Some people are saying Ken Stern, an author of the IHRA antisemitism definition, thinks Labour was right to change it and write their own Code of Conduct. I've got a paper Stern wrote in 2010 on the definition- let's see what he says (spoiler: it's not what the Canary claims) /1
The paper is on p.32 of this collection, from a conference I was at in 2010 kantorcenter.tau.ac.il/sites/default/… /2
Firstly, Stern didn't write the IHRA definition. He helped to write its predecessor for an EU agency called the EUMC but he was not its sole author: he names 8 other Jewish community reps & academics who contributed & then says "What we produced was changed somewhat by EUMC" /3
He calls the definition "a useful tool for identifying and analyzing antisemitism" & " a workable, non-ideological approach to task of identifying antisemitism" & says governments &media regulatory bodies should use it. He explicitly says it should not be amended in any way: /4
"In my view, attempts to change the definition would give away all the gains made by having a uniform definition for five years, would give a great opening for those who would want to scuttle it rather than improve it, and to open this can of worms would be a terrible mistake" /5
His only caveat is that he says it is inappropriate for universities to use it for certain types of anti-Israel speech, because he sees campuses as a special 'free speech' environment. But for everyone else, his message is clear: the definition should be used more than it is. /6
And beware, Corbynistas: Stern also says that in his view accusing Israel of apartheid and boycotting it are linked to antisemitism. So maybe he's not the best champion for your cause. /End.
