Media Bias reporting anti-semitism in Labour Party

But in fact tha countries haven't followed the advice of the EU Parliament POGS possiblybecause their legal experts and others have on closer examination realised that some of the wording can be challenged legally and on the grounds of free speech. Much as our the All Party Select committee in the UK advised adding clauses to the definition. They said
24. We broadly accept the IHRA definition, but propose 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. The definition should include the following statements:
• It is not antisemitic to criticise the Government of Israel, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent.
• 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.
25. We recommend that the IHRA definition, with our additional caveats, should be formally adopted by the UK Government, law enforcement agencies and all political parties, to assist them in determining whether or not an incident or discourse can be regarded as antisemitic.
In other words the committee recommended much the same ammendments as were being considered by the Labour Party. Not the version that has been adopted by the UK and the Labour Party.
The only conclusion I can reach is that government policy is now decided by media pressure and not by the advice of experts and select committees, which is worrying to say the least.

The IHRA definition isn't a single phrase. It contains ?11 sub-definitions.
Each country might not agree with all the aspects. so doesn't adopt it entirely.

I have tried to raise significant points but it is obviously this will remain a case of your view and my view clashing .

I see the IHRA as being adopted by the 31 countries in the Alliance you don't. I believe there is a case to be made re the ' formal adoption ' country to country whereas you don't even get passed the 2016 adoption of the IHRA Alliance as even being truth.

The EU have said :-

" In May 2016, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) adopted a legally non-binding working definition of Antisemitism.

On 1 June 2017, the European Parliament adopted its first ever ' resolution ' on combating Antisemitism, including the IHRA working definition on Antisemitism."

The resolution says

2. Calls on the Member States and the Union institutions and agencies to adopt and apply the working definition of anti-Semitism employed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)(4) in order to support the judicial and law enforcement authorities in their efforts to identify and prosecute anti-Semitic attacks more efficiently and effectively, and encourages Member States to follow the example of the UK and Austria in this regard;

ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/combatting-discrimination/racism-and-xenophobia/combating-antisemitism_en

Of course it was correct to raise it POGS what wasn't correct and what the Media Coalition is crticising (among other things) is the impression given that by not signing the Labour Party was in some way being anti-semitic, when in fact criticism has been levelled at the definition by many different parties. In order to have proper discussion all sides of the argument must be presented clearly and the media consistently failed to do this. And you may think a single word of little significance, but the difference in a proposal and an adopted policy is huge. As is the difference between the 31 countries widely believed to have adopted this definition and the 9 which have actually done so.

trisher

The difference between you/me/the media all hinges on two words ' formally adopted '.

There is a point in case to be made the 31 countries in the IHRA Alliance have ' adopted ' the IHRA definition in 2016 but not ALL have ' formally ' adopted the IHRA definition in their respective countries.

So unless the media or anybody states the 31 countries have ALL ' Formally Adopted ' the IHRA definition they are not misleading anybody.

As for Labour was it not the case it was totally appropriate to raise the question as Labour were querying whether to adopt the IHRA definition , formally or in principle , full stop. ?

A very interesting and enlightening thread. Thanks.

I think it is very complicated POGS and it hinges on the fact that the definition was not compiled by legal experts but was developed by well-meaning people from the 31 countries. When it comes to adopting it as real legislation many countries have recognised its inadequacies. The pity is that the press were in such a hurry to demonise the Labour Party that an opportunity for clarification and proper legal wording has been lost completely. It's a loss for society as a whole and not just Labour members.

Then we will have to agree to disagree trisher but at least I tried to debate my point.

POGS prominent lawyers disagree with you.
jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/hugh-tomlinson-ihra/
Another opinion by Geoffrey Robinson QC
^
Mr Robertson, an expert on freedom of speech and human rights, who has lectured on genocide at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, has criticised Theresa May for adopting a definition which was not intended to be binding and which was not drafted as a comprehensible definition. By pivoting on expression that arouses hatred (a “very strong word”) it does not cover speech that arouses hostility and fails to protect Jews from many prevalent kinds of antisemitism. For this reason, Mr Robertson’s opinion evinces surprise that Jewish organisations are advocating acceptance of the full definition by the Labour Party and other organisations.

