1
00:00:00,540 --> 00:00:06,660
Good afternoon. Welcome, everybody. I'm delighted to present our speaker today.

2
00:00:06,660 --> 00:00:17,160
It's a special day like not only because of the ongoing life, the seminar, but also we have today one of far as Jamie Weiner,

3
00:00:17,160 --> 00:00:28,160
who is a different candidate here at Oska Oxford School of Global and MBA Studies Jamie.

4
00:00:28,160 --> 00:00:35,330
He's also the editor while writing his then entry. The film has also been able to edit two important volumes.

5
00:00:35,330 --> 00:00:45,650
One is moment of truth, tackling Israel's Israel, Palestine's toughest questions that came with all books in 2018 and 2019.

6
00:00:45,650 --> 00:00:50,420
anti-Semitism in the Labour Party came out with Verso.

7
00:00:50,420 --> 00:00:58,240
And Jamie is going to talk about one of the most timely issues of the of today.

8
00:00:58,240 --> 00:01:04,430
I agree. The politics of the definition. Jamie, thank you so much for joining us.

9
00:01:04,430 --> 00:01:13,460
Thanks very much. So the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance or HRA?

10
00:01:13,460 --> 00:01:18,170
Well, I recently found out that everyone involved in the organisation called the IRA.

11
00:01:18,170 --> 00:01:23,420
But I've gotten too used to calling. I am trying to stop now.

12
00:01:23,420 --> 00:01:32,330
It's an intergovernmental body whose core mandate is to promote and advance Holocaust education, research and commemoration.

13
00:01:32,330 --> 00:01:41,450
Its membership comprises 29 European countries, plus Argentina, Australia, Canada, Israel and the US.

14
00:01:41,450 --> 00:01:48,540
Its central body is the plenary, which normally meets twice a year and makes decisions by consensus.

15
00:01:48,540 --> 00:01:52,490
And that's the decision making body of the HRA.

16
00:01:52,490 --> 00:02:00,020
There's also a number of subsidiary working groups and committees which provide information and proposals for consideration by the plenary.

17
00:02:00,020 --> 00:02:10,910
Finally, a permanent office, just like its civil service based in Berlin and disproportionately funded by Germany and overseas administration.

18
00:02:10,910 --> 00:02:18,140
So in 2016, the HRA adopted a working definition of anti-Semitism.

19
00:02:18,140 --> 00:02:23,510
This has provoked heated controversies wherever it has been applied.

20
00:02:23,510 --> 00:02:30,990
Definition's supporters have claimed that it's just a tool to facilitate consistent data collection

21
00:02:30,990 --> 00:02:37,350
or that it's just kind of symbolic commitment against something Semitism that it poses,

22
00:02:37,350 --> 00:02:47,340
at any rate, no danger to free speech and that it has nothing to do with shielding Israel or attempting to shield Israel from criticism.

23
00:02:47,340 --> 00:02:51,450
Yet again and again in country after country,

24
00:02:51,450 --> 00:02:58,020
political as well as intellectual debate over the HRA definition has tended to

25
00:02:58,020 --> 00:03:03,780
pit supporters of Israel on the one side against progressive Jewish groups,

26
00:03:03,780 --> 00:03:08,730
Palestine solidarity activists and civil liberties campaigners on the other.

27
00:03:08,730 --> 00:03:13,740
Is this just a coincidence? A giant misunderstanding?

28
00:03:13,740 --> 00:03:25,230
Well, the political history of the working definition is little known, not least because it has been obscured by a fog of mystification and secrecy.

29
00:03:25,230 --> 00:03:30,790
The bulk of my presentation today will seek to dispel some of that confusion,

30
00:03:30,790 --> 00:03:36,900
established the relevant diplomatic record in order to help clear the way for a debate.

31
00:03:36,900 --> 00:03:42,090
Clearly, a much needed debate about the principles that are truly at stake.

32
00:03:42,090 --> 00:03:54,860
I will return at the end to some broader reflections on an invitation to discussion on what might be learnt from this story.

33
00:03:54,860 --> 00:03:58,720
Let's first take a look at the subject of this talk.

34
00:03:58,720 --> 00:04:08,500
The HIV working definition of anti-Semitism. If you look at this document, you'll see that it comprises basically two sections,

35
00:04:08,500 --> 00:04:19,190
a short two sentence passage surrounded by books, followed by a list of 11 examples of purported anti-Semitic statements.

36
00:04:19,190 --> 00:04:25,130
Most of these examples make some reference to discourse about Israel needs to the

37
00:04:25,130 --> 00:04:32,330
rest of the examples I speak to on two slides just to make it easier to read.

38
00:04:32,330 --> 00:04:38,420
Now, they include such criteria as applying double standards to Israel by requiring

39
00:04:38,420 --> 00:04:42,920
all the behaviour and not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

40
00:04:42,920 --> 00:04:53,600
And denying the Jewish people the right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of the state of Israel is a racist endeavour.

41
00:04:53,600 --> 00:04:54,720
Now, a key point.

42
00:04:54,720 --> 00:05:05,750
I want everyone listening, watching to bear in mind throughout this talk is that there are actually two IRH already working definitions.

43
00:05:05,750 --> 00:05:10,640
The first refers only to the two sentences in the box.

44
00:05:10,640 --> 00:05:18,920
Just demand. anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews,

45
00:05:18,920 --> 00:05:24,500
rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism directed towards Jewish or non Jewish

46
00:05:24,500 --> 00:05:33,610
individuals and or their property towards Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

47
00:05:33,610 --> 00:05:45,900
The second I hate CHANTREY working definition comprises both that text in the books and the list of eleven examples which follow it.

48
00:05:45,900 --> 00:05:52,250
Those two definitions, two sentences in the books list of examples are very different.

49
00:05:52,250 --> 00:06:00,320
The first is vague to the point of vacuity. Examples, by contrast, are substantive.

50
00:06:00,320 --> 00:06:06,200
In effect, delegitimizing as anti-Semitic a range of specific statements.

51
00:06:06,200 --> 00:06:13,000
Yet both are frequently referred to by the same name, the IHH or any working definition of anti-Semitism.

52
00:06:13,000 --> 00:06:21,980
Now, choose these designations is correct. Is the IHH already working definition two sentences long and vague?

53
00:06:21,980 --> 00:06:29,660
Or does it contain the 11 examples? The question might seem technical and might seem arcane.

54
00:06:29,660 --> 00:06:47,360
It might seem trivial, but as a matter of fact, it's been the subject of protracted and bitter political battle.

55
00:06:47,360 --> 00:06:52,560
It kind of disconnected your back on the icon.

56
00:06:52,560 --> 00:07:00,680
So, Sharon. Yes. It's been the subject of protracted and bitter political battles,

57
00:07:00,680 --> 00:07:08,830
battles which influential organisations have invested significant resources in winning one such battle.

58
00:07:08,830 --> 00:07:15,740
An especially high profile one played out here in the UK in the summer of 2018.

59
00:07:15,740 --> 00:07:20,930
On the 17th of July 2018, the ruling body of the British Labour Party,

60
00:07:20,930 --> 00:07:26,890
the National Executive Committee or any sea adopted a code of conduct for anti-Semitism.

61
00:07:26,890 --> 00:07:34,640
Now, this code of conduct incorporated a two sentence text in the books from the HRA document,

62
00:07:34,640 --> 00:07:40,820
as well as most but not all of the accompanying each other examples.

63
00:07:40,820 --> 00:07:46,420
Labour claimed that the party had thereby adopted the hard working definition,

64
00:07:46,420 --> 00:07:53,390
but its critics contended that the examples constituted an integral part of the definition.

65
00:07:53,390 --> 00:08:00,470
To reject or revise any of them was ipso facto to reject the definition.

66
00:08:00,470 --> 00:08:05,430
This, in turn, was labelled arrogant and presumptuous.

67
00:08:05,430 --> 00:08:16,040
Who was the Labour Party to reject Toco again? So seek to unilaterally amend this international definition.

68
00:08:16,040 --> 00:08:25,240
The Board of Deputies and Jewish Leadership Council urged that, quote, Labour needs to accept Wieczorek definition with all its examples.

69
00:08:25,240 --> 00:08:30,440
The Community Security Trust claimed that, quote, The definition is one document.

70
00:08:30,440 --> 00:08:35,420
It is not a pick, pick and mix selection of components to adapt. It is to reject it.

71
00:08:35,420 --> 00:08:42,320
It is not as many as I've argued. A core paragraph with optional examples to then be selected from.

72
00:08:42,320 --> 00:08:46,480
And the campaign against anti-Semitism insistent that Labour, quote,

73
00:08:46,480 --> 00:08:55,890
cannot claim to have adopted the definition while also seeking to discard part of it is not negotiable as an entity.

74
00:08:55,890 --> 00:09:05,140
At the height of this national controversy, seven U.K. delegates to the HRA published a joint statement on the official HRC Web site,

75
00:09:05,140 --> 00:09:19,270
which proclaimed, quote, Any modified version of the HRA definition it does not include all of its 11 examples is no longer nature HRA definition.

76
00:09:19,270 --> 00:09:26,230
Well, this backlash from which I've only just sampled was so sharp unrelentless that in

77
00:09:26,230 --> 00:09:33,100
the end Labour's any see its ruling body capitulated and adopted all the examples.

78
00:09:33,100 --> 00:09:44,500
Well, what to make of this controversy? Why was the HRA working definition elevated, in the words of Brian, include to the status of a sacred text?

79
00:09:44,500 --> 00:09:54,470
Was it because, as David Feldman has suggested, the definition of quiet, symbolic importance as a litmus test of opposition to anti-Semitism?

80
00:09:54,470 --> 00:09:59,770
Well, was it because as the seven U.K. by HRA delegates we covered,

81
00:09:59,770 --> 00:10:04,890
the whole importance of this definition resided in the international consensus behind it,

82
00:10:04,890 --> 00:10:14,080
a consensus that would be undermined by, quote, adding or removing language to or from the definition on a case by case basis.

