UK government challenged over IHRA definition
JVL Introduction
Areeb Ullah reports in Middle East Eye:
“An elderly Methodist preacher is set to launch the first legal An elderly Methodist preacher is set to launch the first legal challenge to the UK government’s use of a contested definition of antisemitism after ministers used it to force a charity to remove her as a trustee over a Facebook post in which she described Israel as an apartheid state.
“Bea Foster, a 76-year-old community worker from Burnley, Lancashire, will argue that the government unlawfully penalised her for expressing political views on Israel and Palestine, breaching her rights to freedom of expression, freedom of association and protection from discrimination.
We also post a video in which Bea Foster explains the situation she has been faced with.
This article was originally published by Middle East Eye on Thu 9 Jul 2026. Read the original here.
Preacher launches legal challenge against UK government over IHRA antisemitism definition
Bea Foster tells MEE she was left ‘heartbroken’ after being forced out of anti-racism charity over Facebook post in which she called Israel an ‘apartheid state’
Loading article text…
The problem seems to be the incorrect Govt assumption that any statement relating to an example used in the contested IHRA working definition is automatically antisemitic.
Our analysis of an Insitute of Jewish Policy Research group publication did show that only 9% of those saying Israel was an ‘apartheid state’ were considered to be antisemitic. If the Starmer Govt accuses them all of antisemitism it would be wrong in 91% of cases.
We can estimate an even larger scale of error applies when demonising and punishing any of the 45% of Britons who consider that ‘Israel treats Palestinians like the Nazis treated Jews’.
The IHRA working definition has been heavily criticised even when designed as a guideline, but here it is far worse. It seems to be misused as a politico-legal weapon to once more silence criticics of Israel.
Good for you, Bea!
Just one further point: apart from the specific anti-Palestinian, pro-Israel content of the IHRA definition, it should be seen as a dangerous pseudo-legal device, claiming spurious authority and avoiding proper debate – velvet over the iron fist of repression.
How can we support Bea?
Support the case today to demand Bea Foster is reinstated, to oppose the IHRA, and to send a clear message to the government that we will never be silenced in our support for Palestine. https://donate.palestinecampaign.org/…