Anti-semitism, free speech and the IHRA – why a new definition of anti-semitism could be dangerous for Jersey
“You’re a fucking antisemite and a racist”.
So said Labour MP Margaret Hodge to party leader Jeremy Corbyn a few weeks ago, hot off the heels of a Commons debate on Brexit. Her reason? Labour’s pro-Corbyn National Executive Committee had the day before signed off a policy document on anti-semitism that didn’t adopt the full text of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of anti-semitism. Their reasons? Concerns over free speech, particularly relating to some of the definition’s examples of anti-semitism, and fears over criticism of Israel potentially being branded as anti-semitism by the pro-Israel lobby. Now, as a significant debate rages in the U.K. over the IHRA definition, Stephen Regal, the head of Jersey’s Jewish congregation, and the Board of Deputies in the UK, has demanded that our government adopt this definition of antisemitism too, despite government assurances that they have no plans to do so.
To start with, it’s worth a look at the actual text of the definition in question. The IHRA defines anti-semitism thus:
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
So far uncontroversial.
“To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations: Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.”
Once again, pretty ordinary, mainstream stuff. However, the next part of the definition is where we start to run into problems – the problems in question being some of the specific examples of anti-semitism the text gives.
While “Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion” or “Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust)” are pretty unambiguous in their anti-semitic intent.
But “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” — which has been done by Holocaust survivors and victims of Nazi persecution themselves — is more problematic. This is well illustrated by the recent case that saw the now-deceased Auschwitz survivor Hajo Meyer branded anti-semitic for making comparisons between his experiences as a Jew in Europe during the fascist era and the experience of the Palestinians. As is the statement “Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation”. It’s almost defensive in tone, seemingly trying to accuse critics of Israel of using double standards, when the reality is that Israel gets away with far more than most democratic nations ever could with its daily violations of international law.
Implementation of a definition that casts potentially legitimate, if perhaps tasteless in the former case, criticisms of Israel into the pit of fire has serious implications for free speech and open debate, and that’s without even considering if either of these are actually anti-semitic at all. Conflation of Jews themselves and the State of Israel has been a common antisemitic trope since Israel’s establishment — isn’t a definition of antisemitism that ties prejudice against all Jews to Israel itself anti-Semitic in and of itself?
The broader implications, however, are most certainly in the free speech department. Supporters of the State of Israel have a long history of exploiting fears over anti-semitism to attempt to delegitimize criticism of Israel (powerfully highlighted in Al Jazeera’s documentary ‘The Lobby’) — think about the power this could grant them. The IHRA definition brands “defining a State of Israel as a racist enterprise”, past, future or present, as anti-semitic — meaning any criticism of the recent “nation state” law, which formalises Israel as an apartheid state and states that Jews and Jews alone have a right to self-determination in Israel, could be criminalised if you dared to discuss the racist motivations of the bill.
What we could potentially be facing if the IHRA definition was included in new hate speech legislation is local pro-Palestinian activists potentially facing jail time for highlighting the racist nature of Israel’s repression of Palestinians, being accused of using a double standard when asking that Israel comply with international law, or making an ill-advised comparison between Israeli and Nazi policies.
We could draw parallels to the American Communist Control Act of 1954 which used draconian laws designed to criminalise a certain viewpoint and any discussion that could be viewed as dangerous by the state, effectively outlawing communism in the United States. What precedent does that sort of thing set? What follows legislation like that and what risks could that present to all of us? Freedom of speech is the bedrock of any democracy, and that includes the right to say things some people might find uncomfortable. Antisemitism is a problem, but it’s crucial that we’re careful not to step over the mark in our efforts to combat it.
The alternative is a very dark path indeed.
