'Yes' Campaign Submitted Argument
The following text was submitted by the 'Yes' campaign organisers. It outlines their view on why they believe students should vote 'yes' in the referendum:
Summary:
- We strongly oppose all forms of antisemitism.
- The IHRA definition opposes freedom of speech by potentially accusing Anti-Zionists (people who oppose the State of Israel) of antisemitism (Jew hatred)
- 7 of 11 of the IHRA examples of antisemitism relate to Israel.
- There are existing laws and University policies that deal with antisemitism. The IHRA definition adds nothing to existing policies.
- There are numerous instances where the IHRA definition has been weaponised to silence criticism of Israel.
- We instead propose that the University works with Jewish students and staff to better investigate and tackle antisemitism at City. Vote YES to REJECT the IHRA definition.
Our stance on antisemitism:
Antisemitism is an especially odious form of racism and has absolutely no place in our University. Antisemitism, alongside all forms of discrimination, must be fought vigorously. As students opposing the IHRA definition, we have been at the forefront of the fight against racism at City and have been campaigners for equality and human rights for all.
Freedom of speech:
- We oppose the adoption or even the ‘recognition’ of the IHRA definition of antisemitism and its illustrative examples. We heed the advice of a number of world-renowned experts[1] on antisemitism, including Kenneth Stern, the author of the definition of antisemitism who warned against the adoption of the definition.
- The IHRA working definition is deeply flawed and not fit for purpose because it conflates antisemitism with anti-Zionism, and prevents free speech on Israel. It does not lend additional tools in the fight against antisemitism and does not promote a culture of safety.
- Adopting or recognising the definition is detrimental to academic autonomy and free speech. Some of the illustrative examples seek to prohibit the expression of views, facts and opinions relating to Israel that fall within legitimate academic enquiry and speech. E.g, the adoption would require students and staff to suppress and misrepresent historical records, contemporary realities and lived experiences - in an attempt to silence Palestinian voices.
- As students who are vocal against the occupation of Palestine, we have been silenced and subjected to disciplinaries due to baseless and false accusations. We fear that more students will be subjected to this as a result of the adoption - leading to an environment of self-censorship and fear amongst the student body.
Why we oppose the IHRA definition:
- 7 of these 11 IHRA examples of antisemitism relate to the State of Israel. We believe Israel should be totally separate from the conversation around antisemitism.
- One example state: “Denying the Jewish people their right to self- determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour” is antisemitic. This potentially means that any Palestinian student who claims that An-Nakba (the Catastrophe), i.e. the expelling of over 700,000 Palestinians to make way for the State of Israel to be formed, was a racist act (“endeavour”), could be called an anti-Semite under IHRA. We can see that the definition delegitimises and shuts down any criticism of Zionism.
- Another example in the IHRA definition states: “Applying double standards by requiring [Israel] a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.” Many believe Israel to be an apartheid state, due to its racist laws that place Palestinians as second- or third-class citizens in Israel. It is impossible to find a comparable democratic state that is committing such atrocities and discrimination against an indigenous population, so it logically follows that criticism of the state of Israel will be harsher than criticisms of other countries or states that are not propagating apartheid.
- The IHRA definition, and in particular its examples have been heavily criticised, even by Kenneth Stern. Kenneth admits: “A lot of this comes to whether anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism or not.[2]
- The IHRA definition is at best, lazy and at worse, maliciously intended to silence any criticism of Israel using antisemitism as a smokescreen.
Existing policies
University policies
- City University has existing legal and institutional protections that exist to protect ethnic and religious groups from abuse, discrimination, and harassment.
- City University complies with the relevant legislations (Equality Act 2010; Human Rights Act 1998; Education Act 1986), which set out the guiding principles for tackling instances of discrimination.
- City University has a number of internal policies and procedures in place for staff and students to offer protections against different forms of antisemitism. These include the following:
- The University Harassment and Bullying Policy, in which the University states they will “respond appropriately and effectively to any breaches of the Student Harassment and Bullying Policy and associated Regulations”. This policy is tied to the Equality Act 2010, which applies to all students, staff and third parties to the University.
- The University has admitted, in its consultation paper, that in adopting or recognising the working group definition, it would not change University policies or procedures in terms of tackling antisemitism. Therefore, the adoption or recognition of the definition is tokenistic.
Incidents
- Examples where the definition was used to silence free speech
- Concerns about stifling of free speech under the IHRA definition are not without merit, there are numerous instances attesting to this taking place. This includes:
- In 2019, a freedom of information request revealed that the Big Ride for Palestine, a cycling charity event, was cancelled by Tower Hamlets Council due to fears that the ‘political connotations of the event’ violates the IHRA definition.[3]
- Free speech on Israel has been under attack at City University for a number of years and the IHRA definition will impose further restriction to freely criticize the state of Israel. For example
- In 2018, the Friends of Palestine (FOP) Society was accused of “glorification of terrorism” for simply displaying the names of peaceful Palestinian protesters who died on the Great Return March. They were exonerated and no evidence of terrorism was found. Had the IHRA definition been adopted at the time, bearing in mind the widespread weaponization of IHRA by universities, an accusation of antisemitism would have likely been upheld, which would have been catastrophic for the students involved. Over the years, students have been consistently intimidated and attacked by pro-Israel groups.
- The Friends of Palestine society (FOP) are aware that City students have historically faced investigations and allegations of antisemitism for criticising Israel.
- At UCL, students were intimidated, harassed, and accused of antisemitism under the IHRA definition, for simply displaying a map of Palestine and were told that this was not allowed, nor was showing Palestinian flags allowed.
- There are countless examples, formally and informally documented, where pro-Israel individuals and organisations weaponize the IHRA definition of antisemitism to silence Palestinian students, Friends of Palestine societies and pro-Palestinian activism.
Alternative
What we propose
- We emphasise that we stand against antisemitism and want to see it eradicated from campus.
- We propose that the University works collaboratively with our Jewish Society, Jewish students, and staff and the SU, to better understand antisemitism at City and how we can fight against it.
- We do not oppose the right of a marginalised group to define their oppression. However, this should not be at the cost of another marginalised group or community.
- The UCL Academic Board has declared that the IHRA definition is not fit for purpose and are looking to come up with a new definition that works for a University context.
- We strongly urge students to vote ‘YES’ in the referendum and REJECT and adoption or recognition of the IHRA definition.
If you have any questions or would like to get involved in the referendum, please contact our campaign at palsoc@city.ac.uk or @cityfop on Instagram.
[1] The government should not impose a faulty definition of antisemitism on universities | Antisemitism | The Guardian
[2] https://www.timesofisrael.com/the-scholar-who-wrote-the-definition-of-anti-semitism-says-its-been-subverted/
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/aug/03/uk-council-refused-to-host-palestinian-event-over-antisemitism-fears