ABSTRACT
Jews have variously been thought of as a ‘race’, a ‘religion’ and an ‘ethnic minority’. The question of Jewish identity was settled in English law in Mandla v Dowell Lee (1983), when the House of Lords stated that Jews satisfy the statutory definition of ‘racial group’ for the purposes of the Race Relations Act 1976 because they can be ‘defined by reference to their ethnic origins’. Among the determining criteria were a long-shared history, a cultural tradition which includes religious observance and a common geographical origin, or descent from a small number of common ancestors. The same legal classification of Jews as a racial, as well as a religious, group persists in the Equality Act 2010. This Act protects Jews from harassment and other forms of discrimination where it is related to their ‘race’ and/or ‘religion or belief’, which are ‘protected characteristics’ under the Act. Judges have shown a more limited understanding of the national and ethnic dimensions of Jewish identity when asked to determine claims of antisemitic harassment occasioned by expressions of hostility to Israel and to Zionism. This chapter focuses on three cases involving Jewish claimants who alleged ‘hostile environment harassment’ under section 26 Equality Act. It considers the legal construction of Jewish identity as a ‘protected characteristic’ and its implications for contemporary antisemitism, through Fraser v UCU (2013), the decision of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator in the case of Sheffield Hallam University in 2016, and the 2020 Report of the Equality and Human Rights Commission on Labour antisemitism.
