EXCLUSIVE: ‘Anti-Semitism Czar’ John Mann declares war on The Canary and Skwawkbox –in the name of fighting ‘anti-Semitism’!

When Theresa May appointed John Mann to lead the fight against ‘anti-Semitism’ it was a case of one racist appointing another racist

Perhaps the best description of John Mann came from the Employment Tribunal case of Fraser –v- University College Union. This was a case brought by a Zionist  academic, Ronnie Fraser against his own trade union, UCU, for anti-Semitism. UCU’s offence was supporting the Boycott of Israel. Their judgment (paragraph 148) concerning Mann’s evidence was that:

Mr Mann could manage without even that assistance [the MacPherson Report]. He told us that the leaders of the Respondents were at fault for the way in which they conducted debates but did not enlighten us as to what they were doing wrong or what they should be doing differently. He did not claim ever to have witnessed any Congress or other UCU meeting. And when it came to antiSemitism in the context of debate about the Middle East, he announced, “It’s clear to me where the line is …” but unfortunately eschewed the opportunity to locate it for us. Both parliamentarians clearly enjoyed making speeches. Neither seemed at ease with the idea of being required to answer a question not to his liking.

The Jewish Chronicle, of all papers, accuses the alternative media of 'fuelling' the fake antisemitism crisis. It is such a clear and blatant attempt at censorship that all comment is superfluous

None of this stopped Theresa May, back in July 2019, appointing John Mann MP as her advisor on ‘anti-Semitism’. As his parting shot Mann launched an attack on Jeremy Corbyn for having given the ‘green light’ to anti-Semites.

“Every time I go into a meeting with a group of Jewish people, I wince when they raise the issue of the Labour party and Corbyn. It is impossible to overstate the anger that I have about that. He has not just hijacked my political party – he has hijacked its soul and its ethics. I will never forgive him for that.”

When John Mann talks about ‘ethics’  I feel like reaching for my gun, to quote Goebbels. Mann has about as much acquaintance with ethics as a mafia chief.

Mann's racist handbook which he has never explained

You might therefore be forgiven for thinking that during John Mann’s 18 years in parliament that he was a vociferous opponent of racism in all its forms. If so then I’m afraid you will be disappointed. There was no greater parliamentary racist than Mann. A bigot for all seasons.

Mann was one of the few Labour supporters of Brexit in Parliament. Brexit, which was motivated at its core, by fear and hostility to migrants and dreams of an independent ‘Great’ Britain of Empire past, was at one with the rest of Mann’s toxic views.

John Mann, throughout his time in parliament, has also been distinguished for his pro-war record, voting in support of the Iraq war in March 2003.

Racist Labour MP, Phil Woolas was backed to the hilt by Mann

Not once did Mann speak out against New Labour’s demonisation of refugees and asylum seekers. When the racist Labour MP Phil Woolas was ejected by an Election Court from the House of Commons for having lied about his Lib Dem opponent at the 2010 General Election, he had no greater supporter than John Mann.

Mann was described by the Guardian as Woolas’s “best friend, best man and political ally since the first day at Manchester University”. Woolas, he said, was “never reckless and never thoughtless”.

A thuggish John Mann screamed at Ken Livingstone that he was a 'Nazi apologist' for having mentioned the truth about the Zionist relationship with the Nazis

When Harriet Harman, the acting Labour leader suspended Woolas from the Labour Party after he had been convicted of lying, she faced “a backbench revolt” There were calls for her resignation

Among those to have spoken out in support of Woolas was John Mann, a close friend of his. (UPDATE: Although I should make clear that he was in Canada at the time and has been backing Woolas via telephone calls with a journalist at the Guardian).

Mann was quoted as saying that Woolas’s ejection:

has got profound implications for British democracy. The idea that a judge rather than the electorate can remove an MP is farcical". Woolas's is the first case of an MP being disbarred by the courts for malpractice since 1911.

Let us remember that Woolas did not just lie when he alleged that his opponent supported violent Muslim Jihadists but he deliberately sought to stir up a white working class vote by demonising Muslims by as terrorists and violent jihadists. A decision was taken by his campaign:

to 'make the white folk angry' by depicting an alleged campaign by those who they described generically as Asians to 'take Phil out' and then present Mr Watkins as in league with them.

