It is because the IHRA is indefensible that the
Government is threatening Universities which don’t adopt it with Financial Sanctions
Tommy Robinson explains why he is a Zionist in identical terms to the 3 Labour Party leadership candidates - because Jews have a right to a homeland!
The IHRA is a weapon fashioned to
defend the Israeli state and western imperialist interests and targeted at the Palestine solidarity movement.
That is its only purpose. It is irrelevant
to a fight against anti-Semitism not least because some of its formulations
are in themselves anti-Semitic. That is why its principal supporters lie in the
British Establishment.
Why is a definition useful in the
fight against anti-Semitism? Noone seems
to have asked this question. Perhaps
because it is so obvious. When my father, like thousands of other working
class Jews, opposed Oswald Moseley’s British Union of Fascists march at Cable Street
in 1936, the Board of Deputies told Jews to hide indoors, he didn’t
need a definition of anti-Semitism to know what the beast is. Amongst its
critics are:
Sir Stephen Sedley, a Jewish former Court of
Appeal Judge who said of the IHRA that it ‘fails the first test of any definition:
it is indefinite. He described it as
‘placing the historical, political, military and humanitarian
uniqueness of Israel’s occupation and colonisation of Palestine beyond
permissible criticism.’
David Feldman, Director of the Pears Institute
for the Study of Anti-Semitism described it as ‘bewilderingly imprecise” Hugh Tomlinson QC said
the IHRA ‘lacks clarity and comprehensiveness’ and that it has ‘a
potential chilling effect on public bodies’
Geoffrey Robertson QC stated that it would ‘chill free speech’ and was ‘not fit for purpose’ Even
Kenneth Stern, the person who drafted it, in testimony to
Congress, said:
‘“The definition was not drafted, and was never intended, as a
tool to target or chill speech on a college campus.,”. “It was never
supposed to curtail speech on campus.”
Stern wrote
in respect of the United States and Trump, a man who is clearly anti-Semitic
that:
It was never intended to be a campus hate speech
code, but that’s what Donald Trump’s executive order accomplished this week.
This order is an attack on academic freedom and free speech, and will harm not
only pro-Palestinian advocates, but also Jewish students and faculty, and the
academy itself.
There is of course a very simple
definition of 'anti-semitism' for anyone who is in need of one. It can be found
in the Oxford English
and Miriam
Webster dictionaries. It comprises all of 6 words –‘hostility to or discrimination against Jews.’
Even
Professor Geoffrey Alderman, a right-wing Zionist and the historian of
Britain’s Jewish community, as well as a former Jewish Chronicle columnist, described
the IHRA as a ‘a flawed and faulty
definition of anti-Semitism.’
Despite
this the IHRA has gained traction because of its utility to the political
establishment as an effective way of defending Britain’s support for and
trading links with Israel.
You
might be forgiven for thinking that Britain's Palestine Solidarity Campaign would be
eager to drive a nail into the IHRA’s coffin.
Not a bit of it. It has given up
the fight and it has been joined in this by Jewish Voice for Labour.
We were told at the
recent PSC AGM by JVL's Professor Jonathan Rosenhead that it was impossible to
fight back against the IHRA. We should
accept defeat and move on. A message that was music to the ears of PSC’s
Socialist Action leadership.
Events,
however, as Harold MacMillan once
observed, have a habit of upsetting the most austere of political
predictions and contradicting even the most noble of Cassandras. Canada and New
Zealand illustrate that it is perfectly possible, given the will, to fight the
IHRA.
One of the
problems with the Palestine solidarity movement is that unlike the Zionists we
don’t have think tanks or discuss strategy together. Strategy is made on the hoof and
tactics often become a substitute for strategy. Partly this is a consequence of
the massive disparity in resources available to us and the Zionists.
However
supporters of Palestine and anti-Zionists have one advantage, public
support. Even in countries with the most
avid pro-Zionist leaderships such as Germany and the United States, the
populace is coming towards our way of thinking.
