1. Introduction: The Institutionalization of Anti-Antisemitism Policy

The tenure of Lord John Mann, spanning his pivotal years as the Labour Member of Parliament for Bassetlaw and his subsequent elevation to the House of Lords as the Government’s Independent Adviser on Antisemitism, represents a transformative epoch in British political discourse regarding Jewish identity, Zionism, and the boundaries of acceptable speech. Appointed to the advisory role in July 2019 by Prime Minister Theresa May—in one of her final acts in office—and retained by successive administrations, Lord Mann was tasked with providing “independent advice” to the government on tackling antisemitism.1 This appointment was not merely administrative; it was the culmination of over a decade of legislative activism centered around the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) Against Antisemitism, a body Mann chaired for fifteen years.3

To understand the full scope of Lord Mann’s influence, one must look beyond the official terms of reference and examine the complex institutional, financial, and ideological ecosystem he cultivated. His work has been characterized by three distinct but interlocking strategies: the consolidation of a well-funded, extra-parliamentary secretariat (the Antisemitism Policy Trust) supported by specific philanthropic interests; the aggressive promotion of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism as a quasi-legal regulatory code, specifically stripping away parliamentary caveats designed to protect free speech; and a confrontational enforcement style that targeted political opponents, academics, and left-wing activists through public denunciation and back-channel pressure on institutions.4

This report provides an exhaustive, forensic analysis of these dynamics. It interrogates the claim of “independence” central to his title, juxtaposing it against the financial data revealing reliance on pro-Israel lobbying donors like Sir Trevor Chinn and the Pears Foundation. It examines the “Mann Doctrine” of enforcement, which conflates anti-Zionism with antisemitism, and reviews the human and legal cost of this doctrine through the case studies of Ken Livingstone, Jackie Walker, David Miller, and Shahd Abusalama. Finally, it situates Mann’s tenure within the broader crisis of civil liberties in the UK, highlighted by the 2024 Employment Tribunal ruling that vindicated anti-Zionist academic David Miller—a ruling that stands as a significant judicial rebuke to the framework Lord Mann spent his career constructing.

2. The Institutional Architecture: The APPG and the Antisemitism Policy Trust

The structural foundation of Lord Mann’s influence lies in the unique relationship between the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) Against Antisemitism and its secretariat, the Antisemitism Policy Trust (APT). While APPGs are technically informal cross-party groups with no official status in Parliament 7, the APPG Against Antisemitism operates with a level of professionalization, funding, and external reach that distinguishes it from nearly all other parliamentary groups.

2.1 The Secretariat Model

The APPG does not function as a mere discussion club for MPs. It is the parliamentary front for the Antisemitism Policy Trust, a registered charity (formerly the Parliamentary Committee Against Antisemitism Foundation).4 This distinction is critical. While MPs are subject to strict parliamentary oversight and transparency regarding their staff and funding, the APT operates as a separate legal entity, a charity that provides the “secretariat” services to the APPG.

The APT provides the staffing, research capacity, travel budgets, and administrative support that allow Lord Mann (and his successors) to operate effectively as a shadow ministry. The government funds the adviser’s secretariat via an annual restricted grant to the APT, meaning that the “Independent Adviser” is operationally embedded within a charity that has its own board of trustees, donor base, and political agenda.9 This arrangement creates a layer of opacity; the staff supporting the government’s independent adviser are employed by a third-party organization funded by private donors with active interests in the policy area they are shaping.

2.2 The Continuity of Leadership

Lord Mann’s dominance over this architecture is total. He served as Chair of the APPG from roughly 2004/2005 (following the resignation of Dennis MacShane) until his elevation to the peerage in 2019.4 Even after leaving the Commons, his role as Independent Adviser maintained his symbiotic link with the APT. The trust continues to act as the secretariat for the group, now co-chaired by MPs such as Catherine McKinnell and Robert Largan.10

