Magistrate given warning for posting Hamas video
A magistrate has been given a formal warning for serious misconduct by a judicial watchdog for sharing on social media a video from Hamas about the 7 October 2023 attacks on Israel.
Abdul Malik, who is also a Bristol City councillor and mosque leader, originally claimed he had only been tagged in the post but later accepted he must have shared the post himself.
The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) found Mr Malik had "failed to exercise due care and diligence" and his actions "had a detrimental effect" upon the "reputation of the magistracy".
The Green Party councillor has apologised repeatedly for the incident and insisted that he does not support Hamas.
The party said "he has made abundantly clear that he does not endorse" the contents of the post he shared.
In a statement published on Tuesday, the JCIO said the post on Mr Malik's Facebook timeline in October 2023 contained "a video from Hamas regarding their attack on southern Israel".
Mr Malik told the media in early 2024 that he had been tagged in the post by someone else, and that it appeared on his account because it was not protected.
But this account was challenged and he later informed his superiors that he had "discovered he must have shared the post himself", with an investigation then launched.
The JCIO said: "He explained that he had shared the post without checking its source or content, and did not endorse it, comment on it or 'like' it.
"He agreed the post was offensive and he emphasised that he does not support Hamas.
"He said he had been consistently critical of Hamas in his position as chair of a large mosque in Bristol. He removed the post as soon as he became aware of it and said he regretted sharing it and had learned from the incident."
The JCIO said Mr Malik claimed his original explanation was given "in good faith" and that he had revised it when he realised it was not correct.
A nominated JCIO committee member found that Mr Malik's initial denial of responsibility for the post "was publicly discredited and compounded the damage caused by the initial sharing of the post".
Committee members recommended that Mr Malik be issued with a formal warning, noting his "previously unblemished conduct record and good standing within the community".
The added he had been "consistently remorseful" following the incident.
High Court judge Mr Justice Keehan, as well as the Lord Chancellor Shabana Mahmood, agreed with the sanction, the statement added.
The Green Party said Mr Malik had "a long history of condemning Hamas in his role in his local mosque".
A statement added: "Crucially he has shown learning from the incident and understood the offence and hurt it caused.
"Councillor Malik has the party's full backing as an effective and hard-working councillor in Bristol and hopes that this will draw a line under this serious ill-judged action."
Follow BBC Bristol on Facebook, X and Instagram. Send your story ideas to us on email or via WhatsApp on 0800 313 4630.
Calls for peace and unity after violent unrest
'Far-right know they'll never succeed in Bristol'
Anger and safety concerns over flooded graves
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
26 minutes ago
- CNN
With no clear exit strategy in Iran, Israel risks another war with no end
Despite stunning early successes in Israel's unprecedented strikes on Iran, a weekend of intensive bombardment and retaliation is raising questions about Israel's exit strategy – how it can end this conflict with its ambitious goals achieved. While Israeli war planes pummel Iranian military and nuclear sites virtually unopposed, dozens of Israelis have been killed and injured in retaliatory Iranian attacks. Meanwhile, the United States – though helping Israel defend against Iranian missile strikes – is for the moment refusing to take part in attacking Iran, forcing Israel to reassess what its military operations can achieve. 'The end will be diplomatic, not military,' one Israeli source told CNN, adding the Israeli hope is now that its ongoing military action 'weakens Iran's negotiating hand' in any future nuclear talks. This same theory, that Israeli military action will pressure an adversary to make concessions, has failed to force Hamas in Gaza to cave. Still, the mere mention of Iranian negotiations as a possible outcome suggests a shifting view. From the start of the unprecedented strikes on Iran last week, Israel made its aims perfectly clear. The intention, one Israeli military official spelled out to CNN, was to permanently remove the Islamic Republic's 'existential' nuclear and ballistic missile threats. And no time limit would be set, the official insisted, to fulfil that military objective. But that ambition, always highly dependent on the United States joining Israel militarily, has now run up against the reality of US reluctance to get drawn into yet another Mideast war. Sources familiar with the matter tell CNN that Israel has spoken with the US about increasing its level of involvement. But President Donald Trump remains – at least publicly – reluctant to plunge the US into another Mideast war and has continued to distance himself from the violence. One US official told CNN that Trump rejected an Israeli plan to kill Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and the US president is himself insisting that, far from entering the conflict, he is determined to broker an end to it. 'Iran and Israel should make a deal, and will make a deal, just like I got India and Pakistan to make,' Trump posted on his Truth Social platform on Sunday, referring to his intervention last month in a brief confrontation between the two South Asian nuclear neighbors over the disputed territory of Kashmir. But unlike both India and Pakistan, Israel needs America's firepower, not its diplomatic intervention. Despite Israel's success in killing key nuclear scientists, as well as striking enrichment facilities, inflicting lasting damage on Iran's nuclear program is still beyond its capabilities. Some of the most important locations are buried deep underground, such as the Fordow enrichment facility in northern Iran, which is built inside a mountain. Without US military involvement, including logistics support and bunker busting firepower, Iran's capabilities could survive even a prolonged Israeli pounding. There's another flaw with the Israeli strategy too. Even if every facility were destroyed, they could eventually be rebuilt by a regime that has institutional nuclear know-how. Moreover, if the Iranian regime survives the current onslaught it may understandably calculate that a nuclear deterrent, not a new nuclear deal, is its best defense against future attack. Mindful of this, the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has repeatedly called on Iranian citizens 'to act, to rise up' and topple their government. But intensive bombing campaigns have a way of rallying people around even the most unpopular regimes. Interviews conducted by CNN inside Iran suggest that even long-oppressed Iranians are now even more furious with Israel than they are with their own unpopular leaders. Of course, it is less than a week into the escalating conflict and much could still change. Iranians could rise up; nuclear negotiations could resume; President Trump could even change his mind. But not for the first time, Israel is engulfed in a conflict with no clear exit strategy. It's ongoing war in Gaza, launched in 2023 after the October 7 attacks, was aimed at destroying Hamas and securing the release of all the hostages being held, but there is still no clear plan for what will follow. Now, Israelis face yet another grinding, dangerous war of attrition, with no time limits and no clear end.
CNN
26 minutes ago
- CNN
With no clear exit strategy in Iran, Israel risks another war with no end
Despite stunning early successes in Israel's unprecedented strikes on Iran, a weekend of intensive bombardment and retaliation is raising questions about Israel's exit strategy – how it can end this conflict with its ambitious goals achieved. While Israeli war planes pummel Iranian military and nuclear sites virtually unopposed, dozens of Israelis have been killed and injured in retaliatory Iranian attacks. Meanwhile, the United States – though helping Israel defend against Iranian missile strikes – is for the moment refusing to take part in attacking Iran, forcing Israel to reassess what its military operations can achieve. 'The end will be diplomatic, not military,' one Israeli source told CNN, adding the Israeli hope is now that its ongoing military action 'weakens Iran's negotiating hand' in any future nuclear talks. This same theory, that Israeli military action will pressure an adversary to make concessions, has failed to force Hamas in Gaza to cave. Still, the mere mention of Iranian negotiations as a possible outcome suggests a shifting view. From the start of the unprecedented strikes on Iran last week, Israel made its aims perfectly clear. The intention, one Israeli military official spelled out to CNN, was to permanently remove the Islamic Republic's 'existential' nuclear and ballistic missile threats. And no time limit would be set, the official insisted, to fulfil that military objective. But that ambition, always highly dependent on the United States joining Israel militarily, has now run up against the reality of US reluctance to get drawn into yet another Mideast war. Sources familiar with the matter tell CNN that Israel has spoken with the US about increasing its level of involvement. But President Donald Trump remains – at least publicly – reluctant to plunge the US into another Mideast war and has continued to distance himself from the violence. One US official told CNN that Trump rejected an Israeli plan to kill Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and the US president is himself insisting that, far from entering the conflict, he is determined to broker an end to it. 'Iran and Israel should make a deal, and will make a deal, just like I got India and Pakistan to make,' Trump posted on his Truth Social platform on Sunday, referring to his intervention last month in a brief confrontation between the two South Asian nuclear neighbors over the disputed territory of Kashmir. But unlike both India and Pakistan, Israel needs America's firepower, not its diplomatic intervention. Despite Israel's success in killing key nuclear scientists, as well as striking enrichment facilities, inflicting lasting damage on Iran's nuclear program is still beyond its capabilities. Some of the most important locations are buried deep underground, such as the Fordow enrichment facility in northern Iran, which is built inside a mountain. Without US military involvement, including logistics support and bunker busting firepower, Iran's capabilities could survive even a prolonged Israeli pounding. There's another flaw with the Israeli strategy too. Even if every facility were destroyed, they could eventually be rebuilt by a regime that has institutional nuclear know-how. Moreover, if the Iranian regime survives the current onslaught it may understandably calculate that a nuclear deterrent, not a new nuclear deal, is its best defense against future attack. Mindful of this, the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has repeatedly called on Iranian citizens 'to act, to rise up' and topple their government. But intensive bombing campaigns have a way of rallying people around even the most unpopular regimes. Interviews conducted by CNN inside Iran suggest that even long-oppressed Iranians are now even more furious with Israel than they are with their own unpopular leaders. Of course, it is less than a week into the escalating conflict and much could still change. Iranians could rise up; nuclear negotiations could resume; President Trump could even change his mind. But not for the first time, Israel is engulfed in a conflict with no clear exit strategy. It's ongoing war in Gaza, launched in 2023 after the October 7 attacks, was aimed at destroying Hamas and securing the release of all the hostages being held, but there is still no clear plan for what will follow. Now, Israelis face yet another grinding, dangerous war of attrition, with no time limits and no clear end.
Fox News
2 hours ago
- Fox News
I know why the UN Security Council is irrelevant to Gaza. I was there when the US stood up for Israel
On October 7, 2023, like many around the world, I awoke to news of the horrific attacks perpetrated by Hamas against more than 1,200 innocent Israeli, American and other civilians who that day were doing nothing other than going about their lives. The television newscasts were bone-chilling – pictures of mutilated babies; of fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers slain in front of family members; of peace activists murdered in cold blood; and of the taking of 250 hostages, some of whom more than 20 months on are still being held. Later that day, the United States called for an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council to address this mass terror attack, the largest murder of Jews since the Holocaust. As the American ambassador to the UN responsible for Security Council matters, I represented the United States at the October 8 emergency meeting and demanded the council issue a statement expressly condemning Hamas for the ruthless terrorist attacks. Unfortunately, Russia, China and a few other council members refused to endorse such a statement. To put it simply, their refusal to call a spade a spade was abhorrent and incomprehensible. Note: To this day, the Security Council has yet to formally declare Hamas a terrorist group. Going into the October 8 emergency Security Council meeting, there had rightfully been much global sympathy for Israel – and certainly an expectation that Israel would have to respond militarily. However, once Israel took measures to defend itself, a right enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter, many nations, most notably from the Global South, condemned Israel's response as disproportionate and used it as a rallying cry to further isolate Israel in the multilateral system and beyond. To me and many of my U.S. government colleagues, this was not unexpected. Since joining the UN in 1948, there has been an unfortunate decline in support for Israel at the world body, a decline that began to accelerate following the period of decolonization in the 1960s. Many former colonies wrongly began to view the Israel-Palestinian conflict through the prism of their own struggles against European colonizers, with Israel viewed as a colonizer and the Palestinians as being colonized. Israel's relationship with the UN reached a nadir in 1975, when the UN General Assembly passed a highly politicized resolution equating Zionism with racism, a document that was finally revoked by the UNGA in 1991. Regrettably, efforts by the Palestinians and their supporters to isolate Israel at the UN have not abated and in fact have intensified since October 7, 2023. During my two-plus years in New York as ambassador, I engaged in a great deal of difficult diplomacy on the situation in Gaza and cast the sole veto of two UNSC draft resolutions related to the war, both of which lacked a clear condemnation of Hamas, a direct linkage of a ceasefire to the release of hostages, and a reference to Israel's Article 51 rights. Had these texts been adopted by the council, they would not have delivered an immediate ceasefire or a release of the hostages – but certainly would have given Hamas the time and space to rearm. Other council representatives privately agreed but nevertheless felt increasing pressure from their capitals to produce a council document calling for an immediate ceasefire. From the beginning of the conflict through the end of the Biden administration, the U.S. regularly proffered creative alternatives on ceasefire language, while most other council members insisted on an explicit reference to an immediate ceasefire. On rare occasions, the council was able to find common ground on Gaza wording when it focused on upholding the principles of humanitarian assistance and protection of civilians. But when some members opted to abandon council unity and force votes on resolutions containing unacceptable ceasefire language, the U.S. was left with no choice but to exercise its veto. Before each veto was cast, we recognized the potential collateral damage to America's international reputation; however, in our view the adoption of an unbalanced council resolution would have made a ceasefire neither practicable nor implementable given the highly charged and extremely complex situation on the ground. In the United States' view, the establishment of a limited and credible negotiation channel was essential for achieving an effective, durable and sustainable end to the war. While the Biden administration didn't achieve an end to the war on its watch, it did negotiate a three-phase diplomatic framework to pause the fighting and release the hostages, which was ultimately blessed by the council and backed by the Trump administration. To this day, one key factor hampering council unity on Gaza is Moscow and Beijing's exploitation of the situation there for a clear geopolitical end: deflect international attention away from Russia's savage war against Ukraine. In response to Russian statements in the Council on Gaza, which habitually condemned the U.S. for allegedly facilitating Israeli actions, I constantly reminded council members that Russia was in no position to criticize any country given the horrific war of aggression it was conducting in Ukraine. I also publicly warned Chinese diplomats that should they continue making false accusations about the U.S. concerning Gaza, I would immediately call out their country's support to Russia's military industrial base, refuting Beijing's fictitious claim that it supports neither party to the conflict. Russia and China must end their politicization of Gaza and either contribute constructively to peace efforts or simply get out of the way. While I had expected Russia and China to take adversarial positions, I was extremely disappointed that three U.S. partners on the council, Slovenia, Algeria and Guyana, chose to regularly piggyback on Russian and Chinese political shenanigans to push for more urgent council action on the issue. Their aim was to shame the U.S. and compel it to change course from its steadfast support of Israel in the war with Hamas. All the while, the three had been keenly aware that Washington was conducting sensitive negotiations behind the scenes with Israel, Qatar and Egypt on steps to facilitate a durable end to the fighting and ease civilian suffering in Gaza. But instead of getting fully behind those steps and working with us in good faith, they preferred to ratchet up public pressure on the U.S. and ignore American concerns about how their actions would be manipulated by Hamas and other malign actors in the region – Iran, Hezbollah and the Houthis – to the detriment of regional peace and security. Given persistent council divisions over the war in Gaza, some UN member states continue to lay the diplomatic predicate for a future General Assembly resolution (non-legally binding) calling for sanctions, an arms embargo and other tough international measures against Israel. The recent U.S. veto of another council resolution on Gaza will certainly provide fuel for those efforts. As I write, the Palestinians and their allies continue to ponder additional pathways to go after Israel throughout the UN system. There is even discussion in some UN circles about suspending Israel's voting rights in the General Assembly, an act that would deeply anger Washington and trigger severe political consequences for the UN. Since this tragic conflict began, I have been mystified as to why many UN officials believe that all the U.S. has to do is instruct Israel to end its pursuit of Hamas and then somehow a magical end to the fighting would materialize. On their part, I sense a genuine reluctance to treat Israel as a legitimate state with its own national security concerns. While the United States does indeed have influence with Israel, it is naïve at best for these colleagues to think America can simply dictate to Jerusalem what it should and shouldn't do in response to what it perceives as existential threats. Russia and China must end their politicization of Gaza and either contribute constructively to peace efforts or simply get out of the way. Misguided pressure on the U.S., relentless efforts to isolate Israel, Russian and Chinese diversionary tactics, blatant antisemitism, and a reluctance by some states to compromise continue to stymie the Security Council's ability to speak with one voice on ending the Gaza war. Until these unfortunate practices cease, the council will remain irrelevant to a resolution to Gaza and the broader Israel-Palestinian conflict. While no one can ignore the terrible tragedy that is now Gaza, it remains a fact that those UN member states that have influence with Hamas have made a strategic decision not to use it. The hesitancy of many countries over the years to publicly condemn Hamas as a terrorist group has only given it the oxygen it needs to carry on, no matter how much death and suffering Palestinians in Gaza continue to experience. To end this war, Hamas must disarm and disband. There will not be peace in Gaza until it does. Gazans deserve an opportunity to live in peace and to seek a prosperous future. Hamas' continued rule will bring them neither.
