Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. [2025] EWHC 1170 (Admin) AC-2024-LON-001310 HUSAIN v SRA  Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.  Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.  Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.  Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.  Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.” 96. As the Tribunal said at [19.24.6], the IHRA working definition was formally adopted by the UK Government in a written ministerial statement by the Rt Hon. Sajid Javid MP, then Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, on 12 December 2016 (HCWS345). Mr Javid said that the IHRA working definition, “although legally non-binding, is an important tool for criminal justice agencies, and other public bodies to understand how anti-Semitism manifests itself in the 21st century, as it gives examples of the kind of behaviours which depending on the circumstances could constitute anti-Semitism”. 97. As the Tribunal also noted at [19.24.8], the working definition and examples have since been accepted by the European Parliament and many other countries and employed by a range of governmental and political institutions. They have also, however, been criticised. The Tribunal recorded at [26.16.29] comments made in 2021 by the BritishIsraeli academic Avi Shlaim, a former Professor of International Relations at the University of Oxford: “Scholars and legal experts have convincingly argued that IHRA’s definition is incoherent, vague, vulnerable to political abuse, and not fit for purpose. It fails even to meet the most elementary requirement of a definition, which is to define. The decisive role of pro-Israel advocacy groups in drafting and promoting the definition has also been established…” “The examples [referred to in the IHRA definition], falsely represented as part of the IHRA definition, have been used to delegitimise and censor legitimate criticism of Israel and, more broadly, to curtail free speech on Israel. This shields Israel from accountability for its serious human rights abuses, which consequently continue unchecked.” PSA v GPhC, Ali 98. In Ali, the Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care appealed against a decision of the General Pharmaceutical Council’s Fitness to Practise Committee imposing a warning on a registrant who had made two antisemitic