This continuity has allowed for long-term strategic planning that transcends electoral cycles. The APPG commissioned the 2006 All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism and the subsequent 2015 report, both of which set the legislative agenda for hate crime and online speech regulation in the UK.11 Lord Mann’s ability to remain the central figure in this ecosystem for nearly two decades has allowed him to cultivate deep networks within the civil service, the police, and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), as evidenced by the operational integration of the APT with these bodies.11

3. The Financial Ecosystem: Donors, Influence, and the “Independence” Paradox

A forensic examination of the financial underpinnings of Lord Mann’s work reveals a complex web of funding that links the APPG and the Independent Adviser’s office to major philanthropic entities with specific ideological commitments regarding Israel and the Jewish community. The claim of “independence” is complicated by the reliance on a narrow base of donors who are also active participants in pro-Israel advocacy.

3.1 The Pears Foundation: The Strategic Benefactor

The primary financier of the Antisemitism Policy Trust—and by extension, the APPG and Lord Mann’s secretariat—is the Pears Foundation. Financial records indicate substantial and recurring core funding grants.

  • Scale of Funding: In March 2025 alone, the Pears Foundation awarded a grant of £100,000 to the APT for “core funding”.13 This follows a pattern of consistent support; the foundation’s open data reveals multiple grants over the years dedicated to sustaining the APT’s operations.14
  • Structural Integration: The relationship goes beyond grant-making. Sir Trevor Pears, the Executive Chair of the foundation, is listed as the Chair of Trustees for the Antisemitism Policy Trust.9 This means the primary donor is also the primary governance overseer of the charity that staffs the government’s independent adviser.
  • Ideological Alignment: The Pears Foundation describes its work as creating “space for reflection” and supporting “Israel engagement”.15 While it funds a diverse range of causes, its heavy investment in the APT, the Jewish Leadership Council (JLC), and Holocaust education initiatives points to a specific strategic goal: the maintenance of a “shared society” where Zionism is integrated into British Jewish identity and protected from delegitimization. Critics argue that this creates a conflict of interest, as the APT produces the very research used to justify government policies that align with the foundation’s worldview, such as the crackdown on Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) activism.15

3.2 Sir Trevor Chinn: Political Donations and the Labour Struggle

Beyond the institutional funding of the APT, Lord Mann’s political activities—particularly during his time as a Labour MP—were supported by Sir Trevor Chinn, a prominent philanthropist and doyen of the pro-Israel lobby in the UK. Chinn has held leadership roles in the Jewish Leadership Council (JLC), the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre (BICOM), and the United Jewish Israel Appeal (UJIA).16

Parliamentary registers of financial interests reveal a pattern of direct financial support from Chinn to Mann’s constituency party, Bassetlaw CLP, particularly during periods of intense internal conflict within the Labour Party regarding Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership.

  • 2014 Donation: On November 7, 2014, Bassetlaw CLP accepted a cash donation of £2,500 from Sir Trevor Chinn.17
  • 2017 General Election: In May 2017, Chinn donated £5,000 to Mann’s local party.18 This was a critical election where Mann was explicitly positioning himself against the Corbyn leadership on the issue of antisemitism.
  • Context of Influence: Chinn is noted for funding a specific cohort of Labour MPs—including Wes Streeting, Dan Jarvis, and Joan Ryan—who were vocal critics of Corbyn’s approach to antisemitism and foreign policy.16 The convergence of Chinn’s funding with Mann’s aggressive campaigning against the Labour leadership suggests that Mann’s anti-antisemitism work was financially buttressed by a specific faction within the Jewish communal leadership that sought to marginalize anti-Zionist left-wing politics.
  • Steve Reed Meeting: Documents reveal that other Labour figures funded by Chinn, such as Steve Reed, engaged in “secret meetings” with Chinn and lobbyists to discuss establishing “regular channels of communication,” highlighting the access purchased by such donations.20

3.3 The Jewish Leadership Council (JLC) Nexus

The APT and Lord Mann maintain a close operational and financial relationship with the Jewish Leadership Council (JLC). The JLC is a standing member of the government’s Antisemitism Working Group, alongside the APT.21