83
00:10:14,080 --> 00:10:18,760
In my view, neither of these factors is wholly persuasive.

84
00:10:18,760 --> 00:10:24,910
The diplomatic history of the working definition shows that the examples at issue had long been

85
00:10:24,910 --> 00:10:31,670
prised by the definitions most influential promoters because they served political objectives.

86
00:10:31,670 --> 00:10:40,760
Whatever else the summer 2015 controversy may have been about, and I do not doubt that Feldman symbolic factor played a role.

87
00:10:40,760 --> 00:10:46,770
It was also a defence of these objectives.

88
00:10:46,770 --> 00:10:58,020
Before zooming into the HRA negotiations in 2016, it's worth taking a brief look at the working definitions prehistory.

89
00:10:58,020 --> 00:11:03,690
The definition was first circulated in 2005 by an autonomous agency of the European Union,

90
00:11:03,690 --> 00:11:10,030
the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, or EU and C.

91
00:11:10,030 --> 00:11:13,750
You see, working definition proved controversial.

92
00:11:13,750 --> 00:11:21,520
And by 2013 had been abandoned by the successive bodies of the EU agency called the Fundamental Right to Rights Agency.

93
00:11:21,520 --> 00:11:23,970
The F.R. Right.

94
00:11:23,970 --> 00:11:34,200
On 26 of May 2016, what were then the 31 member countries of the IUT, CHANTREY adopted a slight variant of the EU c working definition,

95
00:11:34,200 --> 00:11:40,440
subsequently known as the HRA working definition, without running through all the details.

96
00:11:40,440 --> 00:11:44,340
There are three key points worth extracting from this diplomatic,

97
00:11:44,340 --> 00:11:51,560
prickly history and taking with us into our assessment of the HRA negotiations in 2016.

98
00:11:51,560 --> 00:11:58,650
First, the working definition was an initiative primarily of pro-Israel advocacy groups.

99
00:11:58,650 --> 00:12:01,460
So the draughting and promotion of the EU,

100
00:12:01,460 --> 00:12:10,070
I'm see working definition was led by the American Jewish Committee in particular through its officials, Kenneth Stein and Andrew Baker.

101
00:12:10,070 --> 00:12:19,490
From early 2014 to May 2016, Mark Weitzman of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre engineered its adoption by the HRA.

102
00:12:19,490 --> 00:12:28,670
While Baker sought ultimately without success, to shepherd it through the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe OSCE,

103
00:12:28,670 --> 00:12:34,610
both the American Jewish Committee and the Simon Wiesenthal Centre are American Jewish organisations that engage,

104
00:12:34,610 --> 00:12:39,280
amongst other things, in blanket pro-Israel advocacy.

105
00:12:39,280 --> 00:12:49,540
In the course of this advocacy, both these groups routinely designate as anti Semitic criticism of opposition to the state of Israel.

106
00:12:49,540 --> 00:12:54,790
The American Jewish community has applied the epithet to what it calls anti Zionism,

107
00:12:54,790 --> 00:13:02,850
as well as to the campaign for boycotts, divestment and sanctions, obedience against Israel.

108
00:13:02,850 --> 00:13:11,880
For senior American Jewish Committee official Andrew Baker, the import of the working definition was precisely this designation.

109
00:13:11,880 --> 00:13:17,490
Quote, When Israel is demonised, when you equate its activities with the Nazis,

110
00:13:17,490 --> 00:13:23,550
when you suggest it doesn't really have a right to exist or that it's a racist endeavour, we were very clear.

111
00:13:23,550 --> 00:13:29,000
This is not criticism. This is a form of anti-Semitism.

112
00:13:29,000 --> 00:13:37,270
Now, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, for its part, ranked amongst the world's most egregious anti-Semitic incidents in 2018.

113
00:13:37,270 --> 00:13:47,800
A decision by Ed BMB to delist Israeli rental properties located in illegal settlements under German banks refusal to cut off Jewish peace group.

114
00:13:47,800 --> 00:13:51,820
It described European Union guidelines prohibiting the funding of Israeli

115
00:13:51,820 --> 00:13:57,100
institutions that were established unlawfully in occupied Palestinian territory as,

116
00:13:57,100 --> 00:14:04,330
quote, redolent of the 1930s Nazi boycott of the Jews throughout the Reich, which was the prelude to the Holocaust.

117
00:14:04,330 --> 00:14:08,860
And it charged most recently the pre-trial chamber of the International Criminal

118
00:14:08,860 --> 00:14:14,290
Court when it found that it had territorial jurisdiction in Palestine with,

119
00:14:14,290 --> 00:14:19,360
quote, anti-Semitism, as the ICC allegedly sought, quote,

120
00:14:19,360 --> 00:14:25,840
to punish Jews for defending themselves from those committed to finish Hitler's genocidal goals.

121
00:14:25,840 --> 00:14:35,230
Well, the working definition in its various guises and those hands is a vehicle for investing such designations with political,

122
00:14:35,230 --> 00:14:44,980
regulatory and ultimately legal authority. Now, the second key point to take from this prehistory is.

123
00:14:44,980 --> 00:14:51,400
The working definitions, architects and advocates attach little value to the two sentence passage I requested.

124
00:14:51,400 --> 00:14:58,550
The so-called text in the books. This passage has been dismissed as a, quote, preamble that doesn't really say much.

125
00:14:58,550 --> 00:15:04,220
That's kind of the start of American Jewish Committee, who's widely credited as the lead author of the definition.

126
00:15:04,220 --> 00:15:08,400
So obvious. That's the community security trust.

127
00:15:08,400 --> 00:15:12,130
Generalist and vague. That's the campaign against anti-Semitism.

128
00:15:12,130 --> 00:15:20,360
And even according to Mark Weitzman of the Sun invasions on the centre, totally neutered and unmoored from any current reality.

129
00:15:20,360 --> 00:15:25,160
What they prised were the illustrative examples whose effect was to stigmatise

130
00:15:25,160 --> 00:15:35,640
as anti-Semitic abroad sway of international criticism of hostility to Israel.

131
00:15:35,640 --> 00:15:41,580
The wording of these examples has frequently been used to characterise legitimate, warranted criticism.

132
00:15:41,580 --> 00:15:46,250
All well, action against Israel as anti-Semitic.

133
00:15:46,250 --> 00:15:50,550
The criterion of applying double standards to Israel, for example,

134
00:15:50,550 --> 00:15:55,170
has been used to delegitimize everything from criticism of Israel by leading human rights

135
00:15:55,170 --> 00:16:04,310
organisations to the EU's decision to accurately label imports from Israel's illegal settlements.

136
00:16:04,310 --> 00:16:08,820
Jim Baker of the American Jewish Committee went so far as to designate these examples.

137
00:16:08,820 --> 00:16:15,690
The real definition, quote, when the definition was draughted and still today we've always said it was a comprehensive whole.

138
00:16:15,690 --> 00:16:22,920
There is a core paragraph which is in the books, but essentially the definition is the examples.

139
00:16:22,920 --> 00:16:27,470
The working death definition, quote is in itself a minimum definition.

140
00:16:27,470 --> 00:16:34,090
A senior official at Israel's foreign ministry likewise explained what turns it into an essential definition.

141
00:16:34,090 --> 00:16:44,000
Our eyes is the list of examples. Our third and final key takeaway from this phase of the diplomatic record.

142
00:16:44,000 --> 00:16:46,280
Once the working definition was published,

143
00:16:46,280 --> 00:16:55,190
pro-Israel campaigners tended to misrepresent it while deploying it to stigmatise and even stifle criticism of Israel.

144
00:16:55,190 --> 00:17:03,710
So whereas the E.M.S. had mainly disseminated this document as a working drawer without itself adopting the text,

145
00:17:03,710 --> 00:17:13,740
pro-Israel publicists frequently inflated its status to the European or even the European Union definition of anti-Semitism.

146
00:17:13,740 --> 00:17:18,520
The most significant misrepresentation concerning the illustrative examples.

147
00:17:18,520 --> 00:17:23,650
The Jewish groups that dropped that draughted the working definition led by the American Jewish Committee.

148
00:17:23,650 --> 00:17:30,900
They had initially presented to the UMC a list of examples as straightforwardly and unequivocally anti-Semitic.

149
00:17:30,900 --> 00:17:35,070
Here are 11 examples of anti-Semitism as discussed.

150
00:17:35,070 --> 00:17:39,580
The documents principal value for them was precisely that designation.

151
00:17:39,580 --> 00:17:46,590
But in a fraught meeting with UMC officials, a critical contextual caveat was incited.

152
00:17:46,590 --> 00:17:56,520
Each example could, taking into account the overall context, constitute anti-Semitism, but did not necessarily do so.

153
00:17:56,520 --> 00:18:04,770
This qualification was supposedly added in order to allay concerns that critics of Israel would be unfairly targeted.

154
00:18:04,770 --> 00:18:12,150
But the EEOC working definition provided no guidance as to what context ought to be considered qualified.

155
00:18:12,150 --> 00:18:13,740
And in practise,

156
00:18:13,740 --> 00:18:21,870
the caveat was just ignored frequently as pro-Israel activists wielded the working definition with what the American Jewish Committee official,

157
00:18:21,870 --> 00:18:27,660
Kenneth Stern, again widely credited as the lead author of the definition terms,

158
00:18:27,660 --> 00:18:34,050
the subtlety of a mandate to suppress and delegitimize criticism of Israel.

159
00:18:34,050 --> 00:18:41,260
So to recap. The definition was draughted and promoted primarily by pro-Israel advocacy organisations.

160
00:18:41,260 --> 00:18:47,800
These groups did not value the two sentence court definition, what would become later the text in the book?

161
00:18:47,800 --> 00:18:52,780
But rather the list of examples because these redefined as anti-Semitic.

