‘Exiledlondoner’ accuses us on CIF of adapting the EUMC Working Definition of Antisemitism to our purposes. On this site he accuses us of ‘doctoring’ and deliberately ‘altering’ the text of the Definition.
Let’s take a look at what he means. First the EUMC provides examples of antisemitism. We introduce these by:
The EUMC then goes on to cite specific examples of antisemitism including:
The text of the Definition includes them by:
Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
We really do not see the difference. Recommendation 12 of the MacPherson Inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence said that the definition of a racist incident is:
“A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person”.
This definition is used by the police in the UK and accepted by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The EUMC says “could … but not limited to” implying that the examples are definitely racist (though the final say is with the victim) – but there could be more. “Taking into account the overall context” is there to filter out possible examples where a Jew might not find racism. An example would be the supporters of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club who proudly call themselves ‘Yiddoes’ with no malicious intent (though on the other hand many Jews do find it offensive). Jews do not allege ‘antisemitism’ lightly and that is presumably why the ‘context’ phrase is in the EUMC text.
Now to the Israel-specific examples. We introduce these by:
Specifically with respect to Israel, taking into account the overall context, the EUMC gave the following examples:
The EUMC text says:
Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the state of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:
Precisely the same comments with regard to the ‘context’ word apply as already explained. Jews do not allege ‘antisemitism’ lightly and that is presumably why the ‘context’ phrase is in the EUMC text. But as Macpherson said in Recommendation 12: It is the right of the victim of racism to judge offence.
So our phrasing – which was done purely for ease of comprehension – makes no difference whatever to the substance of the Definition. (Apart from anything else, if we were trying to be mendacious as ‘Exiledlondoner’ suggests, why would we link to the actual Definition?)
“Exiledlondoner’s” allegations are blatant diversionary tactics, no doubt learned on CIF, where (as we all know from bitter experience) pro-Israel posters are constantly given the run around.