  • Funding Overlap: Financial statements show that the Pears Foundation also provides core funding to the JLC (e.g., a grant in June 2024).14
  • Operational Symbiosis: The APT’s reports and submissions are often co-authored or supported by the JLC and the Community Security Trust (CST).22 This creates a closed loop where the same small group of organizations—funded by the same donors—produce the evidence, lobby the government, and then (through Mann’s advisory role) advise the government on the policy response.
  • Donations in Kind: Mann’s register of interests also lists “donations in kind” from these groups, including travel and accommodation for delegations to Israel and the US, further cementing the integrated nature of his operation with these advocacy bodies.18

3.4 Union Funding and “In Kind” Support

While pro-Israel philanthropists provided significant cash, Mann also relied on trade union funding, specifically from the Community Union and GMB.

  • Community Union: Provided recurring donations (£4,000 in July 2017) and previously paid the salary of a researcher for the APPG.18
  • GMB Union: Provided cash (£2,500 in July 2017) and donations in kind for mailings.18
    This blend of union support (providing traditional Labour legitimacy) and pro-Israel philanthropic support (providing policy resources) allowed Mann to operate with a high degree of financial autonomy from the central Labour Party machinery, insulating him from pressure when he attacked the party leadership.

4. The Ideological Engine: The Campaign for the IHRA Definition

A central pillar of Lord Mann’s advocacy has been the universal, unmodified adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism. This campaign has extended from central government to local councils, and most controversially, to higher education institutions. The manner in which Mann pursued this goal reveals a deliberate strategy to narrow the boundaries of acceptable speech regarding Israel.

4.1 The Definition and the Rejection of Parliamentary Caveats

The IHRA definition includes a list of “contemporary examples” of antisemitism, several of which relate to Israel (e.g., claiming the state’s existence is a racist endeavor). In 2016, the cross-party Home Affairs Select Committee (HASC) conducted a major inquiry into antisemitism. While the committee recommended utilizing the IHRA definition, they recognized the potential threat to free speech and explicitly proposed two caveats to be added to its adoption:

  1. Clarification on Government Criticism: “It is not antisemitic to criticise the Government of Israel, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent.”
  2. Clarification on Double Standards: “It is not antisemitic to hold the Israeli Government to the same standards as other liberal democracies, or to take a particular interest in its policies, or those of the Palestinian Authority, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent”.26

Lord Mann was a vocal opponent of these caveats. Following the government’s adoption of the definition in December 2016, Mann criticized the HASC report for even suggesting them.26 He argued for the adoption of the definition “in full,” without qualification.

  • The “Gold Standard”: Mann framed the unmodified IHRA definition as the “gold standard” and the only effective tool for policing hate speech. By rejecting the caveats, Mann and the government enabled the definition to be used not just as a tool for collecting data (its original purpose), but as a disciplinary code.28
  • Legal vs. Quasi-Legal: As legal scholar Rebecca Gould has noted, this maneuver allowed the IHRA definition to function as “quasi-law”—exercising the de facto authority of law without having been subjected to the rigorous scrutiny of primary legislation.28

4.2 The University Coercion Campaign

The most contentious front in Mann’s IHRA campaign was the higher education sector. Mann, alongside Education Secretary Gavin Williamson, orchestrated a campaign to force universities to adopt the definition.

  • The Williamson Letter: In October 2020, Gavin Williamson wrote to all Vice-Chancellors, threatening that the Office for Students (OfS) could suspend funding streams if universities did not adopt the IHRA definition by Christmas. This letter was explicitly supported and advised by Lord Mann.30
  • Direct Correspondence: Mann personally wrote to university leaders. In the case of the University of Bristol, he wrote to the Chancellor demanding that complaints against Professor David Miller be “called in,” bypassing the university’s internal procedures.6
  • Dismissal of Academic Freedom: Mann consistently dismissed concerns about academic freedom as “red herrings.” In a report by his Taskforce on Antisemitism in Higher Education, he claimed that “allowing free speech on campuses and protecting Jewish students against antisemitism do not contradict each other”.33 However, this assertion ignored the evidence from bodies like the British Society for Middle Eastern Studies (BRISMES), which documented numerous cases where the definition was used to silence staff and students advocating for Palestinian rights.34

