Challenging the IHRA Definition of Anti-Semitism | Ranjeet Brar

Comrade Ranjeet Brar, a consultant vascular surgeon, explains the High Court challenge concerning the use of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism.

The talk includes, Dr Brar’s suspension and ongoing GMC investigation, before explaining the two principal legal grounds of the case: freedom of expression under Article 10 and protection from discrimination under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The speakers compare the IHRA definition with the government’s anti-Muslim hostility definition, arguing that the latter contains an explicit free-speech safeguard while the IHRA definition does not. They also discuss the adoption and promotion of the IHRA definition across public bodies and the NHS, and refer to recent UK and Australian judgments that they say challenge aspects of the definition’s Israel-related examples. The IHRA definition conflates antisemitism with criticism of Israel and is being used to discourage public-sector workers from expressing political views on Palestine. The IHRA definition is not fit for purpose. The IHRA definition of antisemitism has been widely adopted across the Nato and the Five Eyes countries, acting as a de facto law without having been subjected to the scrutiny of a legislative procedure. This is likely to be a landmark case.

If we are successful in challenging its adoption by the NHS, other institutions will follow, and the global pro-Palestine movement will breathe a little easier, thus opening the way to the continuance and deepening of our collective resistance to the genocide.

Please support the campaign by donating whatever you can towards the court costs.

Thank you for being a friend of Freedom!

https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/leg...

Subscribe! Donate! Join us in building a bright future for humanity!

http://www.thecommunists.org

http://www.lalkar.org

http://www.redyouth.org

Telegram: https://t.me/thecommunists