162
00:18:52,780 --> 00:18:56,240
Various criticisms of Israel. Finally,

163
00:18:56,240 --> 00:19:06,260
pro-Israel campaigners in practise ignored any nuances or caveats in the definition as they deployed it as a bludgeon against Israel's critics.

164
00:19:06,260 --> 00:19:15,620
Now, all of this relates to the EU sea working definition, but how did that become the subject of this talk, dietary working definition?

165
00:19:15,620 --> 00:19:23,900
Well, misrepresentation and misuse of the EU see definition in the manner just described led to mounting criticism.

166
00:19:23,900 --> 00:19:27,020
In response, the EU, IMC and its successive body.

167
00:19:27,020 --> 00:19:36,350
The Fundamental Rights Agency publicly clarified repeatedly that the document was just a work in progress, had not been adopted by the E,

168
00:19:36,350 --> 00:19:46,880
C or the EU or anyone else, had no official status and had not, to their knowledge, been applied in practise by any public authority within the EU.

169
00:19:46,880 --> 00:19:55,610
When it became clear in 2013 that the fundamental rights agency had removed the EU c working definition from its website.

170
00:19:55,610 --> 00:20:00,260
American and Jewish organisations, American and European Jewish organisations,

171
00:20:00,260 --> 00:20:04,470
as well as the government of Israel, were highly critical and resolve to act.

172
00:20:04,470 --> 00:20:10,550
Simon Wiesenthal Centre warned that, quote, The absence of an accurate definition of anti-Semitism,

173
00:20:10,550 --> 00:20:15,170
which includes the vilification of Israel and falsely comparing Israel to the Nazis,

174
00:20:15,170 --> 00:20:21,880
will only encourage our enemies all over the world to intensify their efforts to delegitimize the Jewish state.

175
00:20:21,880 --> 00:20:28,880
Note, by the way, how explicit it then was. What is nowadays often denied that the distinctive contribution of the definition was

176
00:20:28,880 --> 00:20:34,570
to designate as anti-Semitic the vilification and decongestant ization of Israel.

177
00:20:34,570 --> 00:20:44,740
As we have seen, the scope of such terms as vilification and deviant utilisation was for groups like the Sun Wiesenthal Centre, expansive.

178
00:20:44,740 --> 00:20:49,940
The chairman of Israel's Consent Committee for the Struggle Against anti-Semitism urged to,

179
00:20:49,940 --> 00:20:56,330
quote, push for the adoption of an internationally accepted definition of anti-Semitism.

180
00:20:56,330 --> 00:21:04,790
This was reiterated at the Fifth Global Forum for Combating anti-Semitism convened by the government of Israel in May 2015.

181
00:21:04,790 --> 00:21:13,610
This meeting, held in Jerusalem, brought together a broad coalition of pro-Israel and Jewish communal organisations from multiple countries.

182
00:21:13,610 --> 00:21:18,320
Its action plan recommended that European institutions and governments, quote,

183
00:21:18,320 --> 00:21:23,510
adopt a formal definition of anti-Semitism that should include unambiguous reference

184
00:21:23,510 --> 00:21:28,010
to attacks on the legitimacy of the state of Israel and its right to exist.

185
00:21:28,010 --> 00:21:35,120
One of the forms working groups advised that the E c working definition be reintroduced into the international arena.

186
00:21:35,120 --> 00:21:39,940
The aim of giving it legal status. Another working group.

187
00:21:39,940 --> 00:21:44,350
Called on the EU to appoint a special envoy on anti-Semitism.

188
00:21:44,350 --> 00:21:49,820
Amongst his tasks should be to work towards a definition of anti-Semitism.

189
00:21:49,820 --> 00:21:56,730
A third coach led by Andrew Baker of the American Jewish Committee and Mark Weitzman of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre,

190
00:21:56,730 --> 00:22:02,400
recommended engagement with such international bodies as the OSCE and the HRA,

191
00:22:02,400 --> 00:22:07,320
amongst other things, to increase the use of the UMC working definition.

192
00:22:07,320 --> 00:22:14,780
Now, by this point, Weitzman had already been putting these recommendations into practise.

193
00:22:14,780 --> 00:22:19,190
So the Iceman was not just director of government affairs at the Simon Wiesenthal Centre.

194
00:22:19,190 --> 00:22:24,530
He was also chair of the Charities Committee on anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial.

195
00:22:24,530 --> 00:22:30,500
In early 2014, just after the fundamental rights agency distancing from the working definition

196
00:22:30,500 --> 00:22:35,300
had been publicly revealed and closed the mind control to see the IAEA,

197
00:22:35,300 --> 00:22:44,600
Cherry's anti-Semitism Committee endorsed a proposal by Weitzman, the diet cherry adopted version of the E room working definition.

198
00:22:44,600 --> 00:22:52,970
In December 2014, Weitzman met and obtained the support of Romanian Ambassador Munir Konstantin Esca,

199
00:22:52,970 --> 00:23:01,670
who agreed to make the definition one of his primary goals during Romania's chairmanship of the HRA in 2016.

200
00:23:01,670 --> 00:23:07,160
In January 2016, a meeting of Holocaust related special envoys,

201
00:23:07,160 --> 00:23:15,530
including from the UK and representatives of the OSCE and on each already was convened at the Foreign Ministry of the Czech Foreign Ministry.

202
00:23:15,530 --> 00:23:22,760
Participants included Ambassador Konstantin Eskew, now the incoming on a chair, a chair, a representative of the OSCE,

203
00:23:22,760 --> 00:23:32,150
probably Andrew Baker and the new European Commission coordinator on combating anti-Semitism, Kasserine, the French carbine, as noted.

204
00:23:32,150 --> 00:23:39,200
The 2015 Global Forum on Combating anti-Semitism, had recommended the appointment of just such an EU special envoy to work on,

205
00:23:39,200 --> 00:23:43,160
amongst other things, a definition of anti-Semitism. Sure enough,

206
00:23:43,160 --> 00:23:52,820
the definition of anti-Semitism was on the agenda of that January 2016 meeting on 5th of April 2016 by Charity Chair Now

207
00:23:52,820 --> 00:24:00,200
Konstantin Eskew informed the charity anti-Semitism Committee headed by invites one of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre.

208
00:24:00,200 --> 00:24:06,330
The HRA and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the OSCE, which was then chaired by Germany,

209
00:24:06,330 --> 00:24:12,140
had determined to, quote, seek adoption of the EU YMC working definition of anti-Semitism.

210
00:24:12,140 --> 00:24:19,980
He requested the experts of the Antisemitism Committee to help me argue this challenging case that the Wieczorek his upcoming.

211
00:24:19,980 --> 00:24:25,810
Bucharest cleaned me and delegated to Weitzman the coordination of this effort.

212
00:24:25,810 --> 00:24:36,700
This push to have the UMC working definition reintroduced into the international arena met with partial success at the OSA at the OSCE.

213
00:24:36,700 --> 00:24:40,890
The efforts of Germany and Baker, they were thwarted by a Russian veto.

214
00:24:40,890 --> 00:24:50,590
It bought from the twenty sixth of May the HRA plenary, adopted by consensus a working definition of anti-Semitism.

215
00:24:50,590 --> 00:24:56,650
Weitzman of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre was, as he put it, triumphantly. Its architect.

216
00:24:56,650 --> 00:25:03,220
Recognising that I HRA working definition was essentially the same text as the EU see definition.

217
00:25:03,220 --> 00:25:09,460
Louis Brandeis Centre in US about that quote because the Wieczorek has adopted it,

218
00:25:09,460 --> 00:25:15,350
the definition has now officially been given the international status, which it was previously lacking.

219
00:25:15,350 --> 00:25:21,670
And as Israel's Ministry of Diaspora Affairs noted, this was a significant achievement for those Jewish and quote,

220
00:25:21,670 --> 00:25:25,810
Israeli representatives, individuals and organisations who,

221
00:25:25,810 --> 00:25:33,820
since the fundamental rights agency's removal of the EU see definition from its website site in all the four 2013 had,

222
00:25:33,820 --> 00:25:41,600
quote, in endeavouring to restore awareness of the definition as well as its use.

223
00:25:41,600 --> 00:25:47,840
So I noted at the beginning of the talk that the content of the HRA working definition has been disputed.

224
00:25:47,840 --> 00:25:51,310
Does it or does it not include these examples?

225
00:25:51,310 --> 00:26:01,760
The seemingly technical point became the object to the bitter national controversy in Britain in the summer of 2018 centred on the Labour Party.

226
00:26:01,760 --> 00:26:09,950
In this controversy, the full spectrum of British Jewish leadership organisations is noted as well as government officials came down on one side.

227
00:26:09,950 --> 00:26:12,530
The definition did include the list of examples,

228
00:26:12,530 --> 00:26:18,500
with some also suggesting that Labour's claims to the contrary with disreputable, if not outright dishonest.

229
00:26:18,500 --> 00:26:25,550
We've also seen already a number of Wieczorek delegates weighed in publicly on the side of Labour's critics.

230
00:26:25,550 --> 00:26:36,110
Well, where does the truth lie? Let's first go back to the text of the e c working definition back in 2005 as discussed.

231
00:26:36,110 --> 00:26:42,370
This combined a vacuous two sentence definition with a list of substantive examples.

232
00:26:42,370 --> 00:26:47,240
Now, that document, it left unclear the relationship between those two elements.

233
00:26:47,240 --> 00:26:52,940
The text draughted by the American Jewish community and like minded groups did not distinguish

234
00:26:52,940 --> 00:26:58,590
between the two sentence definition and the illustrative examples which followed.

235
00:26:58,590 --> 00:27:08,360
But in the final E.M.S. draught, as you can see, the working definition was rendered distinct by quotation marks on a bold italic typeface.

236
00:27:08,360 --> 00:27:13,330
On the other hand, the whole thing was placed under the heading working definition of anti-Semitism.

