1/ For those tweeting #BackNECcode I recommend you read the code you are backing (thejc.com/comment/analys…) and the code you are rejecting (holocaustremembrance.com/sites/default/…). You may be surprised. There are 2 important changes in the NEC code which may make it *worse* for free speech
2/ First, the NEC Code *leaves out* perhaps the most important line for free speech in the IHRA code: that “criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic”. There is no similar statement in the NEC Code.
3/ Second, the IHRA includes illustrative examples of antisemitism, as you probably know. But it precedes them with: “Contemporary examples of antisemitism … could, taking into account the overall context, include…”. So they “could” be examples, taking into account “context” 
4/ So the IHRA code is inherently flexible. Because context is everything. The NEC Code leaves that "could, taking into account the overall context" and, before its own (different) examples: " “The following are examples of conduct likely to be regarded as antisemitic”
5/ Therefore, the NEC Code (1) doesn't explicitly say that criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against other countries isn't antisemtiism and (2) doesn't tell the disciplinary tribunal to consider context, which is crucial to protect contentious political speech
6/ Please read the thread below too. I appreciate this is a difficult situation and most people are doing their best to figure it out. My view is IHRA definition is no worse, and perhaps better, than NEC's and for other important reasons should be adopted
