Roger van Egmond Ⓥ 𓃟 Pigoneer #DismantleZionism

Extraordinary overreach. What are they thinking? They're going to arrest the people driving pensioners and priests to a protest where they intend to hold up a sign? People who give them water? People acting as legal observers?

This is just straightforwardly false. This review's key recommendation is not based on any hard academic or legal evidence - and it's adoption is going to cause serious disruption to schools and will lead to the targeting of individuals schools and teachers. The first and most notable recommendation of the Bell report is for the Secretary of State for Education to encourage schools to implement the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism. The report claims that SOME respondents felt that it was difficult to determine what constituted antisemitism at all times because it can sometimes be "coded" or "intertwined with broader political discourse". It then says "the IHRA working definition could provide a reference point for schools and colleges to help understand these boundaries." It cites its adoption by the UK government and an endorsement from Lord John Mann in support of the idea. But at no stage - not once - does it provide any hard evidence, or really any sort of convincing argument, that adopting the IHRA definition will do anything to tackle antisemitism. There is not a single academic citation or real-world example given of how the IHRA definition has, in other contexts, aided in the fight against antisemitism. It really just asserts, baldly and without any real explanation, that adopting the IHRA definition will help identify antisemitism. It then spends a good few pages rebutting, very poorly, the numerous criticisms of the definition. Why doesn't it report any evidence beyond the fact that political actors have chosen to adopt? I suspect because there is no comprehensive or compelling clear-cut evidence from an academic study that will show that the IHRA definition has helped reduce the instance of antisemitism in institutional settings. In fact, a cursory search through the academic literature shows that most raise concerns with how the IHRA impedes free speech. Scholarly, legal and civil society opinion is (at best) divided on the IHRA definition - although, frankly, it mostly leans towards rejecting it. The adoption of the IHRA definition was opposed by over 100 civil society organisations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union. It is also opposed by many prominent mainstream Israeli groups like B'tselem, because it conflates criticism of Israel with antisemitism. It has been explicitly called out by two former Lord Justices of Appeal. It's original drafter - Kenneth Sterner - has argued it should be dropped because it has been (in his words) "weaponised" by right-wing actors. In February 2023, the American Bar Association passed a motion condemning antisemitism. But it explicitly removed all references to the IHRA definition after push-back from legal scholars and civil liberties groups. In 2022, the UN's Special Rapporteur Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related intolerance (Stanford Law Professor E. Tendayi Achiume) wrote a report about tackling all forms of racism. She urged that state parties refrain from adopting the IHRA Definition. She wrote: "Notwithstanding the political endorsement of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition across Europe and in North America, it has become highly controversial and divisive owing to its susceptibility to being politically instrumentalized and the harm done to human rights resulting from such instrumentalization. As a result, the Special Rapporteur cautions against reliance on the working definition as a guiding instrument for and at the United Nations and its constituent entities... The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition and the illustrative examples attached to it are wielded to prevent or suppress legitimate criticisms of the State of Israel, a State that must, like any other in the United Nations system, be accountable for human rights violations that it perpetrates. Those primarily harmed as a result are Palestinians, as well as human rights defenders advocating on their behalf. This harm is occurring in a period of heightened repression of Palestinians, including escalating, daily gross violations of their human rights." Remember, this is the definition that the Bell Committee believes will help to untangle antisemitism with is "intertwined with political discourse." But there is an overwhelming body of expert opinion that says the IHRA definition does the exact opposite by repeatedly conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism. You really can't make it up. We also have multiple real-world examples of what happens in institutions that adopt the IHRA - like what happened at the very many UK universities that adopted the definition. Surprise, surprise - studies have found that the definition was used to suppress and chill protests against Israel. A September 2023 report from the European Legal Resources Centre and the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies found that 40 cases of antisemitism had been brought under the IHRA definition at Universities - of which 38 were thrown out for having no basis. And that was from before October 2023, since which Universities have had a disturbing record in how they have policed protests against genocide. The bottom-line is that educational institutions are being forced by politicians to adopt the IHRA Definition in the teeth of the wishes of the actual experts - teachers and educators, like the NEU, who have rejected the Bell Report's findings. Indeed, the IHRA Working Definition was only adopted by UK universities because Gavin Williamson threatened to cut their funding if they didn't. Lucy Powell is threatening the same thing. In accepting the Bell report, Powell has said she will write to all schools early next year setting out the government's "expectation" that they will adopt the report. She will then conduct a survey of which schools have done so - and most likely then publish a table of all schools who have refused. That will be the starting gun on a maelstrom of alarmist reporting and a flurry of letters and demands from groups like UKLFI. Schools will be put at the centre of a right-wing feeding frenzy that will cause serious hardship across educational settings. I don't doubt it will lead to many teachers and educational leaders being forced out, or choosing to resign in the face of hostile political attacks in the media. So, no, Bell's key recommendation wasn't 'based on hard evidence.' It was, in my opinion, based on supposition and bald assertions that fall apart with minimal scrutiny. It will end up causing serious, potentially irreparable harm to educational institutions while also doing nothing to help with the fight against antisemitism - indeed, it is much more likely to make this urgent, moral fight even harder.