Agenda item - Mayor's Communications.

27.1         The Mayor stated that she wished to share news of the passing of two former Councillors and Mayors, Mr.  Bob Cristofoli, Mayor of Brighton1985, who passed away on 18 August, and Mr. Cruickshank-Robb, Mayor of Hove 1987, who passed away on 8 August.  She asked everyone to stand for a minute’s silence as a mark of respect for these former councillors?

 

27.2         The Mayor thanked the council and stated that she was aware that there were a number of items on the agenda which related to each other.  She was therefore minded to amend the order of business to account for this and would take item 29 (2) - Public Question from Mr. Greenstein, Item 30 (2) – Deputation from Nadia Edmond, Item 30 (4) – Deputation from Fiona Sharpe and Item 34 (1) – the Joint Notice of Motion as the first set of business immediately after concluding her communications.

 

27.3         Following this she would then revert to the order of items on the agenda but would also take item 34 (6) – Notice of Motion on Brexit at the same time as Item 31 (2) – Petition for debate as again these related to the same subject matter.

 

27.4         The Mayor also noted that a report concerning Housing Services contracts was approved at the Policy, Resources & Growth Committee meeting last week and had also been referred to the Council for information.  The extracts from the Policy, Resources & Growth and Housing & New Homes Committees were listed in the addendum papers as Item 33 (a) on pages 37 -58 and the full report was available as a supporting document online.

 

27.5         The Mayor stated that she had a number of charity events that were forthcoming and hoped that councillors would be able to join her at these.  She also noted that she had been able to welcome the Duke and Duchess of Sussex to the city and to receive them at the Royal Pavilion.  It had been a real honour and she hoped that they had enjoyed their time in the city.

 

27.6         The Mayor then invited Mr. Greenstein to come forward and to put his question to the Leader of the Council.

 

27.7         Mr. Greenstein thanked the Mayor and asked the following question, “The IHRA ‘definition of anti-Semitism’, with its 11 examples, 7 of which refer to Israel, comprise over 500 words. The Oxford English Dictionary definition ‘Hostility to or prejudice against Jews’ is just 6 words.

 

Bearing in mind the searing criticism of the IHRA from Jewish former Court of Appeal Judge Sir Stephen Sedley, ‘not a definition, indefinite’, Hugh  Tomlinson QC ‘a potential chilling effect on public bodies’ and Geoffrey Robertson QC, ‘not fit for purpose’ perhaps Daniel Yates can spell out the IHRA’s advantages over the common-sense definition of antisemitism, ‘someone who doesn’t like Jews.’?”

 

27.8         Councillor Yates replied, “It is true to say that definitions are very difficult and this isn’t a definition that we as a Council are trying to create, this is a definition that we have been asked to adopt by a group of individuals who feel that it is the appropriate definition for us, and other organisations, across the city to be using to allow them the opportunity to self-define, but I will give them the opportunity to self-describe a little bit later as I understand they are going to be speaking to us.

 

A definition is difficult I had a look at the definition of a thief and apparently it’s a person who steals another person’s property especially by stealth and without the use of force or threat of violence but then I had a look at the Theft Act 1968 which not only defines a basic definition of theft but then goes on to sub define dishonesty, appropriation, property what belonging to another means, what intention to permanently deprive means and then goes on to further define a number of different forms of theft, robbery, burglary, aggravated burglary, removal of articles from places open to the public, taking a motor vehicle or other conveyance without authority, obtaining property by deception, obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception, false accounting and further goes on to talk about the liability of company officers for certain offenses by that company, false statements by company directors being theft, suppression of documents being part of theft, blackmail being part of theft , the handling of stolen goods being part of theft, advertising reward for returns of goods stolen or lost.

 

Definitions are difficult but self-definition is easiest I am going to listen to the people who choose to self-define, I am going to listen to what they request us to do about the problem that they have identified in the city that we understand in the city and that they wish us to address within the city.”

 

27.9         Mr. Greenstein asked the following supplementary question, “I can’t think of a more bizarre answer I didn’t ask you for the legal definition of theft if you look at the IHRA definition it starts off by saying this is a non-legally binding definition so really it has got nothing whatsoever to do with theft. The IHRA definition says “criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-semitic. The problem is that Israel is not like any other country, no other country do you have a state dis-possessing one section of the population, the Palestinians in order to replace them by Jewish settlers.

