Antisemitism Awareness Act passes the House

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does it include opposition to Zionism into the anti-semitism spectrum?

IHRA does not list “zionism” but does have:

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

This is the most absurd thing ever. Can you imagine if we passed a law that criminalizes denying white Christians their right to self determination, by claiming that the existence of a white Christian state is a racist endeavor? I guess Jewish people are the only people allowed to have an ethnostate and have it not be racist. And if you criticize this the US gestapo will send you to jail. Scary, scary stuff we’re dealing with here.

This Act was meant exactly for people like you.

Well, the Act applies to the institution itself discriminating in an anti-Semitic manner. For example, if a professor in a lecture adopts a view point that corresponds to one of the illustrative example of antisemitism in the IHRA working definition.

It doesn't do anything to restrict students protesting in a courtyard.

What this will likely do is cause professors and administrators to be much more careful about what they say in their official capacity as university officials that accept federal funds. I think that's OK - they shouldn't be spouting antisemitic dog whistles while on the job. They do, however, have free speech rights when not teaching classes in their personal time.

People get fired for what they say online/in public all the time, and yes, outside of work too. That predates this act...

Sure, if they are an at-will employee. But many professors have tenure which gives them stronger speech protections as part of their job so that they can say what they want without fear of losing their job. It's akin to the speech and debate clause for members of Congress.

IMHO, Title VI of the CRA needs to be reopened to cover religious discrimination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have an issue with this. The IHRA definition has long been used by the State Department and Executive Branch as part of efforts to battle antisemitism.

This legislation now proscribes what "anti-Semitism" means when Department of Education is undertaking a review of a title IV complaint of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and formally adopts the IHRA's "working definition." The issue with the Civil Rights Act is that it does not address religious discrimination.

Here is the IHRA's working definition + illustrative examples:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

-Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
-Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
-Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
-Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
-Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
-Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
-Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
-Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
-Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
-Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).

Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.

Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.

What Congress should do is pass reciprocal legislation for Muslims.

state dept demographics (esp on the 7th floor) and executive branch demographics (cabinet level especially) are not unbiased spaces.

My issues with the IHRA is jews shouldn't get a special carveout that us hate speech and civil rights laws already offer protections to all.

tbh this is all a moot point anyways because you can pass all the laws you want but the attitudes have permanently shifted by generation.

100%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have an issue with this. The IHRA definition has long been used by the State Department and Executive Branch as part of efforts to battle antisemitism.

This legislation now proscribes what "anti-Semitism" means when Department of Education is undertaking a review of a title IV complaint of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and formally adopts the IHRA's "working definition." The issue with the Civil Rights Act is that it does not address religious discrimination.

Here is the IHRA's working definition + illustrative examples:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

-Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
-Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
-Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
-Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
-Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
-Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
-Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
-Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
-Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
-Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).

Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.

Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.

What Congress should do is pass reciprocal legislation for Muslims.

state dept demographics (esp on the 7th floor) and executive branch demographics (cabinet level especially) are not unbiased spaces.

My issues with the IHRA is jews shouldn't get a special carveout that us hate speech and civil rights laws already offer protections to all.

tbh this is all a moot point anyways because you can pass all the laws you want but the attitudes have permanently shifted by generation.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act does NOT extend its protections based on religion. This is the source of the problems.

Religious discrimination is supposed to be covered by the 1st Amendment, but it's a much bigger hill to get a 1st Amendment investigation undertaken by DoJ. Whereas Dept of Ed must undertake a Civil Right Act investigation when an allegation filed.

The right thing for Congress to do is re-open the Civil Rights Act and amend Title VI to cover religious discrimination.

So a private religious school will not be able to deny admission to a child who is not a member of the said religion?

Maybe the federal government should get out of business with subsidizing religious schools?

I'm OK with that.

Tell the supreme court- the government has to subsidize religious schools if they subsidize private schools

The flip-side of this is that non-religious private schools could discriminate against applicants who are of certain religious groups. For example, GW University - which is non-religious - could ban all non-atheists.

Not sure why religious schools should get special protections here. The federal government really ought to get out of bed with religious institutions.

+1,000. You either protect all religions (including atheism), or you protect none. Otherwise, you are violating the Constitution.

For what it’s worth, if you find that people keep equating your behavior with that of a fascist regime that nearly wiped your people out, that should be your sign that some self-introspection is in order. Not a law forbidding the speech. Hate to say it, but banning and punishing certain speech is a decidedly Nazi thing to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"If you want to know who rules over you, look at who you aren't allowed to criticize."

- Orwell

Very prescient

Women and minorities?!

No DEI is done. All this wokeness* must go…



*Excluding right wing jews and Israel. We want to increase that with respect to Israel and the right kind of Jews. Sign Breitbart and company.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does it include opposition to Zionism into the anti-semitism spectrum?

IHRA does not list “zionism” but does have:

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

This is the most absurd thing ever. Can you imagine if we passed a law that criminalizes denying white Christians their right to self determination, by claiming that the existence of a white Christian state is a racist endeavor? I guess Jewish people are the only people allowed to have an ethnostate and have it not be racist. And if you criticize this the US gestapo will send you to jail. Scary, scary stuff we’re dealing with here.

