We need to talk about Reginald

Comedy on Trial: The Private Prosecution of Reginald D. Hunter and the Campaign Against Antisemitism’s Authoritarian Turn.

In a deeply troubling move, the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) has launched a private prosecution against celebrated stand-up comedian Reginald D. Hunter. The case revolves around material performed as part of a comedy show, a medium that has historically operated as society’s safety valve for taboo, hypocrisy, and injustice. With proceedings ongoing, we will not comment on the legal specifics. But the broader implications are too serious to ignore.

For this is no longer just about one man on stage. It’s about precedent.  It’s about power.  It’s about who gets to decide what is and isn't allowed to be said in a supposedly free society

While the legal proceedings are ongoing and therefore sub judice, we should, and must interrogate the context in which this prosecution has emerged.

Private prosecutions are exceedingly rare in the UK. Even more rare are those launched against artists for speech protected under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights: the right to freedom of expression. 

The fact that the CPS did not deem the case worthy of prosecution speaks volumes. The CAA's decision to go ahead anyway raises deep concerns about the selective application of justice, and the ability of powerful lobbying organisations to use legal threats to silence dissent or satire.  Yet the CAA: an aggressive lobbying organisation with strong media connections and charitable status has circumvented the CPS, opting to fund its own criminal case. This raises fundamental questions.  Is it now open season on comedians? Can any performance now be put on trial if it offends a well-resourced lobbying group? This is a dangerous precedent. 

Comedy has always walked the line between the sacred and the profane.  It is meant to provoke, challenge, unsettle. Reginald D. Hunter, known for his slow-burning, razor-sharp humour, often targets race, politics, and power:  subjects that don’t sit comfortably with everyone.  But that’s the point.  To treat stand-up comedy as a criminal matter, outside of incitement to violence or actual hate speech is a dangerous development. It opens the door to prosecution not just for offence, but for interpretation.  And it sets a perilous standard: that some groups may claim unique protection from mockery or critique, while others must simply bear it.

This prosecution doesn’t happen in a vacuum.  It is part of a larger pattern in British public life, in which accusations of antisemitism, often spurious, frequently political are weaponised to destroy reputations, derail careers, and now, potentially, send people to prison.

To be clear: real antisemitism is abhorrent and must be opposed wherever it exists.   But the CAA’s track record suggests an organisation more interested in ideological policing than in community safety.  Their increasingly aggressive tactics risk trivialising the very cause they claim to uphold.  And worse, may foster resentment rather than solidarity.

So this is not the first time the CAA has gone after high-profile figures with what many see as politically motivated claims of antisemitism. 

• In 2016, they targeted Labour MP Naz Shah, even after she publicly apologised for a Facebook post made years earlier. The CAA demanded her suspension and pushed for further disciplinary action.
• In 2018, they called for disciplinary measures against Marc Wadsworth, a Black anti-racism activist, for an alleged 'antisemitic outburst' despite significant pushback from anti-racist campaigners and legal observers.
• Most notoriously, they were central to the relentless campaign against Jeremy Corbyn and other members of the Labour left, branding them as antisemitic in what many now recognise as a coordinated effort to delegitimise socialist politics and Palestinian solidarity.

In each of these cases, the CAA acted not as a neutral watchdog but as a political actor: waging lawfare in defence of its own ideological agenda, often at the expense of Black, Muslim, and pro-Palestinian voices.

The CAA presents itself as a charity but acts more like a political pressure group. Founded in 2014, it is registered with the Charity Commission (Reg No. 1163790) under the guise of "promoting racial harmony." However, its aggressive tactics, media-savvy campaigns, and litigation strategies raise questions about how and why it enjoys charitable status. According to filings with the Charity Commission: 

• The CAA receives substantial private donations, the sources of which are not publicly disclosed.
• In 2023, the charity reported over £1.3 million in income, with significant expenditures on legal action and media campaigns.
• It has close links with pro-Israel lobby groups, many of whom explicitly seek to delegitimise criticism of Israeli policy by conflating it with antisemitism — a strategy documented in the 2017 Al Jazeera documentary The Lobby.

