In 2017, at the height of the Zionist assault on Jeremy Corbyn and anyone who supported him, Dorset Eye was caught in the crossfire as organisations such as Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) and the toxic Rachel Riley and others did their utmost to destroy democracy. The following article by CAA has been used by some to justify their hatred of Dorset Eye because of their exposure of the tyranny of Zionism and their venomous supporters. Had we had the resources at the time, we would have sought justice ourselves in the courts. Thankfully, eight years on, justice has prevailed. They have come up against someone who did have the resources and they were torn to shreds.
The Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) claims to exist to protect Jewish people from hatred. This week, a court judgment exposed how dangerously hollow that claim can become when activism mutates into authoritarianism.
In a devastating ruling at Westminster Magistrates Court, District Judge Michael Snow quashed a criminal summons brought by CAA against the comedian Reginald D. Hunter, finding that the organisation had misled the court, withheld key evidence, and pursued the case for one reason alone: to have Hunter “cancelled.”
Those are not the words of critics or political opponents. They are the words of a judge.
Snow ruled that the prosecution was not merely flawed but abusive. He said that had the full facts been disclosed, he would never have issued the summons in the first place. In other words, the criminal justice system was manipulated into service for an ideological vendetta.
A Private Prosecution Built on Omission
CAA brought a private prosecution accusing Hunter of sending offensive communications to activist Heidi Bachram. But the court found that CAA’s summary of events was “wholly inadequate” and “misleading.”
Most damningly, the judge said the charity failed to disclose the context of Bachram’s own actions—specifically, the volume and intensity of tweets she directed at Hunter in the weeks leading up to his responses. Those tweets, sent between 15 August and 11 September, were central to understanding that Hunter was responding to an online campaign to have him professionally “cancelled,” not attacking Judaism or Jewish identity.
CAA’s omission of this context was not accidental. Snow cited a “wilful, repeated failure” to meet disclosure obligations. That phrase carries serious weight in legal terms. It signals intent, not error.
The judge concluded unequivocally:
“I have no doubt that the prosecution is abusive.”
The Criminal Courts as a Political Weapon
This ruling cuts to the heart of a disturbing pattern. According to Hunter’s lawyer, Rebecca Chalkley KC, the court was led to believe CAA was merely a neutral charity with no history of controversy. That impression, she said, was false.
She accused the organisation of being a vexatious litigant and of “using the courts for their own political agenda.”
That allegation is now backed by a judicial finding that CAA sought to use the criminal justice system for “improper reasons.”
This matters far beyond one comedian.
Private prosecutions are an extraordinary power. They exist to fill gaps in justice, not to bypass public scrutiny, avoid evidential standards, or punish speech that powerful lobby groups dislike. When an organisation exploits that power while withholding evidence, it doesn’t defend justice—it corrodes it.
The Chilling Effect on Free Expression
The implications are chilling. If a well-funded campaign group can drag a performer through criminal proceedings based on selectively presented facts, the message to artists, comedians, and critics is clear: step out of line, and we will bury you in legal process.
That is not the protection of minorities. It is the enforcement of orthodoxy.
It also does profound harm to the genuine fight against antisemitism. By conflating political disagreement, satire, or self-defence against online harassment with criminal hate speech, CAA cheapens the very concept it claims to defend.
When everything becomes antisemitism, nothing is taken seriously.
Accountability Still Missing
CAA’s prosecutor insisted the organisation had complied with its duty of candour. The court flatly disagreed.
Yet there has been no apology. No acknowledgement of wrongdoing. No reflection on how an organisation claiming moral authority came to be rebuked for misleading a judge and abusing the justice system.
Until there is real accountability, this case stands as a warning: when campaign groups abandon fairness and transparency in pursuit of ideological goals, they do not protect democracy—they endanger it.
And when the courts are forced to step in and shut them down, it is not “cancel culture” at work.
It is the rule of law defending itself.