Although we should be under no doubt that the consequence of the last
4.5 years of relentless ‘anti-Semitism’ barrage in Britain has been to strip
off the soft periphery of support for Palestine.
Instead it
is left to a few individuals such as Jonathan Cook, Asa Winstanley, Richard
Silverstein and myself – writing for different blogs and web sites to act as a substitute.
PSC, which should be a haven of fresh and innovative thinking to back up
solidarity activists is instead an ideas free desert.
This
presents a problem as activists turn away from the politics of what they are
doing and why they are doing it and instead make a virtue out of the act in
itself. Every occupation, protest, arrest and acquittal is a victory in itself.
Like anarchists the deed becomes everything.
 |
| Tommy Robinson explains why he is a Zionist - note he is wearing a 'I am a Zionist' badge |
It is therefore
to be welcomed that there have been significant victories against the IHRA in
New Zealand and Canada in particular. It would have been outrageous if
Wellington Council had adopted the IHRA, after the murder of 50 Muslims in last
year’s shooting. Israel, which the IHRA seeks to protect, is admired by White Supremacists
such as Tommy
Robinson and Geert
Wilders. Israel is their model of a state because of its hostility to
Muslims and its ethno nationalism. The IHRA is a definition of ‘anti-Semitism’
that even anti-Semites can support!
New Zealand
The Wellington Jewish
Council had requested Wellington to adopt the IHRA. But the Jewish Council's
request upset some members of the Wellington Progressive Synagogue, who noted the
definition had the potential to conflate antisemitism with anti-Zionism
(opposition to the state of Israel), as it had already done overseas.
At the Jewish council's
request, the topic was removed from the city council's agenda on Tuesday. It
was due to be discussed at a city council meeting on Wednesday.
In an opinion piece published in The Dominion Post on
Tuesday, Progressive Synagogue members Marilyn Garson and Fred Albert argued the
controversial definition could render criticism of Israel's occupation of
Palestine antisemitic.
City councillor Iona Pannett
said she supported the decision to have the item removed.
"We want a peaceful and safe way of discussing it, away from the
public glare."
She had received
correspondence from some members of the Jewish community who did not agree with
the wording of the definition.
The proposal would also have
been nothing more than "virtue-signalling"
because the council did not have a plan on how to implement it, Pannett said.
Ontario
In Ontario activists have been fighting against the introduction
of Bill 168 by the legislature. On February 27 the Bill passed by 55-0 and has
been sent into Committee. The Bill calls on the government to be “guided” by the IHRA definition of
anti-Semitism to “protect Ontarians from
discrimination and hate amounting to anti-Semitism.”
Two days
before the debate members of Independent Jewish Voices of Canada (IJV) held a
press conference to urge MPPs to reject the “flawed” bill.
IJV charged
that the bill “conflates” anti-Semitism with legitimate criticism of Israel,
and that as a law, it would be used to silence dissent on Israel’s treatment of
Palestinians.
The following
day, the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) announced its support for the
IJV position on the bill, which “infringes
on both freedom of expression and academic freedom on post-secondary education
campuses.”
The CFS,
which represents 530,000 students across Canada. argued that the bill “threatens to criminalize activists fighting
for Palestinian rights as well as critical analysis on Israel and Zionism,”
In arguments
reminiscent of those used in Britain, Daniel Koren, executive director of
Hasbara Fellowships Canada, said, “It is
incredibly offensive that the CFS believes it can dictate what constitutes
anti-Semitism and speak on behalf of Canada’s Jewish community, which
overwhelmingly supports adopting the IHRA definition.”
Notice Koren
doesn’t actually defend the IHRA, because in its own terms it is indefensible.
Instead he makes the dishonest Zionist argument that it is ‘incredibly offensive’ for anyone but Zionists
to define what is and isn’t anti-Semitism. The fact is that the IHRA frames support
for Palestine solidarity and opposition to Zionism as ‘anti-Semitism’. No
group, however powerful or prestigious has the right to define their ‘oppression’
in terms of another group which is oppressed.
