How the IHRA definition suppresses necessary debate
The European Legal Support Center has published an important new report on “Suppressing Palestinian Rights Advocacy through the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism: Violating the rights to freedom of expression and assembly in the European Union and the UK”
We reproduce the Executive Summary here but urge people to read the full report
The endorsement, adoption and implementation of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s “Working Definition of Antisemitism” (IHRA WDA) in the European Union (EU), its Member States and the United Kingdom (UK) has led to widespread restrictions of the right of assembly and freedom of expression.
The “contemporary examples of antisemitism” attached to the IHRA WDA effectively redefine antisemitism by wrongly conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism. While being branded as
“non-legally binding”, the definition is being interpreted and used by governments and public and private actors as if it was law. The definition’s implementation has severe chilling effects on free speech and curtails human rights advocacy, specifically around Palestinian rights and political speech about Israel.
In the overwhelming majority of cases, allegations of antisemitism invoking the IHRA WDA are false. This report explains how the IHRA WDA has been adopted and implemented in a manner facilitating and validating the suppression of human rights advocacy for Palestinian rights and silencing criticism of Israeli government policies and practices.
After providing background in Section II, Section III shows that some European governments have used the IHRA WDA and its examples as a basis for domestic decisions and policies, which public and private actors are leveraging as legally binding. Section IV presents examples of incidents in which human rights and Palestinian rights advocacy have been suppressed on the basis of the IHRA WDA.
The European Legal Support Center (ELSC) has documented these incidents, which occurred between 2017 and 2022.
Key findings
- The HRA Working Definition of Antisemitism (WDA) is increasingly implemented by public and private bodies as if it was law, although it is being branded as “non-legally binding”.
- The IHRA WDA is being implemented in ways that curtail freedom of expression and assembly, lead to self-censorship and foster anti-Palestinian racism.
- Advocates of Palestinian rights who are targeted suffer a range of unjust and harmful consequences, including loss of employment and reputational damage.
- The IHRA WDA is being used – often by pro-Israel advocates – to intimidate and silence those advocating for Palestinian rights.
- Allegations of antisemitism that invoke the IHRA WDA, in the documented cases, are overwhelmingly targeted at Palestinians, Jewish people and organisations that advocate for Palestinian rights, suggesting that the IHRA WDA is being implemented in a discriminatory manner.
- Most challenges to the implementation of the IHRA WDA prove that the allegations of antisemitism were unsubstantiated.
- The European Commission has consistently ignored and dismissed the growing human rights concerns about the IHRA WDA and failed to take measures to prevent any ad-verse impact of it on fundamental rights.
In light of the evidence presented in this report, the European Legal Support Center (ELSC) urges the European Commission, as well as the governments, parliaments and public institutions of EU Member States, and the UK to:
- Cease and revoke the adoption, endorsement, promotion and implementation of the IHRA WDA.
- Respect and uphold the right to freedom of expression of individuals and associations supporting the Palestinian people, as States and public authorities are required to do under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
- Respect and uphold the right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of political or other opinions, as States and public authorities are required to do under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as from EU institutions under Article 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
- Develop, promote and implement strategies and mechanisms to fight antisemitism that do not undermine the fundamental freedoms and rights of advocates for Palestinian rights. In this context, consult scholars of antisemitism and related fields, experts on anti-racism and human rights defenders excluded and side-lined so far by the European Commission.
And yet still Britain’s Palestine Solidarity Campaign refuses to take the IHRA seriously and launch a campaign against its attack on free speech and consequent rights under the European Convention of Human Rights.
Bodies such as Liberty have refused to implement their own policy in this respect.
Jeremy Corbyn, who voluntarily adopted the 38 word definition, which is complete nonsense, bears a heavy responsibility too. The subsequent adoption by the Labour NEC of the full IHRA was a consequence of not standing up against the false anti-Semitism narrative. The Corbyn left and in particular Momentum were particularly culpable.
The definition itself is barely literate, self contradictory and even anti-Semitic (its statement that there is a Jewish collectivity).
There is a real need for people to come together to wage a coherent and consistent campaign against the IHRA, beginning with the trade unions
I believe we should say clearly that the IHRA definition is a racist document and go beyond asking to be allowed to criticise Israel.
A state that only exists because it ethnically cleansed 85 percent of the indigenous population is very clearly by definition a “racist endeavour”.
Secondly my Jewish sisters and brothers have a rich religious and cultural heritage that benefits us all in Britain. But genetically you are indistinguishable from me as a white non Jewish man. British Jews belong in Britain and it is the politics of despair to suggest that you can only feel safe by living in the Middle East. British Jews have no “right of self determination” in the Middle East and it is deeply racist to suggest that they have.
Perhaps the new OFS Freedom of Speech Director Prof. Ahmed, will publicly support this statement……….or perhaps not?