Anti - Zionist Expression on the UK Campus: Free Speech or Hate Speech: Part Two / Lesley Klaff

Definition of Hate Speech

Hate speech may be defined as "speech which generates ‘fear' on the part of an individual or group of physical harm (immediately or in the future), or which constitutes an attack on personality, including core commitments and identity."[75]

According to this definition, anti-Zionist expression constitutes "hate speech."[76] Levels of Jewish anxiety about anti-Semitism rise exponentially in response to illegitimate attacks on Israel. Such anxiety is justified: the "Nazification" of Israel, a trope that is increasingly common in today's iconography of anti-Zionism, is considered to be the greatest component of incitement and racial aggravation against Jews.[77]

However, even without the fear of physical harm, anti-Zionist expression still constitutes hate speech because of the definition's reference in the alternative to "an attack on...core commitments and identity." Anti-Zionism by definition stands against Zionism. To stand against Zionism is to stand against a core Jewish belief.[78] The return to Zion has been the driving force behind Jewish hopes and aspirations ever since the Roman expulsion in 70 CE.[79] For 95 percent of Anglo Jewry, the Jewish state has become inseparable from their "Jewishness."[80] As author and Independent columnist Howard Jacobson said, "When Jews see an attack on Israel they see an attack ‘on a version of themselves.'" [81]

Indeed, the demonization of Israel causes Jews to feel emotional pain. This is especially true when Israel is "Nazified." The Nazi topos not only delegitimizes Israel by associating the Jewish state with sublime evil, it also attacks and humiliates Jews by equating them with the perpetrators of the genocide that almost wiped them out.[82] Accordingly, the Report of the European Institute for the Study of Anti-Semitism labels the Nazi card a "speech act because it inflicts a psychological pain that is without equal on the emotional charge of the Jewish people."[83] It is an insult that says to Jews: "let me associate you with what you hold to be most obnoxious, most polluted. Within your own world, today, what is it that you most loathe? The Nazis who murdered your parents, your siblings, and your children? - Well, you are Nazis."[84]

Anti-Zionist expression further constitutes hate speech in accordance with the definition because it amounts to an attack on Jewish personality. It relies heavily, if not exclusively, on the anti-Semitic tropes of "conspiracy," "blood libel," "Jewish criminality," "Zionism/Nazism," "Zionism/racism," and "Jewish self-incrimination." It is a discourse that libels the Jewish collective and, by association, all Jews. Jews who are themselves anti-Zionist are equally susceptible to its anti-Semitic tropes and turns of phrase.[85]

Definition of Campus Hate Speech

For these reasons, anti-Zionist expression amounts to hate speech against Jews. But for those who disagree with this conclusion on the ground that there is currently no legislation in the UK that proscribes it, there are specific definitions of campus hate speech that recognize the particular context within the university in which the speech occurs. These are broad enough to include anti-Zionist expression.

A good guide to the meaning of campus hate speech is to be found in America, where the issue of regulating it has drawn much academic attention over many years.[86] According to Shiell, the American campus "hate speech debate" has been "more about offensive" speech than "any truthful hate speech."[87] He suggests that it includes "propaganda," "biased speech," "racist speech," "sexist speech," "discriminatory speech," and "misethnic speech."[88] The American critical race theorists and law professors, Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, suggest that campus "hate speech" covers discriminatory expression, overt and subtle, direct or indirect, single or repeated, backed by authority and power or not, targeted at an individual, small group, or a whole class of people, spoken or manifested in a symbol or conduct.[89] German law professor Claudia Haupt suggests that speech is classed as "hate speech" when it is "offensive speech" that targets a group that has historically been discriminated against.[90]

These explanations qualify anti-Zionist expression within the university environment as campus hate speech.

Authoritative Recognition of Anti-Zionism as Anti-Semitism

However, there is an even stronger authority for UK universities to recognize anti-Zionist expression on campus as hate speech. In 2005, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC)[91] published an authoritative definition of anti-Semitism that recognizes anti-Zionism as a manifestation of anti-Semitism. This "Working Definition of Anti-Semitism" was drafted as a guide for criminal-justice agencies throughout Europe. It is also used by the OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR).

