Arif Ahmed, a Cambridge philosophy professor, is to become the government’s first “free speech tsar” for higher education in England. He will oversee a regime that could fine universities and student unions. The biggest issue on campuses is the trans debate and Zionist attacks on Palestine activism- but it was the latter that Professor Ahmed singled out for attention. In his 1st June interview to the Times, he said
“The IHRA working definition [of antisemitism] is an important tool for understanding how anti-Semitism manifests itself in the 21st Century. Adopting it sends a strong signal to students and staff facing anti-Semitism.”
The chair of One Democratic Palestine wrote to Professor Ahmed decrying his support for the IHRA definition, pointing out that it targetted pro-Palestine supporters in claiming criticism of Israel was antisemitic, an email to which the Professor responded (see below). (Previously Prof Ahmed was critical of the IHRA Definition, but with the chance of a Government job, he appears to have “flipped”.)
Prof Ahmed devoted almost a quarter of his article, which can be downloaded here, to the IHRA. In it, he says he had no evidence that the IHRA Definition had been used to suppress academic freedom of speech. When we referred him to the the European Legal Support Centre report of 6th June, which documents just a few British examples where it does (see pages 26 onwards), he did not respond.
Curiously Jewish Voice for Labour thought his appointment boded well.
Take 5 minutes to read this article “A definitional dispute” by Lawrence Davidson- an illuminating take of the Biden administrations current anguish around the definition of antisemitism:
There is more on the IHRA at our dedicated page The IHRA Definition of Antisemitism and Labour – One Democratic Palestine (onepalestine.land). If you would like to be part of a campaign to convince Professor Ahmed that the IHRA Definition is fraudulent and politicised, please send an email to info@onepalestine.land
See the conversation below:
From: info@onepalestine.land <info@onepalestine.land>
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2023 8:17 AM
To: Arif M. Ahmed <ama24@cam.ac.uk>
Subject: Why do you plan to undermine free speech on Israel?
Dear Professor Ahmed,
Your appointment as the new “director for free speech” at the Office for Students under the new Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act shows us just how morally bankrupt our Government has become. They seem to have found, in appointing yourself as the new “free speech tsar”, a suitable stooge to continue their untrammelled support for Israel. You show in your statement to the Times the direction you plan to take: “The IHRA working definition [of antisemitism] is an important tool for understanding how anti-Semitism manifests itself in the 21st Century. Adopting it sends a strong signal to students and staff facing anti-Semitism.”
I understand you are a Cambridge academic philosopher. That a supposedly educated man could spout such tripe is astonishing, yet shows our Government is heading in the exact opposite direction of supporting our freedom of speech. I myself was expelled from my union for criticising Israel under the IHRA Definition, yet you would no doubt approve. (see the 20-minute film that Ken Loach loved at https://youtu.be/ZvlXwQ8LR4I ). There are 11 examples of antisemitism given in the definition- 7 of them relate to criticism of Israel. To say Israel is racist is now seen as an attack upon Jewry in general, yet Amnesty and the Francesca Albanese, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, state that is an apartheid state.
We might wonder what Liberty, our very own civil rights body, is doing about the IHRA Definition? Precisely nothing, in spite of being persuaded by Jewish Voice for Labour activist and Liberty Committee member Jonathan Rosenhead into adopting a 2018 AGM motion against it. Tony Greenstein subsequently tried to get them to act; see his blog of October 2018 Why are the Officers and Employees of Liberty Refusing to Implement its Policy of Opposition to the IHRA?
In 2019 I myself repeatedly emailed, then struggled at the Liberty AGM to get some action too, with no more success. Virtually all Liberty members who attended the Leeds AGM, some 100 souls, took my flyer as I stood outside the AGM hall with my banner and said they agreed it was a matter Liberty should address. But later inside as I tabled questions whenever I could, the Liberty Executive steadfastly refused to respond to my call for action. A succession of Liberty officers lectured us about the dangers of 5G and police face identification technology – matters that we are unlikely to be able to prevent – yet refused to engage on the greatest attack on our freedom of speech- that of the right to condemn apartheid in Israel, a country which the UK bears absolute responsibility for creating, through the Balfour declaration and subsequent oppression of Palestinian revolt. The Palestine Solidarity Campaign, a body that should lead on the fight, are similarly tragically unwilling to actively oppose the IHRA Definition; they even refused to condemn the bogus antisemitism attacks on their patron, Jeremy Corbyn.
