Featured

Maccabi Tel Aviv fan ban: Pro-Gaza MP denies ‘antisemitic’ accusations

Pro-Gaza MP Ayoub Khan has insisted that he “is not a racist” after supporting the decision to ban Maccabi Tel Aviv fans from the Aston Villa game next month.

The local politician has been hit with a deluge of antisemitic accusations after he backed the decision to bar fans of Israeli team Maccabi Tel Aviv from their fixture against Aston Villa on November 6.


Hitting out at the “echo chamber” of views, Mr Khan responded: “If I’ve supported the fact that Russian teams were being banned because of the atrocities that are being committed in Ukraine, I have held and maintained the same consistency when it comes to Israel’s Israeli football teams.

“We have had more than 800 athletes murdered in Gaza, 350 of them footballers and a very prominent footballer, 41-year-old Mr Salam Soleimani, who was killed whilst waiting for food.

“Eric Cantona asking for the boycott of Israel football teams. So there is a moral argument and, you know, people will dilute that word.

“It means very little when all you’ve done is stood up for principle and have been labelled something which you’re not. I’m not a racist.

In a statement published late on Thursday night, West Midlands Police said classifying the game as “high risk” was the right move and would help “mitigate risks to public safety”.

Sir Keir has since criticised the move, declaring it “wrong”.

On Thursday evening, Sir Keir said: “This is the wrong decision. We will not tolerate antisemitism on our streets.

“The role of the police is to ensure all football fans can enjoy the game, without fear of violence or intimidation.”

But Mr Khan slammed the Labour leader for condemning the move, telling GB News: “I don’t think that politicians should get involved in matters that are outside of our expertise.

“The fact that the Prime Minister has labelled this decision as antisemitic is disingenuous.

Ayoub Khan

The MP who backed the decision to ban Israeli football fans from an Aston Villa game has insisted he ‘is not a racist’

|

GB NEWS

MACCABI TEL AVIV FAN BAN – READ MORE:

“It’s disingenuous on the great West Midlands Police force we have here and those individuals that participated in that objective analysis of intelligence and information that they must have collected over the last few months and made a finding that this was a match that they could not police to ensure the safety of not just residents, local businesses, private hire drivers, but also fans coming in to the town.”

Earlier on Friday, the club’s chief executive, Jack Angelides, joined Sir Keir in blasting the decision as “antisemitic”, warning that a series of “small” moves could precede more “sinister” events.

Mr Angelides said: “To be frank, it’s been met with some dismay about what this is potentially signalling.

“We understand the reasons that have been put to us — that the authorities feel unable to adequately protect our fans who would be attending the match,” he told BBC Radio 4.

Keir Starmer speaking with Jewish community at the Community Security Trust (CST) on October 15

Sir Keir said the decision to ban fans from attending was ‘wrong’

|

PA

He continued: “But I do think this is an extremely important moment because of what it signifies.

“I don’t use this term lightly, but people ask what antisemitism looks like? Small events, leading up to something more sinister.

“We have British Maccabi Tel Aviv fans who are Jewish, and they are being told it is not safe in their own country to watch a football match.”

Meanwhile, other than the Prime Minister, other Westminster bigwigs have come out swinging, with Reform chief saying the ban “takes racial discrimination to a whole new level”.

Source link

Related Posts

On April 12, 2021, a Knoxville police officer shot and killed an African American male student in a bathroom at Austin-East High School. The incident caused social unrest, and community members began demanding transparency about the shooting, including the release of the officer’s body camera video. On the evening of April 19, 2021, the Defendant and a group of protestors entered the Knoxville City-County Building during a Knox County Commission meeting. The Defendant activated the siren on a bullhorn and spoke through the bullhorn to demand release of the video. Uniformed police officers quickly escorted her and six other individuals out of the building and arrested them for disrupting the meeting. The court upheld defendants’ conviction for “disrupting a lawful meeting,” defined as “with the intent to prevent [a] gathering, … substantially obstruct[ing] or interfere[ing] with the meeting, procession, or gathering by physical action or verbal utterance.” Taken in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence shows that the Defendant posted on Facebook the day before the meeting and the day of the meeting that the protestors were going to “shut down” the meeting. During the meeting, the Defendant used a bullhorn to activate a siren for approximately twenty seconds. Witnesses at trial described the siren as “loud,” “high-pitched,” and “alarming.” Commissioner Jay called for “Officers,” and the Defendant stated through the bullhorn, “Knox County Commission, your meeting is over.” Commissioner Jay tried to bring the meeting back into order by banging his gavel, but the Defendant continued speaking through the bullhorn. Even when officers grabbed her and began escorting her out of the Large Assembly Room, she continued to disrupt the meeting by yelling for the officers to take their hands off her and by repeatedly calling them “murderers.” Commissioner Jay called a ten-minute recess during the incident, telling the jury that it was “virtually impossible” to continue the meeting during the Defendant’s disruption. The Defendant herself testified that the purpose of attending the meeting was to disrupt the Commission’s agenda and to force the Commission to prioritize its discussion on the school shooting. Although the duration of the disruption was about ninety seconds, the jury was able to view multiple videos of the incident and concluded that the Defendant substantially obstructed or interfered with the meeting. The evidence is sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction. Defendant also claimed the statute was “unconstitutionally vague as applied to her because the statute does not state that it includes government meetings,” but the appellate court concluded that she had waived the argument by not raising it adequately below. Sean F. McDermott, Molly T. Martin, and Franklin Ammons, Assistant District Attorneys General, represent the state.

From State v. Every, decided by the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals…

1 of 83