The Working Definition[92] gives the following examples of anti-Semitism in relation to Israel:

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the State of Israel is a racist endeavour.

Applying double standards by requiring [of Israel] a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterise Israel or Israelis.

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of Nazis.

Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel.

However, criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.
The Working Definition makes it even easier to distinguish between anti-Zionist expression and legitimate criticism of Israel. The latter does not deny Jews the right to self-determination; it does not claim that "Zionism is racism"; it does not refer to Israel as an "apartheid state" or use Nazi terminology to refer to Israel or Israelis; it does not use the blood-libel imagery or other classic tropes of anti-Semitism to refer to Israel; and it does not employ double standards when criticizing Israel. Anti-Zionism is alone in seeking to bring about Israel's reputational injury through group defamation in order to justify its elimination as a Jewish state.

For those who still find it difficult to distinguish between anti-Zionist expression and legitimate criticism of Israel, Natan Sharansky, former Israeli minister of Diaspora affairs, proposed the "3-D test" for determining when criticism of Israel crosses the line into anti-Semitic hate speech.[93] "D" stands for demonization, delegitimization, and double standards.[94] These are the three facets of anti-Zionism and they constitute the "new anti-Semitism."[95] In short, anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic;[96] criticism of Israel is not.

In addition, there is a now a broad global consensus for the view that anti-Zionism is the "new" anti-Semitism. In February 2009, the London Conference on Combating Anti-Semitism, jointly hosted by the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Anti-Semitism and the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, brought together 125 parliamentarians from forty countries around the world to address the general rise in anti-Semitism. It produced a landmark document called "The London Declaration on Combating Anti-Semitism."[97]

The London Declaration declares that to "target the State of Israel as a Jewish collectivity" is anti-Semitic. It adopts the EUMC Working Definition of Anti-Semitism and resolves to expand its use in order to inform policy at the national and international levels.

It further resolves that: "Education authorities should ensure that freedom of speech is upheld within the law and to protect students and staff from illegal anti-Semitic discourse and a hostile environment in whatever form it takes including calls for boycotts" (emphasis added).

Arguments for Regulating Anti-Zionist Expression on UK Campuses
Hostile-Environment Harassment

The London Declaration's specific reference to the need for education authorities to protect students and staff from "a hostile environment in whatever form it takes including calls for boycotts" amounts to an explicit acknowledgment that calling for a boycott of Israel on campus creates a hostile environment for Jewish staff and students, and an implicit acknowledgment that calling for a boycott of Israel is anti-Semitic, in effect if not in intent. Moreover, this specific reference is made despite the prior express statement that educational authorities need to ensure that "free speech" is upheld within the law. This suggests that there is no "free speech" justification for the creation of a hostile environment in the workplace (staff) or in education (students).

Indeed, in the United States where "hostile-environment harassment" doctrine has developed from the equality rights enshrined in the Civil Rights Acts,[98] it has triumphed over free-speech arguments. This is because the principle of ensuring equal opportunity and a fair chance to succeed for minorities in the workplace and in education is considered to be more important than the right to free speech. Accordingly, even vocal critics of campus hate-speech codes on First Amendment grounds acknowledge the importance of avoiding hostile environments for minority groups in the university setting.[99]

In the UK, the need to prevent a hostile environment for racial and ethnic minorities in employment and education has similarly been recognized by Parliament in s. 26 Equality Act 2010. This section places limitations on free speech in order to ensure a hostile-free environment in which racial and ethnic minorities can realize their full employment and educational potential. In April 2011 the act will impose on all public bodies, including universities, an affirmative "equality duty" to maintain a hostile-free environment.

Under UK law, hostile-environment harassment is a form of direct discrimination. The relevant section[100] provides that:

(1) A person subjects another to harassment in any circumstances [in employment and education] where, on the grounds of race, ethnic, or national origins, he engages in unwanted conduct which has the purpose or effect of -

(a) Violating that other person's dignity, or

(b) Creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for him.

