Antisemitism on University Campuses
Lord Gold Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gold (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and such a powerful statement. With increased regularity, we are hearing many alarming accounts of antisemitic acts increasingly occurring at our universities. Often hidden behind apparent concern for what might be happening in Gaza, it does not take much analysis to realise that, in too many cases, this concern is just an excuse for outright antisemitism. It is old-fashioned Jew-hating of the worst kind, and it must be stopped. The key issue for me today is to understand what steps are being taken to eliminate antisemitism from university campuses. Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of academic life, but it must never serve as a shield for hatred. Universities must strike a careful balance, promoting free expression while standing firmly against antisemitism in all its forms.
When lecturers or students cross the line, there must be real consequences. Disciplinary action must not only be robust but must also send a clear message: antisemitism will not be tolerated. So suggesting, as happened in one university, that a swastika carved into a desk was “probably an ancient Hindu symbol”, or failing to take action when a Jewish student’s personal, cultural and spiritual possessions were thrown on to the floor in their apartment, as happened at St Andrews University, is wholly unacceptable. Universities have to step up to the plate and take action.
We know that over 200 institutions have adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism, but adoption alone is not enough. Too often it is symbolic, inconsistently applied or ignored when it truly matters. The CST has reported a disturbing 117% rise in antisemitic incidents on campuses over the last two academic years. These are not just numbers; they represent real Jewish students facing real fear and exclusion in what should be safe spaces for learning. The CST report found that these incidents occurred online and on campus, and in some cases were even perpetrated by staff or student union officers.
Jewish students deserve better. Universities must implement the IHRA definition meaningfully, with proper training, swift disciplinary processes and independent complaint procedures. They must ensure that Jewish students feel seen, supported and safe. His Majesty’s Government have rightly taken some action, writing to universities and stressing the use of police referrals, disciplinary measures and even visa suspensions when necessary. The five-point plan and the proposed “tackling antisemitism quality seal” are welcome initiatives. However, as my noble friend Lord Leigh has said, it is not enough.
It is to be applauded that the Government have recognised that leadership must also come from the top of every university. The Prime Minister has said that vice-chancellors must take personal responsibility for protecting Jewish students. What steps are the Government taking to ensure meaningful implementation of the IHRA definition? What assessment has been made of the increase in incidents since October 2023? Will the Government consider linking higher education funding to concrete action against antisemitism? Finally, will the Government withdraw visas from international students who incite racial hatred? We must ensure that our universities are places of light, not hate. Jewish students should never be left to walk alone.
Animal Welfare: Methods of Slaughter
Lord Gold Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gold (Con)
Let me first declare an interest. I am an observant Jew who eats only kosher meat, meat that has been killed by religious slaughter. I am not as observant as the next speaker, but I have an interest in allowing me and my co-religionists to practise our religion. I am sure that Rabbi Sacks—the noble Lord, Lord Sacks—will say a little about kosher meat in that respect. As other speakers have said, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has just made clear, the number of animals slaughtered for kosher meat without stunning is very small indeed.
The focus of this debate has not been on the effects of stunning and how it goes wrong. In researching for today’s debate, I have been horrified at some of the things that go wrong. The Vegetarians International Voice for Animals, which is opposed to religious slaughter, states:
“Tens of millions of animals are being ineffectively stunned and are regaining consciousness while they bleed to death”.
That is a horrific number.
On looking at the legal position, European Council regulations recognise that the stunning methods listed in their own literature are not the only methods. Those intimately involved in this work believe and argue that Jewish religious slaughter, properly undertaken and as described by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, also constitutes acceptable stunning because it instantly cuts off the blood supply to the brain. That comes within the definition of stunning provided in the regulations. The definition is,
“any intentionally induced process which causes loss of consciousness and sensibility without pain, including any process resulting in instantaneous death”.
I understand that, properly undertaken, that is exactly what Jewish religious slaughter seeks to achieve.
The welfare of the animal pre-slaughter is paramount in the Jewish religion. Any animal or bird which is even slightly harmed before slaughter is not considered suitable for kosher consumption. Special care is taken to ensure that the animal is calm before slaughter. The use of electric prods and the like is absolutely prohibited. It is also the case that the European regulations expressly respect the freedom of religion and the right to manifest religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance, as enshrined in Article 10 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which states:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right includes freedom to change religion or belief and freedom”—
Baroness Northover
I remind the noble Lord that we are in a timed debate and he is already 50% over, if my maths is right.