I see your point
Creation of state of Israel is based on ancestry and blood lines
So that in and of itself can be defined with the r word

No. That is just made up stuff. So it is a religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't have an issue with this. The IHRA definition has long been used by the State Department and Executive Branch as part of efforts to battle antisemitism.

This legislation now proscribes what "anti-Semitism" means when Department of Education is undertaking a review of a title IV complaint of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and formally adopts the IHRA's "working definition." The issue with the Civil Rights Act is that it does not address religious discrimination.

Here is the IHRA's working definition + illustrative examples:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

-Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
-Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
-Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
-Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
-Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
-Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
-Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
-Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
-Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
-Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).

Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.

Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.

What Congress should do is pass reciprocal legislation for Muslims.

state dept demographics (esp on the 7th floor) and executive branch demographics (cabinet level especially) are not unbiased spaces.

My issues with the IHRA is jews shouldn't get a special carveout that us hate speech and civil rights laws already offer protections to all.

tbh this is all a moot point anyways because you can pass all the laws you want but the attitudes have permanently shifted by generation.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act does NOT extend its protections based on religion. This is the source of the problems.

Religious discrimination is supposed to be covered by the 1st Amendment, but it's a much bigger hill to get a 1st Amendment investigation undertaken by DoJ. Whereas Dept of Ed must undertake a Civil Right Act investigation when an allegation filed.

The right thing for Congress to do is re-open the Civil Rights Act and amend Title VI to cover religious discrimination.

So a private religious school will not be able to deny admission to a child who is not a member of the said religion?

My half-sister is Jewish and was denied admission to a Jewish school in CA 20+ years ago. My mom is still furious about it because they would allow her teach there, but wouldn't allow my sister to go (because my mom isn't Jewish). My mom declined the job.

[jsteele]

Even without this legislation, the free of expression of Americans has already been restricted in favor of Israel's interests. At least 38 states have measures in place punishing support for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS). In many states, state contractors and employees are required to pledge not to support BDS. Supporting a boycott is a 1st Amendment right. In these states Americans are forced to surrender that right in exchange for state contracts or employment. Basically, Americans are compelled to pledge support for Israel's interest rather than retaining their right to free expression.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"If you want to know who rules over you, look at who you aren't allowed to criticize."

- Orwell

Very prescient

Women and minorities?!

the fact you had to say women -- which is a completely lie -- underscores the weight of orwell's statement.

women are criticized daily in all walks of life.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Even without this legislation, the free of expression of Americans has already been restricted in favor of Israel's interests. At least 38 states have measures in place punishing support for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS). In many states, state contractors and employees are required to pledge not to support BDS. Supporting a boycott is a 1st Amendment right. In these states Americans are forced to surrender that right in exchange for state contracts or employment. Basically, Americans are compelled to pledge support for Israel's interest rather than retaining their right to free expression.

Wow. Just wow… this is what we have been reduced to. No wonder Netanyahu walk like he owns America, he actually does.

[Anonymous]

Maybe Trump and Biden are working together to control America. That's the only reasonable solution to this mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does it include opposition to Zionism into the anti-semitism spectrum?

IHRA does not list “zionism” but does have:

Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

This is the most absurd thing ever. Can you imagine if we passed a law that criminalizes denying white Christians their right to self determination, by claiming that the existence of a white Christian state is a racist endeavor? I guess Jewish people are the only people allowed to have an ethnostate and have it not be racist. And if you criticize this the US gestapo will send you to jail. Scary, scary stuff we’re dealing with here.

Agree. We can viciously criticize Saudi Arabia which is the cradle of Islam and all is hunky dory. You can burn copies of the Quran and it’s all cool. You can draw cartoons of Muslims and Arabs portrayed as terrorists with big noses and that’s just fine. But criticize the STATE of Israel and you’re an antisemite? Such total, utter, complete BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"If you want to know who rules over you, look at who you aren't allowed to criticize."

- Orwell

Very prescient

Women and minorities?!

Women and minorities are criticized all.the.damn.time. You live under a rock?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"If you want to know who rules over you, look at who you aren't allowed to criticize."

- Orwell

Very prescient

Women and minorities?!

Women and minorities are criticized all.the.damn.time. You live under a rock?

that poster's asinine response just makes it all the more obvious on who you can't criticize

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Even without this legislation, the free of expression of Americans has already been restricted in favor of Israel's interests. At least 38 states have measures in place punishing support for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS). In many states, state contractors and employees are required to pledge not to support BDS. Supporting a boycott is a 1st Amendment right. In these states Americans are forced to surrender that right in exchange for state contracts or employment. Basically, Americans are compelled to pledge support for Israel's interest rather than retaining their right to free expression.

And some of them explicitly include the occupied territories.

It's one thing to have it for Israel proper but it is beyond absurd to have them include illegal (under Israeli law) "settlements" in the West Bank.

[Anonymous]

90% of the Gaza war posters have broken the law ☠️