4.3 Rejection of Alternatives: The Jerusalem Declaration

When over 200 scholars of antisemitism and Holocaust history proposed the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism (JDA) in 2021 as a more nuanced alternative that explicitly protected anti-Zionist speech, Mann and his network rejected it. The resistance to the JDA revealed that the goal was not merely to define antisemitism, but to maintain a specific definition that shielded Zionism from fundamental political critique.35 Mann’s adherence to the IHRA definition effectively pathologized anti-Zionism, framing it as a form of racism rather than a political ideology.

5. Case Studies in Enforcement: The Targeting of Critics

Lord Mann’s tenure is perhaps best defined by his willingness to personally target high-profile individuals. His interventions often involved public denunciation, the leveraging of his parliamentary status to demand summary disciplinary action, and the rejection of due process.

5.1 Ken Livingstone: The “Nazi Apologist” Narrative

The confrontation between John Mann and Ken Livingstone on April 28, 2016, was a watershed moment in the “Labour antisemitism” crisis. Following Livingstone’s radio comments regarding Hitler and Zionism (referencing the Haavara Agreement), Mann intercepted Livingstone on a staircase in Westminster in front of rolling news cameras.

  • The Confrontation: Mann shouted at Livingstone, calling him a “disgusting Nazi apologist,” a “fucking disgrace,” and telling him “you’ve lost it” and needed “psychiatric help”.37
  • Strategic Impact: The ferocity of the encounter, and the specific use of the term “Nazi apologist,” immediately reframed the debate. It shifted the focus from a historical (albeit clumsy) argument about 1930s German policy to a moral indictment of Livingstone as a racist.
  • Disciplinary Demands: Mann immediately lodged formal complaints and demanded Livingstone’s suspension. He stated in the Jewish Chronicle that “Antisemitism is racism… and I can guarantee that it will always be challenged,” framing his aggressive intervention as a moral imperative.38 The incident effectively ended Livingstone’s career and set a precedent for the summary suspension of Labour members accused of antisemitism.

5.2 Jackie Walker: The “Lynch Mob” Accusation

Jackie Walker, the Black Jewish Vice-Chair of Momentum, became another primary target. Walker had made comments at an antisemitism training event questioning the definition of antisemitism and discussing the historical role of Jewish financiers in the slave trade.

  • Mann’s Intervention: Mann publicly called for her suspension and removal, labeling her comments “unacceptable” and stating she had “lost it”.40 He engaged in a public spat, which Walker characterized as a “lynch mob,” pointing out the dynamic of a non-Jewish MP dictating the boundaries of Jewish identity to a Black Jewish woman.41
  • Formal Complaints: Mann wrote to Labour General Secretary Iain McNicol lodging formal complaints, ensuring the party machinery was engaged against her.42 His interventions were critical in maintaining the pressure that eventually led to her expulsion.

5.3 David Miller: The “Call In” and the Legal Reversal

The most significant and legally consequential intervention was Mann’s campaign against Professor David Miller at the University of Bristol. Miller was accused of antisemitism for his lectures identifying the Zionist movement as a pillar of Islamophobia and for his comments regarding Jewish student groups’ links to Israel.

  • The “Call In” Letter: On July 19, 2019, Mann wrote to the University of Bristol’s Chancellor (Sir Paul Nurse), copying the Universities Minister and various MPs. He expressed “deep and urgent concerns” and demanded the Chancellor “call in” the complaints from the students and the CST, effectively asking the university leadership to override its own independent investigation procedures which had initially cleared Miller.6
  • Pressuring for IHRA: Mann explicitly criticized the university for not using the IHRA definition to adjudicate the Miller case, arguing that the university’s reliance on standard equality law was insufficient and that they must adopt the definition to properly “police” the behavior.6
  • The Tribunal Verdict (2024): Miller was dismissed in 2021. However, in February 2024, an Employment Tribunal ruled that Miller was unfairly dismissed. Crucially, the tribunal found that Miller’s anti-Zionist beliefs constituted a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010.6
    • Implications: This ruling was a catastrophic defeat for the legal theory underpinning Mann’s work. The tribunal explicitly rejected the idea that anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitic. It found that Mann’s pressure contributed to an environment where the university felt compelled to act unlawfully against Miller.44

5.4 Shahd Abusalama: The Sheffield Hallam Intervention

In 2022, Shahd Abusalama, a Palestinian doctoral student at Sheffield Hallam University, was suspended following complaints about her social media posts.