When it came to the 2014 Immigration Act, which enacted the ‘hostile environment’ policy which led to the Windrush Scandal, Mann abstained, which in parliamentary terms is the equivalent of supporting the government of the day.

In 2007 Mann produced ‘the Bassetlaw Anti Social Behaviour Handbook. It told local residents how to deal with problems of anti-social behaviour. Included amongst those problems were Gypsies and Travellers. It said:

This handbook is designed to help you deal with problems you may face in your street or in your community. There are lots of different types of anti-social behaviour, including vandalism, abuse, noisy neighbours and fireworks.

Amongst these examples were to be found Travellers. Mann’s advice was

The police have powers to remove any gypsies or travellers, and have powers to direct people to leave the land and remove any vehicles or property they have with them

John Mann who lives off the holocaust and anti-semitism attacked the Gypsies in the same way as the Nazis

In 2016 Mann was interviewed by Police in connection with this pamphlet.  Gypsies are protected from racial discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. 

Ben Bennett, a 13 year old Traveller, who made a complaint to the Police, told Skwawkbox that Mann’s pamphlet made him feel

‘very upset’. I can’t understand why John Mann MP would choose to talk solely about my community in such a derogatory manner.’

The Jewish Chronicle campaigns for a State attack on The Canary and Skwawkbox and anyone who challenges the mainstream media

If Mann was sincere in his opposition to anti-Semitism then his remarks are incomprehensible. We hear a lot about how 6 million Jews died in the Jewish holocaust but little about how between half and one and a half million Gypsies were also exterminated by the Nazis in the Porajmos. They were called a criminal and asocial elements. Precisely what Mann called them in his pamphlet.

It is no surprise that Theresa May, the author of the ‘hostile environment’ policy, should embrace a fellow bigot.

Nor is it surprising that Boris Johnson, who is notorious for his racist including anti-Semitic comments, upgraded Mann’s role to become ‘anti-Semitism Czar’, elevating him to the Lords. It is a rather unfortunate title as the Czars were infamous for their anti-Semitism. Still, on reflection, the title seems apt.

Mann made his intentions known from the start.  He was going to concentrate on the Left press. You might think that someone genuinely concerned with racism would focus on the Daily Mail, Sun, Express etc. However Mann’s targets are the alternative media such as the Canary and Skwawkbox.

Editor Stephen Pollard has a policy of inventing news where it is politically convenient

In an article Report: Corbynite sites feature far-right tropes by ‘Liar’ Lee Harpin, whose inaccuracies have cost the Jewish Chronicle a small fortune in libel damages, the Skwawkbox and The Canary are accused of a “heavily negative coverage of Jewish issues” to audiences that are “associated with antisemitism”. We are told that there are ‘parallels between editorial lines taken by the two sites and that of the extreme far-right online outlet Radio Albion.’

Note ‘editorial lines’ not actual content.  So if, for their own reasons, fascists oppose a war abroad then if the left press oppose those wars they are likewise fascists. This is the reasoning applied throughout the report.

What are ‘Jewish issues.’ We are not told but we can guess. Palestine and Israel/Zionism. The same Israeli state which has just been condemned as an Apartheid state by the country’s main human rights group, Btselem.

What Mann is engaging in is a crude form of guilt-by-association. Mann has learnt well from Joe McCarthy. If you want a text-book lesson in how to corrupt the English language, take the paragraph below which equates The Canary and Skwawkbox on the basis of a supposed opposition to fascism. In fact fascists have never opposed capitalism. Of course they pretend to oppose capitalism. The Nazis called themselves ‘national socialists’ yet the first thing they did when they gained power was to put socialists and communists in concentration camps.

“despite the huge differences in the beliefs that are most foundational to their ideologies, articles published on all three sites share an opposition to capitalism, globalisation, and liberalism, adopt similar positions on many questions of foreign policy, and fulminate against a supposed adversary whose Jewishness is extensively highlighted (even if in different ways).

So even though Mann is forced to concede ‘huge differences’ in their ideology, i.e. the Skwawkbox and The Canary are anti-racist unlike fascist sites,  Mann draws an equals sign between them.

How does Mann’s Report explain the pro-Zionist stance of TR (Tommy Robinson)? 

‘TR News, the official website of far-right activist Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, popularly known as Tommy Robinson, has intentionally attempted to take the side of Jews and Israel, 

Perhaps that’s because Robinson is an openly declared Zionist, like much of the far-Right today? Mann’s polemics actually have a lot in common with Nazi propaganda, which also sought to portray opposites as being the same e.g. when they equated capitalism and communism, both of which were controlled by the Jews.

TR News has resorted to defending those Muslims who were seen to embrace pro-Western right-wing ideology, the two left-wing websites sought to declare allegiance with the minority of Jews who supported their own viewpoint.

In other words pro-fascist Black and Asian people, such as the racist supporters of India’s BJP government are no different from anti-Zionist Jews who oppose all forms of racism. This is the kind of intellectual sleight of hand that Mann has made into a fine art.

The ‘research’ for Mann’s Report was carried out by Daniel Allington, Senior Lecturer at King’s College London, and Tanvi Joshi. They selected the 20 most recent articles on each site that featured the words ‘Jew’ or ‘Zionist’ for analysis. Perhaps it did not occurred to Mann that what fascists mean by ‘Zionist’ might differ from what socialists mean and therefore his whole matrix isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. The whole Report is based on the assumption that ‘Jew’ = ‘Zionist’.

Dr. Allington is the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism’s favourite academic. His research is deliberately tailored to achieve the results he wants. He basically reaches the conclusion first and then reverse engineers his research! This work is wholly bogus and contrived. 

Together with Zionist academic David Hirsh he devised a Generalised Anti-Semitism Barometer for the CAA which found that anti-Semitism was more prevalent on the Left than the Right. Of course the Zionist and Tory press lapped it up.

What had changed from all previous surveys that found anti-Semitism was far more prevalent on the Right than Left? If true this was a staggering finding. However what the CAA didn’t put in their press releases was that they had only achieved this result by adding 6 questions to the original 6 questions (which were themselves debatable as Anshel Pfeffer showed in Ha'aretz).

That the CAA is a dishonest political organisation masquerading as a charity is one thing. That Dr Allington and Dr Hirsh should allow their support for Zionism to colour ostensibly neutral academic research should raise questions as to their academic integrity. The questions were

1.    “I am comfortable spending time with people who openly support Israel.”

2.    “Israel has a right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people.”

3.    “Israel is right to defend itself against those who want to destroy it.”

4.    “Israel and its supporters are a bad influence on our democracy.”

5.    “Israel can get away with anything because its supporters control the media.”

6.    “Israel treats the Palestinians like the Nazis treated the Jews.”

None of these statements are in any way anti-Semitic according to the Oxford English Dictionary definition of anti-Semitism: ‘hostility to or prejudice against Jews.’

I wouldn’t be comfortable spending time with supporters of General Franco.  Does that make me anti-Spanish? Israel’s right to exist as a homeland for Jews assumes that Jews aren’t already at home where they live. Israel having the right to defend itself assumes that it is under attack for existing rather than for its racist policies. Clearly Israel’s supporters are bad for democracy, as the IHRA misdefinition of anti-Semitism demonstrates. And yes the supporters of Israel do control the media.  Rupert Murdoch is not an anti-Zionist and neither is the BBC! It’s only anti-Semitic if you assume Zionists and Jews are the same, which is an assumption built in to supposedly academic research.

The most popular ‘anti-Semitic’ statement was no. 6; comparisons between Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians and how the Nazis treated the Jews.  But this is a political statement.  It may be right or it may be wrong but how is it evidence of anti-Semitism?

If Mann is correct then a number of holocaust survivors such as Israeli Professors Ze’ev Sternhell and Yehuda Elkana were also anti-Semitic. This is the academic employed by Mann. Both are charlatans. One example of Skawkbox’s 'racism' was

“making throwaway references to ‘a former Chief Rabbi with a history of supporting racism’ could contribute to the creation of an impression of Jewishness as inherently suspect.”

Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks accused Corbyn of echoing Enoch Powell when he himself recommended a book by Powellite Douglas Murray which advocated the racist (& antisemitic) Great White Replacement Theory

So if you accuse former Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks of being a racist, which he was, that is anti-Semitic because he is Jewish!

When Sacks died, I wrote an Obituary ‘An establishment bigot.’ and blogged it. Sacks, who had the audacity to compare Jeremy Corbyn with Enoch Powell endorsed an openly racist book which advocated the White Replacement Theory by Douglas Murray, The Strange Death of Europe. Even Owen Jones found the hypocrisy too much.

