“The central message arising from the tribunal is that the well-documented accusations of repeated antisemitic behaviour made over more than a decade have been dismissed! Only one allegation of antisemitism has been found to have substance – but that was dealt with quickly and effectively [in 2015] at the time by the Bishop of Guildford (as Jonathan Arkush accepts), Stephen apologising for his actions, recognising the deep hurt his actions had caused and stating publicly that his sharing of the material was ill-considered and misguided and that he “never believed Israel, or any other country was complicity in the terrorist atrocity of 9/11.”

“It is significant that not one word or statement from Dr Sizer has been shown to be antisemitic. There are none.” Stephen Hofmeyr KC

To read more about my tribunal, my refutation of the complaint and the statements of over 40 witnesses see Pure Joy in Trials of many Kinds

Jewish, Muslim and Christian perspectives on the outcome of my Ecclesiastical Tribunal.

Antony Lerman

Jeff Halper

“As an Israeli Jew and the head of an Israeli human rights organization – ICAHD, the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions – I am appalled by the very thought of bringing anyone, let alone such a principled person as Stephen Sizer, before a religious Tribunal. What, are we back to the Medieval days of the Inquisition? I can’t speak for the Church of England, but Jews, the British Board of Deputies, participating in a religious Tribunal?! The very thought is appalling. What has happened to us, Jews and Christians together? Are we willing to return to the dark processes of Tribunals with no legal underpinnings, no genuine evidence or testimony, conducted solely against people whose views we don’t like – besmirch and destroy people’s lives – just to prevent criticism of Israel? Is it really so easy, in the 21^st Century, to persecute people for their religious and political views? Savonarola meets Trump?

The charges against Dr. Sizer are untrue and trumped-up – and you all know it. Antisemitism?! How do you possibly defend yourself against such a charge? In the intellectual and democratic world in which most of us live, Dr. Sizer has made a rational, well-researched case for his views and analysis presented in articles, books and lectures based firmly on academic research and religious history. But that is exactly the type of person for which Tribunals are necessary, since analyses like Dr. Sizer presents, unpopular in some partisan circles as they may be, cannot be dismissed in academic circles or barred in courts of law. They must be denounced in Tribunals with no moral, legal or intellectual authority, and as in all religious Tribunals, the person maligned and destroyed in order to somehow delegitimize his or her views. I am embarrassed for all of you – and downright angry at the Jews who participate in the dark proceeding of religious Tribunals.

Let me say this as plainly as I can. I have known Dr. Sizer for over twenty years. I respect his moral position on Israel. I certainly respect his academic work on Christian Zionism, one of the most insidious and antisemitic religious doctrines in modern history and profoundly anti-Israel (Israel exists to bring on the Christian End of Days in which virtually all Jews die or become Christians). I respect Dr. Sizer’s willingness to go beyond the comforts of parish life to engage critically in an issue of central concern to us all: how to prevent Israel from becoming the next apartheid South Africa, how to prevent Jews from becoming Afrikaners, and how to liberate the Palestinian people from the yoke of occupation and apartheid – causes Christians and Jews should be engaged with rather than outdated and discredited Tribunals. And while I don’t use Dr. Sizer’s faith-based language, I have never heard him utter a word that I would consider antisemitic. To accuse or “convict” him of such is truly medieval. It is all the more outrageous if you and your Tribunal are basing your judgement on the false and tendentious position represented by the IHRA assertion that any criticism of Israel is de facto antisemitic – a position disavowed by Kenneth Stern, who drafted the IHRA paper (only intended as a “working definition”), as well as by dozens of prominent Jewish and Israeli scholars and progressive Jewish and Israeli organizations.” Continue reading: ICAHD Supports Rev Stephen Sizer, Accused of Anti-Semitism

The Islamic Human Rights Commission

The prosecution had four years from when the complaint was first lodged to find witnesses (from among the many clergy, congregants or parishioners who have known Rev. Sizer over 45 years of Christian ministry), willing to corroborate the allegations made by the Board of Deputies. They did not present a single person. They also had more than enough time to trawl through the texts of hundreds of Stephen’s sermons, talks and videos published online for incriminating evidence of antisemitism. They could not find a single word. At Stephen’s tribunal, his barrister Stephen Hofmeyr KC, was quoted in the Daily Mail, as saying, “It is significant that not one word or statement from Dr Sizer has been shown to be antisemitic. There are none.” Continue reading: Tribunal rejects antisemitism accusations

The Right Revd Riah Abu El Assal

“I have known Stephen for well over 25 years. We have worked together on many occasions and he has always shown the utmost respect for adherents of different faiths, in particular to Jews and Muslims while advocating for Christian presence in the Land of the Holy One, Israel and Palestine, and campaigning for Palestinian human rights. I wish that more servants of Christ, bishops and clergy, were as courageous as Stephen in challenging the destructive effects of Israeli apartheid and Christian Zionism on both Jews and Palestinians. Sadly as a consequence of what I can only call western appeasement, Palestinian Christians became an endangered species in the birthplace of our faith, and the Church at large in the Holy Land is close to extinction.” .