Skip to main content

British Government’s policy on antisemitism referred to Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights

 

The following statement has been issued by Professor Geoffrey Alderman:

 

“I have, in my personal capacity, referred to the powerful Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights the letter sent on 9 October 2020 to all English university heads by the Secretary of State for Education, Gavin Williamson.

 This Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament is currently undertaking an inquiry into Freedom of Expression. It is my view that the policy set out in the 9 October letter amounts to an imminent and explicit assault on that freedom.

 In that letter Mr Williamson threatened that higher-education institutions that had not by Christmas 2020 adopted the definition of antisemitism drafted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) would be subject to a range of financial and other sanctions.”

Professor Alderman has told the Parliamentary Joint Committee that in his view the threatening language employed by the Secretary of State has as its purpose the bullying and browbeating of higher-education providers to force them to adopt a particular mode of thought in relation to anti-Jewish prejudice, and amounts to “a shameless act of ministerial overreach.”

“Anti-Jewish prejudice on campus [said Professor Alderman] is without doubt a serious problem. However, legislation is already on the statute book to deal with it: namely the Equality Act of 2010. Indeed, this was the very document that was recently used by the Equality and Human Rights Commission to excoriate the handling of antisemitic complaints by Mr Williamson’s political opponents in the Labour Party under its previous leader, Jeremy Corbyn.”

Professor Alderman concludes his submission by inviting the Joint Parliamentary Committee to unreservedly condemn Mr Williamson’s letter of 9 October, and to urge that it be formally withdrawn.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

JONATHAN HENRY SACKS (1948-2020)

Whilst I cannot claim to have read every obituary and post-mortem appreciation of the late former chief rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the British Commonwealth, Jonathan Henry Sacks (who died on 7 November 2020), I have certainly read a great many. With very few exceptions, they follow a common pattern. If they mention the multiple failures and shortcomings of his chief rabbinate at all [and most do not], they are notoriously economical with the truth, treating these as aberrational, incidental to his life and peripheral in their significance and impact. They concentrate rather on his reputation in the wider world, beyond the orbit of British Jewry, and they argue that if that reputation was high – even outstanding – then his numerous communal embarrassments must be discounted, or even entirely ignored. This is not a view that I share.   I have in fact perused with astonishment some of the encomia that have been heaped upon him. Here are very short extracts from three.

THE JEWISH CHRONICLE: BEATING HEART OR BLEEDING HEART?

In recent weeks I’ve given interviews to British, Israeli and even German newspapers on the subject of the fate of the Jewish Chronicle. Naturally I have been careful to declare a number of interests. It was for the Jewish Chronicle that from 2002 until 2016 I wrote the paper’s weekly anchor comment column. I never missed a deadline. Besides filing these columns I wrote others for the paper, including book reviews and obituaries. Then I should add that as part of my academic research I have actually read every edition of the JC, from its very first in 1841. I still resort to its invaluable online searchable archive to check this fact or that. In common with many other newspapers the JC has been struggling financially in recent years. In 2018 it posted a loss of around £1.5 million. Its immediate future appeared to have been secured by donations from (as the Financial Times unhelpfully put it) “unnamed individuals,” but evidently this was not enough to sav
  A  MILLER'S TALE On Friday 1 st October the University of Bristol issued a statement [1] in relation to Dr David Miller, who until that date (and from 2018) had been Professor of Sociology at that University. The statement told us that Professor Miller was no longer employed by the University, and it explained, in very general terms, why:   We have a duty of care to all students and the wider University community, in addition to a need to apply our own codes of conduct consistently and with integrity. Balancing those important considerations, and after careful deliberation, a disciplinary hearing found Professor Miller did not meet the standards of behaviour we expect from our staff and the University has concluded that Professor Miller’s employment should be terminated with immediate effect.   The background - or at least some background – to this decision to dismiss Professor Miller is I think well known. As I noted in the Jewish News last March [2] , for some cons