Owen Jones, an identity politics supporter of the fake ‘anti-Semitism’ drivel was also guilty of ‘the creation of Jewishness as inherently suspect.’ This kind of logic would fail a high school student yet its part of a government report.

Dishonesty permeates the Report. Because the far-Right indulges in Jewish conspiracy theories, the support of Skwawkbox and Canary for the undercover Al Jazeera programme The Lobby about the influence and activity of the Zionist lobby is therefore anti-Semitic.  No matter that the latter is true unlike the former. What all these allegations have in common is a deliberate confusion of ‘Jew’ and ‘Zionist’.  And who does this regularly?  The same anti-Semites and fascists that Mann purports to oppose.

Liar Lee’s article concludes with a quote from Dr Allington:

 “Government and civil society must encourage use of high quality, reputable sources of information at the expense of low-quality fringe sources,” it said. “We need not be helpless in the face of hatred.”

One wonders just who they mean by ‘high quality reputable sources of information’ Could it be Britain’s tabloid press, the Mail, Sun and Express? Clearly there is no criticism of Britain’s rabidly racist tabloids. Clearly Mann’s real concerns are not Jews or anti-Semitism but Zionism and Israel.

The only good thing about Mann’s Report is that it reflects his own mediocre intellectual talents.  It is so poorly argued and makes such obviously devious and dishonest analogies that only a simpleton or a rogue like Boris Johnson would fall for it.

It would seem that Mann has deliberately leaked his Report to the Jewish Chronicle where it can be guaranteed a warm reception. Let us see whether the rest of the British press is going to go along with this tendentious and transparent nonsense

Tony Greenstein

Why are the Officers and Employees of Civil Liberties Group Liberty Refusing to Implement its Policy of Opposition to the IHRA?

According to Liberty’s Olivia Percival, ‘Liberty is not actively campaigning against the IHRA definition’

Liberty, formerly known as the National Council for Civil Liberties, was founded in 1934. This was a time of heightened anti-fascist activity in which the Jews of the East End of London were under attack from Oswald Moseley’s British Union of Fascists.  In 1989 the organisation changed its name to Liberty.

The organisation has provided a career path for budding Labour politicians such as Patricia Hewitt, who went on to become an MP and in charge of Neil Kinnock’s personal office before being brought down by the cash for influence scandal.  Harriet Harman was a former legal officer and her husband Jack Dromey was Chair of the Executive Committee. Shami Chakrabarti the previous Director is now Shadow Attorney General. What all the ex-employees of Liberty who find their way to the top of the Labour Party have in common is their abandoning and jettisoning of any pretence of support for civil liberties.  Harriet Harman for example went along with all Tony Blair’s anti-terrorism legislation without a squeak. Chakrabarti’s attack on Ken Livingstone suggests that she too considers civil liberties to be a drag on her career.

Martha Spurrier, another in a long line of hopeful Establishment Labour politicians

The current Director, Martha Spurrier is, like her predecessor, a barrister. Liberty/NCCL has never been a particular radical organisation, especially in recent times. In its earlier times it had no difficulty supporting for example the internment of Oswald Moseley in the war, something which led to mass resignations from the organisation.

During the period of Hewitt and Harman the organisation adopted a policy which was in effect pro-paedophile. The Paedophile Information Exchange became affiliated at one point and it was only in 1983 that the organisation rejected paedophilia as just another sexual life style. All that can be said about this period is that paedophile groups were able to take advantage of the sexual revolution of the 1960’s to propagate the idea that sexual freedom should include the right of adults to have sex with children and that this found favour amongst a section of the libertarian left and gay rights campaigners such as Peter Tatchell.

Liberty/NCCL has always seen itself as part of the British Establishment. It is therefore no surprise that when Professor Jonathan Rosenhead of the LSE moved a motion at the May 2018 AGM, seconded by Louise Christian, a well known solicitor, opposing the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism, its officers took fright. The motion itself was passed almost unanimously.

The IHRA is a consensus position of the British political establishment and Liberty is, if nothing else, an establishment group. When I heard that the motion had been passed I wrote to Liberty inquiring about their new policy.  I heard nothing for some months.

I had quite forgotten about my inquiry until an email arrived from Olivia Percival, a former government solicitor who is now Liberty’s Advice & Information Officer. As I read the email I became more and more disconcerted. Ms Percival did not have one good thing to say about Liberty’s policy. What she seemed to be doing was to explain why the organisation was doing nothing about the organisation. 

Percival first began by telling me that ‘I would emphasise that the motion reaffirmed Liberty’s opposition to anti-semitism in all its forms’. The implication being that opposition to the IHRA might be construed as support for anti-Semitism!

It was the next paragraph that left me open mouthed. It would appear that Percival, who is clearly not stupid, deliberately didn’t want to understand the reason for opposition to the IHRA: She wrote that:

‘As an organisation that both fervently supports free speech and fervently opposes anti-semitism, Liberty has an obligation to carefully consider the intersection of these two issues. Whenever we talk about hate speech, we immediately have to think about the boundaries of free speech. Drawing that boundary is not always easy. The position Liberty has taken on the IHRA definition comes from a good faith effort to think through this issue.

The clear implication being that opposition to the IHRA meant support for anti-Semitic hate speech. Why else would she talk about the ‘intersection’ of the two issues of free speech and anti-Semitism?

What Percival was doing was to revisit the policy of Liberty’s American equivalent, the American Civil Liberties Union which infamously supported a march through the Skokie in Chicago, where large numbers of Holocaust survivors lived, by the American Nazi Party. See the NYT, July 1978 THE A.C.L.U. AGAINST ITSELF.

Olivia Percival's email to Tony Greenstein

Thousands of Jews and others left the ACLU over their support for the right of neo-Nazis to propagate their filth and hatred. Indeed this controversy briefly surfaced in the NCCL  when its American Director, Andrew Puddephat I believe, argued for the freedom of speech of fascists in this country. It sparked a heated controversy within the NCCL which led to his departure.

Percival however has completely misunderstood the nature of the opposition to the IHRA, some would say deliberately so. Jonathan Rosenhead is himself Jewish. Neither he nor Jewish Voice for Labour of which he is a member support free speech for anti-Semites. Opposition to the IHRA has nothing to do with support for free speech for racists and fascists. There may indeed be an interesting discussion about ‘the boundaries of free speech’ when it comes to hate speech but it has nothing to do with the IHRA and it is dishonest for Percival to suggest otherwise.

Opposition to the IHRA is about opposition to the attack on the rights of supporters of the Palestinians and anti-Zionists to oppose Israeli Apartheid. It has nothing to do with supporting the rights of anti-Semites. It is disingenuous to suggest this.

The American ACLU defended the rights of Nazis in Skokie, Chicag- pictured is a Vietnam veteran

If Olivia Percival had bothered to read the resolution which was passed she would know that it begins by reiterating its ‘abhorrence of antisemitism as a repellent undercurrent..’ Even this well-heeled former government solicitor should be aware that some of the most vigorous supporters of Israel, Zionism and the IHRA are also some of the most notorious racist bigots in politics.  Donald Trump combines ardent support for Israel with anti-Semitism. His election campaign was widely condemned by American Jews for its use of anti-semitic stereotypes and subliminal messages. See Anti-Semitism is no longer an undertone of Trump’s campaign. It’s the melody.

The person who masterminded Trump’s campaign, Steve Bannon, is personally anti-Semitic and a supporter of the European far-Right and Tommy Robinson. The founder of the American alt-Right, the neo-Nazi Richard Spencer has even declared that he is a White Zionist

The policy passed by Liberty in opposition to the IHRA has nothing whatsoever to do with support for anti-Semitism or anti-Semitic hate speech. What it does do is support freedom of speech for opponents of Israeli apartheid. It is dishonest of Percival to suggest otherwise.

And to add insult to injury, this establishment lawyer that Liberty has taken under its wing goes on to state that ‘We have been very clear that Liberty is not actively campaigning against the IHRA definition, as it is not an institutional priority.’ That is obvious because there is not one single mention of the IHRA on Liberty’s website.

At a time when right-wing Labour Councils are adopting the IHRA, in consort with Tory councillors, with the specific intention of curtailing the rights of Palestine solidarity supporters, Liberty under its present leadership chooses to ignore its own policy and do nothing.

