Mr Chairman, I am making this statement on behalf of the Jewish Leadership Council as a member of the Jewish Human Rights Coalition - UK.

Some have suggested that this conference has been dominated by a particular set of issues. We would like to highlight the positive contribution that international Jewish groups have made at this event despite those who would wish to see us excluded and despite those from 2001who tried and failed to silence our voice in the fight for human rights and tackling racism and discrimination worldwide.

We organised a side event attended by more than 200 diplomats and NGO delegates, at which a Muslim leader and the President of National Union of Students UK called for greater cooperation between communities in tackling racism. Jewish students working with Darfur Action highlighted the Darfur issue in a rally outside the Palais. The Swiss Jewish community hosted a historic Yom Hashoah ceremony outside the UN. Jewish political activism surrounding Durban Review Conference is proudly and historically rooted in the Jewish values of the likes of Rene Cassin and Raphael Lemkin.

Some people hoped that the Durban Review Conference would signify a new beginning after the original Durban debacle of 2001. At best the new declaration marks a holding point for decency. However, it also fails to include a number of significant issues, a tragic missed opportunity. There is no excuse for a conference on racism and discrimination to be silent on the issues of discrimination against the Roma and Sinti community, the Dalit or on the issue of sexual orientation. Moreover, we are struck by the hurt and pain caused to people of African descent who do not feel their issues have been properly addressed by this document.
The original Durban conference was the tipping point that unleashed a worldwide increase in antisemitism and normalised the global campaign of anti-Israel boycotts. No “review conference” could ever rectify that travesty. Whilst Durban 200I is characterised by the way that Governments subcontracted the hate to the NGO world, the Durban Review Conference will be remembered by many for the way that Governments allowed that same hate to be preached from the podium in the General plenary hall itself - as well as the significant reactions to it.

This statement was delivered today by Yair Zivan of the Union of Jewish Students to the Durban Review Conference:

This is a statement on behalf of a coalition of more than 10 international Jewish organisations.

Jewish tradition teaches us to fight for human rights and to pursue justice. It was because of these values that Rene Cassin drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the same tradition Raphael Lemkin defined the word genocide and drafted the UN’s Genocide convention.

The Story of the Jewish people is one of constant struggle against persecution which can be racially, politically and religiously inspired. Because of this we have always striven to uphold the fundamental rights and principles of human dignity and equality that underpin our faith and our culture. We will always continue to strive for these values.

It is in this light that we were so saddened that the noble objectives of this conference were lost in the offensive speech we heard in this very room on Monday. That racist tirade undermined the purpose and values of this conference and damaged the reputation of the UN.

The World Conference Against Racism in 2001 is remembered for the anti-Semitism on the streets of Durban. The Durban Review Conference in Geneva will be remembered for the anti-Semitism inside the Assembly Hall.

The organisations that we represent are all engaged in Human Rights activities and are passionately committed to education in the principles of Human Dignity and equality for all. We believe that it is critical to teach the values of tolerance, respect and diversity.

Eight years after Durban, the United Nations Member States have not done nearly enough in carrying out the commitments made to combat racism. We call on all governments to devote themselves to a world “united against racism, with dignity and justice for all.

Guardian Comment is Free

As United Nations and NGO delegates pack their bags to leave Geneva, the city where 500 years ago Calvin arrived to preach his austere moralising version of Christianity which culminated in burning at the stake those who contradicted him, what lessons can be learned from the Durban 2 conference?

If the first Durban conference in 2001 turned into a festival of anti-Jewish hate bringing out into the open forums and fringe meetings of the UN the antisemitism that for the second half of the 20th century had been hidden in the backroom meetings of the National Front or the BNP, by the Holocaust-denying “intellectuals” like Robert Faurission and David Irvine, or by the then little-known Islamist ideologues like Sayid Qtub, the Durban 2 conference in Geneva declared “No pasaran!” to the preachers of anti-Jewish hate.

Anyone who worked with black independent trade unions which ­spearheaded the struggle against apartheid in South Africa in the 1980s was struck by the number of Jewish South African ­activists, lawyers, journalists, intellectuals and ­students who worked shoulder to shoulder with the non-white majority to ­undermine and finally overthrow apartheid without recourse to violence.

