Segal vs Robertson, page-108

The opinion of eminent Australian/British Human rights lawyer.

His conclusion is basically supported by the original drafter….the Jewish attorney named Ken Stern

ANTI-SEMITISM: THE IHRA DEFINITON AND ITS CONSEQUENCES

Conclusion

It is my opinion, for the reasons set out above, that:

1. The IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is not fit for any purpose that seeks to use it as an adjudicative standard. It is imprecise, confusing and open to misinterpretation and even manipulation. It does not cover some insidious forms of anti-Semitism.
2. It was originally drafted, in the absence of any other definition, as a tool for collecting data and is useful for purposes of discussion, but should not be used (or be used with great caution) as a measure for discipline or in ways which have consequences for political speech.
3. The UK Government was wrong to adopt it without the “caveat” recommended with reason by the Home Affairs Committee, namely: “It is not anti-Semitic to criticise the Government of Israel, without additional evidence to suggest anti-Semitic intent.” Any public body or other organisation (including the Labour Party) that is contemplating adoption of the IHRA definition in full should add this provision to it.
4. As a matter of internal construction, the examples appended to the IHRA core definition should be read as incorporating a) the fact that they “could not” amount to anti-Semitism and b) in particular, unless they exhibited to reasonable people a hatred of Jewish people.
5. The Governments “adoption” of the definition has no legal effect and does not oblige public bodies to take notice of it.
6. The definition should not be adopted, and certainly should not be applied, by public bodies unless they are clear about Article 10 of the EHCR which is binding upon them, namely that they cannot ban speech or writing about Israel unless there is a real likelihood it will lead to violence or disorder or race hatred.
7. Universities and Colleges should be particularly careful about adopting or using the definition, as they have a statutory duty to protect freedom of expression.
8. A particular problem with the IHRA definition is that it is likely in practice to chill free speech, by raising expectations of pro-Israeli groups that they can successfully object to legitimate criticism of their country and correspondingly arouse fears in NGOs and student bodies that they will have events banned or else have to incur considerable expense to protect themselves by legal action Either way, they may not organise such events.
9. Whether under human rights law or the IHRA definition, political action against Israel is not properly characterised as anti-Semitic unless the action is intended to promote hatred or hostility against Jews in general.

Read the opinion in full