An Assault on Free Speech

Purported Definitions of Antisemitism and Islamophobia

Image credit: International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)

Since it was proposed in 2016, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of Antisemitism has been used to curtail criticisms of Israel, and so has suppressed free speech on this issue. The definition is as follows:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities (IHRA, 2016).

This seems unproblematic, though it is odd and not clear why “non-Jewish individuals” are included while no explanation is provided. The definition makes no reference to Israel, but in the 11 illustrative examples provided, 7 relate to criticism of Israel, and it is these that are highly problematic, as they have been used to block free speech on Israel. Naturally, Israel and the Israel Lobby have been strongly pushing for the definition and the examples provided to be adopted in Western countries. This has been largely successful as it has been duly endorsed and adopted—though non-legally binding—by many countries, including by the US state department, many European governments including the UK and Germany, and EU bodies, The strong conflation of Jews and Israel is made clear in the first example of supposed antisemitism: “Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel, similar to that leveled against any other country, cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”

“Targeting of the state of Israel” is extremely broad-based and clearly designed to ward off criticism of Israel and, by extension, Zionism, the ideology on which Israel is based, though none of the examples make reference to Zionism. The qualifying sentence seemingly contradicts this, but is vague and poorly expressed.

There are other examples: “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”

Asserting that a “State of Israel is a racist endeavour” is not at all “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination.” The two are very different. Indeed, the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, adopted on 10 November 1975, determined that “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination” (UN, 1975). The reason why this resolution was passed was because of Israel’s oppression of and discriminatory policies towards Palestinians that were tantamount to racism.

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis

Many experts on genocide, including the International Association of Genocide Scholars—and human rights organisations have concluded that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza—which the International Court of Justice is investigating. Ipso facto, one can make the case that there are parallels between contemporary Israeli policy towards Palestinians in Gaza and that of Nazi Germany. But, according to this example, doing so would be deemed antisemitic.

Holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the state of Israel

This is an odd example. First, it seemingly acknowledges that actions of the state of Israel can be nefarious, as in its myriad human rights violations, but by so doing, it transgresses the first example. But second, it suggests that these violations must not be attributed to Jews as a whole. This claim is spurious, as very rarely are criticisms of Israel levelled at Jews collectively.

Despite the muddled and contradictory nature of some of the examples of antisemitism given, their aim of shielding Israel from criticism has been highly successful. In April 2023, a coalition of 104 civil society organisations wrote to UN Secretary General António Guterres against the adoption of the definition:

Adoption of the definition by governments and institutions is often framed as an essential step in efforts to combat antisemitism. In practice, however, the IHRA definition has often been used to wrongly label criticism of Israel as antisemitic, and thus chill and sometimes suppress, non-violent protest, activism and speech critical of Israel and/or Zionism, including in the US and Europe (Human Rights Watch, 2023).

Despite opposition to the definition, especially to the illustrative examples cited, and despite it being a “working definition,” it has successfully conflated antisemitism with anti-Zionism and become a potent censoring device on Israel. Therefore, it must be opposed and every effort made to ensure that it is not included in statute books. If the Palestinians were to resubmit UN Resolution 3379, or one akin to it, it would doubtless be passed at the UN General Assembly, which would deal a major blow to the definition and to the censorial examples.

UK government’s deliberation on a definition of Islamophobia

For many years, “Islamophobia” has been thought by many Muslim organisations and their sympathisers to be a clear and present danger to Muslims, which led to demands for it to be defined and outlawed. One motivating factor for this endeavour is that Jews and Sikhs are considered both ethnic and religious groups under the Equality Act 2010 (wrongly in my opinion), but such dual protection is not afforded to other groups, including Muslims. The protections offered to religious groups under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 are thought insufficient, and section 29J of the Act is for many intolerable precisely because of its protection for freedom of expression:

Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system. [Emphasis added]

Also of importance is that Islamists and Muslim organisations writ large envy the censorial power of “antisemitism,” a de facto blasphemy that has resulted in widespread self-censorship and wish the same for “Islamophobia.” Furthermore, as the UK government has adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism, it must adopt a similar definition of Islamophobia.

In November 2018, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims (APPGBM) provided a brief working definition of “Islamophobia”: “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness” (APPGBM, 2018, p. 11).

Though the definition is imprecise, it is suggestive of restricting free speech in relation to “Muslimness.” Without proper scrutiny or consultation, it was swiftly adopted by the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru, the Mayor of London and many local councils. Importantly, there was little consideration of how such a vague definition, if adopted as law, would impact upon freedom of expression. Also absent was a consideration of legitimate and illegitimate criticism of Islam—indeed, one could argue that the definition considers all criticism of Islam and Muslims as illegitimate.

The belief that “Islamophobia is rooted in racism” is an assertion without compelling evidence. Moreover, it is a category error given that Islam is not a race—indeed, it has adherents of all races across the globe. Recourse to this reasoning stems from a term that came to prominence in the 1980s, that of “cultural racism”, wherein the argument was that dislike or hostility to minority cultures was a manifestation of racism. But this conflation of culture with race is another category error. Similarly, the term “Muslimness” is nebulous and subjective. Thus, for example, until recently, for the House of Saud, Muslimness long applied only to those practising the Wahhabi interpretation of Islam. And for all sects of Sunni and Shia Islam, the Ahmadi are excluded from expressing Muslimness.

The previous Conservative government did not adopt the APPGBM definition, but, in 2024, the new Labour government undertook to revisit the issue. A working group has been tasked to come up with a definition. We can surmise that its definition will approximate the APPGBM’s with a similar aim: to curb criticism of Islam.

In March 2006, following the outcry in many parts of the Muslim world over the publication of the Danish Cartoons, including those of the prophet Mohammad, 12 writers, of whom Salman Rushdie was one, wrote “Manifesto: Together Facing the New Totalitarianism,” published in the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. This part is particularly apposite:

We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of “Islamophobia”, a wretched concept that confuses criticism of Islam as a religion and stigmatisation of those who believe in it. We defend the universality of the freedom of expression, so that a critical spirit can exist in every continent, towards each and every maltreatment and dogma(BBC News, 2006).

The present author also agrees that “Islamophobia” is “a wretched concept” and one that has curtailed free speech. Accordingly, attempts to define it and then outlaw it should be abandoned. Laws in existence are sufficient to protect Jews, Muslims, and others from harassment and violence. If a definition of “Islamophobia” is adopted and enshrined in law, there will doubtless be similar demands for definitions and outlawing of “Hinduphobia,” “Sikhphobia” and others with a race to the victimhood bottom and a concomitant suppression of freedom of expression.

References

All Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims (APPGBM) (2018) Islamophobia Defined: The Inquiry into a Working Definition of Islamophobia, London: APPGBM.

BBC News (2006) March 1, BBC NEWS | World | Europe | Full text: Writers’ statement on cartoons

Hasan R (2022) “Does ‘Islamophobia’ curtail free speech?”, London: IEA

Human Rights Watch (2023) Human Rights and other Civil Society Groups Urge United Nations to Respect Human Rights in the Fight Against Antisemitism | Human Rights Watch

IHRA (2016) IHRA-non-legally-binding-working-definition-of-antisemitism-1.pdf

International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) (2025) IAGS-Resolution-on-Gaza-FINAL.pdf

UN Resolution 3379 (1975) Elimination of all forms of racial discrimination: Zionism as racism - GA resolution - Question of Palestine