237
00:27:13,330 --> 00:27:21,610
And as a result, the examples was sometimes referenced as part of the definition and sometimes not.

238
00:27:21,610 --> 00:27:32,660
Fast forward now to the HRA working definition negotiations in May 2016 ahead of the IAEA charges,

239
00:27:32,660 --> 00:27:37,580
May 2016 Bucharest plenary, the HRA anti-Semitism Committee,

240
00:27:37,580 --> 00:27:55,180
headed recall by Mark Weitzman of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, circulated a draught working definition and recommended that the HRA adopted.

241
00:27:55,180 --> 00:27:59,860
It was the E, it was simply the E c working definition with only two modifications,

242
00:27:59,860 --> 00:28:05,020
whose common effect was to erode any distinction between the definition and the examples.

243
00:28:05,020 --> 00:28:11,210
As you can see, basically the two sentence opening passage now appeared in the same typeface as the rest of the document,

244
00:28:11,210 --> 00:28:15,790
and it was no longer separately introduced as, quote, the working definition of.

245
00:28:15,790 --> 00:28:23,770
Now alleging that a surge in anti-Semitism had raised existential questions about the viability of continued Jewish life in Europe.

246
00:28:23,770 --> 00:28:29,770
The anti-Semitism committee fulfilling the function that Ambassador Konstantin estimate requested of them,

247
00:28:29,770 --> 00:28:39,880
urged HRA Planetree delegates to unite behind the existing EU UMC working definition as there simply wasn't time to negotiate new one quote.

248
00:28:39,880 --> 00:28:49,030
It's our opinion that for the HRA to remain a credible and relevant organisation, given the gravity of the situation and the urgent need for action,

249
00:28:49,030 --> 00:28:55,740
that we simply cannot take another five years or longer to develop a new definition.

250
00:28:55,740 --> 00:29:02,370
Now, according to a confidential internal report by an ambassador to the x ray participates in that meeting,

251
00:29:02,370 --> 00:29:09,060
which they have on file, this heyst that suddenly emerged came as something of a surprise.

252
00:29:09,060 --> 00:29:15,930
Sweden and Denmark proposed to firing the issue until the following plenary meeting in November.

253
00:29:15,930 --> 00:29:23,520
They objected to flaws in the procedure. It was being rushed it as well as to the examples added to the definition.

254
00:29:23,520 --> 00:29:30,690
Another another delegate I've spoken to also said they basically had nothing about

255
00:29:30,690 --> 00:29:34,320
this definition until a few weeks before the plenary and then all of a sudden,

256
00:29:34,320 --> 00:29:42,000
boom, no discussion. It was presented as this urgent, urgent matter that had to be rushed through.

257
00:29:42,000 --> 00:29:48,480
Now, in an effort to reach consensus and recall that the plenary only makes decisions by consensus.

258
00:29:48,480 --> 00:29:57,160
The chair, Konstantin S2P, allowed a compromise proposal to be worked on and to present it to the plenary meeting.

259
00:29:57,160 --> 00:30:01,850
Now, this revised text was presented to the plenary on the 22nd of May.

260
00:30:01,850 --> 00:30:10,190
The definition quote had been shortened to two sentences as the examples that perturbed Sweden and Denmark, amongst others,

261
00:30:10,190 --> 00:30:17,030
were no longer together with the definition, but rather appeared separately after the two sentence definition.

262
00:30:17,030 --> 00:30:23,590
I'm quoting there from the Internal Ambassadors report. Now, most member countries supported that new text,

263
00:30:23,590 --> 00:30:30,270
but some held out for more time and for the definition to be still more clearly differentiates from the examples one.

264
00:30:30,270 --> 00:30:38,350
One man the country wanted them in the holy site. Grauer penned Appendix, for example, as another plenary participant observed,

265
00:30:38,350 --> 00:30:43,840
this controversy was raising really heated debates that threatened to derail the whole initiative.

266
00:30:43,840 --> 00:30:51,070
This was the point at which the Romanian chair started applying pressure and committee heads took turns giving emotional speeches,

267
00:30:51,070 --> 00:30:57,580
quoting here from the report on how important it was to immediately adopt the definition.

268
00:30:57,580 --> 00:31:04,120
While this was going on, an additional sentence was added to the document emphasising that this this definition was just for

269
00:31:04,120 --> 00:31:10,570
use by HRA experts and doesn't provide recommendations or place obligations on any member state.

270
00:31:10,570 --> 00:31:17,950
In the end, the revised text was adopted by consensus around three twenty three p.m.

271
00:31:17,950 --> 00:31:22,540
As noted, it subsequently became the object of great controversy in the UK.

272
00:31:22,540 --> 00:31:31,120
Whether the Bucharest Kennedy, if I actually had considered the examples part of an integral to the definition on this critical point.

273
00:31:31,120 --> 00:31:38,210
The Ambassador's account is unequivocal. I HRA consensus was achieved only when, quote,

274
00:31:38,210 --> 00:31:47,680
the original draught text was cut into two and only the first two sentence part was to be the working definition to be adopted.

275
00:31:47,680 --> 00:31:51,430
The ambassador's report being a confidential brief for internal use,

276
00:31:51,430 --> 00:31:58,930
submitted contemporaneously with the events described by a direct participant to them, must be considered highly credible.

277
00:31:58,930 --> 00:32:03,370
All the more so as many of its observations can be independently corroborated.

278
00:32:03,370 --> 00:32:07,990
But for the purposes of the talk here, let's just focus on the critical point.

279
00:32:07,990 --> 00:32:12,760
In order to achieve consensus, the examples were separated from the definition.

280
00:32:12,760 --> 00:32:16,990
First, the fact that the examples were separated from the working definition was

281
00:32:16,990 --> 00:32:22,000
confirmed to me by a second head of delegation present at the Bucharest cannery.

282
00:32:22,000 --> 00:32:27,700
Two additional members of delegations from different countries, both present at the plenary,

283
00:32:27,700 --> 00:32:36,550
likewise affirmed that only the two sentence passage in the box was the working definition adopted.

284
00:32:36,550 --> 00:32:41,080
This situation is also evident in the text of the resolution adopted,

285
00:32:41,080 --> 00:32:49,600
whereas the text proposed to the plenary by the anti-Semitism Committee didn't clearly distinguish between the definition and the examples.

286
00:32:49,600 --> 00:32:57,100
The adopted draught clearly did. It added a box surrounding the definition, separating it from the surrounding text,

287
00:32:57,100 --> 00:33:03,760
from which additionally distinct and additionally distinguished it by a bold typeface in quotation marks.

288
00:33:03,760 --> 00:33:11,830
In a further departure from the EU c text, the HRA definition was explicitly non-binding but not legally binding.

289
00:33:11,830 --> 00:33:21,430
While the EIT charges examples were pre faced by a caveat that a limited function was to quote, Guide I, HRA and its work.

290
00:33:21,430 --> 00:33:30,040
Third, shortly after the Bucharest plenary, at least one member country placed on record in an email address to the OR a chair,

291
00:33:30,040 --> 00:33:38,530
along with all itinerate heads, a delegation that it, quote, does not consider the examples as being an integral part of the definition.

292
00:33:38,530 --> 00:33:41,320
In sum, in a subsequent charity plenary meeting,

293
00:33:41,320 --> 00:33:48,880
another member country reiterated its reservations regarding the examples and urged that the definition be distinguished from them,

294
00:33:48,880 --> 00:33:53,800
quote, in all contexts. A third member country echoed and expressed those,

295
00:33:53,800 --> 00:34:00,700
echoed that and expressed concern about the examples, quote, implications for freedom of expression.

296
00:34:00,700 --> 00:34:05,110
Recall again, I am sure many decisions require a consensus of the plenary.

297
00:34:05,110 --> 00:34:10,420
The internal cherry record off the Bucharest corroborates that from Bucharest,

298
00:34:10,420 --> 00:34:15,670
but no such consensus existed for including the examples and the working definition and for

299
00:34:15,670 --> 00:34:21,850
precisely the reasons that Labour's ruling body expressed reservations about some of the examples,

300
00:34:21,850 --> 00:34:27,530
namely that implications for freedom of expression.

301
00:34:27,530 --> 00:34:34,460
Finally, only these mutually corroborating accounts are consistent with the public record in the months following the Bucharest plenary.

302
00:34:34,460 --> 00:34:39,620
This is most clear in the case of Germany, which is chair of the OSCE and the main lobbyist,

303
00:34:39,620 --> 00:34:47,200
along with Weitzman and Konstantin Mănescu for the working definition, was well positioned to understand its content.

304
00:34:47,200 --> 00:34:53,800
A June 2017 Brinda Stop motion proposed that the Federal Republic adopt the definition,

305
00:34:53,800 --> 00:34:58,490
and this was quoted as just the text in the books with no mention of the examples.

306
00:34:58,490 --> 00:35:08,620
Then in September 2017, the federal government adopted by a Cabinet decision what it called an extended version of the item definition was

307
00:35:08,620 --> 00:35:16,760
extended because in addition to the text in the books included one sentence on Israel related anti-Semitism from the EU.

308
00:35:16,760 --> 00:35:25,640
IMC definition before the extended version did not include any of the examples of internal correspondence,

309
00:35:25,640 --> 00:35:31,490
which I'm staying here between German Foreign Office Chancellery and other government officials confirms

310
00:35:31,490 --> 00:35:37,130
that understanding that the definition adopted in Bucharest comprised only the short text in the books,

311
00:35:37,130 --> 00:35:41,000
quote the consensus to also include the extended sentence.

312
00:35:41,000 --> 00:35:48,770
They all related anti-Semitism failed due to the resistance of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands.

313
00:35:48,770 --> 00:35:53,300
The ambassador, whose internal report I quoted earlier, later confessed to being, quote,

314
00:35:53,300 --> 00:35:59,330
confused by the ongoing and apparently heated debate in the UK on adopting the definition,

315
00:35:59,330 --> 00:36:05,830
actually rather be illustrative examples and by the public intervention amidst this controversy.

