- Joined
- Nov 19, 2016
- Messages
- 10,923
- Reaction score
- 14,790
You’re either misinformed or outright lying by claiming that this Bill “has nothing to do with political stances on Israel or Zionism.”I agree with you mostly... but the constitution protects people from prosecution not from consequences. Police officers are publicly funded, yet an officer can still be fired for offensive speech.. fired, not jailed.
But I get you.. frankly I'd be more keen to focus on the disruption caused by protestors and not the speech their using... but this is the real world, and there's a difference between political speech and speech that is being used to create a disruption and incite unrest and violence.
The constitution grants the right for people to PEACEFULLY assemble, and you can't with a straight face tell me that screaming the N word into a crowd of black students, or pro-Nazi slogans into a crowd of Jewish students is a "peaceful" act. The definition of antisemitism in the criticized law is exactly this--it does not have anything to do with political stances against Israel or Zionism.
What we all should be more concerned with is bs. headlines--like this one that says that the legal definition in question has anything to do with criticizing Israel. They are taking advantage of the laziness of the reader, and it's on purpose. Ask yourself why someone would write a whole article about how the law is forcing the definition of antisemitism to align with the IHRA, while at the same time not telling it's readers what that definition actually says? Do people really think that omission is just an oversight? They alluded in the headline that it's about criticizing Israel, which is a lie, and in order to maintain that deception they must omit the actual factual information and just hope that their readership won't be dilegent.
The Bill specifically adopts a definition of anti-semitism that is so broad it includes criticism of Israel, specifically it says that “holding Israel to a different standard” is anti-Semitic. What are the implications of that? It’s so broad and open to interpretation that they’ll argue that accusing Israel of genocide or apartheid is “holding it to a different standard”, therefore anti-Semitic, therefore against the law. Israel is currently in the docket at the ICJ for genocide but you might get expelled from university for accusing it of genocide if this Bill gets signed into law. It’s a blatant attempt to protect Israel from criticism by force of law.
Last edited: