University of Toronto refuses to adopt IHRA definition of antisemitism

Toronto (QNN)- The University of Toronto (U of T) said Wednesday that it will not adopt the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism.

U of T president Meric Gertler announced the university’s decision in an op-ed published in The Globe and Mail, explaining that a university working group on antisemitism formed in 2020, comprising nine professors and administrations, “concluded that the IHRA’s definition is both insufficiently responsive to many of the most troubling instances of antisemitism in the university context and in tension with the university as a place where difficult and controversial questions are addressed.”

“Protecting these freedoms is essential to our university’s mandate and mission of discovery, research and education, which can only thrive in an environment of free expression and critical inquiry,” Gertler continued.

“The remedy for dealing with controversial speech is more speech, not less.”

Earlier in 2021, the University of Toronto Students’ Union (UTSU) voted to sign an open letter accusing Israel of “genocide” and demanding the cancellation of trips to ‘Israel’.

In November 2021, University of Toronto’s Scarborough Campus Student Union (SCSU) passed a resolution calling for a ban on kosher foods produced by pro-Israel companies.

In Feb. 2022, it also endorsed a motion linked to the Palestinian-led boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israeli occupation.

IHRA Definition of Antisemitism

The IHRA definition has been formally adopted or endorsed by the governments of the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Hungary, the United States, the European Parliament and more than 30 other countries.

However, the IHRA definition includes problematic examples of antisemitism that have been criticised by human rights groups as well as some liberal Zionist organisations.

The 572-word IHRA’s working definition of antisemitism reads: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

Some of the most controversial examples of antisemitism provided by the IHRA include banning anyone from “applying double standards by requiring of Israel a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation”.

Another example presented in the IHRA definition: “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, eg, by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”

The definition is simply designed to silence criticism of ‘Israel’ and of Zionism by equating this criticism with antisemitism as 7 of the 11 examples make references to ‘Israel’.

The examples have also been used by ‘Israel’ lobby groups to disrupt the activities of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement around the world by claiming that a boycott of ‘Israel’ is anti-Semitic.

Earlier in November, some 128 scholars of Jewish history and Holocaust studies from around the world warned that ‘Israel’ is trying to gag its critics by formally labelling them as “antisemites” in the United Nations.

In a letter entitled: “Don’t trap the United Nations in a vague and weaponised definition of antisemitism,” the Jewish academics called on the UN to not adopt the ‘weaponised’ IHRA definition of antisemitism.

The academics said the definition is notorious for being used in Israeli bashing of people who try to hold it to account on Palestine.