Back the NEC Code on Antisemitism

Back the NEC Code on Antisemitism

YOU SHOULD BACK THE NEC CODE OF CONDUCT ON ANTISEMITISM

Because it:

  • Upholds freedom of speech under the Human Rights Act
  • Commits the Party to take action against all forms of antisemitism with full disciplinary powers
  • Includes the full 38 words of IHRA* definition of antisemitism
  • Makes clear distinction between antisemitism and criticism of Israel
  • Affirms it is not racist to assess the conduct of Israel against international law or the standards of democracy, where there is proper evidence and it is not a cover for antisemitism
  • Permits free speech on political ideology of Zionism that is not antisemitic
  • All allegations must be taken seriously, independently investigated & assessed and prosecuted where there are grounds
  • Is rigorous, clearly worded and will stand up in

This document  looks at various alternatives being canvassed and critiques them:

  • 1. That the IHRA Definition be adopted in full, with all its examples, to stand alongside the NEC Code of Conduct on Antisemitism.
  • 2. That the IHRA Definition be adopted in full, but with the addition of the caveats proposed by the House of Commons Select Committee on Antisemitism.
  •  3. That the IHRA Definition be adopted in full minus just half of example ‘g’.

​It  summarises the arguments as to why the IHRA document should NOT be accepted in full

It  summarises  legal advice on the Home Affairs Select Committee’s caveats and why accepting these will not solve the problem.

Download the full argument here as  PDF or Word

      

 

Comments (3)

  • Michael Westcombe says:

    Afternoon, all. May we rewrite the final sentence, please?

    I propose “The Labour Party is a test case for the IHRA Definition. We must ensure the IHRA Definition fails the test, for the sake of the Labour Party’s freedom of speech.”

  • John Lipetz says:

    As a Jew I fully agree. The Labour party NEC did a good job and should not change under the pressures about anti-semitism.

  • Mike says:

    Criticism of the Iraeli government’s actions is clearly not part of the IHRA definition of anti-semitism but only an item for discussion. The number of nations rejecting the IHRA agreement currently exceeds those signed up to it. Conflation of anti-semitism and criticism of of the Israeli government’s actions must surely fail to recognise the values of those who differentiate between the faith and the nation.

Comments are now closed.