Many critics argue the CAA serves as a front for efforts to undermine pro-Palestinian activism, using accusations of antisemitism as a cudgel rather than a shield.

Several public figures and organisations have raised concerns about the prosecution. 

• Jo Grady, General Secretary of the UCU, stated:
  “The use of the legal system to pursue artists and activists for political speech is deeply alarming. It creates a climate of fear.”
• The Free Speech Union has flagged the case as a potential abuse of private prosecution powers, warning of the “chilling effect on artistic freedom.”
• A joint statement issued by the Artists for Palestine UK, Black Activists Rising Against Cuts, and Jewish Voice for Labour reads:

“We stand with Reginald D. Hunter and all artists whose work is threatened by censorship masquerading as anti-racism. Antisemitism must be fought wherever it genuinely exists, but criminalising satire and dissent only breeds division and distrust.”

A petition organised by Defend Free Expression UK had gathered over 15,000 signatures at the time of writing, calling for an end to ideological prosecutions of comedians, poets, musicians, and others targeted for political speech.

The CAA’s prosecution of Hunter doesn’t occur in a vacuum. It’s the latest salvo in a wider culture war where accusations of antisemitism are weaponised to enforce conformity and crush dissent — particularly on the Left, in Palestine solidarity movements, and among Black and Muslim communities. 

Even Sir Stephen Sedley, former Lord Justice of Appeal and himself of Jewish heritage, has warned against the CAA’s approach. Writing in the London Review of Books (2018), he noted: 

“We are seeing the creation of a hierarchy of racism, in which some groups are granted exceptional protection while others are demonised or ignored.”

This case must be understood not just as a legal oddity, but as a turning point. A comedian is being dragged through the courts for telling jokes. That should send a chill down every artist’s spine. 

What is truly at stake here is not Reginald D. Hunter’s career, but the right of all artists to speak without fear of legal retribution, particularly when their targets are structures of power and ideology, not vulnerable individuals.

The right to offend, to mock power, to speak uncomfortable truths, these are not luxuries in a democracy. They are its lifeblood. 

This prosecution, bankrolled by a lobbying group with opaque finances and a hyper-partisan agenda, is not about protecting Jewish people from harm. It is about protecting ideological narratives from scrutiny. 

In pursuing this prosecution, the CAA is sending a message loud and clear: 'We’ll decide what you’re allowed to joke about and we’ve got lawyers to make sure of it'.  If that becomes the new normal, then no stage, no lecture hall, no editorial page is safe.

If Reginald D. Hunter is convicted for stand-up comedy, the message will be clear: speak out at your peril. 

We must resist this. Not because we agree with everything comedians say, but because we believe in the principle that no one should be dragged into court for telling a joke, especially not by self-appointed censors masquerading as civil society watchdogs. 

The legal system must not become the enforcement arm of ideological gatekeepers.  If the courts uphold the right to prosecute stand-up comedy for 'offensive' content, then British democracy, already battered and bruised, will have taken another step into authoritarianism.  

Let’s hope sanity prevails. Let’s hope Reginald D. Hunter is not the canary in the coal mine. But if he is, the rest of us better start paying attention.

And if we don’t resist that now, we may find that tomorrow’s targets are not comedians, but journalists, educators, and activists. And next time, the courtroom might come for you.

Reginald D Hunter is not taking this sitting down.  There is a Crowd funder to help support him.  Please see below for the link:

Reginald D Hunter crowdfund

Campaign Against Antisemitism: Acting as a Proxy for the Israeli Government's repressive narrative management

There is increasing concern among civil society groups, academics, and human rights observers that the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) functions, in practice, as a proxy organisation for the interests of the Israeli state, particularly those aligned with the hardline nationalist agenda of the Likud government under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  

The CAA, which is a very well funded organisation, has demonstrated a pattern of aggressively pursuing individuals, organisations, and cultural figures who criticise the actions of the Israeli government, especially in relation to its treatment of Palestinians, its military occupation of the West Bank, and, more recently, its conduct in Gaza. In doing so, it deploys accusations of antisemitism in ways that frequently conflate legitimate criticism of a foreign state with racial or religious hatred.  