(2) Conduct shall be regarded as having the effect specified in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) only if, having regards to all the circumstances, including in particular the perception of that other person, it should reasonably be considered as having that effect.
There have been very few hostile-environment harassment claims in the UK since 2003, and certainly none with respect to anti-Zionist expression in the university setting. The closest approximation occurred when the lawyer Anthony Julius threatened Sally Hunt, the general secretary of the UCU, with a hostile-environment harassment claim on behalf of the Jewish members of the UCU if she did not drop the call to boycott Israel.[101]

However, despite the dearth of legal authority, it appears that s. 26 Equality Act would require UK universities to prohibit anti-Zionist expression on campus on the ground that it constitutes hostile-environment harassment for Jewish staff and students. This is especially so in light of the 2005 EUMC Working Definition, as adopted by the London Declaration 2009, that defines anti-Zionism as a manifestation of anti-Semitism.

Anti-Zionist expression on campus satisfies the requirements of s. 26 Equality Act as follows:

"Unwanted conduct" relates to expression in any form that is uninvited. This covers the entire range of on-campus anti-Zionist expression from offensive emails, blog entries, and lecture tours to the erection of "apartheid" walls, the display of Palestinian flags, and the holding of "Free Gaza" Student Occupations.

"On the grounds of race, ethnic or national origins" suggests a discriminatory motive, but it is thought to mean the broader "related to." This is because the harassment provision's parent European Race Directive employs the term "related to" and it was reasoned in R (Equal Opportunities Commission) v. SS for Trade and Industry[102] that there is need only for the unwanted conduct to have a "connection or association" with a protected ground (such as "ethnic origins") for the discrimination element to be satisfied. English academic Lizzie Barnes states that "it is arguably right to treat the merest connection between harassment and some aspects of identity as sufficient to turn harassing conduct into a discriminatory act" because of the larger context of subordination or mistreatment invoked in the individual interaction.[103] The connection between Israel and Jewish identity, and the pain experienced by the Jewish academic community during periods of on-campus anti-Zionist rhetoric with its deployment of anti-Semitic tropes and strategies, is sufficient to "associate" anti-Zionist expression with Jews for the purposes of the statutory section.

Subsection (2) lays down both a subjective and an objective test for ascertaining whether a "hostile environment" has been created: the recipient of the conduct must have subjectively perceived her environment as hostile and the tribunal must agree that her perception is reasonable under the circumstances. This requires the tribunal to consider the context of the unwanted conduct.

In the case of anti-Zionist expression on campus, the context inquiry would require the tribunal to consider the academic-freedom justification because it would undoubtedly be raised as a defense by the university. It is interesting that s. 26 Equality Act 2010, unlike its predecessor s. 3A Race Relations Act (Amendment) Regulations 2003, specifically provides in subsection (2) that where a claim is brought in the academic setting, the tribunal is required to balance the competing considerations of the defendant's "freedom of expression" and "academic freedom" against the recipient's "right not to be offended" when considering the "reasonableness" of her subjective perception of hostile environment. This suggests that Parliament anticipates hostile-environment harassment claims in the university setting.

It is almost certain that the tribunal would consider the Jewish perception of hostile-environment harassment to be a reasonable one. The academic- freedom and free-speech justifications cannot prevail over the recipient's "equality rights" as long as (1) anti-Zionist expression can be shown to be inherently anti-Semitic in terms of its purpose and stratagems; (2) there is official European and British recognition that anti-Zionism is the "new" anti-Semitism in the form of the EUMC Working Definition and the London Declaration; and (3) there are Equality and Diversity and Anti-Harassment policies designed to protect the interests of minority staff and students and to promote a culture in which everyone feels valued.

Furthermore, the academic-freedom justification can be demonstrated to be without merit by presenting testimony as to how the anti-Zionists operate on campus in practice. The blatant refusal of the speakers on the recent campus tour, "Israel, the Palestinians and Apartheid:

The Case for Sanctions and Boycott," to take questions from Jewish students indicates that they were not there to debate the issues or - to use the marketplace metaphor - to "contribute to the marketplace of ideas," but rather to indoctrinate young minds with hatred against Israel, and to recruit impressionable youngsters to their boycott, divestment, and sanctions "cause."
Finally, no tribunal would consider the Jewish subjective perception of hostile-environment harassment to be objectively unreasonable where the recipient can present transcripts of speeches that justify Palestinian terrorism against Israeli civilians[104] and employ the so-called "Nazification" of Israel,[105] soon to be classed as a crime of incitement in the UK.

