A HUMAN RIGHTS group was refused legal permission yesterday to challenge “discriminatory” government guidance on discussion of Palestine in schools, a decision described as a “blow to free speech.” 

The High Court rejected advocacy group Cage’s application for a judicial review, which sought to challenge the legality of a letter sent to school leaders by former education secretary Gavin Williamson in May last year. 

The letter warned headteachers to ensure “political impartiality” in schools amid protests at some institutions against Israel’s bombardment of Gaza that month, which Mr Williamson claimed had led to an “increase in anti-semitic incidents.”

It also ordered school leaders not to “work with or use materials from organisations that publicly reject Israel’s right to exist.”

Cage argued that the guidance amounted to a “clampdown” on Palestine solidarity among students and – ironically, given Mr Williamson’s demand for impartiality – violated education laws by “promoting a partisan political view.” 

It also claimed that the guidance was discriminatory towards Muslim pupils. 

But yesterday, Ms Justice Beverley Lang rejected the application on all grounds. 

Handing down the decision, she said that the former education secretary had been entitled to warn schools against working with groups that deny Israel’s right to exist in the light of reports of an increase in anti-semitic incidents.

Organisations that hold this belief are more likely to “fall into the category” of groups that are anti-semitic, she told the court. 

The judge also rejected the argument that the letter was discriminatory towards Muslims, saying that the parts of the letter highlighting that it was “unacceptable for some students to create a culture of intimidation and fear for students and teachers” applied to all students alike.

Responding to the decision, Cage managing director Muhammad Rabbani said: “It validates the Department of Education’s attempts to police the Palestine debate at our schools in favour of the pro-Israel narrative. 

“The choreographing of political discussions in this way within schools is akin to the manner of autocratic regimes and seriously curtails freedom of speech.”

Ahead of the challenge, Cage said it had recorded 47 cases of students and teachers being censured for expressing solidarity with Palestine during the bombing of Gaza last May, including suspensions, verbal warnings and one referral to the Prevent anti-extremism programme. All the cases involved Muslim teachers and pupils. 

Riverway Law solicitor Fahad Ansari, who led the judicial review, said: “The court has essentially enabled the government to compel head teachers and school leaders to adopt a partisan view on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, thereby shifting their role from education to indoctrination. 

“Equating the rejection of the state of Israel's 'right to exist' with anti-semitism is not only factually wrong but undermines the fight against genuine anti-semitism.”

In court, David Chirico of One Pump Court Chambers, representing Cage, had argued that the letter required school leaders to “adopt a bipartisan political opinion,” because it “directly prohibits schools from working with organisations that publicly reject Israel’s right to exist.” 

The question of whether a nation has a right to exist is a political opinion, he pointed out.