  • The Intervention: Mann wrote to the university, invoking the IHRA definition and labeling Abusalama’s posts as antisemitic. This letter was sent from his parliamentary email, adding official weight to the complaint.
  • The Backlash: Abusalama filed a complaint against Mann, arguing he used his “considerable power as a public figure and a peer to impugn the reputation of a citizen without being held to account”.45
  • Outcome: The university eventually reinstated Abusalama and apologized for the breach of confidentiality regarding her case. Mann’s intervention was widely criticized by academic unions as “bullying” and an attempt to silence a Palestinian voice.45

5.5 Stephen Sizer and Other Interventions

Mann also targeted Stephen Sizer, a Church of England vicar known for his anti-Zionist views and for sharing conspiracy theories. Mann demanded Sizer’s expulsion and criticized Jeremy Corbyn for defending him.47 Similarly, Mann was involved in the pressure campaigns regarding the Nelly Sachs Prize in Germany, where the award to author Kamila Shamsie was rescinded due to her support for BDS, a move aligned with Mann’s collaborative work with international envoys.49

6. The Conflation of Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism: Theoretical Implications

Underpinning all of Lord Mann’s activities is a specific theoretical framework often referred to as the “New Antisemitism.” This framework posits that while classical Jew-hatred (based on race or religion) has declined, it has been replaced by hatred of Israel as the “collective Jew.”

6.1 The “Hierarchy of Racism”

Critics argue that Mann’s approach creates a “hierarchy of racism.” By prioritizing the feelings of pro-Israel Jewish students (who report feeling unsafe due to anti-Zionist rhetoric) over the rights of Palestinian students to describe their dispossession, Mann’s office effectively creates a protected tier of political speech.

  • Erasure of Palestinians: In the case of Shahd Abusalama, Mann’s intervention treated her expression of Palestinian trauma and resistance as hate speech. This effectively criminalizes the Palestinian narrative in the UK public sphere.51
  • Selective Enforcement: While Mann was zealous in pursuing left-wing antisemitism, critics noted a disparity in his response to right-wing antisemitism or Islamophobia. His focus was overwhelmingly on the “hard left” and the delegitimization of Israel.38

6.2 The Attack on Academic Freedom

The case of Steven Salaita in the US (denied a tenure-track position due to tweets on Israel) serves as a parallel to the environment Mann sought to create in the UK.52 By demanding that universities “call in” complaints and threatening funding cuts, Mann worked to bypass the concept of academic freedom. His dismissal of the BRISMES report 34—which detailed how the IHRA definition stifles research—demonstrates a prioritizing of political objectives over the integrity of higher education.

6.3 The “London Declaration” and Global Ambitions

Mann’s ambitions extended beyond the UK. He was instrumental in the London Declaration on Combating Antisemitism, and his work with the US Special Envoy and German officials 49 indicates a coordinated transnational effort to standardize the IHRA definition and the “New Antisemitism” framework across Western democracies. This global coordination reinforces the “diplomatic” pressure placed on local institutions like universities to comply with international norms that lack domestic legal standing.

7. Data and Trends: A Quantitative Overview

To visualize the scope of the interventions and funding discussed, the following tables summarize the key data points extracted from the research.