316
00:36:05,830 --> 00:36:12,410
Of the seven UK delegates. Well, I hope this confusion should not be understandable to everyone here.

317
00:36:12,410 --> 00:36:15,110
I asked the UK delegates alleged that, quote,

318
00:36:15,110 --> 00:36:22,500
Any version of the HRA definition that does not include all of its 11 examples is no longer by definition.

319
00:36:22,500 --> 00:36:31,190
And whereas that claim formed a critical point of contention amidst the national controversy surrounding the Labour Party in the summer of 2018,

320
00:36:31,190 --> 00:36:40,370
the documentary record unequivocally refutes it. The HRB working definition as adopted upper crust in May 2016,

321
00:36:40,370 --> 00:36:49,730
does not include any of the examples which were separated from the definition to achieve consensus.

322
00:36:49,730 --> 00:36:57,000
It might be wondered how did it come to be that this documentary record was publicly misrepresented,

323
00:36:57,000 --> 00:37:03,710
including by NHMRC delegates in a joint statement on the charity's official website.

324
00:37:03,710 --> 00:37:09,740
As noted aspects, that was misrepresented was neither trivial nor obscure.

325
00:37:09,740 --> 00:37:16,910
But on the contrary, had been the subject of a heated control to see that nearly derailed the whole initiative.

326
00:37:16,910 --> 00:37:26,300
What might account for that? Well, my answer here is necessarily more tentative and speculative than the narrative presented so far.

327
00:37:26,300 --> 00:37:33,950
But I think one can reasonably conclude from the available evidence that the elements of the HRA shifted their public

328
00:37:33,950 --> 00:37:42,380
position over the course of the year 2018 in the critical context of political controversies then ongoing in the UK,

329
00:37:42,380 --> 00:37:50,690
especially that surrounding the Labour Party. Here's what I've been able to find out about how it happened.

330
00:37:50,690 --> 00:37:55,010
In September 2017, I ain't Cherrie's permanent office.

331
00:37:55,010 --> 00:38:02,360
Distinguished between the definition as the text in the books and the examples that guide I chair and its work.

332
00:38:02,360 --> 00:38:07,250
That distinction faithfully reflected the decision of the Wieczorek Kennedy.

333
00:38:07,250 --> 00:38:13,730
That same distinction was evident in, for example, the government of Israel's announcement in January 2017.

334
00:38:13,730 --> 00:38:18,590
That quote, In addition to the IHF charity definition, it had also, quote,

335
00:38:18,590 --> 00:38:23,780
adopted the accompanying on it all right instructions and thus noted it was also reflected

336
00:38:23,780 --> 00:38:29,210
in Germany's adoption of an extended version of the definition in September 2017,

337
00:38:29,210 --> 00:38:36,790
which incorporated none of the Iron Cherrix examples. Well, in the first half of 2018,

338
00:38:36,790 --> 00:38:43,930
Mark Weitzman of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre and chair of the Arteries anti-Semitism Committee

339
00:38:43,930 --> 00:38:49,870
made a number of public interventions that muddied to the point of obscuring this distinction.

340
00:38:49,870 --> 00:38:54,070
In early 2017, yet before the HRA,

341
00:38:54,070 --> 00:38:59,050
working definition had been mobilised in the U.K. to shut down a number of pro Palestine

342
00:38:59,050 --> 00:39:04,150
events on UK campuses with the express approval of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre.

343
00:39:04,150 --> 00:39:09,640
Now there was subsequently a parliamentary enquiry into freedom of speech in universities.

344
00:39:09,640 --> 00:39:15,310
One British academic concerned about the working definitions impact on this

345
00:39:15,310 --> 00:39:19,420
incorrectly claimed that the examples had not been adopted at all by the IRA.

346
00:39:19,420 --> 00:39:25,150
All right. Now, Kreitzman and Konstantin Esker.

347
00:39:25,150 --> 00:39:28,650
The chair of the United Way and the chair of the anti-Semitism Committee of the Arts,

348
00:39:28,650 --> 00:39:36,150
ready at the time of the definitions adoption at the request of some Jewish activists in the U.K. issued the following.

349
00:39:36,150 --> 00:39:42,420
Mr. Fick, mystifying clarification. We can confirm that the definition definition itself,

350
00:39:42,420 --> 00:39:47,970
as stated in the text of the adopted definition, is part of the entire document, including examples.

351
00:39:47,970 --> 00:39:52,640
That was officially adopted as one piece by the plenary. Now,

352
00:39:52,640 --> 00:39:59,720
it's really not difficult to state plainly as the government of Israel did in January 2017 and the IHF is permanent off its date in

353
00:39:59,720 --> 00:40:07,400
September 2017 that the Itinerate adopted the text in the box as the definition alongside a list of examples to guide its work.

354
00:40:07,400 --> 00:40:15,770
If Weitzman instead resorted to such convoluted circumlocutions as the definition itself is part of the entire document,

355
00:40:15,770 --> 00:40:22,760
including examples that was adopted as one piece. Well, this was manifestly in order to convey the false impression.

356
00:40:22,760 --> 00:40:28,310
The definition included the examples by March 2018.

357
00:40:28,310 --> 00:40:33,670
He was explicitly claiming that in May 2016, the book at the book, Chris Flannery, the IIHF,

358
00:40:33,670 --> 00:40:39,930
we adopted a definition of anti-Semitism, which included a number of examples of anti-Semitism.

359
00:40:39,930 --> 00:40:45,680
Now, in the context of the summit 2018 Labour Party controversy divides from constant Enescu statement

360
00:40:45,680 --> 00:40:50,960
was repeatedly cited as proof positive that by declining to adopt some of the examples,

361
00:40:50,960 --> 00:40:57,230
Labour had thereby snubbed, arrogantly snubbed, dietary working definition.

362
00:40:57,230 --> 00:41:00,250
The joint statement by Bite's Going to Constantinidis.

363
00:41:00,250 --> 00:41:10,400
It wasn't an official HRA statement obtaining which would, by its own explained, take more time in the event approximately four months.

364
00:41:10,400 --> 00:41:20,140
The decisive shift in the Chinese position on the working definition took place during its May 2018 general plenary meeting in Rome.

365
00:41:20,140 --> 00:41:26,960
We convened about one month into the public dispute in the UK around Labour and the itinerate working definition.

366
00:41:26,960 --> 00:41:31,910
Now it bears reiterating at this junction it's the plenary. That's the decision making body of the ICJ.

367
00:41:31,910 --> 00:41:36,170
All right. And an actuary spokesman confirmed to me that, quote,

368
00:41:36,170 --> 00:41:44,510
There have not been any further decisions taken on the working definition by the penalty since the one in Bucharest in May 2016.

369
00:41:44,510 --> 00:41:50,770
This notwithstanding vitamines, anti-Semitism community. Meeting in Rome in May 2013.

370
00:41:50,770 --> 00:41:59,790
Independent independently proclaimed the examples part of the full definition and declared the subject close to further discussion.

371
00:41:59,790 --> 00:42:08,430
That's the text you can see in the slideshow. Now, once the reader is aware of what's going on, it becomes almost an amusing pastime,

372
00:42:08,430 --> 00:42:14,400
at least for me to spot the rhetorical slates deployed in order to contrive the

373
00:42:14,400 --> 00:42:20,020
impression without explicitly stating that the Eye HRA is bucharest's planning.

374
00:42:20,020 --> 00:42:32,150
We adopted the examples as part of the definition in this case. Notice the innovative construction, including with.

375
00:42:32,150 --> 00:42:39,110
Well, the anti-Semitism committee's decision was not immediately made public, but it was immediately publicised by Eric Pickles,

376
00:42:39,110 --> 00:42:45,560
the U.K. special envoy for post Holocaust issues and the head of the UK's delegation to the HRA.

377
00:42:45,560 --> 00:42:52,880
That's his tweet that now that was false on two counts of his tweet was false on at least two counts.

378
00:42:52,880 --> 00:43:00,920
Firstly, it was not the HRA but the I. Cherry's anti-Semitism Committee, which had determined the examples part of the definition.

379
00:43:00,920 --> 00:43:10,890
And this was not a restatement, but rather a unilateral attempt to revise and override the decision of the first plenary.

380
00:43:10,890 --> 00:43:21,620
In July 2018, now well into the British Labour controversy. Weitzman publicly condemned Labour's refusal to accept the very definition as a clear

381
00:43:21,620 --> 00:43:26,780
signal of the party's refusal to deal with the reality of anti-Semitism in its ranks.

382
00:43:26,780 --> 00:43:31,700
The Simon Wiesenthal Centre additionally described the settlement and Minch refusal as, quote,

383
00:43:31,700 --> 00:43:39,500
an open invitation to anti-Semitism and, quote, a slap in the face to the UK's Jewish community.

384
00:43:39,500 --> 00:43:46,490
Next came the public intervention, already mentioned on the 7th of August 2014 by the seven UK I very delegates,

385
00:43:46,490 --> 00:43:55,130
which was directly prompted by, it says, in the public controversy surrounding the Labour Party, and it was published on the HRA website.

386
00:43:55,130 --> 00:44:04,190
As noted, this statement falsely claimed that anything which doesn't include all of the 11 examples isn't the cherry working definition.

387
00:44:04,190 --> 00:44:08,540
Now Pickles, despite being head of the UK delegation to the survey.

388
00:44:08,540 --> 00:44:14,840
He didn't himself sign that statement, which is rather curious, but he did repeatedly intervene.

389
00:44:14,840 --> 00:44:15,920
Over the course of the summer,

390
00:44:15,920 --> 00:44:26,090
twenty eighteen controversy to criticise Labour for anti-Semitism at times on the basis of just that misrepresentation of the HRA working definition.

