Labour MPs condemn legal challenge to school antisemitism review over IHRA definition

A legal challenge to a major government-backed review of antisemitism in education has been labelled a “disgrace” by several Labour MPs and Jewish groups. The challenge by the Good Law Project (GLP) comes in response to a report by former top Department for Education (DfE) civil servant Sir David Bell, which last month made 27 key recommendations – one of which was that all English schools and colleges adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism.

All 27 recommendations have been accepted by ministers. The GLP confirmed it sent a pre-action protocol letter to the DfE, which formally notifies the department of its intention to file a legal challenge. It said its challenge was intended to “protect the space to advance vigorous criticisms of Israel’s appalling actions”. The suggestion that the IHRA definition infringes free expression has been a long-standing argument amongst pro-Palestine groups, particularly in reference to its citing of the denial of the Jewish people’s right to self-determination as an example of contemporary antisemitism.

The GLP’s executive director, Jolyon Maugham, added: “It is not merely important to protect the space to advance vigorous criticisms of Israel’s appalling actions – we think it is necessary in a moral society.” Responding to the legal challenge, Lord Austin, a JC board member and former Labour MP now sitting as a non-affiliated peer, said: “It is a disgrace that legal activist Jolyon Maugham is seeking to thwart efforts to stop Jewish kids from antisemitic bullying in our schools.

“Sir David Bell's disturbing review into the hate faced by Jewish children should garner sympathy and support. “Instead, Jolyon and his supporters seem to be intent on maintaining the status quo in which pupils in the UK run a daily gauntlet of hatred and abuse simply for being Jewish.” Labour MP David Taylor said: “Jolyon Maugham must stop his dangerous legal threats against the sensible measures the government is taking to fight back against the racism and discrimination faced by Jewish children in our schools.

These pupils need our sympathy and support, not threats of legal action from barristers.” A spokesperson for Parents Against Antisemitism added: “Activist lawyers are despicably trying to stop the government from helping Jewish children who are facing hatred and racism at unprecedented levels in our schools. “Sir David Bell's shocking review offered sensible and much-needed practical solutions to help us fight against the scourge of antisemitism in our schools.

"Yet Jolyon Maugham wants to bring legal action against the government to block this, costing taxpayers tens of thousands of pounds.” A Jewish Leadership Council (JLC) also commented: “The IHRA definition of antisemitism is a vital tool for recognising, responding to and preventing anti-Jewish hatred, and Sir David Bell was right to call for its adoption across schools and colleges. “For the Good Law Project to threaten legal action against the government to prevent the swift implementation of the Bell Review because of this recommendation is outrageous.

“At a time when Jewish pupils are facing unacceptable levels of antisemitism in our schools, the government must stand firm, reject this attempt to derail the review and get on with implementing its recommendations.” And a spokesperson for Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) said: “We are concerned about this meddling in our education system by this controversial lawfare organisation, which has decided to prioritise an attack on the very definition of antisemitism – one that is backed fulsomely not only by the Jewish community, but by pretty much every mainstream political party from across the spectrum.

“The radicalisation of our next generation is extremely worrying, and this definition is a core part of the toolbox available to educators in standing up to extremism.” It comes after a number of commentators, including Owen Jones, questioned the methodology of Sir David’s report, suggesting that its findings on the prevalence of antisemitism in schools and colleges had been based on a “tiny” and unrepresentative sample. “It is riddled with factual errors, contradictions and distortions of evidence and research,” added Jones.

Sir David responded to those criticisms in an exclusive JC op-ed, saying: “No single statistic, survey or testimony can give us a complete picture of an issue as complex as antisemitism in education. That is precisely why the review considered both statistic-based evidence and personal testimonies.” Asked to comment on the GLP’s legal challenge, a DfE spokesperson said: “Antisemitism is a growing problem across society, including in our schools and colleges, and Jewish children and staff should never face hatred or prejudice in education.

“That is why we have accepted all 27 of Sir David Bell’s recommendations and are acting on them, including encouraging schools and colleges to adopt the IHRA working definition of antisemitism. “The IHRA definition has been adopted by 47 countries and countless public bodies and can provide a practical framework for teachers and pupils, and help give greater clarity on how to identify and tackle antisemitism wherever it occurs.” Maugham told the JC: “Antisemitism, and the rise of antisemitism are very real things.

To British Jews who are at the sharp end, I hear your pain. “But the IHRA and other rules which conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism, and that unjustifiably constrain the freedom properly and vigorously to criticise Israel, could be amongst the drivers of antisemitism.”