One of the reasons given for opposing the standard wording of the IHRA definition of antisemitism, including the illustrative examples, is the supposed threat to freedom of speech. Opponents of the standard wording argue that thy would be inhibited from criticising Israel.
I would argue that this is simply untrue. A quick google shows up plenty of criticism of Israel and its government in all sorts of subject areas, and none of it appears to have been blocked by the definition. Martin Francis meanwhile thinks he has found an example of Barnet Council trying to use the definition in this way. The motion concerns the BDS movement and their use of Council facilities in Barnet. Martin doesn't appear to find the proposed Boycott of a Boycott movement in any way ironic.
In the event the discussion appears to have kicked back to another Committee i.e. well into the long grass.
I suspect this is because the wording of the motion is probably illegal. It calls for the BDS campaign, or even individuals associated with it, to be banned from use of any Council facilities and shunned by society in general. I think that case law going back to the 1980s probably doesn't allow this. In particular, back then Haringey Council tried to stop its libraries from stocking Murdoch newspapers as the Wapping dispute was in full swing. Haringey lost.
The only way as I read it for any Council to refuse the use of facilities otherwise commercially available would be if they were being used for something illegal e.g. inciting racial hatred or violence. Even then the Courts tend to set a very high standard of evidence before they convict of incitement.
Martin should therefore rest easy.
Yet he might also want to reflect on the nature of boycotts and how divisive and damaging they can be even if people don't intend them to be so.
No comments:
Post a Comment