A 76-year-old Methodist preacher and community organiser from Burnley, Lancashire, is preparing to make legal history as she launches the first ever formal legal challenge to the UK government’s deployment of the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. The action comes after government officials pressured her longstanding interfaith charity to remove her from her trustee position over a 2023 Facebook post that labelled Israel an apartheid state.
Bea Foster, a veteran Palestine solidarity activist who co-founded the anti-racist organisation Building Bridges Burnley (BBB) more than two decades ago, will argue in court that the UK government unlawfully penalised her for exercising her right to peaceful political expression on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Her legal team contends that the action against her violates three core fundamental rights: freedom of expression, freedom of association, and protection from unlawful discrimination.
In an exclusive interview with Middle East Eye, Foster explained that her decision to pursue the legal battle stems from growing concerns that public and private institutions across the UK are misusing the IHRA definition to silence legitimate criticism of Israeli government policies toward Palestinians. “The IHRA definition is proved to be used to undermine our ability to hold Israel accountable for its actions against the Palestinian people,” Foster said. “Criticising the Israeli government is not saying you are antisemitic.”
Adopted by the UK government and dozens of other national governments and global public bodies since its release in 2016, the IHRA definition includes 11 illustrative examples designed to guide authorities in identifying antisemitic speech and conduct. While supporters frame it as a critical practical tool to combat rising antisemitism, critics have long warned that its vague wording risks conflating legitimate critique of Israeli state policy with antisemitic hatred.
Foster’s case is rooted in the fallout after BBB received the King’s Award for Voluntary Service (KAVS) – the UK’s highest honour for local community groups, equivalent to an MBE for voluntary organisations – in November 2024. Just four months later, the UK Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) issued an ultimatum: BBB would lose its award unless Foster and a second trustee stepped down, following antisemitism allegations published in the *Jewish Chronicle* in February 2025.
The newspaper’s report linked BBB to antisemitism by highlighting Foster’s participation in pro-ceasefire protests during the 2023-2025 Gaza war and referencing her viral Facebook post, which read: “APARTHEID – IT WASN’T OKAY IN SOUTH AFRICA. IT WASN’T OKAY IN NAZI GERMANY. WHY IS IT OKAY IN PALESTINE?” Following the publication, DCMS ordered a formal investigation through the Lancashire Lieutenancy, the body responsible for administering the KAVS in the county. Foster says she was never notified of the investigation or given any opportunity to respond to the claims against her.
Foster ultimately stepped down reluctantly in 2025 to protect BBB’s award and the work of hundreds of volunteers who had built the organisation over decades. In her resignation letter, she rejected the antisemitism allegations outright. In March 2025, DCMS went a step further, barring Foster from any involvement with BBB for a three-year period, a decision that was formally approved on 10 March. In response to pre-litigation correspondence from Foster’s legal team in September 2025, DCMS confirmed it had classified Foster’s post as antisemitic under one of IHRA’s illustrative examples – specifically, the example that prohibits comparing contemporary Israeli policy to that of Nazi Germany.
Foster’s legal team, led by the European Legal Support Centre with backing from the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), argues that the post constitutes protected political speech under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into UK law via the Human Rights Act 1998. The claim, which will name current Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy as the defendant, asserts that describing Israel’s treatment of Palestinians as apartheid is not inherently antisemitic, and that DCMS’s use of the IHRA definition to penalise Foster was unlawful.
PSC Deputy Director Ryvka Barnard said the government’s action against Foster is a clear demonstration of the dangers posed by the IHRA definition. “The government’s discriminatory action against Bea Foster is a clear example of how the IHRA definition is used to try to punish people who stand up for Palestinian rights,” Barnard said. “Opposing the use of the IHRA definition is essential to protecting our fundamental human rights and to ensuring that solidarity with the Palestinian people cannot be silenced. If Bea wins her case, it could set a positive precedent to show that the IHRA [definition of antisemitism] in and of itself is not fit for purpose and should not be used again.”
A lifelong community organiser and Methodist preacher, Foster’s commitment to Palestinian justice began after her retirement, when she took a religious pilgrimage to the Holy Land expecting to walk in the footsteps of Jesus. Instead, she witnessed first-hand what she describes as systemic injustice and oppression against Palestinian civilians, and has returned repeatedly to the region ever since, most recently joining a Christian delegation to support Palestinian olive harvest farmers.
Reflecting on the impact of losing her role at the organisation she helped build, Foster told Middle East Eye: “I’m not trying to make a drama out of it, but I was heartbroken. Absolutely heartbroken. Twenty years of my life. The work is part of me. It’s in my DNA. It’s about justice, equality, dignity and treating people fairly.”
She added that her viral Facebook post reflected only what she had observed during her travels. “When I shared that post about apartheid, it reflected what I have seen with my own eyes at every level of Palestinian society,” she said. “Their lives are restricted in every way. They face injustice at every level. I shared it because, to me, it was the truth as I had witnessed it.”
While Foster says she deeply regrets losing her position at BBB, she stands by her decision to speak out. “I regret losing Building Bridges very much. It was a huge part of my life and I miss it deeply. But I don’t regret standing up for the Palestinian people, because whatever has happened to me is nothing compared to what they have to live through every day,” she said.
Foster has two core goals for the legal challenge: first, to clear her name of the antisemitism label, which she says has caused profound personal distress, and second, to spark a broader national conversation about justice and equal rights in Israel-Palestine. “Living with the label of antisemitism has been incredibly difficult. I know it isn’t true, but knowing that’s what people may think of me is very hard,” she said. Ultimately, she added, her goal is to advance a future of equal rights and peace for all people in the region. “Palestinians simply want what you and I have: the freedom to move, to make decisions, to study, to work, to build lives and have opportunities without restrictions. Ultimately, I want peace in that land where everyone has equal rights and is treated with dignity and respect. But before peace can come, there has to be justice.”
As of publication, neither DCMS nor BBB had responded to Middle East Eye’s request for comment.