The Media Accountability Project  

On February 6, 2023, the Richmond News published an article about an upcoming vote at Richmond City Hall on the controversial IHRA definition of antisemitism, which conflates antisemitism with criticism of Israel.

However, CJPME felt that the article did not adequately express the broad opposition to IHRA in Canadian civil society, and requested that the article name some of the organizations which are critical of IHRA, including the BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA). CJPME also requested that the article specify that the threat of IHRA was not hypothetical, and that there were documented cases of it being used to silence speech.

These issues were largely addressed in a subsequent article on the topic, published on February 10, 2023, which included the following discussion:

In response to a Richmond News article on council considering the definitions of anti-racism, a spokesperson of the Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East, Reem Majid, said she felt the opposition to the IHRA definition was broader than just being opposed by one Jewish group, Independent Jewish Voices, mentioned in a previous News article.

This definition has, in fact, been opposed by other Jewish groups, some labour groups as well as the BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA).

The BCCLA warned Vancouver city council, when they were considering adopting the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, that it was “extremely vague” and “open to misinterpretation” and would “serve to severely chill political expressions of criticism of Israel as well as support for Palestinian rights.”

Some universities and other organization have documented cases where they claim the IHRA definition caused free speech, namely, criticism of Israel, to be stifled.

On February 23, 2023, the Richmond News published a letter to the editor by CJPME’s President Thomas Woodley about the strong opposition in civil society to the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which conflates antisemitism with criticism and protest of Israel.

The following is an excerpt from the letter:

In fact, the main issue with the [IHRA] definition are the 11 “examples” provided with the definition, seven of which focus on the state of Israel rather than on Jews as a group.

The definition, with its examples, disserves Jews because it conflates real antisemitism with criticism of Israel.

And it disserves Palestinians and Palestinian-Canadians because it smears them as antisemites for sharing their stories of dispossession at the hands of Israel and Zionism.

It is for this reason that the BC Civil Liberties Association, Independent Jewish Voices and many other civil liberties groups are so concerned about the IHRA definition.

"In fact, the main issue with the definition are the 11 “examples” provided with the definition, 7of which focus on the state of Israel rather than on Jews as a group. The definition, with its examples, disserves Jews because it conflates real antisemitism with criticism of Israel. And it disserves Palestinians and Palestinian-Canadians because it smears themas antisemites for sharing their stories of dispossession at the hands of Israel and Zionism.It is for this reason that theBC Civil LibertiesAssociation, Independent Jewish Voices and many other civil liberties groups are so concerned about the IHRA definition"

"The article sheds light on the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism which is being proposed as part of a larger anti-racism motion to city council. We thank you for mentioning the U.N. report which criticizes IHRA, and for briefly noting some of the key concerns. However, I would like to point out a number of areas where this discussion could be strengthened.

First, you write that “some groups, including one Jewish group, claim it could curtail criticism of Israel and Zionism.” This sentence fails to capture the strong opposition by many Canadian civil society groups against the adoption of IHRA. If your article mentioned some of these prominent and respected organizations, it would be clear to the reader that the opposition to IHRA is widespread and based on serious concerns."