Our full amendment (which did not, unfortunately, attract all-party support) is below and is self-explanatory. Our UK Green MEPs took a similar approach when the European Parliament recently adopted the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism.
Everyone is also welcome to watch my colleague, Cllr Martin Love, explaining our position to the meeting here on the Council webcast:
https://bradford.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/353934/start_time/9350000
GREEN AMENDMENT TO MOTION 7
Proposed by Cllr Martin Love
Seconded by Cllr Kevin Warnes
Bradford Council is
deeply concerned by the rise in hate crime and racism across the UK, including
the rise in antisemitism in recent years.
Council notes that
the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) adopted the following
definition of antisemitism in May 2016: “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, towards Jewish Community institutions and
religious facilities”.
Council notes that
the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee published a report on
antisemitism in the UK in October 2016 which: (a) emphasised the “importance of
establishing an agreed definition of antisemitism”; (b) went on to “broadly
accept” the IHRA definition; and (c) recommended that the adoption of the IHRA
definition by the British government, law enforcement agencies and political
parties needed to include “two additional clarifications to ensure that freedom
of speech is maintained in the context of discourse about Israel and Palestine,
without allowing antisemitism to permeate any debate”.
Council notes that
the Home Affairs Select Committee’s two clarifications were: (a) “It is not
antisemitic to criticise the Government of Israel, without additional evidence
to suggest antisemitic intent”; and (b) It is not antisemitic to hold the
Israeli government to the same standards as other liberal democracies, or to
take a particular interest in the Israeli Government’s policies or actions,
without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent”.
Council notes that
the UK Government subsequently signed up to the IHRA definition of
anti-Semitism, but without the two caveats recommended by the Home Affairs
Select Committee.
Council notes that,
in March 2017, Hugh Tomlinson QC (Matrix Chambers) provided a ‘Counsel’s
Opinion’ on the government’s decision to adopt the IHRA definition of
antisemitism in this way on behalf of four campaign organisations (Free Speech
on Israel, Independent Jewish Voices, Jews for Justice for Palestinians and the
Palestine Solidarity Campaign).
Council notes
Tomlinson’s detailed six-point conclusion, which reads as follows:
1) The IHRA “non-legally binding working definition” of antisemitism is
unclear and confusing and should be used with caution.
2) The “examples” accompanying the IHRA Definition should be understood in
the light of the definition and it should be understood that the conduct listed
is only antisemitic if it manifests hatred towards Jews.
3) The Government’s “adoption” of the IHRA Definition has no legal status or
effect and, in particular, does not require public authorities to adopt
this definition as part of their anti-racism policies.
4) Any public authority which does adopt the IHRA Definition must interpret
it in a way which is consistent with its own statutory obligations,
particularly its obligation not to act in a matter inconsistent with the
Article 10 right to freedom of expression. Article 10 does not permit the
prohibition or sanctioning of speech unless it can be seen as a direct or
indirect call for or justification of violence, hatred or intolerance. The fact
that speech is offensive to a particular group is not, of itself, a proper
ground for prohibition or sanction. The IHRA Definition should not be adopted
without careful additional guidance on these issues.
5) Public authorities are under a positive obligation to protect freedom of
speech. In the case of universities and colleges this is an express statutory
obligation but Article 10 requires other public authorities to take steps to
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.
6) 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 practicing settler colonialism or calling for policies of boycott
divestment or sanctions against Israel can properly be characterized as
antisemitic. A public authority which sought to apply the IHRA Definition to
prohibit or sanction such activities would be acting unlawfully.
Council therefore:
1) restates its total condemnation of all forms of
racism in all its manifestations, including antisemitism;
2) requests that the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny
Committee conducts a detailed review of the options for adopting a clear,
robust definition of antisemitism that will enable Bradford Council to ensure
that (a) everything possible is done to end the scourge of antisemitism in our
society, while (b) also ensuring that our fundamental right to freedom of
expression is properly protected.
