He also Chaired the Committee for the Defence of the Lands, which proceeded with the General strike on 30th March 1976.
    It wil be interesting to see what could happen to the Church and Holy sites if the Israeli authority succeeds in acquiring the whole of Jerusalem.

    0
    0
  • Jacob Ecclestone says:

    Stephen Sizer will be remembered for his courage, his conscience and his Christian principles long after the bishops and his accusers from the board of deputies have been forgotten.

    He is condemned and punished because he “provoked and offended the Jewish community,” something now prohibited by the Church of England as “unbecoming and inappropriate conduct”.

    This is absurd, given that a vastly greater number of people in these islands have been “provoked and offended” by the insensitive, not to say bigoted behaviour of Archbishop Justin Welby towards members of the LGBT + community”. For someone required to follow Christ, Mr Welby shows an unhealthy tolerance towards the corruption and state violence which 12 years of Tory government have inflicted on Britain. Furthermore, in 2015 Mr Welby declared “a determination to build bridges of peace (in the Middle East)” and pledged to “continue to speak in the House of Lords in advocacy for those who are suffering from the humanitarian disaster in the region.”

    As far as I am aware, the Archbishop has been an entirely silent “advocate” for the people of Palestine who are suffering from the disaster of Israeli apartheid. Can any of your readers correct me on this point?

    There is a second absurdity. The Church of England has now formally declared that it was “unbecoming and insensitive” for a parish priest to be photographed (“in clerical dress” ) with the Muslim Sheikh Kaouk. That being the case, what are we to make of the following :

    * Elizabeth Windsor, head of the Church of England, welcoming the Rumanian dictator, Ceaucescu ?

    * Margaret Thatcher greeting the Chilean butcher, General Pinochet?

    * Tony Blair embracing Colonel Gaddafi ?

    * Prince Charles (now King – and head of the C of E) glad-handing with the murderous Mohammed Bin Salman?

    The trial and guilty verdict on Stephen Sizer may turn out to be the death rattle of the Church of England.

    1
    1
  • David Hawkins says:

    When the head chopping, women enslaving king of Saudi Arabia Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz died in January 2015, the flag on Westminster Abbey was lowered to commemorate his passing. The King banned the practice of Christianity and Judaism in his Kingdom and even the possession of Jewish or Christian Bible was a serious offence.
    When the Dean of Westminster ordered the lowering of the flag that was most certainly “conduct unbecoming” as well as being offensively anti Semitic so can we look forward to the Dean of Westminster receiving a 12 year ban ?

    2
    0
  • For long years Stephen has been the target for such nastyness . Geoffrey Alderman was to write to Middlesex University castigating them for awarding a Ph.D to him. Middlesex University made no attempt to kow-tow and were robust in defending Stephen and their own academic standards . None of his (Geoffrey) business.

    0
    0
  • Alan Stanton says:

    “Is the accuser always holy now?”
    Part of a heartfelt plea spoken by John Proctor a character in Arthur Miller’s Play: The Crucible.
    It seems that despite his partial recanting, for ,today’s Proctors the answer must always be ‘Yes’.
    And to paraphrase Miller’s next words:
    In the Middle Eastern Salem, where new Right-wing rulers “are jangling the keys of the kingdom”, and “vengeance writes the law?”

    0
    0
  • James Dickins says:

    David Hawkins 31st January 2023 at 21:34 “Suggesting Israel was behind 9/11 may we’ll be idiotic but it is not racist.”
    ______________________________________________

    What is interesting and significant are the close links of members of the Saudi monarchy/regime to the 9/11 hijackers.

    See:

    “By letting Saudi Arabia off the hook over 9/11, the US encouraged violent jihadism”:
    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/9-11-20-years-saudi-arabia-al-qaeda-b1917890.html

    “Crime and Punishment: Will the 9/11 case finally go to trial?”: https://harpers.org/archive/2017/10/crime-and-punishment-4/

    0
    0
  • Liz Gifford says:

    So sad. B o D is indeed a very powerful group.

    0
    0
  • Leah Levane says:

    This excellent statement from Kairos USA will, I am sure, be of interest

    0
    0

Comments are now closed.