• I AM disheartened to learn Camden Council, which is proud of being “the epicentre of radical thought and political activity”, having stated on its website that “it is vital that people are given the space to think and speak freely, even when we disagree or are offended by what they have to say”, has now adopted unanimously a controversial “working definition” of anti-Semitism which was issued by the International Holocaust and Remembrance Alliance (Backing for anti-Semitism definition, April 27).

This definition has been challenged by well-known human rights experts such as Sir Geoffrey Bindman QC and Hugh Tomlinson QC, who in his opinion document questioned the validity of the IHRA definition and its implications for free speech and civil rights.

The main body of the IHRA definition is in itself questionable as it refers to “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews”.

Clearly perception is a subjective concept whose validity could not be readily established. Thus the IHRA definition hangs on the perceived evidence of anti-Semitism and the body which construes any such evidence, (for example, the alleged “victim”, central government, local authorities which have undertaken the role of guarding against anti-Semitism, the Jewish community, etc).

Such definition was needed, therefore, to be supported by substantial evidence for which it included attached guidelines.

However those guidelines are considered to be very controversial as they, in the main, define anti-Semitism in terms of criticism of Israel.

In reality it is the current Israeli government which is promoting a bill by which Israel is to be recognised as a Jewish State, whereas human rights activists criticise the multi-faith state of Israel for discriminating against its non-Jewish, Palestinian citizens who amount to 20 per cent the population.

Judging from my own experience, Camden Council appears also to be implicitly stifling free expression, or debate, on Israel.

It has been blocking websites which criticise Israel on all its library and public computers. As a user of Camden’s library computers I found, quite often, that such websites were officially blocked by the council.

In particular I had to request, through an official procedure, the unblocking of Redress Information & Analysis website that published my own criticism of Israel through various articles. http://www.redressonline.com/2015/04/londons-camden-council-censors-criticism-of-israel/

After a long correspondence with the council I was reassured by the head of libraries and information services that the filtering system applied to the council’s public computer system would be revised and the Redress Information & Analysis website would be unblocked (no specific reason or evidence for its blocking was offered by the council).

Yet, through my frequent use of Camden’s library computers, I still come across pro-Palestinian websites which are blocked, indefinitely, by the council.

There is no doubt that in a multi-diversity borough such as Camden (of which more than 12 per cent are Muslims), and in line with the dramatic increase in reported hate crimes against Muslims in London there is a need for an all-embracing strategy which would include a definition of Islamophobia rather than merely applying a singular and questionable definition of anti-Semitism.

Such a comprehensive and thoughtful strategy is bound to promote harmony in the community and help prevent tension between diverse ethnic, race and faith groups.

RUTH TENNE, NW6