Table 1: Key Financial Injections to the Mann Ecosystem

Date Donor Recipient Amount / Type Context Source
Nov 2014 Sir Trevor Chinn Bassetlaw CLP £2,500 (Cash) Pre-General Election; Early Corbyn era tensions. 17
May 2017 Sir Trevor Chinn Bassetlaw CLP £5,000 (Cash) General Election; Mann campaigning as independent-minded critic. 18
July 2017 Community Union Bassetlaw CLP £4,000 (Cash) Post-Election support. 18
July 2017 GMB Union Bassetlaw CLP £2,500 (Cash) Post-Election support. 18
2019-2024 Pears Foundation Antisemitism Policy Trust Core Funding (Recurring) Annual grants supporting the Secretariat. 14
Mar 2025 Pears Foundation Antisemitism Policy Trust £100,000 Future core funding grant. 13

Table 2: The “Mann Doctrine” Enforcement Log

Target Year Action Taken by Mann Allegation Outcome / Legal Result
Ken Livingstone 2016 Public confrontation; demanded suspension. “Nazi Apologist”; rewriting history. Suspended; Resigned.
Jackie Walker 2016 Public denunciation; formal complaints to GS. Antisemitic tropes (slave trade). Suspended; Expelled.
David Miller 2019 Written demand to Bristol Chancellor to “Call In” complaint. Anti-Zionist teaching = Harassment. Dismissed 2021; Found Unfairly Dismissed 2024 (Anti-Zionism protected).
Shahd Abusalama 2022 Letter to Sheffield Hallam; invoked IHRA. Social media posts breached IHRA. Suspended; Reinstated; University apologized.
UK Universities 2020 Advised Govt on funding threat letter to VCs. Failure to adopt IHRA definition. Widespread adoption despite academic opposition.

8. Conclusion: The Legacy of the Independent Adviser

Lord John Mann’s tenure as the Independent Adviser on Antisemitism and Chair of the APPG Against Antisemitism stands as a testament to the power of focused, well-resourced legislative activism. Through the strategic use of the Antisemitism Policy Trust, backed by the substantial financial resources of the Pears Foundation and political donors like Sir Trevor Chinn, Mann successfully shifted the institutional consensus in the UK. He transformed the IHRA working definition from a diplomatic reference point into a de facto disciplinary code for universities, local authorities, and political parties.

However, this effectiveness has come at a significant cost to civil liberties and democratic due process. The “independence” of his role is compromised by its structural reliance on pro-Israel lobbying money. His enforcement methods—characterized by public shaming, the bypassing of institutional procedures (as seen in the Bristol “call in”), and the aggressive targeting of critics—have created a chilling effect on free speech, particularly regarding Palestine.

The 2024 Employment Tribunal ruling in Miller v. University of Bristol represents the first major systemic check on the “Mann Doctrine.” By legally recognizing anti-Zionism as a protected philosophical belief, the judiciary has reasserted the distinction between political critique and racist hate that Mann spent his career attempting to erase. While Lord Mann succeeded in purging the Labour Party of his ideological opponents and coercing universities into adopting his preferred definitions, the legal and historical record suggests that his tenure normalized a form of political interventionism that prioritizes the protection of state narratives over the protection of academic and political freedom.