Mr Robertson examines all eleven “examples” attached to the definition and concludes that several of them are so loosely drafted that they are likely to chill criticism of action by the Government of Israel and advocacy of sanctions as a means to deter human rights abuses in Gaza and elsewhere. He says there is a particular danger that the definition will be used mistakenly, to defame criticisms of Israel by branding them as anti-Semitic.

Mr Robertson is particularly critical of the Prime Minister for “adopting” the definition without Parliamentary discussion and without the protection for free speech recommended by the Home Affairs Committee. Should any University or local council apply it, he says they should follow the Home Affairs Committee recommendation and add to it the clarification that “it is not anti-Semitic to criticise the Government of Israel without additional evidence to suggest anti-Semitic intent.” He adds that this should be added by any public bodies or organisations that adopt the full definition endorsed by the government.

Mr Robertson continues that “a particular problem with the IHRA definition is that it is likely in practice to chill free speech, by raising expectations of pro-Israeli groups that they can successfully object to legitimate criticism of Israel and correspondingly arouse fears in NGO’s and student bodies that they will have events banned, or else will have to incur considerable expense to protect them by taking legal action. Either way, they may not organise such events.”

The opinion concludes that whether under human rights law or the IHRA definition, political action against Israel is not properly characterised as anti-Semitic unless the action is intended to promote hatred or hostility against Jews in general.
It isn't "splitting hairs" to point out there is a well recognised problem with the definition. It is pointing out the media bias that has led to most people believing it has been adopted (and therefore applies) in 31 countries. It hasn't and it doesn't.

trisher

" It is very complicated, but what seems to emerge is that legally the IHRA defnition is not fit for purpose."

Really?

Early day motion 1493

DEFINING ANTISEMITISM
Session: 2017-19
Date tabled: 06.07.2018

Primary sponsor: Berger, Luciana

Sponsors: Smeeth, Ruth Ellman, LouiseSobel, AlexHodge, MargaretBottomley, Peter

Total number of signatures: 38

Austin, Ian. Barron, KevinBerger, LucianaBlackman, Bob. Bottomley Peter. Brown Alan , Coffey Ann, Cooper Yvette, Creasy, Stella, Doughty Stephen, Elliott Julie, Ellman Louise, Gapes Mike,Glindon Mary, Hendry Drew, Hermon Lady, Hodge Margaret,Kinnock Stephen, Law Chris, Linden David. Mann John, McGovern Alison, McKinnell Catherine, Penning Mike. Rimmer Marie, Robinson Gavin,Ryan Joan, Saville Roberts Liz, Shannon Jim,Smeeth Ruth,Smith Angela C, Sobel Alex,
Streeting Wes,Thewliss Alison, Turley Anna, Umunna, Chuka, Whitfield Martin, Williams Paul.

That this House recognises that the Macpherson inquiry which followed the murder of Stephen Lawrence changed the way racism is perceived in Britain to a victim-led approach; believes that in order for victims or potential victims of racist abuse to have confidence in societal efforts to address discrimination they must help craft understanding of the racism to which they are being subjected; further believes the effect of racism can have repercussions irrespective of proven intent; notes that the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism together with its accompanying examples, in full, has the confidence of the representative bodies of the Jewish community in the UK and worldwide; further notes the definition was adopted by IHRA's 31 member states including France, Germany, Canada and the US; welcomes the UK’s adoption of the formal definition and accompanying examples; further recognises that a recommendation formally to adopt a definition was first Jade in the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism report of 2006; further welcomes the cross-party support for the definition evidenced in previous motions of this House; recognises that the Welsh and Scottish Governments, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, London Assembly, and more than 120 local councils and many European countries have formally adopted the definition; recognises that police forces and others have for some time already used the definition for training purposes; notes that civil society organisations including the NUS have adopted the definition; and calls on all public institutions to fully adopt and implement the IHRA definition of antisemitism."
---

Note the wording in the above says:-

'further notes the definition was adopted by IHRA's 31 member states including France, Germany, Canada and the US; welcomes the UK’s adoption of the formal definition and accompanying examples;"

It all comes down to whether or not it is accepted by individuals that in 2016 the 31 countries in the IHRA agreed to the definition but because some of those countries have not ' formally adopted ' the definition it is ' not fit for the purpose ', presumably including all the countries , societies and groups worldwide that have adopted the definition.