Durban seemed a good place in 2001 to continue the 20-year-long tradition of UN conferences aimed at combating racism, intolerance and xenophobia. Given that antisemitism is an expression of racism and that the reason Israel came into existence was to have a little patch of the world where Jews might not suffer the racism, intolerance and hate that in Britain gave rise to the Aliens Act 1905, legislation designed to keep Jews out of the UK, and which the Daily Mail promoted in its anti-Jewish xenophobic journalism in the 1930s, and which culminated in the organised, industrial, carefully programmed, scientific selection of Jews from all over Europe to be killed by execution squads and then in gas chambers, it might have seemed reasonable to hope that any UN campaign against racism would also campaign against Jew-hate.

Sadly, in Durban eight years ago, this was not the case. Delegations from democratic countries were caught by surprise as a well-organised, lavishly financed campaign against Israel and Jews was unleashed. But a Newtonian law works in international politics - to every action an opposite and equal reaction. So as the UN insisted on holding another conference on the same subject in Geneva, it was inevitable that NGOs who campaign against antisemitism would seek to ensure that Durban1 was not repeated.

And so it came to pass. Almost certainly if the Iranian antisemite Ahmadinjad had not chosen to celebrate Hitler’s birthday (the Guardian cartoon showing him with a birthday cake celebrating Hitler’s birth was a classic and in the eyes of many should redeem the poor old Guardian from the endless accusations that it is one-sided on this question) by insisting he should come to Geneva to make a classic anti-Jewish speech with all the usual antisemitic tropes about the “dubious Holocaust” and Jews controlling the media, finance and racist Israel, the Geneva conference might have passed off without making world headlines.

Was it right for ambassadors to walk out? The Assembly of the Palais des Nation was built to host the League of Nations. It heard the plaintive appeals against the dictators of the 1930s but Hitler never spoke there. Had he done so and done a similar rant against Jews and Jewishness as delegates heard from Ahmadinejad on Monday one might hope that our ambassadors from the 1930s would have walked out. As we know western diplomacy sought rather to appease anti-semitic extremists in power in the 1930s with consequences that followed. In 2009, we should know better.

Then there is the question of a total boycott. By instinct I am against boycotts. The NUJ and university teachers’ boycotts against journalists and academics who are Jewish and who work in Israel seems wrong as it usually Israeli journalists and professors who are the strongest critics of their government. But sometimes a boycott is needed.

The original text which was meant to be adopted in Geneva not only included all and more of the anti-Jewish language from Durban 1 but more perniciously the line promoted by some Islamists (and the Vatican) that any criticism or mocking of religion amount to discrimination and should be outlawed.

To propose this in Geneva, the city Voltaire lived close to in order to seek refuge there when the clerical authoritarianism of ancien régime France wanted to imprison him for mocking the superstitions of religion was hugely ironic. “I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it” is attributed to Voltaire, and whether he did or did not say it, the idea is the most important pillar of freedom in the world.

For a UN conference even to consider coming to Geneva to bury Voltaire’s dictum in the name of faith was a monstrous absurdity. Yet without the boycott campaign and President Obama’s final decision not to lend his name to the process, the Geneva conference could have easily been hijacked by the new theocratic powers of the world. The UN secretariat seems unable to resist this 21st-century assault on human freedom. It needs a fightback by states and the boycott by Canada and threatened boycott by the US and some European states forced the UN secretariat to remove anti-Jewish and anti-freedom of expression language.

However what did not make sense was the last-minute boycott by Germany (even though that country has to be extremely sensitive to Jewish concerns for obvious historical reasons) followed by Poland and then most absurdly of all the Czech Republic. As a result, one of the big losers of the Geneva process was the coherence of European Union foreign policy. As over China, Russia, even tiny Kosovo, the EU is losing all sense of unity and common purpose on major foreign policy issues.

Another loser, sadly, was the UN itself. The leading Canadian jurist and former attorney general, Irwiin Cotler, is as pro-Israeli as they come. He wrote a book, Why I Am a Zionist, but he told the UN Watch fringe conference in Geneva that the neocon attack on the UN should be resisted. Paraphrasing Voltaire, Cottler said: “If the UN did not exist, it would have to be invented.” Alan Dershowitz, doyen of the pro-Israeli jurists and academics in America, also surprised some with a condemnation of Israeli tactics in the recent Gaza fighting, notably the use of cluster and white phosphorus bombs.

