By Alen Bašić -19th January 2026 5 Pillars
A civil liberties organisation has filed a judicial review against NHS England for its adoption of a definition of antisemitism backed by the Israel lobby.
Right to Protest Limited (RTP) filed a judicial review claim at the High Court on January 19, aiming to challenge NHS England’s decision to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism, therefore embedding it into its institutional anti-harassment regulations.
The move by NHS England was done with no public consultation or consideration for the potential free speech implications that countless human rights organisations have argued it implies.
RTP has argued that the definition has been weaponised to suppress lawful political debate, undermining Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which protects freedom of expression as a “qualified right”.
Condemnation of IHRA definition
Critics say the IHRA definition blurs the line between legitimate criticism of Israel as a state and antisemitism.
This would, in turn, restrict certain free speech rights, particularly when it comes to Palestinian rights advocacy and academic debates.
Concerns have been raised over its vague wording, which focuses on subjective “perceptions”, therefore making it useful for those seeking to silence dissent. Along with this, the main issue is the concern that the definition conflates anti-Zionism with antisemitism.
“Emerging reports indicate that its application has already led to serious concerns among healthcare professionals, patients, academics, and staff who raise lawful and ethical critiques of political issues, particularly in the context of Israel and Palestine,” RTP said in an official statement released today.
“The legal action asserts that NHS England’s approach undermines fundamental human rights, blurs the distinction between legitimate political speech and prohibited conduct, and was adopted without adequate legal authority or democratic process,” the statement continued.
RTP argues that the central issue surrounding the IHRA definition is the “defence of free expression”.
A spokesperson for RTP said: “The NHS must be a place grounded in clinical evidence, ethical debate, and human dignity – not political policing.”
Israel and antisemitism
Critics have pointed out that seven of the eleven examples attached to the IHRA definition refer specifically to Israel, which yet again presents the issue of conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism.
A few examples from the IHRA definition include: ”Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis,” or “…claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.”
The IHRA definition has also been heavily criticised by Ken Stern, the American Jewish Committee’s antisemitism expert, who led its drafting more than two decades ago.
Stern had previously urged the American Bar Association not to adopt the definition, as he claimed it has been used as “a blunt instrument to label anyone an antisemite”.
In 2017, Stern told the US Congress that there was a double standard present in the application of the IHRA definition because there are pro-Israel groups which freely deny the Palestine the right to exist as a self-determined state and Palestinian people.
If successful, the judicial review may extend well beyond the NHS, potentially affecting a range of other public institutions in the UK that have adopted the IHRA definition.
SANGHA KOMMUNE (SSR) 