391
00:44:26,090 --> 00:44:32,180
Now, the UK delegate statement was accompanied around the same time by the revision

392
00:44:32,180 --> 00:44:36,890
of the text of an article on IHF for website about the working definition.

393
00:44:36,890 --> 00:44:41,330
There's a very useful tool called the Internet Archive for the Wayback Machine.

394
00:44:41,330 --> 00:44:50,120
You can put in a euro and it shows you a list of snapshots of that web of that web page, and it's taken over time.

395
00:44:50,120 --> 00:44:55,490
How did it look? You can see how did Google's front page look in 2000 and 2001?

396
00:44:55,490 --> 00:45:05,180
Well, pasting in this, you are right. You can see that exactly around the time of the of the UK delegates statement.

397
00:45:05,180 --> 00:45:12,050
This post was changed. The revised text was it was introduced.

398
00:45:12,050 --> 00:45:14,660
What amounted to the same false claim?

399
00:45:14,660 --> 00:45:22,330
Quote, The working definition, including its examples, was reviewed and decided upon unanimously during the IHT charges.

400
00:45:22,330 --> 00:45:29,900
Bucharest plan to meet in May 2016. According to an email I've seen from the Charmings executive sic secretary.

401
00:45:29,900 --> 00:45:40,070
That amended article was draughted as advised by the HRA chair and the chair of the Committee on Absenteeism and Holocaust Denial.

402
00:45:40,070 --> 00:45:48,250
Now, both the UK delegate statement and the revised I Hate Germany article were publicised and I Atari's August 2018 newsletter.

403
00:45:48,250 --> 00:45:53,090
All while the later controversy is still raging the following months.

404
00:45:53,090 --> 00:45:59,720
In September 2018, the executive secretary of the HRA emailed colleagues noting that, quote,

405
00:45:59,720 --> 00:46:05,390
The HRA working definition has been much discussed in the UK and beyond and pointed

406
00:46:05,390 --> 00:46:10,610
them to the UK delegate statement and the revised I hate every article as,

407
00:46:10,610 --> 00:46:14,390
quote, guidance and background information on the matter.

408
00:46:14,390 --> 00:46:21,890
Now, that email, as you can see, as well as putting the debates in in the U.K. as exciting debates in the U.K. context,

409
00:46:21,890 --> 00:46:26,330
explicitly highlighted from that revised post on the Web site.

410
00:46:26,330 --> 00:46:35,120
The key fault line that the examples were reviewed and decided upon unanimously by the plenary in Bucharest.

411
00:46:35,120 --> 00:46:41,600
No. Incidentally, that I sure is new position did not just misrepresent what the Bucharest plenary had decided.

412
00:46:41,600 --> 00:46:45,640
It also contradicted by Cherry's own statements.

413
00:46:45,640 --> 00:46:54,070
When Germany endorsed a modified version of the working definition included none of the examples I HRA recognised and applauded publicly.

414
00:46:54,070 --> 00:47:01,390
This, quote, endorsement of the working definition. And when the French parliament endorsed the HRA working definition in a form that,

415
00:47:01,390 --> 00:47:07,190
quote, excluded the examples, I HRB publicly recognised this adoption.

416
00:47:07,190 --> 00:47:11,780
And when the Council of the European Union endorsed the HRA working definition,

417
00:47:11,780 --> 00:47:22,690
I actually welcome this not withstanding the reference to the IHT charges illustrating examples had explicitly been deleted from your draught.

418
00:47:22,690 --> 00:47:33,790
Contacted by this author in October 2020, twenty eight charges permanent office in Berlin disavowed its statement posted already of September 2017,

419
00:47:33,790 --> 00:47:38,590
which had characterised correctly the working definition as the text in the book's

420
00:47:38,590 --> 00:47:43,600
title phrase permanent office now said that this is incorrect information.

421
00:47:43,600 --> 00:47:49,750
The working definition is in I actuary's view the entirety of the agreed upon text, by the way.

422
00:47:49,750 --> 00:47:51,560
As you look at that,

423
00:47:51,560 --> 00:48:01,700
you'll doubtless by now notice database of formulations as the passage strains to convey without expressly stating that not the HRA.

424
00:48:01,700 --> 00:48:09,250
The Archery plenary in 2016 adopted the examples as part of the working definition.

425
00:48:09,250 --> 00:48:17,440
To recap then, the item is shifting. Position on the working definition may be linked to what what was happening in the UK in 2018.

426
00:48:17,440 --> 00:48:22,780
By the coincidence, timing express references to this context by both the UK delegates.

427
00:48:22,780 --> 00:48:29,470
And I hate Cherrie's executive secretary on public interventions in that controversy by the most involved.

428
00:48:29,470 --> 00:48:33,460
I am sure beneficials Mark Weitzman of the anti-Semitism Committee.

429
00:48:33,460 --> 00:48:36,580
Eric Pickles, head of the UK delegation,

430
00:48:36,580 --> 00:48:46,150
reflecting back on his successful standing of the working definition through the UN HRA and gloating over those he termed enemies of the Jewish state,

431
00:48:46,150 --> 00:48:54,730
i.e. Israel by Xman himself highlighted definition's contribution to European legislation against the boycott movement,

432
00:48:54,730 --> 00:48:59,370
as well as to quote Corbin's landslide defeat.

433
00:48:59,370 --> 00:49:06,430
OK, well, that concludes my Western top whistle stop tour through what seemed to me to be the salient aspects of the working definitions,

434
00:49:06,430 --> 00:49:07,930
diplomatic history.

435
00:49:07,930 --> 00:49:18,740
I just wanted to conclude with a few reflections on the significance of the story that was just told and provocation or an invitation to discussion.

436
00:49:18,740 --> 00:49:26,560
So first, I think it clear that behind the seemingly hysterical or baffling insistence upon this text,

437
00:49:26,560 --> 00:49:33,760
the sacred text upon verbatim adoption of all the examples that actually lies a longstanding and rational political agenda.

438
00:49:33,760 --> 00:49:44,500
Many organisations have worked for many is invested a lot of resources to draught, propagate, publicise and institutionalise those examples.

439
00:49:44,500 --> 00:49:53,530
The examples that they prise, not the working definition, because those examples facilitate the stigmatising and stifling of Israel's critics.

440
00:49:53,530 --> 00:50:01,600
Second, I think that the whole the whole discussion, I think it's a caution against evaluating, debating,

441
00:50:01,600 --> 00:50:07,750
assessing particular definitions of anti-Semitism or indeed of any other contested notion in the abstract.

442
00:50:07,750 --> 00:50:14,170
These things don't happen by chance. The product of organisation, resources, politics.

443
00:50:14,170 --> 00:50:24,480
Third and relatedly, we should resist the tendency visible in some places to regard as illegitimate or conspiratorial, even anti-Semitic.

444
00:50:24,480 --> 00:50:30,910
Any attempts to explain anti-Semitism initiatives and or controversies in terms of coordinated

445
00:50:30,910 --> 00:50:37,630
political action and attempts to discern the often unstated ideas and objectives behind them?

446
00:50:37,630 --> 00:50:43,870
The fact is, both opponents and supporters of the Army are already working definition all coordinated.

447
00:50:43,870 --> 00:50:51,160
They are strategic. They have political objectives. It's wholly legitimate to try and establish them and enquire into them.

448
00:50:51,160 --> 00:50:58,180
Actually, the whole project of a definition seems to me to be quite a depoliticising one, to be sure.

449
00:50:58,180 --> 00:51:02,050
Even the proponents of the working definition do not suggest that they have come

450
00:51:02,050 --> 00:51:06,970
up with a once and for all statement of anti-Semitism really is stressing,

451
00:51:06,970 --> 00:51:10,690
for example, as they do that it's not intended for academic research.

452
00:51:10,690 --> 00:51:18,480
Still, as we have seen, advocates of the working definition have sought to present it as non as a non-sectarian,

453
00:51:18,480 --> 00:51:22,480
nonideological basis of a broad consensus.

454
00:51:22,480 --> 00:51:30,010
To quote again, the UK delegates joint statement, quote, There is now not a Western or an Eastern definition of anti-Semitism.

455
00:51:30,010 --> 00:51:34,960
There is not a Jewish or non Jewish definition, but an international definition.

456
00:51:34,960 --> 00:51:42,310
Well, this is both untrue and in my opinion, serves to close a discussion just when one is most needed.

457
00:51:42,310 --> 00:51:49,400
Fourth, the definition. Cherry working definition has been misused and misrepresented in other ways as well.

458
00:51:49,400 --> 00:51:58,640
In my opinion, predictably so, given the history just outlined just as the status of the EU sea working definition was inflated as discussed before.

459
00:51:58,640 --> 00:52:08,420
So we now regularly encounter references to the international or even I've seen on quite a few occasions the universal definition of anti-Semitism.

460
00:52:08,420 --> 00:52:16,880
More seriously, even as the working definition was suppost, supposedly intended merely as a guide to anti-Semitic incident counters.

461
00:52:16,880 --> 00:52:24,130
So the monitoring statistics of of anti-Semitic incidents can be rendered comparable between countries and over time.

462
00:52:24,130 --> 00:52:29,360
And even as the text of the definition itself specifies that it's legally non-binding.

463
00:52:29,360 --> 00:52:39,660
Still, we find it repeatedly recommended to universities, political parties, social media platforms and even courts as a regulatory tool.

464
00:52:39,660 --> 00:52:46,730
And this has repeatedly resulted. Happy to talk about it in discussion in the suppression of speech about which the

465
00:52:46,730 --> 00:52:51,650
most influential advocates of the definition have been cited or even applauded.

466
00:52:51,650 --> 00:52:52,910
Finally,

467
00:52:52,910 --> 00:53:02,060
even as I hope that this presentation has demonstrated the importance of examining the specific politics and history behind any given definition,

468
00:53:02,060 --> 00:53:08,930
I also think that it serves as a compelling and cautionary example of the perils of all such definitions.