In anticipation of a successful hostile-environment harassment claim by Jewish staff and students, UK universities would be well advised to ban anti-Zionist expression on their campuses. The affirmative "equality duty" to be imposed by the Equality Act in April 2011 will make the universities' equal treatment of Jewish students and staff a legal obligation. To allow them to be subjected to a hostile environment will not be defensible.

The Harms of Hate Speech

1. Duty of Care

Quite apart from any legal duty imposed by statute, UK universities are also under a common-law duty to prohibit anti-Zionist expression on campus on the ground that it causes tangible harm to Jewish students and staff.

Although there is no literature on the harm to minority staff, much has been written about the harms that hate speech causes to minority students, including humiliation and "psychic assault."[106] Failure to prevent such harm is inconsistent with the university's special responsibility to foster student growth and wellbeing and amounts to a breach of its legal duty of care.

Critical race theorist Mari Matsuda identifies the harms of hate speech as "psychological symptoms and emotional distress ranging from fear in the gut, rapid pulse rate and difficulty in breathing, nightmares, posttraumatic stress disorder, hypertension, psychosis, and suicide."[107]

Critical race theorists Delgado and Stefancic conclude that the harms of racist hate speech are multifaceted, severe, and pervasive.[108] They distinguish between physical harms, both short-term and long-term, and psychological harms. The short-term physical harms they identify are rapid breathing, headaches, raised blood pressure, dizziness, rapid pulse rate, risk-taking behavior, and suicide. The long-term physical harms they identify are depression, hypertension, hypertensive disease, and stroke. The psychological harms they identify are damaged self-image, lowered aspirations, fear, nightmares, withdrawal, anger, lowered self-esteem, and life dissatisfaction.[109]

Hate-speech harms, whether identified as physical or psychological, result in clear tangible losses for the minority student such as poor attendance, lower grades, and decreased career options and job opportunities.[110] The latter are classed as "economic losses."[111]

Not only do Jewish students in the UK frequently report feelings of anger, isolation, discomfort, humiliation, depression, and fear for their physical safety as a direct result of anti-Zionist activity on campus,[112] but the harms listed in s. 26 Equality Act 2010 are tangible harms. This means that whenever there are grounds to bring a hostile-environment harassment claim against the university, there will also be grounds to bring a negligence claim alleging breach of duty of care. Such a claim may be brought by a Jewish staff member as well as by a Jewish student, because the university's duty of care also extends to its employees.

2. Equality and Diversity and Anti-Harassment Policies

Hate-speech harms are wholly at variance with the Equality and Diversity policies of UK universities. These aim to promote equality of educational opportunity for minorities. This is a legal requirement.[113] Yet Jewish students frequently report that their attendance at scheduled lectures is compromised because of the distress and fear caused by anti-Zionist activity on campus. This means that their legal entitlement to equal opportunity in education is compromised.

Equality and Diversity and Anti-Harassment policies also aim to promote the principle of equal respect. Tolerance of hate speech on campus contradicts this important principle. Altman points out that hate speech is "a certain kind of wrong, namely a violation of equal respect."[114] Hate speech has a "subordinating nature" because it treats its victims "in a way that takes their interests to be intrinsically less important, their lives inherently less valuable, than the interests and lives of those who belong to some reference group."[115]

Anti-Zionist expression satisfies the definition and meaning of "hate speech." It is also authoritatively recognized as the "new" anti-Semitism. Nevertheless it is still a protected form of speech in the United Kingdom. This is because of the moral, political, and social value traditionally afforded to the principle of free speech.