As if to emphasise her own disagreement with the policy Percival writes that

‘it’s often the case that members (and even sometimes our staff!) disagree with some of the organisation’s positions but remain engaged in an overall common purpose, and even work from within the organisation to change it.

Whilst no one expects staff to agree with every resolution, it is nonetheless their duty to give implement policy passed. The IHRA is being pushed hard by the present Conservative government, a government which is aligned in the European Parliament with far-Right anti-Semitic parties.  The IHRA is being used on campuses to prevent or seriously hinder Palestine solidarity campaigns.

Even the principal author of the IHRA or the Working Definition of Anti-Semitism, the American Jewish Committee’s Kenneth Stern has acknowledged that the IHRA is being used in ways that were never intended, as a means of chilling free speech. In testimony to the House of Representatives in November 2017, he warned that:

The definition was not drafted, and was never intended, as a tool to target or chill speech on a college campus. In fact, at a conference in 2010 about the impact of the definition, I highlighted this misuse, and the damage it could do.

Stern spoke about how the IHRA was ‘was being employed in an attempt to restrict academic freedom and punish political speech’. One could argue that Stern was being hypocritical since the IHRA’s whole purpose was to render anti-Zionist criticism as  antisemitic.

Stern described how Zionist pressure groups in the US ‘argued that even if  the [court] cases lost, they had what seemed to them a positive benefit – they  chilled pro -Palestinian  expression.’ Stern asked a question particularly relevant to the current debate. 

‘Imagine a definition designed for Palestinians. If  “Denying the Jewish people their right to self- determination, and denying Israel the right to exist” is antisemitism, then shouldn’t “Denying  the Palestinian people their right to self- determination,  and denying Palestine the right to exist”  be anti -Palestinianism?’

Stern described how the IHRA had been used to curtail free speech in Britain, listing the “Israel Apartheid Week” event which was cancelled by Central Lancashire University and the case of the Holocaust survivor who was required to change the title of  a campus talk by Manchester university after an Israeli diplomat complained that the title violated the definition.’  Stern described as ‘Perhaps most egregious’ of all the call on a university to conduct an inquiry of  a professor for ‘antisemitism’, based on an article she had written years before. Accurately describing what had happened as ‘chilling and McCarthy -like.’

As Jewish student Joanna Phillips wrote in Jewish News/Times of Israel ‘Jewish students deserve a better definition of anti-Semitism’

Kenneth Stern … went as far as to write to the US House of Representatives urging them not to adopt this definition for American campuses. Jewish students need a tailored definition, written with the realities of modern universities in mind, not one designed for researchers.

Stern was prompted to write his letter after seeing the waves of censorship the definition unleashed within American campuses. The IHRA definition fails to properly distinguish between legitimate criticism of Israel and hatred of Jews disguised as anti-Zionism.

It would seem that Olivia Percival and Martha Spurrier, to whom I have written, also have difficulty distinguishing between anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel and Zionism. If Percival and Spurrier refuse to implement Liberty policy on the IHRA then they have no alternative but to resign.  Freedom of speech on university campuses and on Palestine is not a peripheral issue.

Below is my letter to Ms Percival and the policy that Liberty has adopted.

Tony Greenstein

Letter of Reply to Olivia Percival

Dear Olivia,

Thank you for your email of 2^nd October concerning the decision of the Liberty AGM to oppose the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism. I am surprised that you sent this from a ‘noreply’ email address. That is what my broadband supplier does. It indicates that you don’t wish to enter into dialogue on this subject. I have therefore dug out an email address for your Director and may post this more widely given your reluctance to be more open.

I am extremely disappointed by your response, which is almost apologetic for the fact that the motion was passed. Why else would you emphasise that members ‘and even sometimes our staff! disagree with some of the organisation’s positions’.  This strongly suggests that you intend to do your best to ignore the motion and do nothing about it. It also suggests that you disagree with the policy.

What is the purpose of passing policy at Liberty’s AGM if you and the staff immediately disregard it? The IHRA has already been used in this country to prevent an Israeli Apartheid Week at the University of Central Lancashire, to prevent Professor Richard Falk speaking on campuses and to impose restrictions on other pro-Palestinian events. Even the person who drafted the IHRA, Kenneth Stern, in testimony to the House of Representatives last November warned that:

‘The definition was not drafted, and was never intended, as a tool to target or chill speech on a college campus. In fact, at a conference in 2010 about the impact of the definition, I highlighted this misuse, and the damage it could do.’

