Justice Minister Lord Wolfson defends the International Definition of Antisemitism, saying that it’s “Calumny to say that the fight against antisemitism shuts down free speech”
Justice Minister Lord Wolfson has defended the International Definition of Antisemitism against claims that it shuts down free speech.
Speaking at a conference held at the Tottenham Hotspur Football Stadium, Lord Wolfson said that there is no conflict between the British Government’s embrace of the Definition and its commitment to freedom of speech, maintaining that “It’s calumny to say that the fight against antisemitism in some way shuts down free speech, it simply doesn’t.”
Lord Wolfson said that the Definition had no implications for freedom of speech, making a clear distinction between free speech and hate speech. He said that “Antisemitism is hate speech, and all democracies have drawn a line between free speech and hate speech. There are things you cannot say because they are defamatory, and there are things you cannot say because they are racist.”
The Under-Secretary for Justice even said that he disapproves of the word “antisemitism”, preferring “anti-Jewish racism”. There are, he said, some people who fail to see that antisemitism is a problem, despite their vocal commitment to anti-racism in all its forms.
He also explained that those who have attempted to claim that the Definition prevents criticism of Israel are wrong because there is a difference between criticising the policies enacted by the Israeli government and applying a double standard to Israel, singling it out for criticism in a way that would not be done to another country.
In July 2017, Campaign Against Antisemitism published an opinion of expert counsel on the adoption of the Definition. David Wolfson QC (now Lord Wolfson) and Jeremy Brier, who acted pro bono, drew up the nine-page opinion. The opinion includes a detailed assessment of the definition itself, considers the application of the Definition in difficult cases, and contains useful advice for politicians and public bodies, such as universities, which are considering using the Definition.
The opinion states that: “The Definition is a clear, meaningful and workable definition. The Definition is an important development in terms of identifying and preventing antisemitism, in particular in its modern and non-traditional forms, which often reach beyond simple expressions of hatred for Jews and instead refer to Jewish people and Jewish associations in highly derogatory, veiled terms (e.g. ‘Zio’ or ‘Rothschilds’). Public bodies in the United Kingdom are not ‘at risk’ in using this Definition. Indeed, this Definition should be used by public bodies on the basis that it will ensure that the identification of antisemitism is clear, fair and accurate. Criticism of Israel, even in robust terms, cannot be regarded as antisemitic per se and such criticism is not captured by the Definition. However, criticisms of Israel in terms which are channels of expression for hatred towards Jewish people (such as by particular invocations of the Holocaust or Nazism) will in all likelihood be antisemitic.”
The full opinion can be accessed here.
Campaign Against Antisemitism has also produced a primer on the relationship between the International Definition of Antisemitism and freedom of speech.
