Is Malia Bouattia an anti-Semite

Movement is movement, ideology is ideology.

The only ideology behind national movements is the concept of self determination.

The question wasn't "Was her statement on B'ham university anti-semitic" (I don't think it really was). It was "Is she an anti-semite", and I think she is. That is simply my opinion based on what I have seen and heard and I will be happy to change my opinion if presented with convincing evidence to the contrary.

The issue with Murray is that you seem to be basing your accusation of anti-Muslim bigotry on taking a statement out of context. I admit that when lifted from the speech and presented as a sound-bite, it seems a bit dodgy but in context, it clearly does not say what his opponents would claim (I also admit that he holds some right-wing views that I disagree with). Again, I am more than happy to change my position if presented with convincing evidence that he is a bigot. Has he unequivocally stated that "all Muslims are terrorists" for instance, or they they should all be "sent back", or that all Muslims refuse to integrate etc? Simply saying that there is a worrying incidence of terrorism, or that those fulfilling certain reasonable criteria (eg. foreign nationals guilty of an offence) should be deported, of that there is a problem with some sections of the Muslim community failing to integrate, is not sufficient to brand someone as a bigot - because they are all factual or reasonable.

Any statement on the acceptability of Islamic ideology or those individuals who actively promote it have nothing to do with bigotry.

"With mainstream Islamist-led media outlets - because once again we're dealing with the population of the global south - resistance is presented as an act of terrorism."

Conditions for Jews in Europe must be made harder across the board: Europe must look like a less attractive proposition. We in Europe owe – after all – no special dues to Judaism. We owe them no religious holidays, special rights or privileges. From long before we were first attacked it should have been made plain that people who come into Europe are here under our rules and not theirs. There is not an inch of ground to give on this one. Where a synagogue has become a centre of hate it should be closed and pulled down. If that means that some Jews don’t have a synagogue to go to, then they’ll just have to realise that they aren’t owed one. Grievances become ever-more pronounced the more they are flattered and the more they are paid attention to. So don’t flatter them

We should profile Jews, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be a Jew, and we should be honest about it.

On what do you base this assertion? She has certainly displayed behaviour that contained elements that could be construed as antisemitic, and she follows a religion that contains explicitly antisemitic texts, and subscribes to a political movement that has been linked with antisemitism. I happily admit that it is all circumstantial to a greater or lesser degree, but it's all we have.
Remember that I'm not saying that she is, just that I think she is but I am prepared to change my opinion if contradictory evidence is presented.
You are categorically stating that she is not. So, what is the evidence that supports your assertion? If it is reasonable, I will happily change my position.

Saying that someone being Muslim is proof of anti Semitism is ridiculous. .

As for what my proof is?
Well the onus is on you my friend. Innocent until proven guilty. If you are making an assertion that a person is racist, homophobic or anti semitic, then you have to prove it. Just as you would if you made an assertion that someone was a murderer.

You are accusing someone of something very serious, you need to be
able on back that up.

Besides how on earth can you prove someone isn't anti Semitic or racist? You cannot. The burden rests on those claiming she is.

The starting point is that a person is no bigoted until prove no otherwise, not that they are until their innocence is proven.

Agreed. Which is why I didn't say it. I merely said that she follows a religion that contains explicitly antisemitic texts. Please address what I said, not what you want me to have said.

I think you misunderstand the concept of the burden of proof.
I merely stated an opinion that I clearly admitted was based on circumstantial evidence (which I presented) and may be wrong.
You made an explicit and unequivocal assertion. Therefore, therefore the onus is also on you to support your position.
You didn't say "I don't accept your argument, please support it", you said "An antisemite she is not".

I did, kinda.
Now you need to back up your assertion.

Ah, so you agree that your position of "An antisemite she is not" is unsupportable, and you should have said, "I don't know whether she is or not, but I don't want her to be".
My position is "I don't care whather she is or not, but the available evidence suggest that it is a possibility".
At this point I should admit that my OP was a little flippant. It know that I should have said, "I think she is" or "She gives that appearance", or something. And for that, I apologise. It was not good enough. I've let her down, I've let you down, but most of all I've let myself down.

Are you sure. We are not talking about an accusation of committing a criminal offence. We are talking about an opinion or position on a subjective issue. The default position should be neutral. When you first meet someone, do you make other assumptions about their likes and dislikes, or do you reserve judgement until they give you some indication?

In this case, we should indeed reserve judgement on her position on Jews until she makes come statements or comments that give some indication as to her position. She has done that, and my opinion moved from one of "not knowing" to one of "having some idea".
Now, if you consider that the statements she made about the issue has left you none the wiser about her position, then that's entirely up to you.

They are all serious, defamatory accusations which can badly damage a personal reputation and they should not be made lightly.

My evidence that he has has not said no or done anything anti Semitic and therefore we assume she is not.
Your 'evidence' is that she is Muslim
ANd left wing so therefore probably anti Semitic.

Zionism stinks

How about feelings of Jewish students regarding her statements? Should they enjoy her statement about “mainstream Zionist-led media outlets”? Or her actual support of armed resistance against Israelis?

Don't confuse your opinion with evidence.
The fact is that Muslims and the left today are the main reason of rise of anti-semitism in Britain. That's why Malia Bouattia should shut up with her hateful rhetoric.

She criticised Zionism, not Jews.

Zionism is a political ideology

criticising it is not anti Semitic in the same way that criticising Islam does not make one a racist.

You don't have a right not to be offended.

Stop calling people who disagree with you anti Semitic.

If you disagree with her then debate her and offer substantively arguments.

Nothing she has said has been anti Semitic.

I've already said it several times that Zionism is a national Jewish movement. Is it so difficult to open a dictionary instead of repeating again and again your nonsense?
Oxford dictionary:
Zionism
A movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel

Criticizing Zionism means that Jews have no right to have their national state. If this is not anti-semitic, then what is?

Show me an article in British law which permits offending people.

You are not ready to accept any arguments which contradict your political agenda.

Your cynicism stinks.

Oxford dictionary:
Zionism
A movement..

No Zionism is not a 'movement'; it's a political ideology.

Poor logic. Is anyone who voted against the Scots right to self determination racist then? Are they prejudiced against Scots?

That's not how law works. Everything starts off legal until outlawed. Not the other way round.

In other words you disagree with someone and therefore trying to shut them down and tar them by accusing them of being anti Semitic.

No, I just want honest and open debate.

Aren't you going to play the 'anti Semite' card?

Can I from now on call you "Our Great Teacher"?

Nope. The question in the referendum was "Should Scotland be an independent country?". "should", not "can". Do you understand the difference, Our Great Teacher?
Not to mention the fact that comparison of Scottish people, voted in their independence referendum, and Malia Bouattia, who attacks Zionism, is utterly stupid.

You forgot common law, which defines general constitutional principles.
Anyway, is there a law which generally forbids being a dishonest person? or generally prohibits lie? Supposing the answer is "no", is it OK be dishonest or be a liar?

It's not about me, but about Jewish British students. And it's not about disagreement, but about offensive speech.

It looks like you have your own definition of "honest and open debate", if you even deny Oxford basic definitions.

Criticizing Zionism means that Jews have no right to have their national state. If this is not anti-semitic, then what is?

Not to mention the fact that comparison of Scottish people, voted in their independence referendum, and Malia Bouattia, who attacks Zionism, is utterly stupid.