469
00:53:08,930 --> 00:53:14,510
A well-known argument against hate speech laws or any speech code that is not viewpoint neutral

470
00:53:14,510 --> 00:53:20,180
is that they must be either overly broad and vague or our successively narrower and arbitrary.

471
00:53:20,180 --> 00:53:26,270
Both of those cases, no such laws are vulnerable to political instrumental ization.

472
00:53:26,270 --> 00:53:28,610
And in the former case where it's overly important,

473
00:53:28,610 --> 00:53:36,830
vague to chill discussion as people just don't know what will be will be considered as coming under its ambit.

474
00:53:36,830 --> 00:53:43,910
I submit that both the text and history of the HRA working definition simply reinforces those concerns.

475
00:53:43,910 --> 00:53:46,130
The text itself is read literally.

476
00:53:46,130 --> 00:53:56,120
It's so vague as to require extensive discretion, reinterpretation or interpretive discretion on the part of anyone seeking to apply it.

477
00:53:56,120 --> 00:54:02,210
If, on the other hand, it's read narrowly with the examples included and the contextual can't be ignored,

478
00:54:02,210 --> 00:54:05,810
then the list becomes arbitrary and sensorial.

479
00:54:05,810 --> 00:54:12,650
So therefore closed with the observation, which is really an invitation to discussion that apart from the genuinely,

480
00:54:12,650 --> 00:54:19,400
truly limited task of guiding anti-Semitic incident monitors to facilitate comparable data,

481
00:54:19,400 --> 00:54:28,040
I can see no desirable use for not just the HRA working definition, but any formal or regulatory definition of anti-Semitism.

482
00:54:28,040 --> 00:54:40,840
Period. Thanks very much. Thank you, Jamie, for this detailed and thought-Provoking presentation.

483
00:54:40,840 --> 00:54:49,270
We're moving now to the question and answer session where unfortunately we're still bound to the textual version of it.

484
00:54:49,270 --> 00:54:57,260
So please put in your questions in the Q&A text and I'll read them out and Jamie will answer.

485
00:54:57,260 --> 00:55:06,670
We already have several. First question, Jamie is from Marcus was thanking you for I must talk to a nation of the actors in their actions.

486
00:55:06,670 --> 00:55:15,880
The question is, in your opinion, did this controversy contribute to eradicating anti-Semitism or could it have had the opposite effect?

487
00:55:15,880 --> 00:55:19,360
And I would add to this, this is my own Jaco's addition.

488
00:55:19,360 --> 00:55:32,360
I was wondering, can you give us an example where the definition was used to tackle a non Israel related anti-Semitic accusation?

489
00:55:32,360 --> 00:55:40,180
And so taking the second point, the second question first, yes, I can't knock it off my head,

490
00:55:40,180 --> 00:55:51,120
but the the the European Commission recently commissioned a handbook on best practise of the nature of the military working definition.

491
00:55:51,120 --> 00:55:55,500
And it basically takes I mean, the handbook is extremely misleading.

492
00:55:55,500 --> 00:56:00,090
For one thing, it says that the examples are part of the definition was committed by this organisation.

493
00:56:00,090 --> 00:56:11,640
All right. Yes. Based in Berlin, which is one of these German organisations that treats a broad swathe of criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic.

494
00:56:11,640 --> 00:56:21,090
But it's organised by example. And under each example, it gives some best practise of how the definition has been used.

495
00:56:21,090 --> 00:56:26,940
Well, it illustrates the example with reference to a concrete concrete case across Europe.

496
00:56:26,940 --> 00:56:33,600
And then it also gives examples of Beck's best practise of use of the definition.

497
00:56:33,600 --> 00:56:46,380
So you'll find that in there some examples of non Israel related, not Semitism, that are held to illustrate these examples.

498
00:56:46,380 --> 00:56:57,690
Now, the first question. Well. I don't know of any evidence that adoption of Wieczorek definition, in fact,

499
00:56:57,690 --> 00:57:05,180
and doctrine of any definition has actually proven helpful in reducing or combating anti-Semitism,

500
00:57:05,180 --> 00:57:12,180
um, whenever the whenever the advocates of the definition make the case for it.

501
00:57:12,180 --> 00:57:16,320
They never provide such evidence the most, they will say in general.

502
00:57:16,320 --> 00:57:27,540
There's a need to try and ensure that. Incident counters have some kind of common standard with which to reference.

503
00:57:27,540 --> 00:57:33,000
But beyond that, there's never any proof that, OK, the situation was like this.

504
00:57:33,000 --> 00:57:39,000
And then the definition was adopted and then hurray, anti-Semitism went down.

505
00:57:39,000 --> 00:57:44,220
And that's with regard to any definition, let alone the much more difficult case,

506
00:57:44,220 --> 00:57:48,930
which is that it's in this particular definition is the one that we need.

507
00:57:48,930 --> 00:57:56,010
And on the country. So I also don't have evidence to suggest that, on the contrary,

508
00:57:56,010 --> 00:58:06,000
the attempts to impose this definition or misleading arguments about this definition have increased anti-Semitism.

509
00:58:06,000 --> 00:58:13,430
But I am concerned that when you when you have organisations like the HRA.

510
00:58:13,430 --> 00:58:21,950
Purportedly, I mean, it's these core mandate is the preservation, the protection, the safeguarding of historical truths,

511
00:58:21,950 --> 00:58:31,310
misrepresenting its own record on the altar of currently expediency, ideology or expediency.

512
00:58:31,310 --> 00:58:43,560
That can only detract from the credibility of the organisations, which are the most visible ones in purportedly the fight against anti-Semitism.

513
00:58:43,560 --> 00:58:47,190
Thank you. Another question from Cerutty, Jamie,

514
00:58:47,190 --> 00:58:52,980
is there a working definition of anti-Semitism that you consider effective and useful as opposed to the idea

515
00:58:52,980 --> 00:59:03,770
of a working definition that I've turned to the definition that can or should be adopted in your mind?

516
00:59:03,770 --> 00:59:14,160
No, I don't even know of another definition, period. I mean, there's been many attempts to come up with a definition of anti-Semitism.

517
00:59:14,160 --> 00:59:19,070
You could write. Easy that question, suffice it to say.

518
00:59:19,070 --> 00:59:22,460
After thousands of years, no one has come up with a definition of what a Jew is,

519
00:59:22,460 --> 00:59:27,860
let alone an agreed definition, let alone what anti-Semitism is set in the world of academia.

520
00:59:27,860 --> 00:59:39,920
There's no consensus, a formal definition of anti-Semitism, nor do I sense any real desire for one in the realm of politics and governance.

521
00:59:39,920 --> 00:59:43,700
I'm not aware of another attempt to craft such a definition.

522
00:59:43,700 --> 00:59:48,800
I know that the recent vote at UCLA University College London,

523
00:59:48,800 --> 01:00:00,530
which was the first in the UK where a university that had adopted the HRB Working Definition Academic Board then voted to revoke the adoption.

524
01:00:00,530 --> 01:00:07,100
But I noticed that it voted to not just revoke but to replace it with another definition.

525
01:00:07,100 --> 01:00:10,640
However, we don't we don't know what the definition will look like. As I said,

526
01:00:10,640 --> 01:00:18,230
I'm very sceptical about the desirability and feasibility of this exercise

527
01:00:18,230 --> 01:00:23,810
on the grounds of the general well-known arguments against hate speech laws.

528
01:00:23,810 --> 01:00:33,030
The only function of them that I can see apart from that date accounting, limited function or any function is if you want to censor speech.

529
01:00:33,030 --> 01:00:39,690
And I don't think you should censor speech. I think he should address speech where people are wrong.

530
01:00:39,690 --> 01:00:43,190
Try and show why. Thank you.

531
01:00:43,190 --> 01:00:50,690
We have many questions. So I would just ask you, Jamie, to go over them quickly with Rhythm Way where one does just there,

532
01:00:50,690 --> 01:00:55,550
because they know the audience is obviously very engaged and interested in this question.

533
01:00:55,550 --> 01:01:00,230
So a question from Jonathan Rosen heard. What do you think?

534
01:01:00,230 --> 01:01:10,250
Why do you think that Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands have kept so quiet about the illegitimate rewriting by officials and

535
01:01:10,250 --> 01:01:18,980
subordinate committees of their hard fought agreement in the plenary in Bucharest in 2016?

536
01:01:18,980 --> 01:01:24,860
All I can offer is the general observation that this is an intense amount and it's called pressure around this.

537
01:01:24,860 --> 01:01:31,880
It's just been astonishing trying to research this. I mean, it's taken me like some two years to put together that diplomatic history.

538
01:01:31,880 --> 01:01:37,660
Why? Because no one wants to talk. There's so much secrecy surrounding it.

539
01:01:37,660 --> 01:01:41,420
I can't tell you. There are times when I have submitted a Freedom of Information request.

540
01:01:41,420 --> 01:01:47,650
I get things back from every plenary meeting except the 2016 one that's too sensitive to reveal.

541
01:01:47,650 --> 01:01:55,670
It's just an incredible amount of of sensitivity around this, which means political pressure around.

542
01:01:55,670 --> 01:02:01,010
Can I just follow up with this? Can you give a little bit more information of why?

543
01:02:01,010 --> 01:02:08,300
Oh, how did they originally explain their objection to the inclusion of the definitions, the states,

544
01:02:08,300 --> 01:02:15,320
Norway, Sweden, Denmark, what was for them the contentious point about the definitions?

545
01:02:15,320 --> 01:02:22,790
Well, what what what what what's clear from the documents I have is that a inject into the process,

546
01:02:22,790 --> 01:02:29,570
it was being rushed through and B, they objected to the examples.

