Dear Councillors of Manchester City Council,

I am writing regarding Manchester City Council’s decision to adopt a motion referencing what activists are calling “anti-Palestinian racism” (APR), and the council’s intention to explore definitions and related commitments.

This is a serious and dangerous error.

As part of my own investigation into how the concept of APR was developed and is being promoted in activist circles, I watched the council discussion that took place on 16 July. I do recognise that while it did adopt a motion, Manchester City Council did not adopt the formal definition of APR on the night. I also note that Labour produced an amended version that stripped away some of the more overtly dangerous activist framing.

However, this is precisely the problem.

Even a watered-down motion still leaves the council trapped inside the activist premise that “APR” is a legitimate category requiring institutional recognition, policy development, and follow-on action. The council has effectively been manoeuvred into a corner – having accepted the framing, it is then left feeling obliged to “do something,” because backing away will be portrayed as indifference or hostility.

That is how this works. It is not neutral anti-racism. It is political pressure, and Manchester City Council should not allow itself to be manipulated into granting a dangerous concept such as APR any legitimacy at all.

Let me be clear at the outset – racism is real. Prejudice against anyone on the basis of race or ethnicity must be confronted.

But APR is not a neutral anti-racism concept. It is an activist framework designed to do something very specific. It reframes mainstream safeguards against antisemitism as illegitimate and pressures public bodies into treating anti-Israel political narratives as protected truth.

That is not “anti-racism”. It is political capture. Manchester does not need a new racism category. If a person is discriminated against because of their Arab, Middle Eastern, or Palestinian heritage, we already have the legal and institutional tools to address it.

So what does APR add?

It adds ideology – and enforcement pressure.

APR is a political reclassification project that seeks to treat disagreement with anti-Israel activism as a form of racism.

That is dangerous, and Manchester City Council should not be seen anywhere near it.

APR does not simply say “don’t discriminate against people with Palestinian heritage.”

APR frameworks operate by asserting that:

• Zionism is racism.
• Jewish self-determination is inherently oppressive.
• Antisemitism safeguards (including the IHRA definition) are “censorship”.
• Calling out antisemitism can itself be treated as racism.

In plain English: APR attempts to reverse the moral polarity, so that protecting Jews becomes suspect and attacking Jewish identity becomes “anti-racist”.

No responsible council should legitimise this. Did councillors actually read what they were being asked to endorse? Because throughout the debate, not a single person seemed willing to acknowledge how dangerous this framing is.

APR is built around both mirroring and rejecting the IHRA definition. It is no coincidence that its first modern definitions emerged in 2018, precisely as Labour adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism. The purpose is obvious – to turn antisemitism safeguards into a target.

Under IHRA, Holocaust denial is antisemitism. That is clear: the Holocaust was a documented, state-sponsored genocide against the Jewish people. APR tries to mirror this by claiming that “denial of the Nakba” is racism. But the Nakba is a contested narrative about the 1947–49 war, responsibility, and consequence. Many of the anti-Israel activist claims that circulate are not historically accurate. If I argue that Palestinian Arabs paid a heavy price for a war their own leadership wanted and initiated, APR would class me as a racist.

That is not anti-racism. It is ideological enforcement. More worryingly, it turns activist falsehoods and exaggerations into untouchable truths.

The same problem appears in clauses like not “justifying violence against Palestinians” or “silencing Palestinians.” As absolutes, they risk denying Israel’s right to self-defence after 7 October, and treating objections to extremist symbolism or chants such as “globalise the intifada” as racism.

This is absurd, and it has nothing to do with combating racism.

And let me be clear: there is only one definition of “anti-Palestinian racism” circulating. It is the Canadian ACLA definition presented in the motion. There is no alternative version, so when the council discusses “APR”, this is what it is discussing, even if it does not formally adopt the definition itself.

This also explains why there was such resistance from the motion’s proposer to setting aside the definition. The goal was to embed the premise, and then get to work making the council enforce it.

During the debate, I watched a group of people, most of whom know little to nothing about the conflict, get railroaded by inaccurate activist commentary and framing. This is why it is often successful. Almost everything said by those in favour of the motion was inaccurate. Factual errors about the region and the conflict went unchallenged – and the council voted with those inaccuracies in mind.

These people would fail the most basic knowledge tests on the conflict, yet somehow feel it necessary to try to push through a dangerous and divisive motion based on events taking place thousands of miles away from their own jurisdiction. This is just not serious governance.

Manchester City Council is not a foreign policy body. Its duty is to protect local residents and maintain cohesion. Importing activist definitions of contested political narratives is the opposite of cohesion.

Racism is racism. Once councils start inventing bespoke ‘anti-X racism’ categories, the logic never ends. Every cause group will demand its own definition, its own training, and its own enforcement mechanism.

Manchester City Council was manipulated into granting the concept of APR legitimacy.

The end result is that Manchester took its eye off the ball, and the consequences are real.

Manchester has a duty to confront antisemitism seriously, not dilute the frameworks designed to identify and address it.

Your council chose to give institutional standing to a concept that was designed to undermine antisemitism safeguards. Manchester then suffered a terrorist attack at the Heaton Park synagogue on Yom Kippur, in which two people were killed.

I am not claiming the council caused that attack. Responsibility for murder lies solely with the perpetrators.

But I am saying this – your priorities were wrong.

At a time of rising antisemitism, you moved to legitimise an activist framework that treats antisemitism safeguards as suspect. That is not community protection. It is moral confusion, and it is exactly the kind of confusion extremists exploit.

The Jewish community in Manchester needs safeguarding, and it needs a City Council that does not get swayed so easily.

I urge the council to take the following steps immediately:

1. Publicly confirm that Manchester City Council will not adopt or endorse any formal definition of “anti-Palestinian racism”.
2. Confirm that no council resources will be used to produce APR training materials or educational content.
3. Confirm that the council will not treat political disagreement with anti-Israel activism as a form of racism.
4. Reaffirm commitment to combating racism consistently, including antisemitism, using established legal and equality frameworks.
5. Review and withdraw the dangerous APR motion.

Manchester City Council must not allow itself to be used as a vehicle for ideological activism that will worsen community tensions and undermine the fight against real racism.

I am sending this letter to you directly, and I will also publish it as an open letter (as is my style) as the public has a right to know what the Manchester City Council has been doing.

If you need any further materials that lay out precisely why APR is a dangerous, ideologically driven weapon against antisemitism safeguards, please contact me.

Yours sincerely

David Collier

Help Me Fight Back Against Antisemitism and Misinformation

For over a decade – and for many years before that behind the scenes – I’ve been researching, documenting, and exposing antisemitism, historical revisionism, and the distortion of truth. My work is hard-hitting, fact-based, and unapologetically independent.

I don’t answer to any organisation or political backer. This website – and everything I produce – is entirely community funded. That independence is what allows me to speak freely and without compromise.

If you value this work and want to help me continue, please consider making a donation. Your support genuinely makes this possible.

You can donate via PayPal using the button below:

Alternatively, you can donate via my PayPal.me account or support my work through my Patreon page.

Independent work survives only because people choose to support it. Thank you for standing with me.