UK government legally challenged over IHRA antisemitism definition being adopted in British schools

The UK government is facing a legal challenge from the Good Law Project over its recommendation that English schools adopt the IHRA working definition of antisemitism. The policy followed a review finding one-in-five students witnessed antisemitism. Separately, the Jewish Leadership Council and Community Security Trust intervene in a Supreme Court appeal by Palestine Action against its proscription.

The UK government is facing a legal challenge for encouraging English schools and colleges to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism as part of a sweeping package of reforms. The recommendation followed a review of antisemitism in schools and colleges in England which said schools and colleges across England must recognize antisemitism as a distinct category of harm. The review revealed that one-in-five students overall reported witnessing antisemitism, while many cases went entirely unreported by students and teachers due to a lack of confidence that the incidents would be properly addressed. However, lawfare NGO the Good Law Project has announced its plans to sue the UK government over the IHRA policy. Following alleged talks with "Palestinian parents and students, as well as academics," Good Law wrote to the UK government on Monday setting out its proposed grounds of challenge and seeking more information about the policy. Good Law Project said schools have legal duties not to "promote partisan political views" and duties to protect free expression. It called "vigorous" criticisms of Israel's "appalling actions" "necessary in a moral society," and strongly condemned the IHRA definition which it said prohibits criticism of Israel. Separately, the Jewish Leadership Council and Community Security Trust have been granted permission by the Supreme Court to jointly intervene in the appeal relating to the proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist organization, arguing that the continued proscription matters for the Jewish community and society as a whole.