I WAS WRONG!

By Les May

IN my article Who Will Defend Free Speech? I took the view that I could see nothing wrong with the 38 word working definition of antisemitism given by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) and that it was the examples that were problematic.

After this appeared on Northern Voices I received an e-mail which provided a link to the Opinion of a Legal Counsel, Hugh Tomlinson QC. His opinion was that the definition ‘is unclear and confusing and should be used with caution’.

Here I provide his six point summary:

The IHRA “non-legally binding working definition” of antisemitism is unclear and confusing and should be used with caution.

The “examples” accompanying the IHRA Definition should be understood in the light of the definition and it should be understood that the conduct listed is only antisemitic if it manifests hatred towards Jews.

The Government’s “adoption” of the IHRA Definition has no legal status or effect and, in particular, does not require public authorities to adopt this definition as part of their anti-racism policies.

Any public authority which does adopt the IHRA Definition must interpret it in a way which is consistent with its own statutory obligations, particularly its obligation not to act in a matter inconsistent with the Article 10 right to freedom of expression.

Article 10 does not permit the prohibition or sanctioning of speech unless it can be seen as a direct or indirect call for or justification of violence, hatred or intolerance. The fact that speech is offensive to a particular group is not, of itself, a proper ground for prohibition or sanction. The IHRA Definition should not be adopted without careful additional guidance on these issues.

Public authorities are under a positive obligation to protect freedom of speech. In the case of universities and colleges this is an express statutory obligation but Article 10 requires other public authorities to take steps to ensure that everyone is permitted to participate in public debates, even if their opinions and ideas are offensive or irritating to the public or a section of it.

Properly understood in its own terms the IHRA Definition does not mean that activities such as describing Israel as a state enacting policies of apartheid, as practicing settler colonialism or calling for policies of boycott divestment or sanctions against Israel can properly be characterized as antisemitic.

A public authority which sought to apply the IHRA Definition to prohibit or sanction such activities would be acting unlawfully. You can find the full Opinion here: If you are trying to understand what is happening in the Labour Party and what the stakes are I urge you to read it.

Also worth reading is a leaflet called ‘What is the Jewish Labour Movement’. This can be downloaded here: Again I urge you to read it.

I watched the Al Jazeera English series The Lobby when it was first broadcast. This is how Al Jazeera English described it:

‘In The Lobby, Al Jazeera Investigations exposes how the Israel lobby influences British politics. Among the revelations were Israeli attempts to smear activists who question the illegal occupation of Palestinian land by helping to build racism cases against them.’

You can find the four films here: which provides a link to YouTube. Each film is about 25 minutes long