Cape High Court accepts SAJBD application to be Amicus Curiae - Adam Mendelsohn v UCT

A key issue in this case is UCT Council’s decision to reject the IHRA definition of antisemitism without consulting the Jewish community, who are the ones directly affected by antisemitism.

The SA Jewish Board of Deputies has stepped in as a friend of the court, challenging the UCT Council decision.

Ultimately, as Adv Adhikari eloquently points out, definitional debates are interesting, but one must not ever forget that antisemitism is experienced by people - their lived reality, conduct directed to them.

At UCT Jews are required to prove that they suffer antisemitism with reference to a definition, no other group required to do that. This is contrary to the Constitutional Court which states that the appropriate analysis of unfair discrimination is the impact on the person claiming.