Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. [2025] EWHC 1170 (Admin) AC-2024-LON-001310 HUSAIN v SRA 61. Second, even when ‘Zionist’ is not used euphemistically as a synonym for ‘Jew’, some criticisms advanced against Zionists as supporters of the state of Israel may reflect underlying antisemitic attitudes. The IHRA’s non-exhaustive list of examples of antisemitism includes ‘[a]pplying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation’. Whether a particular criticism of Israel or its supporters involves this kind of double standard, and if so whether it reflects underlying antisemitism, may be highly controversial. 62. Third, accusations of antisemitism can be used to malign and discredit those engaging in legitimate criticism of the policy and conduct of the state of Israel and thereby to suppress such criticism. Foreign policy decisions by the United Kingdom and other governments may affect that policy. In a liberal democracy such as ours, there is a strong public interest in allowing such decisions to be informed by criticisms of Israel and the responses to those criticisms. To that end, legal frameworks, whether in the criminal or in the regulatory sphere, must be interpreted and applied so as to avoid the ‘chilling’ of legitimate political speech, which attracts the highest level of protection under Article 10 ECHR, as given effect in this jurisdiction by the [Human Rights Act 1998]...” 99. Mr Magennis relied on this last paragraph. Mr Solomon relied on the fact that I referred to some of the examples given by the IHRA with apparent approval. Applying the IHRA working definition and examples consistently with Article 10 ECHR 100. The IHRA working definition (set out in full in para. 95 above) defines antisemitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews”. There is no difficulty with this. As the Tribunal noted at [19.24.3], it is very similar to those found in the major dictionaries: “hostility to or prejudice against Jews” (Oxford English Dictionary); “hatred of and hostility toward the Jews” (Oxford Dictionary of English); “hostility to and prejudice against Jewish people” (Collins Dictionary). It is consistent with the formulation I used in the first sentence of [57] of my judgment in Ali: “hatred or hostility towards Jews as a racial and/or religious group”. 101. The IHRA itself was, however, careful to distinguish the “working definition” from the “contemporary examples”. The latter “could, taking into account the overall context include” the matters in the bullet points that follow. Mr Javid was equally careful, when announcing the UK Government’s adoption of the IHRA working definition, to describe the bullet points as “examples of the kind of behaviours which depending on the circumstances could constitute anti-Semitism” (emphases added). Neither the IHRA itself, nor the UK Government, has ever suggested that, if the description in any of the bullet points applies to it, speech or conduct is ipso facto to be regarded as antisemitic. 102. If properly understood—i.e. as examples of speech which could, depending on the context, be antisemitic—most of the IHRA’s examples are, in my view, both