US House passes controversial bill that expands definition of anti-Semitism
www.aljazeera.com
Rights groups warn that the definition could further chill freedom of speech as protests continue on college campuses.

The United States House of Representatives has overwhelmingly passed a bill that would expand the federal definition of anti-Semitism, despite opposition from civil liberties groups.

The bill passed the House on Wednesday by a margin of 320 to 91, and it is largely seen as a reaction to the ongoing antiwar protests unfolding on US university campuses. It now goes to the Senate for consideration.

If the bill were to become law, it would codify a definition of anti-Semitism created by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

IHRA’s working definition of anti-Semitism is “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities”.

According to the IHRA, that definition also encompasses the “targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity”.

The group also includes certain examples in its definition to illustrate anti-Semitism. Saying, for instance, that “the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” would be deemed anti-Semitic under its terms. The definition also bars any comparison between “contemporary Israeli policy” and “that of the Nazis”.

Rights groups, however, have raised concerns the definition nevertheless conflates criticism of the state of Israel and Zionism with anti-Semitism.

In a letter sent to lawmakers on Friday, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) urged House members to vote against the legislation, saying federal law already prohibits anti-Semitic discrimination and harassment.

“Instead, it would likely chill free speech of students on college campuses by incorrectly equating criticism of the Israeli government with anti-Semitism.”

Archive link

    • Arcturus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      0·
      6 months ago

      Always the same map

      A bit surprising that “israel” didn’t vote against it, but that would be a bit too on the nose I guess.

        • Alsephina@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
          0·
          6 months ago

          China didn’t colonize the world like western Europe and Japan did, then make neocolonial institutions like the IMF and World Bank to preserve those colonial relations.

          They’ve mostly escaped colonialism and become the manufacturing hub of the world now, but wealth isn’t being extracted from the Global South / “former” colonies to China like they are being transferred to the imperial Core.

    • cobra89@beehaw.org
      0·
      6 months ago

      It seems like the US voted against it because Russia was using it as a political ploy and excuse to try and invade Ukraine. (Ukraine is “full of Nazis” sound familiar?)

      That’s why Ukraine voted against it too.

      The United States says it was one of three countries to vote against a U.N. resolution condemning the glorification of Nazism over freedom of speech issues and concerns that Russia was using it to carry out political attacks against its neighbors.

      Ukraine and Palau were the other no votes.

      “We condemn without reservation all forms of religious and ethnic intolerance or hatred at home and around the world,” said Deputy U.S. Representative to the Economic and Social Council Stefanie Amadeo, explaining the U.S. vote.

      “This resolution’s recommendations to limit freedom of expression, freedom of association, and the right to peaceful assembly contravene the principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and must be opposed,” Amadeo said.

      The UN resolution wanted to quash “antisemitic” protests very much like the ones we’re seeing in the US right now. So really if you’re against the Bill this post is about, you should be okay with the US voting no on that UN resolution.