Key facts
- Bea Foster, a 76-year-old Methodist preacher, is initiating a legal challenge against the UK government.
- The lawsuit challenges the government's application of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism.
- Foster was removed as a trustee of the charity Building Bridges Burnley (BBB) following a Facebook post.
- The post, which described Israel as an apartheid state, was deemed antisemitic by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS).
- Foster contends that this action violates her rights to freedom of expression, association, and protection from discrimination.
- Her legal team argues that criticism of Israeli government policies, including comparisons to apartheid, is protected political speech.
An elderly Methodist preacher, Bea Foster, is initiating the first legal challenge against the UK government's use of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. Foster, 76, argues that the government unlawfully penalised her for expressing political views on Israel and Palestine, breaching her rights to freedom of expression, association, and protection from discrimination.
The case stems from a Facebook post in 2023 where Foster described Israel as an apartheid state. This led to allegations of antisemitism against her and another trustee of Building Bridges Burnley (BBB), an interfaith anti-racist organisation she co-founded. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) threatened BBB with losing its King's Award for Voluntary Service unless Foster and the other trustee resigned.
Foster reluctantly stepped down to protect the charity but maintains her post was protected political speech under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. She argues that the IHRA definition is being misused to suppress criticism of Israeli government policies. The European Legal Support Centre is leading the case, with the Palestine Solidarity Campaign providing support.
Following legal correspondence, the DCMS confirmed it considered Foster's post antisemitic, specifically referencing an example in the IHRA definition concerning comparisons between Israeli policy and Nazi Germany. Foster's legal team contends that criticism of Israeli government actions is not inherently antisemitic and that the DCMS acted unlawfully. She hopes the case will clear her name and set a precedent against the definition's use.