However, different "speech laws" operate in the university setting. This is in recognition of the particular context within which speech occurs in the university. Students are young, away from home, and vulnerable, and minority students even more so, because of the characteristics associated with their minority status and because they are, by definition, relatively few in number and low in resources. This is why Parliament has legislated to require UK universities to promote equality, to ensure equality of opportunity, and to protect minorities from discrimination, including harassment.[116] These "equality" ideals are said to have become part of the university culture. Consequently, there can be no "academic freedom" to use the university campus for expression that offends, particularly when that expression is completely unconnected with the academic pursuit of knowledge in the classroom.

UK universities need to address the fact that anti-Zionist expression on campus causes offense and other tangible harms to Jewish students and staff. They need to prevent that offense from occurring in order to maintain a harassment-free learning and working environment for the Jewish academic community. This is essential if they are to comply with their own equality policies and the law. They can satisfy their equality and legal duty by adopting the EUMC Working Definition of Anti-Semitism and declaring that anti-Zionist expression on campus is henceforth proscribed as hate speech.

* * *


[1] The term expression is interchangeable with the term speech and includes "conduct," "oral and written words," and "symbols," Harris v. International Paper 765 Supp. 1509 (1991). For the definition of anti-Zionism, see below.

[2] The Guardian, 6 April 2002, 15.

[3] For the SOAS speeches, see

[4] "Terror Group Using UK as European Base," Jewish Chronicle, 26 February 2010, 1-2.

[5] "Groups Denounce Anti-Jewish Speech at UC-Irvine," JTA, 26 May 2010.

[6] Yves Pallade, "‘New' Anti-Semitism in Contemporary German Academia," Jewish Political Studies Review, vol. 21, nos. 1-2 (Spring 2009).

[7] "Norway University to Vote Next Month on Boycott of Israel,", 30 October 2009.

[8] David Hirsh, "The Legacy of Hope: Anti-Semitism, the Holocaust and Resistance, Yesterday and Today," lecture presented at the UCU seminar, Brighton, 18 January 2010,

[9] For the statement of Prof. Steven Rose of BRICUP during a proboycott lecture at SOAS on 4 December 2009, see

[10] "Russell Group Statement on Proposals for an Academic Boycott of Israel," Russell Group: News, 6 November 2009.

[11] Douglas Murray, "The Big Taboo: Campus Extremism," Jewish Chronicle, 19 February 2010; Jack Goldstein, "We Must Tackle Student Unions' Silence on Hate," Jewish Chronicle, 26 February 2010.

[12] See n. 3.

[13] "Masuku Guilty of Hate Speech," NEWS, 4 December 2009.

[14] See n. 3.

[15] "BOYCOTT THE BOYCOTTERS: UK Regulators to Look at War on Want," Jerusalem Post, 14 April 2010,

[16] See n. 3.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Email dated 14 December 2009 from Jewish students in attendance at the Leeds University lecture on 8 December 2009.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Interview with Jewish student Amy Gower, Leeds University, 8 December 2009.

[21] For a full discussion of the university's duty in this respect, see Mari Matsuda, "Public Response to Racist Speech: Considering the Victim's Story," 87 Michigan Law Review 2320 (1989). In the UK, this duty is legally recognized in the common-law "duty of care."

[22] The Equality Act 2010 (replacing the Race Relations Act 1976, as amended, and the Equality Act 2006).

[23] For further information, see

[24] The race-relations legislation defines Jews as a racial group because they can be defined by reference to their ethnic origin, Mandla v Dowell Lee [1982] 3 All E R 1108; [1983] QB 1.

[25] Art. 10(2) ECHR.

[26] This is known as "Holocaust inversion" and amounts to "Holocaust trivialization," which is a form of Holocaust denial; see Michael Whine, "Expanding Holocaust Denial and Legislation against It," Comms Law 86 (2008), 13(3), 86-95; Manfred Gerstenfeld, The Abuse of Holocaust Memory: Distortions and Responses (Jerusalem: Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs/Anti-Defamation League, 2009), ch. 7.

[27] "Calling Jews ‘Nazis' May Be Criminalized," Jewish Chronicle, 17 July 2009, 4.

