• I WAS troubled to read your article, (Council leader: Labour was correct to adopt IHRA anti-semitism definition, but objectors had right to protest, September 6).

Cllr Simon Pearson is part of a body that had previously adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition last year.

I am not aware at that time that this definition was seen by Camden Council as something that precluded free-speech, and in particular criticism of Israel. After all the IHRA definition is non-exhaustive and refers to “taking into account the overall context”.

One of the criticisms of the Labour Party was that it failed to consult about the initial definition of anti-Semitism in its code of conduct, particularly with the minority it is seeking to protect, Jews.

Yet despite this I see that “my” councillor, to my knowledge without any consultation again, decided to take part in public protests about a definition that was already being used by Camden.

This at the very least leads to a perception that a minority is being ignored, and that Cllr Pearson is not taking the expressed concerns seriously.

The concerns raised by the article itself are real. Voters such as myself that are trying to remain measured and thoughtful in this latest dispute are being isolated and are having to decide whether Labour is a party that can actually represent them, or even cares.

LARA HORNE
NW6