IHRA and Labour NEC's antisemitism codes side by side View this email in your browser Labour NEC's antisemitism code is more fit-for-purpose than the IHRA code It's inevitable that some people, presented with a complex issue at short notice, do not have time to read the texts or think seriously about the issues and base their opinion on what other people or organisations say.



In the case of Labour's proposed new code of conduct on antisemitism they have been saying: "Why not import the IHRA code? That's what all the mainstream Jewish organisations say. What's the harm in just accepting it? It would be antisemitic to refuse."



"Why not import the IHRA code?"



In fact the Labour Party has always accepted the IHRA definition in full. And, as you can see from the two codes printed side by side below, the proposed Labour Party code also accepts 90% of the examples given by the IHRA. Where it differs, it is in the direction of greater clarity and precision - necessary in a disciplinary code - and protecting freedom of speech.



"That's what all the mainstream Jewish organisations say"



Well, yes, but 40 Jewish organisations have signed a global letter urging governments not to accept the IHRA code, including in the UK Jewish Voice for Labour, Jews for Justice for Palestinians, Independent Jewish Voices and Free Speech on Israel. In addition Labour's code is supported by Brian Klug, well-known academic and Fabian author, who is Jewish, as are two members of the NEC working party that drew up the new code, Jon Lansman and Rhea Wolfson. What is also true, but less frequently pointed out, is that many of those who oppose the new code are not Labour.



"What's the harm in just accepting it?"



There's already evidence that organisations will use the loose wording of the IHRA guidelines to stop people saying things that are critical of Israel and have no antisemitic intent. This is already happening. Four examples are given below.



"It would be antisemitic to refuse."



It is vital that in defending the human rights of Jewish people and fighting antisemitism, we don't (intentionally or unintentionally) prevent Palestinians and their supporters from defending their own rights.



We print the two codes side by side and provide all the necessary links so that you can make your own mind up in full knowledge of the facts: Quotes Richard Burden MP: "If the two documents were looked at side by side without any preconceptions,most people would be hard pressed to say whether one is stronger or weaker than the other.



"We rightly say we must listen carefully when Jews seek to define the oppression they face, so how can we refuse to do the same when Palestinians speak out about theirs?"



Dr Brian Klug: "Examples that are seen to be problematic in terms of protecting free speech must be dealt with separately, which is what the new code does.... Labour is right to discuss the complexities that arise ....and critics are wrong to say that the code simply omits them. In contrast, critics have not acknowledged these complexities since the code was released."



Jon Lansman: "The [Labour Party] code fully adopts the IHRA definition, and covers the same ground as the IHRA examples, but it also provides additional examples of antisemitism while giving context and detailed explanations to ensure it can be practically applied to disciplinary cases within the party.



"The only part of the IHRA working examples that is not explicitly referenced relates to claims about the state of Israel being a racist endeavour (this is a subset of an example, not a standalone one). Of all the elements in the IHRA examples, this is the one that runs the greatest risk of prohibiting legitimate criticism of Israel. It cannot possibly be antisemitic to point out that some of the key policies of the Israeli state, observed since its founding days, have an effect that discriminates on the basis of race and ethnicity."



Former Court of Appeal Judge Sir Stephen Sedley: "There is no legal bar on criticising Israel. Yet several of the “examples” that have been tacked on to the IHRA definition (by whom is not known) seek to stifle criticism of Israel irrespective of intent. The House of Commons select committee on home affairs in October 2016 advised adding: “It is not antisemitic to criticise the government of Israel, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent.” Links IHRA code

Labour's NRC draft

EU leads criticism after Israel passes Jewish 'nation state' law

Richard Burden: Why I’m Concerned About The IHRA Definition Of AntisemitismLabour’s code of conduct isn’t antisemitic – it’s a constructive initiative Brian Klug

Labour’s antisemitism code is the gold standard for political parties Jon Lansman

As Jews, we reject the myth that it's antisemitic to call Israel racist The two codes side by side Are all the IHRA examples in the NEC's examples? IHRA points a-e,i and k are replicated exactly in Labour's code (though not always in the same position). IHRA



a. Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.



b. Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.



c. Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.



d. 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)



e. Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.



f. Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.



g. 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.



h. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.



i. Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.



j. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.



k. Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel. Labour's NEC



a. Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.



b. Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.



c. Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.



d.Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of Nazi Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).



e. Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.



f. Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.



g. Classic antisemitism also includes the use of derogatory terms for Jewish people (such as “kike” or “yid”); stereotypical and negative physical depictions/descriptions or character traits, such as references to wealth or avarice and -- in the political arena -- equating Jews with capitalists or the ruling class.



h. Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

What about points f,g,h and j? Points f,g and h are covered elsewhere in Labour's guidelines, though not in exactly the same words. IHRA's point j is addressed in Labour's paragraph 16, but more narrowly defined. IHRA



f. Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.





g. 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.





h. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.



j. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. Labour's NEC



14. It is wrong to accuse Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.



12. The Party is clear that the Jewish people have the same right to self-determination as any other people. to deny that right is to treat the Jewish people unequally and is therefore a form of antisemitism.



14. It is wrong to apply double standards by requiring more vociferous condemnation of such actions from Jewish people or organisations than from others.



16. Discourse about international politics often employs metaphors drawn from examples of historic misconduct. It is not antisemitism to criticise the conduct or policies of the Israeli state by reference to such examples unless there is evidence of antisemitic intent. Chakrabarti recommended that Labour members should resist the use of Hitler, Nazi and Holocaust metaphors, distortions and comparisons in debates about Israel-Palestine in particular. In this sensitive area, such language carries a strong risk of being regarded as prejudicial or grossly detrimental to the Party within Clause 2.I.8.

Are all Labour's points covered by IHRA? Labour NEC's point f does not appear in the IHRA list. IHRA Labour's NEC



f. Classic antisemitism also includes the use of derogatory terms for Jewish people (such as “kike” or “yid”); stereotypical and negative physical depictions/descriptions or character traits, such as references to wealth or avarice and -- in the political arena -- equating Jews with capitalists or the ruling class.