But there was no discussion at the UN about Iran’s racism against Arabs who live in Iran, still less its discrimination against women, gays or its gruesome position as the world leader in executing children and teenagers. No discussion on the racism in many Asian countries against fellow Asians but from different cultures. No discussion of the pitiless quasi-genocidal murder of Muslim in Sudan. Or does a Muslim regime killing Muslims not count?

Some like Seumus Milne and Tony Lerman have argued that boycotts and walk-outs only serve Ahmadinejad’s purpose and delegates should have stayed and argued with the Iranian president. If only. The UN is not an university seminar. There is no exchange as in a Commons debate. It is a forum for argument and power, and when it is used as a podium for hate and 21st-century antisemitism then David Miliband and Bernard Koucher were right to say “No pasaran! “.

But the victory of Geneva over Durbanwill be shortlived unless all the NGOs there come together to work to combat discrimination and racism. For many NGOs that wanted to see a serious debate on racism the hijacking of the conference by Ahmadinejad was a disaster. NGOs combating antisemitism prevented a repeat of Durban 2001. But Geneva 2009 will only really be a victory if they now build bridges with NGOs representing the BME communities as the fight against racism and antisemitism is one and the same.

Dr Denis MacShane MP is the former Minister for Europe and the chairman of the European Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism (EISCA)

On arrival at the Palais des Nations in Geneva for the Durban Review Conference (Durban II), colleagues from Jewish groups around the globe were rightly proud of the fact that, whatever the coming days would bring, the lessons of the original Durban debacle had been learnt.

This time we were prepared. The international Jewish caucus had held countless meetings and conference calls. The infrastructure was in place. Organisations had spent months -in the case of the UK, years - ensuring that their respective Governments understood that a repeat of the original ‘hate-fest’ would both bury the entire Durban process and serve as an indictment that they had failed to stem the growth of a culture of hate and antisemitism within the United Nations.

Importantly, we had made significant progress in developing alliances with NGOs. Unlike the first Durban summit, the NGO component of this conference would not be the sole preserve of Israel-bashers and hatemongers.

Early on, it was apparent that the advance preparation was starting to pay off. A number of Governments had already withdrawn from the process. Others had set out clear red lines governing their participation or downgraded their delegations. The NGO Forum had been cancelled. The draft text of the Geneva declaration, whilst still problematic, was a significant evolution from the original Durban declaration, and UN officials highlighted the need for “contextualising” the reaffirmation of that document - diplomatic code for downgrading its significance.

The moment at which the Jewish presence was felt most forcibly came during the speech of the Iranian President. Hours of discussions and late-night lobbying paid off at the critical moment when the European delegations stormed out of the General Assembly chamber at the first sign that this speech was in fact a sermon of hate. Nor did it end there. For the two hours he remained in the UN Complex, Ahmadinejad was trailed by protests held in a forceful, vocal and dignified manner by Jewish students and accompanied by Holocaust survivor and Nobel Laureate Elie Weisel.

These students, led by World Union of Jewish Students chair Chaya Singer and British UJS Campaigns Director Yair Zivan, were without a doubt the heroes of the hour. Despite provocation from hostile NGOs and ill-prepared UN security officials, they demonstrated real leadership when it mattered most. Equally important was the demonstration they led outside the UN, highlighting the situation in Darfur. We should be proud of them.

We have publicly lead in a positive way. UK Jewish groups organised a fringe meeting attended by more than 200 diplomats and NGO delegates, at which a Muslim leader and the President of NUS called for greater cooperation between communities in tackling racism. The Swiss Jewish community hosted a historic Yom Hashoah ceremony at the UN. Jewish political activism surrounding Durban II was proudly and historically rooted in the Jewish values of the likes of the late René Cassin (1887-1976), who drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Raphael Lemkin (1900-1959), who authored the UN’s Genocide Convention.

Two days into the summit, despite Ahmadinejad’s now-notorious intervention (perhaps partly because of it), it is clear that this careful, brick-by-brick approach has made tangible progress in rolling back the cover of using the UN’s anti-racism infrastructure to attack Israel. Writing this piece at the halfway point of the conference, there is still a great deal at stake. The improved text of the declaration has yet to be finally locked down and there is every danger that it will deteriorate once again.