[28] Thomas Scanlon, "A Theory of Freedom of Expression," Philosophy & Public Affairs, vol. 1, no. 2 (1972): 204-26.

[29] Alexander Meiklejohn, Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-Government (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1948).

[30] Per Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919) (dissenting).

[31] Gerald Gunthur, "Good Speech, Bad Speech - No," in Jeffrey R. Di Leo, Morality Matters: Race, Class and Gender in Applied Ethics (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002), 7.

[32] Timothy C. Shiell, Campus Hate Speech on Trial (Laurence: University Press of Kansas, 2009).

[33] See; "Campus like a War Zone," Jewish Chronicle, 6 November 2009, 12.

[34] "ON CAMPUS," Jewish Chronicle, 6 November 2009, 12.

[35] "ON CAMPUS," Jewish Chronicle, 4 December 2009, 15.

[36] "Envoy Attack Sparks Fear for Israeli's Safety," Jewish Chronicle, 7 May 2010, 4.

[37] "Deputy Israeli's Visit to Manchester University,"

[38] "Envoy Attack."

[39] Ibid.

[40] Goldstein, "We Must Tackle Student Unions' Silence," 11.

[41] It has special legal status: s. 43 Education Act 1986; s. 202 Education Reform Act 1988.

[42] The Equal Pay Act 1970; the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, as amended; the Race Relations Act 1976, as amended; the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003; the Equality Act 2006; the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007; and various European Council Directives.


[44] Ibid.



[47] Ibid.

[48] s. 26 Equality Act 2010; Race Relations Act (Amendment) Regulations 2003, s. 3A, prior to October 2010.

[49] For authorities on this point, see Manfred Gerstenfeld, "The Deep Roots of Anti-Semitism in European Society," Jewish Political Studies Review, vol. 17, nos. 1-2 (Spring 2005).

[50] David Graham and Jonathan Boyd, "Committed, Concerned and Conciliatory: The Attitudes of Jews in Britain towards Israel," JPR/Institute for Jewish Policy Research, 15 July 2010.

[51] "Hate Incidents Reach Record Level on Eve of Anti-Semitism Conference," Jewish Chronicle, 13 February 2009, 7.

[52] "Gaza War Sparks Worst Hate Wave Ever Recorded," Jewish Chronicle, 24 July 2009, 1-2.

[53] Manfred Gerstenfeld, "Justifying the Holocaust and Promoting a Second One," Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism, 88, 15 October 2009.

[54] Ibid.

[55] Anthony Julius, Trials of the Diaspora: A History of Anti-Semitism in England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 457.

[56] Paul A. Shapiro, "What's in the Air?," keynote speech to the OSCE Regional Conference, Bucharest, 17-18 September 2008.

[57] Julius, Trials, 483.

[58] Manfred Gerstenfeld, "Anti-Israelism and Anti-Semitism: Common Characteristics and Motifs," Jewish Political Studies Review, vol. 19, nos. 1-2 (Spring 2007).

[59] Julius, Trials, chs. 7, 8.

[60] Bernard Harrison, The Resurgence of Anti-Semitism: Jews, Israel, and Liberal Opinion (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2006).

[61] Julius, Trials, ch. 7.

[62] Ibid., 477.

[63] Ibid., 583.

[64] "Working Definition of Anti-Semitism," European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, Vienna, 16 March 2005, http://eumc.europa.en/eumc/material/pub/AS/AS-Working%20Definition-draft....

[65] Clemens Heni, "Anti-Semitism and Germany: Anti-Jewish Images from 1602 to 9/11," Wissenchaft and Publizistik als Kritik, 27 June 2009.

[66] Alan Dershowitz, The Case for Israel (New York: Wiley, 2003).

[67] Gerstenfeld, "Deep Roots of Anti-Semitism."

[68] See n. 3.

[69] See Jonathan Freedland, "Is Anti-Zionism Anti-Semitism?" in Paul Ignaski and Barry Kosmin, eds., A New Anti-Semitism?: Debating Judeophobia in 21st- Century Britain (London: Profile Books in association with the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, 2003).

[70] Gerstenfeld, "Anti-Israelism," 10-11.