I find particularly surprising your point that Liberty ‘both fervently supports free speech and fervently opposes anti-Semitism’ as if opposition to the IHRA means support for anti-Semitism. Viktor Orban, Hungary’s anti-Semitic Prime Minister certainly doesn’t share this position as his government fully supports the IHRA whilst lauding its war-time pro-Nazi ruler Admiral Horthy. You clearly do not understand why many people oppose both the IHRA and oppose racism and anti-Semitism.

Of the 8, yes 8, governments that have fully adopted the definition, (Macedonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Lithuania, Austria) 5 possess far-Right governments and one, Austria has a neo-Nazi party Heinz Christian Strache’s Freedom Party as the junior coalition partner.

You speak about the ‘intersection’ of free speech and opposition to anti-Semitism with talk about the ‘boundaries of free speech.’ You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that opposition to the IHRA has something to do with free speech for anti-Semites or racists.  Let me disabuse you of this fact.

The IHRA ‘definition’ of anti-Semitism has nothing to do with opposing anti-Semitism and everything to do with conflating opposition to Zionism and support for the Palestinians with anti-Semitism. The IHRA is about defining critics of Israeli Apartheid as anti-Semitic. The demolition of Arab villages to make way for Jewish settlements and towns is inherent in what a Jewish State means.  According to the IHRA to make this point is anti-Semitic and you appear to go along with this nonsense. 

I find it disappointing that you haven’t grasped this elementary fact. Clearly you haven’t acquainted yourself with recent debates around the IHRA. Perhaps I can apprise you of them?

Professor David Feldman, who was Vice-Chair of the Chakrabarti Inquiry and  is Director of the Pears Institute for the Study of Anti-Semitism described the IHRA definition as‘bewilderingly imprecise.’ with its talk of anti-Semitism being a ‘certain perception which might be expressed as anti-Semitism’. 

Sir Stephen Sedley, who was a Judge in the Court of Appeal, besides being Jewish, wrote, in Defining Anti-Semitism that the IHRA‘fails the first test of any definition: it is indefinite.’ In what is the most concise critique of the IHRA yet, Sedley took it apart for its deliberate attempt to prevent any systematic critique of the Israeli state and Zionism.

Hugh Tomlinson QC in an Opinion declared, as did other lawyers, that the IHRA had a ‘potential chilling effect on public bodies which, in the absence of definitional clarity, may seek to sanction or prohibit any conduct which has been labelled by third parties as antisemitic without applying any clear criterion of assessment.’

Geoffrey Robertson QC, who is a renowned human rights lawyer likewise described the IHRA as likely to chill criticism of action by the Government of Israel and advocacy of sanctions as a means to deter human rights abuses in Gaza and elsewhere. Robertson described the IHRA as ‘not fit for purpose’

Interestingly Robertson also finds, along with Sedley, that when it comes to genuine anti-Semitism, the IHRA actually raises the bar because ‘By pivoting upon racial hatred ... it fails to catch those who exhibit hostility and prejudice – or apply discrimination – against Jewish people for no reason other than that they are Jewish.’

There is a very simple definition of anti-Semitism the Oxford English Dictionary definition: ‘Hostility to or prejudice against Jews’ which catches attitudes that fall short of hatred. For example someone who says that he doesn’t hate Jews but he doesn’t want to live next to them or have his daughter marry a Jew is not, by the IHRA definition, anti-Semitic. 

I hope you and Liberty’s officials will revisit your obvious reluctance to embrace the decision of Liberty’s AGM. I realize that the IHRA is the consensus position of the British Establishment and that Liberty has traditionally seen itself as the liberal wing of that Establishment. However the IHRA is also a definition of anti-Semitism that anti-Semites such as the Polish and Hungarian governments feel comfortable with.  I should add that traditionally the British Establishment combined both pro-Zionism and anti-Semitism.

The IHRA is being used and has already been used in this country to close down debate on Palestine.  It has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. If free speech is not a concern of Liberty then what is the purpose of the organisation?

I look forward to your responding a tad quicker than the 6 months it took from my last post to you.

Yours sincerely,

Tony Greenstein