James Hawes: Anger, Antisemitic Slurs and Conspiracy Claims From an “Emotional Fitness” Therapist

James Hawes Featured Image

James Hawes

Psychotherapist and Counsellor | Emotional Intelligence Consultant | Nottingham, England, UK

Background information

James Hawes is a BACP-accredited counsellor and psychotherapist who describes his work as helping men and boys develop “emotional fitness”. His professional profile includes work with anger, relationships, children and young people.
 
His posts on X show a different picture: angry personal abuse, an anti-Jewish slur, a Nazi comparison and repeated conspiracy claims about reported attacks on Jewish targets. He also challenges a Jewish parent about Israel after the parent expresses fear for his children.
 
This is not simply criticism of Israeli government policy. These posts include antisemitism, alongside a pattern of anger and unsupported claims..

Anger and abuse from an “emotional fitness” therapist

In a reply to Omid Djalili, Hawes writes:
For someone whose work includes helping people manage anger, this is a strikingly angry response. Rather than answer Djalili’s argument, Hawes attacks him personally and uses an antisemitic slur.
 
“Zio” is used as a substitute for “Jew”. It was popularised by former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke and used in white supremacist circles. It is not an innocent shortening of “Zionist”.
 
The person targeted does not have to be Jewish for the language to be antisemitic. The IHRA recognises that antisemitism can also be directed at non-Jewish people.

Making a Jewish parent answer for Israel

A Jewish Londoner describes being frightened that his children could be attacked at a Jewish school or synagogue playground.
 
Hawes replies:
The casualty figure is a claim made in his post.
 
A father describes fear for his children. Hawes responds by challenging him about Israel. Nothing in the exchange shows that this man has any responsibility for alleged Israeli military action1.
 
The IHRA lists “holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel” as an example of antisemitism. Hawes’s reply raises that exact concern: a Jewish parent discussing his family’s safety is challenged to answer for another country.
 
Jewish people in Britain do not owe anyone an explanation for Israel’s actions simply because they are Jewish.

Jewish ambulances attacked? “False flag mate"

Under a report that Jewish community ambulances had been torched in London, Hawes writes:
He offers no evidence for the allegation in the visible reply. Instead, he questions why the Jewish community has an ambulance service2. The reported attack becomes a reason to cast suspicion on the community whose vehicles were targeted.
 
This is not an isolated comment. It is part of a repeated pattern.

Different incidents, the same conspiracy claim

Under a report about an explosion damaging a Jewish school in Amsterdam, Hawes writes:
Under a post describing the killing of two people labelled “Zionists” in the United States3, he again replies:
In a discussion of the 2025 Bondi Beach mass shooting during a “Chanukah by the Sea” community celebration, he asserts:
Under a BBC report about a suspected plot to crash a plane into a Tel Aviv airport or building, he writes:
Different incidents are dismissed with the same claim of a staged operation. No supporting evidence appears in these replies. This is the repeated promotion of conspiracy theories, not evidence-based analysis.
 
The IHRA identifies false claims about Jews acting together in sinister plots as an example of antisemitism. Where allegations suggest that Jews or Jewish organisations secretly arrange attacks on their own communities, they repeat that conspiracy story.
 
An allegation against Mossad does not automatically mean an allegation against all Jews. But Hawes’s repeated claims must be read alongside his anti-Jewish language and his treatment of a Jewish parent. Writing “false flag” under a report does not prove anything about who carried out the attack.

Using a Nazi comparison

Under a photograph of Benjamin Netanyahu, Hawes posts:
The word combines “Zionist” and “Nazi”. The IHRA lists “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” among its examples of antisemitism. Hawes introduces a Nazi comparison through a one-word insult, without explaining which policy or action he means.
 
Netanyahu and his government can be criticised without using Nazi labels.

Calling a Jewish homeland a threat to humanity

Hawes writes:
Zionism is the belief in a Jewish homeland. Calling that belief a threat to humanity is not criticism of an Israeli government decision. It presents Jewish self-determination as a danger to everyone.
 
The IHRA lists denying Jewish people their right to self-determination as an example of antisemitism. That is the issue with Hawes’s statement.

Where is the emotional fitness?

Hawes presents himself as someone who helps people handle difficult emotions and build better relationships. His professional work includes children, young people and adults.

Yet his own public responses include angry abuse, antisemitic language and repeated conspiracy claims. A Jewish parent’s fear for his children is met with a demand about Israel. Reports of attacks on Jewish targets are repeatedly dismissed as “false flags”.

These are his public words, not guesses about what happens in his consulting room. They give Jewish people considering his services a clear reason to question whether their fears of antisemitism would be taken seriously.

BACP should examine the documented posts and consider whether this conduct is consistent with the standards of an accredited practitioner.

Support GnasherJew

Help us maintain this public record. Your financial backing keeps this archive online, ensuring we can continue the critical review and documentation necessary to expose online antisemitism and hold hate speech accountable.

SUPPORT OUR WORK
Scroll to Top