547
01:02:29,570 --> 01:02:40,880
One can, I think, very confidently infer that it's also from subsequent contributions to kind of subsequent plenary meetings where it was made clear,

548
01:02:40,880 --> 01:02:46,910
for example, by by one of the member countries concerned that these examples seem to have implications,

549
01:02:46,910 --> 01:02:55,880
worrying implications for freedom of expression. I think it's clear that that was the nature of those objections in 2016 as well.

550
01:02:55,880 --> 01:03:02,880
But I don't have, you know, detailed minutes of which.

551
01:03:02,880 --> 01:03:08,180
Clarify the question of a different sort. Again, thank you so much.

552
01:03:08,180 --> 01:03:21,060
Mark is writing. Can you give an example of a one or two examples of criticism of Israel that you would personally consider as anti-Semitic?

553
01:03:21,060 --> 01:03:25,290
I don't find the term anti-Semitic Semitism useful. Period.

554
01:03:25,290 --> 01:03:32,650
I think when it comes to statements that that category of statements, which we might call factual statements,

555
01:03:32,650 --> 01:03:40,740
don't mean factually true and statements which might be either true or false beliefs about the world look relevant.

556
01:03:40,740 --> 01:03:47,120
Question is, is it is it true or is it false? Now, if it's true, the question of is it anti-Semitic?

557
01:03:47,120 --> 01:03:52,080
It doesn't arise if it's false. That's already sufficient reason to reject it.

558
01:03:52,080 --> 01:03:58,800
You don't need another reason to reject it. It's false. So I don't think the term anti-Semitism is useful.

559
01:03:58,800 --> 01:04:00,270
I don't know what people mean when they.

560
01:04:00,270 --> 01:04:07,080
And to be honest, it usually turns out people don't know what people mean when they say that X is anti-Semitism.

561
01:04:07,080 --> 01:04:14,130
And then it just what it does is it diverts debate from a productive avenue is.

562
01:04:14,130 --> 01:04:22,680
So is this statement true or false, which at least holds out the possibility of coming to a convergence on the terrain of reason

563
01:04:22,680 --> 01:04:28,110
and evidence diverts that debate to the question of should we be allowed to say this?

564
01:04:28,110 --> 01:04:34,770
That's just shadowboxing. So I don't find it useful or even comprehensible.

565
01:04:34,770 --> 01:04:41,070
Thank you, Jamie. A question for more discussion going. Again, very refreshing presentation on this topic.

566
01:04:41,070 --> 01:04:45,990
I wonder if you think reactions like the UCL, which you mentioned earlier, earlier,

567
01:04:45,990 --> 01:04:51,270
UCL board's rejection of the definition last week would become more common.

568
01:04:51,270 --> 01:05:05,610
What is next in that sense? How can dialogue around anti-Semitism in Europe move away from the debate on HRA, which Morris finds often to distract?

569
01:05:05,610 --> 01:05:14,040
I agree with that. Last I do that last point. Well, the I'll vote be a turning point for British universities.

570
01:05:14,040 --> 01:05:18,330
The it should be. And I hope that it will. The report of the working group,

571
01:05:18,330 --> 01:05:27,420
it's a very detailed study of the implications and the legality of trying to apply the HRT definition in a university context,

572
01:05:27,420 --> 01:05:32,240
and its conclusions should generalise across the university sector.

573
01:05:32,240 --> 01:05:37,440
Now, whether whether other universities will in fact follow, I don't know.

574
01:05:37,440 --> 01:05:40,860
As I say, there's a lot of pressure around this, including from the government,

575
01:05:40,860 --> 01:05:49,950
which threaten the funding of universities that when there was anti-Semitic incidents and they had adopted this definition.

576
01:05:49,950 --> 01:06:02,610
Now, as for Europe, this year, this coming year, it's going to be an important one for the progress of the fate of this definition on the year.

577
01:06:02,610 --> 01:06:13,110
Is debating a digital strategy strategy around what to do with the problem of hateful content online, how to regulate it?

578
01:06:13,110 --> 01:06:20,310
That's one thing. And second thing, in the third quarter of this year, there's supposed to be an EU wide action plan on antisemitism.

579
01:06:20,310 --> 01:06:27,990
Now, as you can imagine, all of the. Lobby groups on both sides of this question of the archabbey working definition,

580
01:06:27,990 --> 01:06:33,150
although one side is more well organised and resourced than the other.

581
01:06:33,150 --> 01:06:39,170
But that these are the kind of big markers that they're working towards trying to shape.

582
01:06:39,170 --> 01:06:46,970
And the demand, by the definition, supporters that ask is to have this incorporate into both of those documents.

583
01:06:46,970 --> 01:06:57,390
And, you know, Japanese in Germany was recently the president and it has a lot of influence.

584
01:06:57,390 --> 01:07:04,030
So I don't. A question from an enormous attendee.

585
01:07:04,030 --> 01:07:09,250
I know the answer to this one. Have you seen the open letter written by Rabbi Andrew Baker,

586
01:07:09,250 --> 01:07:18,780
Deirdre Hamburger and Michael Wine claiming that concern was not the main author of the dietary definition?

587
01:07:18,780 --> 01:07:24,190
Yes, I had my popcorn out. When thieves fall out.

588
01:07:24,190 --> 01:07:28,200
The truth comes in. I'm just hoping that more.

589
01:07:28,200 --> 01:07:37,360
More documents will be released. I mean, I don't know if you're aware, but Ken Starr and he also wrote a reply, a rebuttal to that open letter.

590
01:07:37,360 --> 01:07:45,280
I mean, they really tried to reduce his role to just a go between.

591
01:07:45,280 --> 01:07:50,980
He replied, linking to an e-mail from the time which appears to show that he did.

592
01:07:50,980 --> 01:07:58,690
And he did indeed take a lead draughting role to be continued.

593
01:07:58,690 --> 01:08:03,760
Thank you. A question for Adam Sutcliffe Sutcliff. Hi, Adam. Thank you, Jamie.

594
01:08:03,760 --> 01:08:09,090
Adam writes for this. Really through an interesting talk. My question is in.

595
01:08:09,090 --> 01:08:17,430
Correction of the record make any difference what hope is there that fair minded scholarship and accuracy

596
01:08:17,430 --> 01:08:27,680
can gain traction against the juggernaut that is behind the political use of the age or a definition?

597
01:08:27,680 --> 01:08:32,870
I don't know. I mean, certainly all political organisation plays a huge factor.

598
01:08:32,870 --> 01:08:37,900
But you do need arguments. You do need.

599
01:08:37,900 --> 01:08:44,320
Facts as as as as weapons in your arsenal. I don't know whether they'll prove decisive.

600
01:08:44,320 --> 01:08:49,120
I hope so. And there have been victories as well as as well as defeats on this question.

601
01:08:49,120 --> 01:08:55,850
I mean, to be clear, like the U.K. was one early battle battlefield, but it's a battle ground.

602
01:08:55,850 --> 01:09:06,310
But it's really a global and a global one. Latin America is currently a major target for rolling up its HIV working definition.

603
01:09:06,310 --> 01:09:13,440
In Canada right now, it's a really, really hot controversy.

604
01:09:13,440 --> 01:09:21,060
I don't know. I think trust. Married to a veteran organisation can be can be a factor.

605
01:09:21,060 --> 01:09:27,870
Thank you, Jamie. I don't see any other questions in the Q&A, so I'll take the advantage to take it to ask another question.

606
01:09:27,870 --> 01:09:35,760
That may be the concluding one. We woke up this morning to news that Gavin Williamson, the minister of education,

607
01:09:35,760 --> 01:09:44,050
is now proposing to build a government body to oversee free speech, to guarantee free speech, including a free speech.

608
01:09:44,050 --> 01:09:54,950
So how do you see this squaring with the push of the HRA inside the British universities?

609
01:09:54,950 --> 01:09:59,840
I don't see it squaring I seen as a direct contradiction.

610
01:09:59,840 --> 01:10:04,640
I mean, there is an ambiguity when it comes to adopting on HIV AIDS.

611
01:10:04,640 --> 01:10:08,120
Never made clear what adopting consists of.

612
01:10:08,120 --> 01:10:15,830
Exactly. Is it just we're going to make it. We're going to put out a statement saying we've adopted this and then it goes in the drawer.

613
01:10:15,830 --> 01:10:23,330
Or are we going to actually use it to regulate what what speeches allowed on campus?

614
01:10:23,330 --> 01:10:32,660
I think the inevitable sort of drift of events is they first just adopt it, then it becomes a standard that they've accepted.

615
01:10:32,660 --> 01:10:42,650
Which groups who do want to have speech regulated on campus can then site and put administrators in a difficult position.

616
01:10:42,650 --> 01:10:46,560
We saw that recently with the Ken Loach controversy here in Oxford.

617
01:10:46,560 --> 01:10:58,820
So which wherein students cited the I enjoy definition explicitly as grounds for part of their grounds for wanting his invitation to be rescinded.

618
01:10:58,820 --> 01:11:04,450
So I think in practise it will be and it has at times been used as a speech code.

619
01:11:04,450 --> 01:11:07,100
And to any rate, the tendency is for that to happen.

620
01:11:07,100 --> 01:11:16,370
The vulnerability is that for that to happen, in which case it's in direct contradiction to these claims about supporting free speech on campuses,

621
01:11:16,370 --> 01:11:25,310
which I do think is it isn't is important to support. Just not in the cynical and opportunistic and selective way.

622
01:11:25,310 --> 01:11:32,480
Thank you. Thank you, Jamie, for this fascinating talk and for the engaging discussion.

623
01:11:32,480 --> 01:11:34,280
Thank you all for attending. Let us.

624
01:11:34,280 --> 01:11:43,360
Let me just remind you that next week's meeting is dedicated to the reconsidering early Jewish Nationalist Ideologies Seminar,

625
01:11:43,360 --> 01:11:49,340
where a speaker is might have and took Roman with the title The Pragmatism of Proto

626
01:11:49,340 --> 01:12:06,269
Zionism Tracing Jewish Nation Building through a cultural sociological framework.