More than
350 Canadian academics signed an open letter denouncing the IHRA definition,
calling it an “imposition” that would
“imperil the pursuit of truth and the
legitimate expression of dissent.”
 |
| Protest in Calgary |
Last month, Montreal joined
Calgary
and Vancouver
in rejecting a motion to adopt the IHRA’s “working definition” of
anti-Semitism.
Calgary
On 18 November 2019 Calgary City Councillors
Diane Colley-Urquhart and Jeromy Farkas amended their motion on Antisemitism to
exclude the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)
working definition of antisemitism.
Calgary would have been the second Canadian city to
vote on the IHRA re-definition following its adoption
by the Liberal government as part of its “Anti-racism strategy” in June.
Vancouver City Council voted on the definition early this year, but the motion failed,
sending it to committee for the development of a comprehensive anti-racism
position.
Independent Jewish Voices is
not alone in speaking out against the adoption of the IHRA re-definition. It
has also been strongly criticized by prominent civil liberties groups–including
the British
Columbia Civil Liberties Association and the
American Civil Liberties Union–as well as by more than 40 Jewish
organizations, who signed a 2018
open letter. The Federal NDP has likewise expressed concern that it
could “be a threat for people who
legitimately denounce grave human rights abuses by the government of Israel
against Palestinians.”
Montreal
Calgary, 18 November 2019–Independent
Jewish Voices Canada (IJV) applauds Calgary City Councillors Diane
Colley-Urquhart and Jeromy Farkas for amending their motion on Antisemitism to
exclude the controversial International
Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism.
Montreal has withdrawn
proposals for the IHRA to be adopted
Jewish Group Applauds Montreal City
Council for Abandoning Controversial Definition of Antisemitism Montreal,
January 28, 2020 –
Independent Jewish Voices Canada (IJV) applauds the
Montreal City Council for abandoning a motion to adopt the controversial International
Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism
today.
The motion to adopt the definition was withdrawn this
morning by opposition leader Lionel Perez after the administration of Mayor
Valérie Plante decided to send the motion to La Commission de la présidence du
conseil (“The Commission of the Presidency of the Council”) for further study.
Montreal is the third Canadian city council to
consider adopting the IHRA definition after similar attempts failed last year
in both Vancouver
and Calgary.
IJV rallied significant grassroots opposition to all three motions. Over 300
IJV members and supporters sent letters to Montreal city councillors regarding
today’s motion, and several spoke last night at City Hall renouncing it.
“This
is another major victory for all who oppose antisemitism and
support Palestinian human rights,” said Corey Balsam, IJV’s National
Coordinator. “We strongly believe that our safety as Jews is intimately tied
with the safety and well-being of other communities targeted by hate and
bigotry, and that includes the Palestinian people. We congratulate the City of
Montreal for its decision to abandon the IHRA’s problematic definition and
strongly encourage other cities and provinces in Canada to follow suit.”
Opposition to the IHRA definition has become
increasingly widespread around the world, including in Quebec and throughout
the rest of Canada. In Quebec, major trade unions such as the FTQ, CSN, FNEEQ,
as well as the Ligue des Droits et Libertés have all expressed their support
for dropping the IHRA definition.
IJV’s objections to the IHRA re-definition are
detailed in its recent report,
in which it deconstructs the definition line by line and warns of the dangerous
consequences of its adoption both for the fight against antisemitism and the
movement for Palestinian human rights.
“The
IHRA definition sadly betrays the post-Holocaust ethos of “never again”,
instrumentalizing the important fight against antisemitism to silence those who
advocate for Palestinian human rights, including Jews themselves,” affirms
Balsam. “IJV will continue to challenge the definition at every level of
government and at any other institutional body to which it is proposed.”
Currently there is a private
member’s bill before the Ontario legislature that would
implement the IHRA definition in that province, and IJV will mobilize
opposition to that as well.
For more
information, please see www.noihra.ca.
January 28, 2020 IJV Canada
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please submit your comments below