Works cited

  1. John Mann appointed as independent adviser on antisemitism – GOV.UK, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/john-mann-appointed-as-independent-adviser-on-antisemitism
  2. Theresa May appoints John Mann as adviser on antisemitism – The Guardian, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/jul/23/theresa-may-appoints-john-mann-as-adviser-on-antisemitism
  3. John Mann, Baron Mann – Wikipedia, accessed December 11, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mann,_Baron_Mann
  4. All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Antisemitism – Wikipedia, accessed December 11, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-Party_Parliamentary_Group_Against_Antisemitism
  5. The Office of HM Government’s Independent Adviser on Antisemitism, accessed December 11, 2025, https://antisemitism.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Lord-Mann-EOT-Report-2024-Email54.pdf
  6. EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Miller-judgment-1400780.2022-JDT.pdf
  7. Antisemitism APPG – Parallel Parliament, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.parallelparliament.co.uk/APPG/antisemitism
  8. About The APPG – Antisemitism Policy Trust, accessed December 11, 2025, https://antisemitism.org.uk/the-all-party-parliamentary-group-against-antisemitism/
  9. Appendix 1: Dr Alex May’s complaint and blogpost – Parliament UK, accessed December 11, 2025, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld5804/ldselect/ldcond/95/9505.htm
  10. APPG Against Antisemitism AGM 2022, accessed December 11, 2025, https://antisemitism.org.uk/event/appg-against-antisemitism-agm-2022/
  11. A progress update to the All-Party Parliamentary Group against Anti-Semitism Inquiry into the rise in the number of anti – GOV.UK, accessed December 11, 2025, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7f5fe8ed915d74e622a136/161212_APPG_-_Progress_Update.pdf
  12. Anti-Jewish Hatred – Antisemitism Policy Trust, accessed December 11, 2025, https://antisemitism.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/PDF-Antisemitism-Report-2023.pdf
  13. Grant to Antisemitism Policy Trust (360G-PearsFdn-7875) – GrantNav – 360Giving, accessed December 11, 2025, https://grantnav.threesixtygiving.org/grant/360G-PearsFdn-7875
  14. Sheet1 – Pears Foundation, accessed December 11, 2025, https://pearsfoundation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Master-fileOpen-Data-April-2023-March-2025-1-1.xlsx
  15. Research – Pears Foundation, accessed December 11, 2025, https://pearsfoundation.org.uk/research/
  16. Israel lobbyist funded Labour’s new leader – The Electronic Intifada, accessed December 11, 2025, https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/asa-winstanley/israel-lobbyist-funded-labours-new-leader
  17. John Mann – Powerbase.info, accessed December 11, 2025, https://powerbase.info/index.php/John_Mann
  18. The Register of Members’ Financial Interests (11 September 2017: Mann, John ), accessed December 11, 2025, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/170911/mann_john.htm
  19. Changes to the Register of Members’ Interests John Mann – TheyWorkForYou, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?p=11093
  20. Secret document reveals Israel lobby’s dominance of Labour – The Electronic Intifada, accessed December 11, 2025, https://electronicintifada.net/content/secret-document-reveals-israel-lobbys-dominance-labour/36591
  21. ​​Antisemitism Working Group​ – GOV.UK, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/antisemitism-working-group
  22. Written evidence submitted by the Antisemitism Policy Trust (OSB0005), accessed December 11, 2025, https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/38767/pdf/
  23. Changes to the Register of Members’ Interests The Register of Members’ Interests, 29 August 2017 – TheyWorkForYou, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?d=2017-08-29
  24. PART 1 – Parliament UK, accessed December 11, 2025, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/090708/090708.pdf
  25. REGISTER OF MEMBERS’ FINANCIAL INTERESTS as at 11 September 2017 – Parliament UK, accessed December 11, 2025, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/170911/170911.pdf
  26. Antisemitism in modern society – UK Parliament, accessed December 11, 2025, https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CDP-2019-0042/CDP-2019-0042.pdf
  27. Antisemitism and the far-right today – International Socialism, accessed December 11, 2025, https://isj.org.uk/antisemitism-and-the-far-right-today/
  28. Bad News for Labour: Antisemitism, the Party and Public Belief 0745340660, 9780745340661 – DOKUMEN.PUB, accessed December 11, 2025, https://dokumen.pub/bad-news-for-labour-antisemitism-the-party-and-public-belief-0745340660-9780745340661-t-5389288.html
  29. Labour should ditch the IHRA working definition of antisemitism altogether – Verso Books, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.versobooks.com/blogs/news/4010-labour-should-ditch-the-ihra-working-definition-of-antisemitism-altogether