In my opinion they have and the point trying to be made is a tad splitting hairs but not without a point . At the end of the day there is an agreement to follow the IHRA definition by many countries .

The definition was drafted by representatives from the countries MaizieD and was then submitted to the governments of the countries, many of whom found the definition to be legally questionable. In the USA an earlier draft of a similar definition was challenged in the courts for restricting free speech. It is very complicated, but what seems to emerge is that legally the IHRA defnition is not fit for purpose.

The working definition been formally adopted by eight countries[10] and six of 31 governments whose countries are members of IHRA have formally endorsed or adopted the definition.[11]

^ 31 countries are members of IHRA and helped draft the definition but only 9 have adopted it.^

I'm struggling to understand these statements which appear to contradict each other. Can you clarify, trisher?

And was what the select committe advised, but now the common perception is that the IHRA definition is accepted world wide and isn't the dodgy legal document so many have criticised.

Specific to the Labour Party it is not a government or a country but as a political party it has obviously ' formally adopted ' the IHRA definition defying Corbyn who wanted a caveat.

I believe all the main UK parties have adopted the IHRA definition.

In other words the Labour Party's stance was typical of that of most european countries.

From trisher link:-

' In 2016, the working definition and its list of examples was adopted by the IHRA, follow I by many the efforts of Mark Weitzman of the Simon Wiesenthal Center.[8] Weitzman later noted that the EUMC definition was used as there "was not enough time to invent a new one".[9] Following its adoption by IHRA, the working definition has been adopted for internal use by a number of government and political institutions; in historical order: the United Kingdom, Israel, Austria, Scotland, Romania, Germany, Bulgaria, Lithuania and Macedonia.[8] The working definition been formally adopted by eight countries[10] and six of 31 governments whose countries are members of IHRA have formally endorsed or adopted the definition.[11]
--

The countries in the IHRA are as follows:-
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
ISrael
Ialy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Romania
Serbia
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom United Kingdom
United States of America United States of America

Liaison Countries
Australia
Bulgaria

Observer Countries
Albania
Bosnia and Herzegovina
El Salvador
Moldova
Monaco
Portugal
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Turkey
Uruguay

So would it be fair to sum up that the statement " In 2016, the working definition and its list of examples was adopted by the IHRA, ' means the 31 countries who are members of the IHRA agreed to the IHRA definition of antisemitism but also fair to say that whilst the working definition has been adopted for internal use by a number of government and political institutions not all of the 31 countries in the IHRA have not ' formally adopted' the definition.

I have posted to try and put a ' context ' to the numbers involved and how they are being used .

If they claim 31 countries have adopted it then "yes". 31 countries are members of IHRA and helped draft the definition but only 9 have adopted it.
If you are interested in the details
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Definition_of_Antisemitism

So The Jewish Cronicle and The Jewish News are lying?

POGS It's actually gone up to 9! Not the ones you might expect though.
The United Kingdom was the first country to adopted the definition followed by Israel, Austria, Scotland, Romania, Germany and Bulgaria. The European Parliament voted in favor of a resolution calling for member states to adopt the definition on 1 June 2017[60][61][62] without the examples.[11] As of March 16 2018, Lithuania and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia have also adopted the definition.[63]

trisher

" It's 6 POGS 31 were consulted but only 6 have adopted it."

Which are the only 6 countries you state have adopted the IHRA definition of anti semitism?

I read that too Trisher.
The" art" of editing - leave out the bits you don't agree with. Even if it distorts the truth.

Just like us Paddyann! We too want control of our own affairs in our own country, and like you we don't want to be controlled by someone else i.e. Brussels!

It's 6 POGS 31 were consulted but only 6 have adopted it. It's mostly because it is seen as a legally doubtful document. It was never widely reported but an all party select committee of MPs actually advised that clauses should be added to it before the UK adopted it. Why didn't that happen? Your guess is as good as mine. Fear of media condemnation? Fear of accusations of anti-semitism? Lobbying by interested parties?

Of course the media are biased they will exaggerate any story if they can, causing extra pain for JC is to be expected.
In a waiting room last week I picked up a copy of the Daily Mail, I was shocked how extreme the articles were, no wonder the countrys in a mess, a daily diet of that scurrilous rubbish does a lot of harm.

trisher

" I was really shocked by this report and as I said I really thought 31 countries had adopted the definition".

How many do you believe have adopted the definition?