SARUM CONCERN FOR ISRAEL/PALESTINE
Top barrister slams IHRA definition of antisemitism
April 13, 2017
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism used by the government since December 2016 is "unclear and confusing" and "should not be adopted without careful additional guidance", according to one of Britain's top barristers.
Hugh Tomlinson QC, who played a central role in the investigation into parliamentary expenses and the News of the World hacking revelations, said in an Opinion commissioned by a coalition of four groups that the IHRA definition was too ambiguous to characterise legitimate criticism of Israel or Zionism as antisemitism. "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 practising settler colonialism or calling for policies of boycott divestment or sanctions against Israel can properly be characterised as antisemitic," he said.
Free Speech on Israel, Jews for Justice for Palestinians, the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and Independent Jewish Voices jointly commissioned the Opinion which was launched on March 27 in a House of Lords session chaired by Labour peer Tessa Blackstone.
The groups argue that the IHRA definition deliberately equates criticism of Israel with hatred of Jews. They say it has been vigorously promoted by pro-Israel lobbyists to local authorities, universities, Labour movement organisations and other public bodies, and claim that its rollout has seen an increase in bannings and restrictions imposed on pro-Palestinian activities, especially on campuses.
However, Tomlinson said the definition, which is not legally binding, could land public authorities in trouble if they used it to curb public debates or freedom of speech. "Public authorities are obliged to protect freedom of speech and 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." he said. "A public authority which sought to apply the IHRA definition to prohibit or sanction such activities would be acting unlawfully."
The Opinion has been endorsed by three prominent lawyers. Sir Geoffrey Bindman, until recently chair of the British Institute of Human Rights and a former legal adviser to the Race Relations Board and the Commission for Racial Equality, said: “Antisemitism is hatred or disparagement of Jews. Israel is an independent political entity. We cannot permit the IHRA definition being used to close meetings critical of Israel on the grounds that such criticism is directed at Jews. It is not.”
Sir Stephen Sedley, a former Lord Justice of Appeal, noted that “nothing suits Islamic fundamentalism better than the idea that all Jews are equally implicated in the excesses of Zionism.” He advised “a principled retreat on the part of government from a stance which it has naively adopted". Read Stephen Sedley's full statement here.
Salma Karmi-Ayyoub, a criminal barrister and external consultant for the Ramallah-based Palestinian human rights organisation Al Haq, said the Opinion demonstrates that claims made about the IHRA definition by its proponents are untrue. It is not a legal instrument and it does not permit labelling criticism of Israel as antisemitic. “The government adopted the IHRA definition informally in order to avoid the proper scrutiny required for a legal measure,” she said.
Summarising the Lords session, renowned Palestinian rights campaigner Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi said: "[This] devastating legal opinion on the so-called IHRA definition of antisemitism marks a watershed moment in resisting Israeli-backed attempts to gag pro-Palestinian advocacy. [It] drives a coach and horses through the definition, exposing it as badly drafted, confusing and not legally binding." Read Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi's full report here.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten
Opmerking: Alleen leden van deze blog kunnen een reactie posten.