  30. Title Description of information Information withheld – The Scottish Government, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/foi-eir-release/2022/07/foi-202100262502/documents/foi-202100262502—information-released—annex-a-e/foi-202100262502—information-released—annex-a-e/govscot:document/FOI+202100262502+-+Information+released+-+Annex+A-E.pdf
  31. Why the 2010 Equality Act does not make the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism redundant – Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive, accessed December 11, 2025, https://shura.shu.ac.uk/28162/3/Klaff_2010_Equality_Act%28AM%29.pdf
  32. Miller v University of Bristol (2024) – Be Aware UK – DLA Piper Blogs, accessed December 11, 2025, https://blogs.dlapiper.com/beaware/miller-v-university-of-bristol-2024/
  33. New Report by British Parliament Taskforce Details Jewish Experiences of Antisemitism at UK Universities, accessed December 11, 2025, https://combatantisemitism.org/studies-reports/new-report-by-british-parliament-taskforce-details-jewish-experiences-of-antisemitism-at-uk-universities/
  34. The Adverse Impact of the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism – BRISMES, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.brismes.ac.uk/files/documents/brismes-elsc-joint-report-ihra.pdf
  35. 128 scholars ask UN not to adopt IHRA definition of anti-Semitism | United Nations News, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/11/3/128-scholars-ask-un-not-to-adopt-ihra-definition-of-anti-semitism
  36. ISGAP Scholars Support the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism, accessed December 11, 2025, https://isgap.org/ihra-letter/
  37. John Mann confronts Ken Livingstone over Hitler Zionist comments – YouTube, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJCzVV5eIg8
  38. ANTISEMITIC DISCOURSE – CST, accessed December 11, 2025, https://cst.org.uk/public/data/file/6/7/Antisemitic%20Discourse%20Report%202016%20final.pdf
  39. Corbyn denies crisis over antisemitism after suspending Livingstone – The Guardian, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/28/jeremy-corbyn-denies-labour-crisis-over-antisemitism
  40. Labour suspends Jackie Walker over Holocaust comments – The Guardian, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/30/labour-suspends-jackie-walker-over-holocaust-comments
  41. Evidence on Antisemitism – UK Parliament Committees, accessed December 11, 2025, https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/68907/pdf/
  42. PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES – Hansard, accessed December 11, 2025, https://hansard.parliament.uk/pdf/Commons/2019-02-20
  43. David Miller wins tribunal case against the University of Bristol | Wonkhe, accessed December 11, 2025, https://wonkhe.com/blogs/david-miller-wins-tribunal-case-against-the-university-of-bristol/
  44. Anti-Zionism as ‘Protected Belief’: The Case of David Miller | Industrial Law Journal, accessed December 11, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/ilj/advance-article/doi/10.1093/indlaw/dwaf048/8339654
  45. House of Lords – The conduct of Lord Mann – Parliament UK, accessed December 11, 2025, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld5802/ldselect/ldcond/38/3806.htm
  46. Gaza crisis | Times Higher Education (THE), accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.timeshighereducation.com/policy/gaza-crisis
  47. Jeremy Corbyn – Campaign Against Antisemitism, accessed December 11, 2025, https://antisemitism.org/politics/labour/jeremy-corbyn/
  48. House of Commons 2018 – PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES – UK Parliament, accessed December 11, 2025, https://hansard.parliament.uk/pdf/commons/2018-04-17
  49. International Religious Freedom Reports: Custom Report Excerpts – United States Department of State, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.state.gov/report/custom/9498791cd8
  50. 3 Activists Challenge the German Bundestag Anti-BDS Motion – The European Legal Support Center (ELSC), accessed December 11, 2025, https://elsc.support/case/complaint-vs-bundestag-anti-bds-motion/
  51. UK student union elects Palestine campaigner president – The Electronic Intifada, accessed December 11, 2025, https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/shahd-abusalama/uk-student-union-elects-palestine-campaigner-president
  52. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION STEVEN SALAITA, ) ) Case No. 1:15 Civ. 924 – Center for Constitutional Rights, accessed December 11, 2025, https://ccrjustice.org/files/43_3-30-15_Salaita-OppMTD.pdf
  53. Nearly 300 Scholars Declare They Will Not Engage With the University of Illinois, accessed December 11, 2025, https://crookedtimber.org/2014/08/13/nearly-300-scholars-declare-they-will-not-engage-with-the-university-of-illinois/
  54. UNITED KINGDOM 2022 INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM REPORT – U.S. Department of State, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/441219-UNITED-KINGDOM-2022-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf