New Zealand and the IHRA definition – some pertinent questions
JVL Introduction
New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has become an observer at the IHRA.
Here Marilyn Garson of Alternative Jewish Voices points out that defining racism is not the prerogative of that Ministry but must involve the Commissioners for Human Rights and Race Relations – and the public.
Furthermore, the IHRA as an organisation has two incompatible activities: valuable Holocaust education; and the political application of the IHRA’s working definition of antisemitism to shield Israel from criticism for its human rights abuses.
“We do not need a new definition of antisemitism,” she says “in order to combat racism and preserve our rights to vigorous protest speech. We need action. We need to form a common front against racism in all of its forms…”
This article was originally published by Sh'ma Koleinu – Alternative Jewish Voices (NZ) on Sun 3 Jul 2022. Read the original here.
The NZ Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) has taken up observer status in the IHRA
Loading article text…
“!We need a to form a common front against racism in all its forms” is a laudable concept. Unfortunately it is a concept to which Mr Starmer, leader of the Labour Party, is impervious. How curious when a member of his own party is subjected on a constant and daily basis to vicious and sexist abuse that Mr Starmer cannot bring himself to utter one word of condemnation.
Ms Dianne Abbott is a black woman and as such she gets everything she deserves.
I have recently received a begging letter from Mr Evans with an appeal to enter A RAFFLE how desperate is that? I tore it up and sent it back with an instruction to prohibit me from HIS party if HE so chose.
‘Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.’ (1984)
Orwell’s warning about media control not just of opinion but of the facts on which opinion is based is more relevant today than ever. The imposition by various bodies on our institutions of the much contested IHRA-WD is an attempt to entrench an irrational set of assumptions within the very fabric of our society. The attempt, as we know, has been remarkably successful, even with academic bodies which might have been expected to subject the logic of a contentious proposition like the WD to rigorous scrutiny.
Unfortunately few bodies or media pundits seem to exercise either logic or awareness of historical fact before pronouncing on such matters. I well remember LBC presenter James O’Brien saying, in reference to the Labour Party’s hesitation over adopting the WD with all its examples, that the Jewish community should be the ones who decided how to define antisemitism, and not anyone else. O’Brien has a reputation for cleverness and a considerable fan-base; you may be certain that his facile pronouncement will have settled the issue for a huge number of his followers.
I don’t know how best to counter this kind of lazy thinking. You certainly can’t do it by debating with zionists, conservatives or centrists on Twitter; for the most part they rely on the repetition of well-rehearsed talking points, and make no attempt to answer points put to them. I used to think that poets and novelists could point a way forwards, but many of these too seem compromised by media propaganda – John Le Carre being a case in point.
Perhaps the processes of time will bring about a reassessment of people’s ideas, but they too are an imperfect instrument. The US seems to be going through a revival of the kind of social and political attitudes that led to McCarthyism. Similarly propaganda generated by the war in Ukraine has been responsible for a revival of unthinking jingoism both there and in the UK. Politicians like Keir Starmer only encourage the sort of rigid statist notions that can only be embraced with the help of doublethink. Will humanity ever learn, or are we destined to remain indefinitely at the mercy of state-friendly media and the gullibility of the general public?