That Zionism has triumphed in the UK this past seven years is underlined by the fact that the politicised and fraudulent IHRA Definition has been adopted by all major political parties (bar the Greens) and all the major unions (bar the PCS). And now, in the person of yourself, as our new “free speech” champion.
With Starmer’s Labour Party likely to take over next year, the prospects look gloomy, but we know there are yet many Labourists who are embarrassed at their leader’s support for racist Israel. We must redouble our efforts to challenge this awful definition that equates anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. On Sunday, I attended the AGM of the Jews for Justice for Palestinians, whose treasurer asked for suggestions about how to spend their enormous financial reserves. They too are committed to getting rid of this terrible definition and I suggested they take out a big advertorial against it in the trendy Guardian, the newspaper that supposedly champions free speech but, as we all know, refuses to condemn the IHRA Definition. I really hope they do.
And I hope you drop your support for the IHRA Definition. To read more on the subject, please go to our website www.onepalestine.land/the-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism
Yours sincerely,
Pete Gregson
Chair, One Democratic Palestine
From: Arif M. Ahmed <ama24@cam.ac.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2023 10:06 PM
To: info@onepalestine.land
Subject: Re: Why do you plan to undermine free speech on Israel?
Dear Mr Gregson
Thanks very much for your letter.
I’m not expecting to make public comments on this until I have actually started in this role. This will be later in the summer. At that point (later in the summer), if you would like a comment, please contact the press office at the Office for Students: press@officeforstudents.org.uk
Would you be happy for me to copy your email to the Press Office now? It would be helpful for them to know that you have been in touch.
I am very sorry that I can’t be more helpful at the moment, but I do hope you understand. Many thanks for taking the trouble to write.
Best wishes, Arif
Arif Ahmed
Professor of Philosophy, University of Cambridge
Nicholas Sallnow-Smith Lecturer in Philosophy, Gonville and Caius College
From: info@onepalestine.land <info@onepalestine.land>
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2023 7:58 AM
To: ‘Arif M. Ahmed’ <ama24@cam.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: Why do you plan to undermine free speech on Israel?
Dear Arif,
Thank you for taking the time to reply to me. Please do copy my letter to the press office.
I am not sure if you are aware of this, but the UN is presently being urged not to adopt the IHRA Definition (see UN urged to reject antisemitism definition over ‘misuse’ to shield Israel | Antisemitism | The Guardian) and just a week ago the European Legal Support Centre published their report:
“Suppressing Palestinian Rights Advocacy through the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism – Violating the Rights to Freedom of Expression and Assembly in the European Union and the UK”. It documents just a few of the academic instances where the IHRA Definition has been used to suppress free speech on Israel in the UK. (Read it at https://elsc.support/news/breaking-new-report-reveals-human-rights-violations-resulting-from-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism )
Thousands have been expelled from the Labour Party, too, because of this loathsome definition- including many of our members at One Democratic Palestine. I myself resigned, just before I was due to be expelled- after 38 years of Labour activism.
I recently managed to organise a UK Tour in support of Palestine with Rabbi Dovid Weiss- www.onepalestine.land/rabbi-on-the-road-beyond-israel ; the UK Lawyers for Israel tried to get the Home Secretary to exclude Rabbi Weiss from the UK and then the Friends of Israel forced 4 of our 15 venues to cancel, arguing that I was a “notorious anti-Semitic activist”. Once you have been labelled as a Jew-hater by the IHRA Definition, Zionists use it to prevent you engaging in any kind of pro-Palestine activism.
You might be interested to know that the definition was cooked by an Israeli (Dinah Porat) working with the US State Department. Alison Weir, in her “If Americans Knew” blog of 17 May 2017 explains fully how Israel developed the definition: see- https://israelpalestinenews.org/iak-investigation-international-campaign-is-criminalizing-criticism-of-israel-as-antisemitism/
I hope you will eventually appreciate that the IHRA Definition does nothing to protect Jews. It serves only to protect Israel.
Best wishes
Pete
Also see the above in The Weekly Worker – 4th letter in- “IHRA Definition” https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1447/letters/
Also published at UK Free Speech Tsar appears to support fraudulent IHRA definition of anti-Semitism – Redress Information & Analysis (redressonline.com)