Some people hoped that Durban II would signify a new beginning after the original Durban debacle of 2001. That was always misplaced optimism. Durban I was the tipping point that unleashed a worldwide increase in antisemitism and normalised the global campaign of anti-Israel boycotts. No “review conference” could ever rectify that travesty. Whilst Durban I is characterised by the way that Governments subcontracted the hate to the NGO world, Durban 2 will be remembered for the way that Governments allowed that same hate to be preached from the podium in the General Assembly hall itself - as well the significant reactions to it.

Nevertheless, judging events so far in the parallel universe that is the politics of the United Nations, we have witnessed a watershed. Just a few months ago the Iranian President spoke at the General Assembly. Then, Western Governments failed to respond, speak out or condemn. The NGO community was muted. There were no significant protests. On this occasion, Jewish groups working in concert with non-Jewish partners contributed to scenes never witnessed before in the UN. At last it was made clear that antisemitism will not pass through its corridors or be aired in its halls without response, and neither will Jewish voices be silenced in the name of anti-racism. Jewish institutions around the world will continue to promote the fundamental principles of human dignity and equality that underpin our faith and inspire us to fight for human rights.

The real question is whether or not the UN can ever be a genuine partner in that struggle.

Jeremy Newmark is Chief Executive of the Jewish Leadership Council and member of JHRC-UK.

You could hardly escape seeing the President Ahmedinejad circus this week. Images of him with a young guy in a colourful wig were everywhere - TV, national and international newspapers, the blogosphere.

I saw those images too, but there, on the conference floor in the United Nations. I heard him speak. Of course I knew that he was coming and I had a fairly clear idea of what he was likely to say but somehow I still I sat there in disbelief and shock. How did an anti-racism conference hosted by the United Nations - the purported bastion of human rights - allow this circus to develop, by giving a platform to a Holocaust denier and racist at an anti-racist conference?

Eight years ago I attended the World Conference Against Racism in Durban in 2001 with a sense of tremendous anticipation and excitement at the prospect of the world working in concert to challenge racism. I left that conference crestfallen at what had become a grotesque carnival of hatred and antisemitism. Others told me that I had undergone a “baptism of fire”.

In an atmosphere hot with violent rhetoric, leaflets gloatingly speculating “what if Hitler had won?” circulated in the conference centre. It became an intimidating place to be, a place where there could be no doubt that the purported ‘anti-Zionism’ of some participants had descended into outright and irrational hostility to Jewish people the world over.

Any hopes of dealing with real issues of racism and injustice were lost as Durban became a stain on the UN’s name and offence to anti-racists the world over. This was something that could not be allowed to happen again.

So the Durban Review Conference arose amidst serious scepticism and wariness over the possibility of achieving something - yet still there was determination by many to give it a chance. However, the decision to give a platform to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a man who described the Holocaust as a “myth,” undermined this optimism. This is a man whose appalling human rights record includes presiding over the viscous repression of gay people and other minorities. Who hosted a Holocaust denial conference in Tehran, inviting Europe’s and America’s most fanatical neo-fascists as honoured guests - and then proceeded to call for Israel to be “wiped out”.

For me, Monday’s episode all but wrecked any hope that Durban II will be remembered for anything more than the bizarre and profoundly offensive sight of a racist lecturing the United Nations on racism.

Monday’s walk-out of diplomats from those western countries who had not already boycotted the conference, which included the UK, made a necessary statement and was rightly applauded. Besides being an affront to decency, Ahmedinejad’s speech proved an almost fatal distraction from the important work that Geneva was supposed to be hosting; challenging the spectre of racism, antisemitism and xenophobia. And elsewhere at the conference there has been genuinely constructive debate taking place.

A well-attended side event was organised by the Jewish Human Rights Coalition, at which NUS president Wes Streeting and inter-faith campaigner Rokhsana Fiaz spoke passionately and practically about the importance of minority communities uniting to forge a common front against racism. The contrast between the progressive approach to combating prejudice discussed there and the appalling grandstanding of Ahmedinejad behind his podium could not be sharper.

The media circus of this week will roll on, but we cannot allow the substance behind the headlines to be swept under the carpet. There must be serious questions asked about how this could have been allowed to happen - a challenge that the UN now has a responsibility to meet. Britain can take the lead in holding the UN to account here. Anti-racists around the world also need to consider how to reconcile the fact that while some walked out of that room, others stayed and indulged a Holocaust denier.