 

My question is why are you supporting the only apartheid state in the world to date, and I think it is a shame and I especially speak for the Greens that you have come in with a Tory, a historic party of anti-semitism who oppose the immigration of Jewish refugees in the 30s and oppose refugees from Czarist Russia and today you are in alliance with anti-semitic parties.”

 

27.10      Councillor Yates replied, “As far as I am aware we were asked by Sussex Jewish Representative Council which represents thousands of Jews across this city and across Sussex who have asked us as their City Council to take action against a crime which they are aware of and to deal with an issue that they wish us to deal with – that is democracy which is what we have been asked to do and that is why we are doing it.”

 

27.11      The Mayor thanked Mr. Greenstein for attending the council meeting and his questions and invited Nadia Edmond as the spokesperson for the first deputation, concerning the IHRA definition of Anti-Semitism to come forward and address the council.

 

30  (2) THE IHRA DEFINITION OF ANTISEMITISM

 

27.12      Ms. Edmond thanked the Mayor and stated that on October 18th 2018, councillors will debate a proposal to ‘adopt’ a definition of antisemitism framed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). On behalf of numerous civil society organisations in the City – working to combat racism in all its forms – we urge Councillors to vote against this proposal.

 

Charges of antisemitism have recently been levelled at many groups and individuals, including some politicians and campaigners. With the issue of antisemitism prominent in the media, the IHRA definition appears to offer local councils an opportunity to signal clearly their repudiation of this odious form of race hatred.

 

There are several reasons to reject the proposal to ‘adopt’ the IHRA definition. First, the City Council’s existing policies already make clear its unambiguous opposition to racism. Moreover, we understand that the Council will consider adopting an even stronger anti-racist policy at its October meeting, and we naturally applaud this. We feel that to single out antisemitism for special or additional treatment will send the wrong message to other members of our community who also face racism. Antisemitism is a pernicious form of race hatred, which undoubtedly exists in the city. But it is no more and no less pernicious than other forms of race hatred. If the Council’s anti-racism policies are adequate for some parts of our community, they are surely adequate for all parts of our community. And if the Council’s policies are inadequate for some parts of our community, they must be strengthened for all parts of our community.

 

Second, the IHRA definition goes far beyond a definition of anti-Jewish hatred and discrimination. It explicitly links antisemitism to criticism of the Israeli government. We are profoundly concerned by this attempt to position legitimate political criticism as religious or ethnic discrimination or stereotyping. The effect of adopting the IHRA definition would be to silence legitimate criticism of Israel by labelling it as antisemitism.  (*see supporting information)

 

Third, Brighton and Hove City Council has a responsibility to uphold the provisions of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, including the right to freedom of expression for all its citizens. This freedom of expression must include the right to condemn Israel’s repeated violations of international humanitarian law, UN resolutions, and the Fourth Geneva Convention. The IHRA definition, in conflating antisemitism with criticism of Israel, risks being seen in law to limit such freedom. There are therefore profound civil liberties implications in adopting the IHRA definition.

 

Finally, we state again our unwavering opposition to all forms of racism, and applaud the City Council for its resolve on this issue. We strongly urge City Councillors to resist the pressure to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism – not in a negative spirit, but in the positive spirit of standing together against racism.

 

27.13      Councillor Yates thanked Ms. Edmond for attending the meeting and speaking on behalf of the deputation.  He stated that the arguments were well thought out and he respected the views expressed; however he did not believe that the IHRA definition curtailed free speech but rather was aimed at curtailing hate speech.  He accepted that no definition was perfect but the council had been asked by the local community to adopt a working definition and to do nothing was effectively accepting anti-Semitism and that would be wrong.

 

27.14      The Mayor thanked Ms. Edmond for attending the meeting and speaking on behalf of the deputation.  She explained that the points had been noted and the deputation would be referred to the Neighbourhoods, Inclusion, Communities & Equalities Committee for consideration.  The persons forming the deputation would be invited to attend the meeting and would be informed subsequently of any action to be taken or proposed in relation to the matter set out in the deputation.

 

(4) IHRA DEFINITION

 

27.15      The Mayor then invited Ms. Sharpe as the spokesperson for the second deputation concerning the IHRA definition to come forward and address the council.

 

27.16      Ms. Sharpe thanked the Mayor and stated that she was speaking on behalf of Sussex Jewish Representative Council and the vast majority of the 3000 people who make up the Jewish community in Brighton, Hove and Sussex.

 

 

We fully support and encourage the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition on Antisemitism and all its examples by this Council, bringing them in line with the 141 other councils across the country.