[71] Julius, Trials, 475.

[72] "Civil Servant Wins Race Case," Jewish Chronicle, 26 March 2010, 6.


[74] "Gaza War."

[75] Shiell, Campus Hate Speech.

[76] The definition is a composite of the rulings in First Amendment cases in the United States, ibid.

[77] Report of the European Institute for the Study of Contemporary Anti-Semitism, "Understanding the ‘Nazi Card': Intervening against Anti-Semitic Discourse," cited in Winston Pickett, "Playing the ‘Nazi Card' over Israel Goes Deeper than Mere Insult," Jewish Chronicle, 17 July 2009, 30.

[78] Judea Pearl, "Is Anti-Zionism Hate?,", 15 March 2009.

[79] Ibid.

[80] Graham and Boyd, "Committed."

[81] Quoted in Freedland, "Is Anti-Zionism Anti-Semitism?," 122.

[82] Pickett, "Playing the ‘Nazi Card.'"

[83] Ibid.

[84] Julius, Trials, 511.

[85] Ibid., 554.

[86] Shiell, Campus Hate Speech.

[87] Ibid., 162.

[88] Ibid.

[89] Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic, Understanding Words That Wound (Boulder, CO: Westview, 2004).

[90] Claudia Haupt, "Regulating Hate Speech - Damned if You Do and Damned if You Don't: Lessons Learned from Comparing the German and U.S. Approaches," 23 Boston University International Law Journal 299, 300 (Fall 2005).

[91] This was reconstituted in March 2007 as the European Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA),

[92] "Working Definition of Anti-Semitism."

[93] Natan Sharansky, "Anti-Semitism in 3-D: Differentiating Legitimate Criticism of Israel from the So-Called ‘New' Anti-Semitism,"

[94] Ibid.

[95] Ibid. See also Irwin Cotler, "Identifying the New Anti-Semitism," Jewish People Policy Planning Institute, November 2002.

[96] Anti-Semitic anti-Zionism may also be referred to as the "new anti-Zionism" to designate it as post-1948 anti-Zionism. See Julius, Trials, 474; Anthony Julius, "The anti-Zionist position post-1948 is deeply problematical," Start the Week, BBC Radio 4, 1 March 2010, 09:00.


[98] Title VII Civil Rights Act 1964 & 1990 (workplace), Title IX Civil Rights Act 1964 (education).

[99] Nadine Strossen, "Regulating Racist Speech on Campus: A Modest Proposal?," Duke Law Journal 484 (1990).

[100] S. 26 Equality Act, replacing the hostile-environment provision in s. 3A Race Relations Act (Amendment) Regulations 2003 from October 2010.

[101] Letter from Anthony Julius to Sally Hunt, general secretary of the UCU, June 2008.

[102] [2007] EWHC 483 (admin); [2007] ICR 1234.

[103] L. Barnes, "Constitutional and Conceptual Complexities in UK Implementation of the EU Harassment Provisions," I.L.J. 2007, 446, 461.

[104] Bongani Masuku, SOAS lecture, see n. 3.

[105] Omar Barghouti, Tom Hickey, Steven Rose, Ronnie Kasrils, Bongani Masuku, see n. 3.

[106] Matsuda, "Public Response."

[107] Ibid., 2326.

[108] Delgado and Stefancic, Understanding Words.

[109] Ibid.

[110] Ibid.

[111] Ibid.

[112] "Students Fear for Safety as Rallies Grow," Jewish Chronicle, 23 January 2009, 12.

[113] See n. 48.

[114] Andrew Altman, "Liberalism and Campus Hate Speech: A Philosophical Examination," 103 Ethics 302 (1993).

[115] Ibid., 310.

[116] Equality Act 2010.

* * *

LESLEY KLAFF is senior lecturer in law at Sheffield Hallam University, England, and an affiliate professor of law at Haifa University, Israel. She serves as the book review editor for the Journal for the Study of Antisemitism. She researches in the fields of anti-Semitism and "outsider" jurisprudence.

Post new comment

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters (without spaces) shown in the image.