We must all work together against prejudice in its many insidious forms. There is no hierarchy when it comes to racism. We are all in it together. That’s why we must confront racism head on. We have to speak out and not allow ourselves to be silenced, even when it appears in as unlikely a forum as an UN anti-racism conference.

The purpose of Durban II ought to have been to light a beacon of hope to all those around the world suffering from the injustices of racism and discrimination. Instead, it was allowed to be hijacked by a Holocaust denier whose sole intent was to fire provocative and inflammatory barbs at world Jewry. While this is shameful, we cannot let it deter us from the pursuing of what were supposed to be the ideals of the conference, by relentlessly challenging the evils of racism.

Sitting at the Conference floor of the United Nations on Monday I was overwhelmed. I watched in utter disbelief as the High Commissioner introduced the President of Iran amidst strange excitement and anticipation among the audience as he made his way to the podium. It was surreal. Of course I had expected to see him there and of course deeply skeptical as to what he might say. But to actually hear a head of state who denies the Holocaust and espouses racism actually addressing the United Nations - the purported bastion of human rights - seemed almost to be a sick joke.

Whilst I felt reassured and even proud, as I saw heads of delegations (including the UK) and their teams walk out of the Conference floor and people from the galleries jeering I still could not reconcile the deep feeling and burning question - how did it come to this?

When I returned from the Durban Conference in 2001, people referred to my experience as a ‘baptism of fire’. If I hadn’t somehow truly understood antisemitism, in all its guises before, I certainly did then. I had gone to Durban looking forward to the prospect of the world challenging racism together. I returned to the UK crestfallen at what had become a grotesque carnival of intimidation, hatred and overt antisemitism.

And here I was, again, eight years on - hopeful yet far more cynical at the prospect of a genuine attempt to deal with the tangible issues of racism and human rights around the world. It may be a slightly less rowdy environment here but the message seems to be the same - it’s okay to deny the Holocaust, attack Israel and equate Zionism with racism - in fact don’t say it on the streets, come and say it in the official forum of the United Nations, the UN anti-racism conference!

Matters didn’t get any better as the conference wore on, despite the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights’ initial regret for Ahmadinejad’s hateful diatribe. At a special forum held mid-week for all NGOs, I had the opportunity, as a representative of British Jewry, to ask High Commissioner Navanethem Pillay what lessons were learned, given the regrettable events surrounding the President of Iran. While I had no illusions that she might openly apologise for having allowed Ahmadinejad to speak, I was nevertheless stunned to hear not a single - even diplomatic - reference to public displays of racism, antisemitism or even prejudice. What I got instead was a curt response - to rounds of applause - on how the walkout created a “vacuum”, preventing those who had left the room from “staying and engaging” with the substance of Ahmadinejad’s speech!

Durban II should have lit a beacon of hope to all those around the world suffering from the injustices of racism and discrimination. Instead it was hijacked by a Holocaust denier whose sole intent was to fire provocative and inflammatory barbs at world Jewry. The clowns didn’t make a mockery of this process, the UN did.

The walkout of diplomats during Ahmadinejad’s speech made a necessary statement and was rightly applauded. Besides being an affront to decency, his words proved an almost fatal distraction from the work that Geneva was supposed to be hosting; challenging the spectre of racism, antisemitism and xenophobia.

Despite the open antisemitism of the New Black Panther Party,  Neturei Karta still seem happy to budddy up with them - although after attending Iran’s Holocaust denial conference in 2006, this should not come as a surprise.

Note, though, that according to their badges, Neturei Karta delegates are technically in Geneva to represent the Islamic Human Rights Commission.

New Black Panthers and Neturei Karta

Jeremy Newmark, Karen Pollock and Ros Preston OBE of JHRC UK join a protest on Darfur jointly organised by UJS and other Jewish student groups from around the world in partnership with Action for Darfur

Ahmadinejad Uses UN Platform for Antsemitic, Anti-Zionist & Anti-Western Attack

The Jewish Human Rights Coalition UK condemned yesterday’s speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the Durban Review Conference.

