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

  • Lojcs@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    This was removed for bigotry?? Are mods following that policy already?

    Edit: and the comments below it too.

    Edit 2: the below comments didn’t even have a call to violence. What’s going on mods?

    • john89@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      There are already bad actors infesting lemmy mod teams.

      We gotta fight back and be persistent, or else this place will become another censorship hellhole like reddit.

    • Alsephina@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      The comment said “I condemn Hamas” aka the group fighting back against genocide.

      • miridius@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Just because one side of a conflict is evil doesn’t automatically make the other side good. Evil can fight evil, and when it does we should condemn both sides. Hamas have literally said that their goal is to genocide the Israelis, if you think that’s ok then that’s terribly hypocritical of you. The only reason Israel is succeeding in that goal and Hamas are not is because USA is tipping the scales with their arms shipments etc

      • Sagittarii@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        They would be condemning the Viet Cong for using the exact same strategies Hamas does (taking hostages, using tunnels and guerilla warfare, etc) and having the same goal of driving out an occupying force to reunite their country, yet they have the audacity to claim they’re an antizionist.

        Campus protests and the pigs dispersing them are also paralleling the Vietnam war.

      • Lojcs@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        So? Are those the magical words that justify removing any comment? Hamas isn’t Palestine or Palestinians and condemning a group that killed hundreds shouldn’t be a controversial statement, much less bigotry. And the irony of this happening in the thread about Isreal trying to pass a similar law for themselves…

        I can understand you and other commenters expressing your opinions but the fact that not even the mods are keeping up the pretense of impartiality is insane

        • Pollux@leminal.space
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          There is no impartiality for genocide.

          The Viet Cong killed hundreds in the same way, and so have all successful revolutionary groups in the past. Decolonization is violent, if you don’t like it don’t colonize in the first place.

          • Lojcs@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            There is no impartiality for genocide.

            Fuck off with hiding behind “but genocide!” whenever someone disagrees with you and double fuck you for implying that I or those other people support genocide. No matter how hard tankie politics dictates imperialsits (‘them’) and rest of the world (‘us’) are polar opposites, there are people that share some of your values and don’t share others. This includes people who see both hamas and isreali gvt as evil. If your ideology has answers ready for everything and doesn’t need you to impartially think to come to conclusions that’s a bullshit ideology.

            Edit: Reminds me of religious nuts thinking atheists are evil because if they don’t follow every rule in the book they must be breaking all of the rules and you certainly can’t have your own moral compass.

            Edit: And Hamas, even with …

            Are you seriously arguing that killing less civilians than the isreali military somehow makes hamas good? If they hadn’t attacked much of the violence since then wouldn’t have happened and those 30 thousand Palestinians would at least be alive, even if not free. How hard is it to understand that multiple things can be correct?

            I can understand why Hamas would choose to do what they did when they did it. Cornered animal lashes out. But it’s incomprehensible to me how anyone looking from the outside thinks attacking Isreal with anything less than a takeover force was a good idea, especially considering that in hindsight it was a terrible one.

            • StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              “Anything I don’t like is a tankie”, Lemmy politics equivalent to the right wing’s use of woke.

              Followed by the 30,000x version of “they wouldn’t have died if they just did what the police told them!”

              • Lojcs@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                You’re saying the people advocating to remove comments that condemn Hamas or Gaddafi, accuse people of obeying the ‘empire’ and bring up genocide to claim moral high ground aren’t tankies?