Pro-Palestine campaigners have launched a landmark legal challenge against the British government, seeking to prevent ministers from using a controversial definition of antisemitism to penalise support for Palestinian rights.
The claim, filed on Thursday by the European Legal Support Centre (ELSC) against the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), centres on the government's role in the resignation of a charity trustee after publicly criticising Israel's system of apartheid against Palestinians.
The legal challenge is supported by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) , Britain's largest pro-Palestine advocacy group, which says the case could have far-reaching implications for freedom of expression and political advocacy in the UK.
The claim has been brought on behalf of Bea Foster, a Christian preacher and long-time Palestine campaigner, who says she was forced to resign as a trustee of Burnley Bridges, an interfaith anti-racism charity she helped establish, following pressure linked to her personal social media posts about Palestine.
According to the ELSC, the charity came under pressure after the Department for Culture applied the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism when assessing Foster's online posts.
The claim argues that the definition, while adopted by the UK government, is not legally binding and was used unlawfully in a way that breached Foster's rights under the Human Rights Act.
The case asks the court to declare that the government's actions were unlawful, arguing they violated Foster's rights to freedom of expression, freedom of association and protection from discrimination. It also seeks to overturn the government's decision and secure damages.
The IHRA working definition has long been the subject of debate in Britain and internationally, with some regarding it as an important tool for identifying and tackling antisemitism, including where hostility towards Jews may be expressed through rhetoric about Israel.
However, many legal experts, human rights organisations and academics argue that it blurs the distinction between antisemitism and legitimate criticism of Israel, creating a chilling effect on advocacy for Palestinian rights. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Palestine Solidarity Campaign (@palestinesolidarityuk) According to the PSC, Burnley Bridges came under scrutiny in February 2025 after media reports accused the charity of antisemitism because of social media posts shared by Foster in a personal capacity condemning Israeli policies towards Palestinians.
The campaign group says the government threatened to revoke the charity's King's Award for Voluntary Service unless Foster stepped down as a trustee and had no involvement with the organisation for three years.
The ELSC says Foster resigned only to protect the charity from losing the prestigious award. In her resignation letter, she rejected allegations of antisemitism and said she stepped down solely to safeguard the organisation.
"I am taking this case to fight for my right to return to the charity I helped found and to continue speaking out for justice for the Palestinian people," Foster said in a statement released on Thursday.
She added that a ruling in her favour would demonstrate that the IHRA definition "is not fit for the purpose for which it has been used", arguing that it "does not combat antisemitism" but is instead used to silence people who speak out in support of Palestine .
Anna Ost, senior legal officer at the ELSC, said the case should be understood in the wider context of increasing attempts to restrict advocacy for Palestinian rights.
"Rather than simply addressing discrimination, the application of the IHRA definition has increasingly conflated criticism of the State of Israel with antisemitism, leading to the investigation, punishment and suppression of legitimate political expression," she said.
Ryvka Barnard, deputy director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, described the government's treatment of Foster as discriminatory and said the case illustrated how the IHRA definition was being used to target people campaigning for Palestinian rights .
"If Bea wins this case, it could set an important precedent showing that the IHRA definition is not fit for the purpose for which it has been used and should not be used in this way again," Barnard said.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport did not immediately respond to The New Arab' s request for comment.