This strategy mirrors what has been widely documented as the Israeli government’s international campaign to silence dissent: 

• In 2017, the Israeli Ministry of Strategic Affairs explicitly outlined efforts to "delegitimise delegitimisation" by funding and coordinating with foreign-based advocacy groups.
• The Al Jazeera investigation 'The Lobby' (2017) exposed Israeli Embassy officials in London discussing ways to 'take down' British politicians critical of Israel, and working closely with British organisations pursuing such agendas.
• In 2020, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported on the Israeli government’s strategy of building international networks of front organisations to 'fight antisemitism' often understood to mean stifling pro-Palestinian discourse or questioning illegal actions carried out by the Israelis.

In this light, the CAA's activities raise serious questions as to whether it is operating in line with its stated charitable objects, or whether it is instead functioning as a political asset for a foreign government, targeting UK-based individuals and institutions who diverge from pro-Israel orthodoxy. 

A UK-registered charity must not serve the strategic interests of a foreign power, especially through the misuse of hate speech legislation or private prosecutions to silence dissent and suppress artistic or political expression. 

As well as this the CAA has allegedly received funding from organisations with links to illegal settlements on the West Bank. There is clear and well-documented evidence that the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) has received funding from organisations with direct ties to Israel, particularly the Jewish National Fund UK (JNF UK), a charity known for supporting Israeli settlement projects. Financial records and investigations, including reporting by The Electronic Intifada, show that JNF UK donated substantial sums to the CAA (approximately $220,000 in 2018 and $230,000 in 2019), effectively matching the CAA’s total income for those years. Additionally, CAA’s Chief Executive Gideon Falter has served as a trustee of JNF UK, highlighting significant overlap in leadership.  Other donors include the Anglo-Jewish Association and the David and Ruth Lewis Family Charitable Trust, both of which support pro-Israel and Zionist causes. These financial and structural connections raise serious concerns about the CAA’s claimed political neutrality, suggesting instead that it operates within a broader network of pro-Israel advocacy.

The David and Ruth Lewis Family Charitable Trust, formerly the Lewis Family Charitable Trust based in London, is governed by members of the Lewis family, founders of the River Island retail group, and gives substantial grants to a range of UK and overseas causes, including education, health, elderly care, and notably Jewish and Zionist charities 

Powerbase describes it as a 'Zionist oriented foundation' closely linked to River Island’s owners powerbase.info+1powerbase.info+1.  Financial disclosures reveal sizeable contributions to pro-Israel organisations and settler-aligned institutions.  From 2019 onward, the it is alleged the Trust awarded over £439,000 to the Campaign Against Antisemitism alone powerbase.info+1english.almayadeen.net+1. It also supports bodies connected to settlements and occupation, such as the Anglo-Israel Association, British Friends of Israel War Disabled, and British Friends of Sarah Herzog Memorial Hospital in Israel, underlining its active role in backing organisations that sustain Israel’s settler infrastructure. Additionally, media investigations highlight this Trust among a group of British foundations funding the 'Israel War Disabled Society' and other Zionist-focused causes, encompassing settler and military-linked networks. In summary, the David and Ruth Lewis Trust is tightly woven into Zionist philanthropic networks, and its grants skirt far beyond cultural or medical support, directly reinforcing institutions with ties to Israeli settlers and occupation-related projects.

Section 33 – Information to be Provided by Registered Charities

• Charities must provide the Commission with:
  • The names and addresses of trustees
  • The charity’s constitution and governing documents
  • Any changes to trustees or the charity’s details
• The charity has a legal duty to notify the Commission of changes.

In spite of this the Charity does not provide Trustee information.  The assumption is that it has requested an exemption on safeguarding.  If this is the case it only reinforces the opaque nature of the organisational structure of the CAA, and its donors.

If the CAA is receiving financial or logistical support, directly or indirectly, from the Israeli state or affiliated entities, or organisations with connections to human rights abuses, this may represent not only a breach of Charity Commission rules on political neutrality, but also a matter for national security and foreign lobbying transparency.

If you are concerned about the political and ideological behaviour of the CAA, you can write to the Charity Commission and register a complaint. Below is a suggested template to copy and paste: 

[Your address]

Charity Commission for England and Wales

PO Box 211

Bootle

L20 7YX 

[Date]

Subject: Request for Investigation into the Activities of Campaign Against Antisemitism (Charity No. 1163790) 

Dear Sir or Madam, 

I am writing to formally request that the Charity Commission undertake a full investigation into the activities, funding, and regulatory compliance of Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA), registered under charity number 1163790.  There is growing public concern that the CAA is engaged in partisan political campaigning and aggressive legal activity that appear to contravene the duties and purposes of a registered charity under the Charities Act 2011, and may fall outside what is permissible for a body operating under the legal status of advancing 'racial harmony' 

Grounds for Investigation 

Political and Ideological Activity

The CAA has consistently undertaken high-profile campaigns against political figures, artists, activists, and institutions, many of which align with a particular ideological agenda and appear politically partisan in nature. 

• It has been instrumental in campaigns against members of the Labour Party, particularly on the left, including Jeremy Corbyn, Diane Abbott, and others.
• It has publicly advocated for state sanctions and suspensions of individuals on the basis of controversial and disputed definitions of antisemitism (specifically the IHRA definition), in a manner that arguably prioritises political aims over public benefit.
• Its activities frequently blur the line between promoting racial harmony and using the accusation of antisemitism as a political weapon.

According to Charity Commission guidance, charities must not support political parties or candidates, nor undertake activities that primarily serve political rather than charitable objectives. There is substantial evidence that CAA is failing to observe this principle. 

Use of Charity Resources for Legal Campaigns and Private Prosecutions

In 2024, and now again in 2025, the CAA has used charitable funds to pursue private prosecutions, including its ongoing case against stand-up comedian Reginald D. Hunter. This case raises significant concerns regarding the use of charity resources for:

• Censorship of artistic expression, likely in conflict with Article 10 of the ECHR
• Legal action without clear demonstration of public benefit
• Targeting individuals based on ideological or political disagreement

Private prosecutions are not routine charitable activities, and deploying them against individuals for speech in a performance context risks reputation damage to the wider charitable sector.

Lack of Transparency in Funding and Governance

The CAA's public accounts show substantial income, over £1.3 million in 2023, but little clarity on the sources of this funding.  Given the political nature of its campaigns and their intersection with international issues (including the State of Israel and lobbying around foreign policy), there is a strong public interest case for: 

• Investigating whether the charity is receiving foreign-linked funding
• Requiring full disclosure of major donors
• Determining whether any activities are being coordinated with unregistered lobbying entities

Misuse of Charitable Status to Suppress Free Speech

The CAA’s campaigns appear increasingly focused on targeting lawful speech and expression, including: 

• Attempts to de-platform public figures and academics
• Pressuring institutions and broadcasters to disassociate from artists or performers
• Using the threat of legal action to create a chilling effect on debate

Such activities, while perhaps lawful, may fall outside the definition of 'public benefit' and bring the charity into disrepute.  The Charity Commission’s own rules warn against activities that risk damaging public confidence in the charity sector.  Request for Action In light of the above, I respectfully request that the Charity Commission: 

• Initiate a full statutory inquiry into the Campaign Against Antisemitism
• Examine its political activity, use of charitable funds, and compliance with the public benefit requirement
• Investigate its sources of funding and financial transparency
• Review whether the CAA’s ongoing legal actions are compatible with its charitable objects

I would welcome a response indicating whether this matter will be taken up for preliminary assessment or formal inquiry. This issue affects public trust not only in one organisation, but in the integrity and neutrality of the charitable sector as a whole. 

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]

A bit of shameless self-plugging here.  This is www.TetleysTLDR.com blog. It's not monitised. Please feel feel to go and look at the previous ones on the website and if you like them, please feel free to share them.