 

The adoption of the IHRA definition gives my community the protection it needs against the growing tide of antisemitism we are seeing in this country.  The latest hate crime figures once again show that antisemitism hate crimes have risen.

 

We, like all minority communities and those with protected characteristics, are fully entitled to self-define hate against us. We do not seek to tell other minorities what is or is not an attack on them.  We see no reason why others feel better equipped to tell us what is or isn’t antisemitism. 

 

We stand shoulder-to-shoulder with other faith groups and minority communities against all hate, racism and bigotry. 

 

The IHRA definition in no way limits an individual’s freedom of speech and is equally clear that robust, legitimate criticism against the government of Israel is perfectly permissible.  But as MP Gareth Snell so clearly stated last weekend, ‘If you’re not able to criticise Israel without breaching IHRA, it isn’t IHRA stopping you, its probably that you’re an antisemite.’

 

We welcome the strong and principled stand taken by the leaders of all three parties here in Brighton and Hove in doing what is right.  This in no way affects any other minority community or the people of Brighton and Hove or any causes they wish to support and champion.  The decision today to adopt the IHRA without any amendments or caveats will be welcomed by the majority of our 3000 strong community.  Brighton and Hove’s Jewish community has thrived and contributed to this city for more than 250 years.  This motion demonstrates that we are valued, heard, respected and protected by this Council in our welcoming City of Sanctuary.  We are grateful for your support and solidarity. 

 

27.17      Councillor Yates thanked Ms. Sharpe for attending the meeting and speaking on behalf of the deputation.  He stated that it was clear that self-definition was a crucial aspect and he respected the request to the council to recognise that.  He was aware of the support taken by various organisations against hate crime such as the local bus company and believed that people needed to speak out against such crime.  He was therefore supportive of adopting the IHRA definition as requested.

 

27.18      The Mayor thanked Ms. Sharpe for attending the meeting and speaking on behalf of the deputation.  She explained that the points had been noted and the deputation would be referred to the Neighbourhoods, Inclusion, Communities & Equalities Committee for consideration.  The persons forming the deputation would be invited to attend the meeting and would be informed subsequently of any action to be taken or proposed in relation to the matter set out in the deputation.

 

27.19      The Mayor then invited Councillor Yates to move the cross-party Notice of Motion, listed as Item 34(1) IHRA Definition for Anti-Semitism on the agenda.

 

27.20      The joint Notice of Motion as listed on the agenda was proposed by Councillor Yates on behalf of the Labour & Co-operative, Conservative and Green Groups.  Councillors Janio and Mac Cafferty seconded the motion.

 

27.21      The Mayor then asked for the electronic voting system to be activated and put the following motion to the vote:

 

“This council approves the use of the IHRA working definition of Anti-Semitism, and its illustrative examples, by the City Council as its working definition of Anti-Semitism.”

 

27.22      The Mayor confirmed that the motion had been carried by 47 votes to 0, with 1 abstention as detailed below:

 

		For	Against	Abstain			For	Against	Abstain
1	Allen	Not Present			28	Marsh	P
2	Atkinson	P			29	Meadows	P
3	Barford	P			30	Mears	P
4	Barnett	P			31	Miller	P
5	Bell	P			32	Mitchell	P
6	Bennett	P			33	Moonan	P
7	Bewick	Not Present			34	Morgan	P
8	Brown	P			35	Morris	Not Present
9	Cattell	Not Present			36	Nemeth	P
10	Chapman	P			37	Norman A	P
11	Cobb	P			38	Norman K	P
12	Daniel	P			39	O’Quinn	P
13	Deane	P			40	Page	P
14	Druitt	P			41	Peltzer Dunn	P
15	Gibson	P			42	Penn	P
16	Gilbey			Ab	43	Phillips	P
17	Greenbaum	P			44	Platts	P
18	Hamilton	P			45	Robins	P
19	Hill	P			46	Simson	P
20	Horan	P			47	Sykes	P
21	Hyde	P			48	Taylor	Not Present
22	Inkpin-Leissner	P			49	Theobald C	P
23	Janio	P			50	Theobald G	P
24	Knight	P			51	Wares	P
25	Lewry	P			52	Wealls	P
26	Littman	P			53	West	Not Present
27	Mac Cafferty	P			54	Yates	P
						Total	47	0	1

 

 

27.23      The Mayor noted that the various matters in relation to the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism had been dealt with and she would therefore revert back to the order of items on the agenda.