Ahmadinejad, speaking in his capacity as Head of State, used his platform to denigrate the Holocaust where he claimed “After World War II the Europeans made a whole nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering, they sent migrants from Europe to set up a racist nation in Palestine.” He also took the opportunity for a renewed attack on the West.

Heads of delegations from the European Union stood up and walked out of the plenary session as soon as Ahmadinejad’s speech crossed into the unacceptable after representations from a cross-section of NGOs including Jewish organisations, Baha’i International, women’s groups, lesbian, gay and bisexuals and Iranian dissidents.

“It is a travesty that the UN allows Ahmadinejad to hijack an Anti-Racism conference in this way”,

said Jeremy Newmark, CEO of the Jewish Leadership Council (speaking on behalf of the JHRC-UK).

“This has endangered, devalued and further delegitimized the entire Durban process.  We will be urging all those delegations that left the conference during his speech to seriously reflect on whether or not they continue to participate in the conference.”

“Carrying the scars from Durban I where I witnessed appalling anti-Israel and antisemitic rhetoric, I sadly felt a strong sense of déjà-vu”,

said Karen Pollock, Chief Executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust.

“The fact that a racist was invited to address an anti-racism conference in the United Nations beggars belief. This is a stain on the UN and an affront to all those who genuinely support human rights.”

“Ahmadinejad has distracted the world again from the needs of men and women who suffer day in day out from racism”,

said Rosalind Preston OBE, co-Chair of the Jewish Human Rights Coalition UK.

“This can only be combated effectively if the democratic countries curb the manipulative influence of regimes such as the Iranian one in the United Nations.”

The Jewish Human Rights Coalition UK, established in 2007 to help combat racism and human rights abuses, consists of senior representatives from a cross section of Jewish organisations, including the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Community Security Trust, the Holocaust Educational Trust, B’nai B’rith London Bureau of International Affairs and the Jewish Leadership Council.

“Side by Side: Tackling Racism Together”

Fringe Meeting at the Durban Review Conference

The Jewish Human Rights Coalition UK, along with UK Muslim activists and the Head of the British student movement, called yesterday for enhanced cooperation in combating racism at a fringe meeting during the Durban Review Conference in Geneva.

Over 200 senior NGO activists and governmental delegates heard how the Muslim, Jewish and student communities work together to enhance community cohesion and tackle racism and discrimination head on.

The panel debate chaired by Rosalind Preston, OBE, co-Chair of the Jewish Human Rights Coalition-UK, focused upon the successful work undertaken by the National Union of Students - under the leadership of President Wes Streeting - on tackling racism and discrimination across university campuses. Muslim activist Rokhsana Fiaz, co-founder of interfaith organisation Alif-Aleph UK, an initiative of the Uniting British Trust, described her experiences as a British Muslim and interfaith activist.

“There is no hierarchy of racism,”

said Wes Streeting, President of the National Union of Students.

“Every time someone is attacked for their race or ethnicity that is one person too many.  Every time a group is attacked is one group too many.  Our legislation supports this.  Our university campuses have no platform policies in place to prevent individuals and groups espousing racist and fascist views that have no place on our campuses.  No speaker can abuse freedom of speech.  All our students have the right to study in an atmosphere free from racism and discrimination.”

“Unfortunately, the denigration of the Jewish people is prevalent across sections of the Muslim World,”

said Rokhsana Fiaz, co-Founder of interfaith organisation Alif-Aleph UK, an initiative of the Uniting British Trust

“This expression needs to be challenged, confronted and countered.  We need to develop a vehicle for engagement, to bring British Muslim and Jewish communities together”

“Part of our presence at Durban II was about correcting the travesty whereby Jewish voices were silenced at the original Durban Conference.”

said Jeremy Newmark, CEO of the Jewish Leadership Council (speaking on behalf of the JHRC-UK).

“This meeting enabled us to clearly demonstrate the leading role our community plays in fighting prejudice and working with other communities.  We were delighted with both the size and quality of the audience. We achieved our objective in showing that outside of the politics of the United Nations many Jews and Muslims work positively together to tackle these problems.”

The Jewish Human Rights Coalition-UK, established in 2007 to help combat racism and human rights abuses, consists of senior representatives from a cross section of Jewish organisations, including the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Community Security Trust, the Holocaust Educational Trust, B’nai B’rith London Bureau of International Affairs and the Jewish Leadership Council.

ENDS