Protect Students not Israel!

Before I start, I do not find racism in any way enjoyable, and I am firmly for most No Platform policies in most contexts.

The motion, if passed; would discourage, daunt and threaten deeply needed debate that is morally and legally legitimate. The motion asks students to accept the EUMC definition of anti-Semitism, a definition the UK rejected in favour of a definition of all hate crime.

The EUMC definition while well reasoned in many respects, has serious flaws. From it individuals criticising Israel can be smeared as racist.

Individual criticism of Israel can be inferred to be racist simply from the fact that such criticism seems disproportionate when compared to some general level of criticism levelled at other western democracies or other states. Anti Israeli activists can’t help that the general criticism of say Britain, France the USA are not higher (it really should be), Anti Israeli activists don’t deserved to be smeared as racist because other people don’t criticise other countries as much.... it would also be absurd to ask them to criticize all the other racist, ethnic cleansing and criminal states at the same time, there are unfortunately many of them, we are talking about are individual students not amnesty international! Racism is heavy charge to bring against students and no platform is a extremely harsh punishment speaking in what is considered above the proportionate general level of criticism, if such rules where applied to all aspects of debate how would change ever happen?

The EUMC definition also defines Nazi comparison i.e drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, as racist. I can see the issue I would understand if someone compared Jewish person’s activities to that of Nazis or Nazi Germany, but I consider the state of Israel to be just as liable as any other state to this kind of criticism ... and the exercise of comparison is certainly not in most contexts racist.

Israel breeches regularly many fundamental human rights and commits ethnic cleansing, as do many states who should also be criticised, I like many students on campus would be branded racist and lumped in with skinheads and the fascists.

This motion needs resisting... the officers have given the motion no recomendation, which means they neither condem nor condone. I would have hoped the team would have rejected it, guild council is on tuesday may 4th, do attend if you can.

Here is a copy of the motion

Motion: EUMC Definition of Anti-Semitism
Guild Council Notes:
1. The last year has seen an unprecedented increase in Anti-Semitic attacks on Jewish students on campuses all over the UK
2. The EU Monitoring Committee working definition on Anti-Semitism has been created and agreed upon by all member states of the European Union as the right way to identify Anti-Semitism
3. At the last National Conference, the National Union of Students by a majority vote decided to renew the EUMC definition in their constitution
4. The decision to renew this was supported by all seven NUS delegates as voted for by the students of the University (which include the President, VPHC, VPSAD, VPDR)

Guild Council Believes:
1. That all students have the right to study, socialise and live free from racism, fear and intimidation
2. That the working definition of Anti-Semitism sets the boundaries of what constitutes Anti-Semitism whilst still allowing for criticism of Israel

Guild Council Resolves:
1. To put the Guild of Students on the front line in tackling Anti-Semitism and all other forms of racism.
2. To encourage the Vice-President of Welfare, ARAF officer and the Jewish Society to work with other societies to raise awareness about Anti-Semitism and the different forms it takes

Guild Council Mandates:
1. The President of the Guild of Students, when signing off external-speaker request forms, ensure that all external speakers follow the EUMC definition
2. The President of the Guild of Students to reject a speaker if they have a history of Anti-Semitic language in line with the EUMC definition.