Latest news with #InternationalHolocaustRemembranceAlliance
Sydney Morning Herald
22 minutes ago
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
Defining antisemitism is no threat to free speech. Without a definition, we are adrift
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's working definition of antisemitism was adopted in 2016 as an educational and data-collection tool. It is deliberately non-legally binding and begins with a clear, universal sentence: 'Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.' Thirty-plus democratic governments, the European Parliament, the UN secretary-general, and tech giants such as Meta, have endorsed or incorporated the definition. Australia's special envoy to combat antisemitism, Jillian Segal, grounded her national plan released this month in the same wording, citing a 316 per cent surge in antisemitic incidents. All 39 Australian universities have endorsed or adopted a similar version to the IHRA definition. The universities do not include some of the IHRA's specific examples of antisemitism but do refer directly to criticism of Zionism as potentially being antisemitic, unlike the IHRA definition, which does not mention Zionism. The definition has become the world standard because it provides 11 practical illustrations that police, teachers and human rights watchdogs can map onto real-world cases – swastikas on playgrounds, synagogue bomb threats, or, yes, demonisation of Israel when it slips into Nazi analogies. Since Segal released her plan, there have been several recurring objections: 'It chills free speech.' Amnesty International warns the plan 'threatens people's rights to freedom of expression and assembly'. 'It stifles criticism of the Israeli government.' Labor MP Ed Husic has said the 'definition instantly brings into question whether or not people will be able to raise their concerns of the actions, for example, of what the Netanyahu government is doing in Gaza.' 'It will be weaponised to defund universities and media.' Headlines warn of an 'inappropriate definition' used to strip funding from institutions. 'Weaponising antisemitism insists on the exceptionalism of the Jewish community'. Some argue that the 'Jewish establishment' is insidious in using antisemitism for nefarious ends. At first blush, these arguments sound like principled liberal concerns. Probe a little and they dissolve into a curious double standard that leaves every minority except Jews entitled to define the hatred they face. Why the 'free speech' objection misfires is because the IHRA definition is diagnostic, not punitive. The document itself states it is 'non-legally binding.' No one is jailed for foot-faulting it. While the special envoy has called for punitive action if patterned institutional antisemitism is not dealt with, the IHRA definition itself does not demand sanction. It is a working guide to what anti-Jewish racism looks like.
The Age
22 minutes ago
- Politics
- The Age
Defining antisemitism is no threat to free speech. Without a definition, we are adrift
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's working definition of antisemitism was adopted in 2016 as an educational and data-collection tool. It is deliberately non-legally binding and begins with a clear, universal sentence: 'Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.' Thirty-plus democratic governments, the European Parliament, the UN secretary-general, and tech giants such as Meta, have endorsed or incorporated the definition. Australia's special envoy to combat antisemitism, Jillian Segal, grounded her national plan released this month in the same wording, citing a 316 per cent surge in antisemitic incidents. All 39 Australian universities have endorsed or adopted a similar version to the IHRA definition. The universities do not include some of the IHRA's specific examples of antisemitism but do refer directly to criticism of Zionism as potentially being antisemitic, unlike the IHRA definition, which does not mention Zionism. The definition has become the world standard because it provides 11 practical illustrations that police, teachers and human rights watchdogs can map onto real-world cases – swastikas on playgrounds, synagogue bomb threats, or, yes, demonisation of Israel when it slips into Nazi analogies. Since Segal released her plan, there have been several recurring objections: 'It chills free speech.' Amnesty International warns the plan 'threatens people's rights to freedom of expression and assembly'. 'It stifles criticism of the Israeli government.' Labor MP Ed Husic has said the 'definition instantly brings into question whether or not people will be able to raise their concerns of the actions, for example, of what the Netanyahu government is doing in Gaza.' 'It will be weaponised to defund universities and media.' Headlines warn of an 'inappropriate definition' used to strip funding from institutions. 'Weaponising antisemitism insists on the exceptionalism of the Jewish community'. Some argue that the 'Jewish establishment' is insidious in using antisemitism for nefarious ends. At first blush, these arguments sound like principled liberal concerns. Probe a little and they dissolve into a curious double standard that leaves every minority except Jews entitled to define the hatred they face. Why the 'free speech' objection misfires is because the IHRA definition is diagnostic, not punitive. The document itself states it is 'non-legally binding.' No one is jailed for foot-faulting it. While the special envoy has called for punitive action if patterned institutional antisemitism is not dealt with, the IHRA definition itself does not demand sanction. It is a working guide to what anti-Jewish racism looks like.
Middle East Eye
6 days ago
- Politics
- Middle East Eye
Columbia University adopts controversial IHRA definition of antisemitism
The embattled Columbia University in the US announced formally adopting the definition of antisemitism promoted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), which classifies criticism of the state of Israel as antisemitic. A wide description of antisemitism on IHRA's website includes "targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity," and "denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, eg, by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour". In March, the Trump administration issued nine demands to Columbia University before discussing lifting the cancellation of $400m in federal funding, including that the university adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism. Academics and members of the Jewish community criticised the definition as conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism.
Perth Now
7 days ago
- Politics
- Perth Now
Anti-Semitism report 'runs risk of being too sweeping'
Australia has been warned against being too "heavy-handed" in the government's response to proposals for cracking down on anti-Semitism. Among recommendations from the nation's special envoy against anti-Semitism, Jillian Segal, is to adopt a definition of hatred toward Jews from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. In a report handed down on Thursday, Ms Segal also called for the defunding of universities and cultural institutions found to have enabled or failed to stop anti-Semitism. But Labor MP Ed Husic, the first Muslim elected to federal parliament and first of his faith made a minister in the Australian government, said he would prefer not having to use "sticks and threats of funding". "I would much prefer us finding ways to bring people together rather than being heavy-handed in response," he told ABC Radio on Wednesday. Education Minister Jason Clare said the government will wait for a report due in August from the Special Envoy to Combat Islamophobia Aftab Malik, to consider his recommendations together with Ms Segal's. Asked if he supported the call to axe university funding, Mr Clare said he would not comment on the recommendations. Ms Segal's report also said Australia was on a "dangerous trajectory where young people raised on a diet of disinformation and misinformation about Jews today risk becoming fully-fledged anti-Semites tomorrow". Mr Husic is concerned that finding ran the risk of being "too sweeping". "That's a statement ... we've got to be careful about taking that as an evident truth," he said. "Younger Australians, like most Australians, are genuinely moved by what they're seeing in the Middle East, and it shouldn't necessarily be assumed or a conclusion drawn that that will lead to anti-Semitism, so that's important to be mindful of." On the definition of anti-Semitism suggested by Ms Segal, Mr Husic raised the issue of free speech. "The issue of definition instantly brings into question whether or not people will be able to raise their concerns about the actions, for example, of what the Netanyahu government is doing in Gaza, and how that would be treated under a definition," he said. The lead drafter of the definition of anti-Semitism, US lawyer Kenneth Stern, has previously expressed concerns it could be used to suppress free speech. Liberal senator James Paterson has previously voiced his opposition to the definition being legislated in Australia, or there being consequences for those found to have breached it, on freedom-of-speech grounds.
New York Times
7 days ago
- Politics
- New York Times
Columbia Expands Efforts to Fight Antisemitism as Trump Deal Seems Near
Columbia University announced on Tuesday that it will make additional reforms to combat antisemitism on campus, including by formally adopting a contentious definition of antisemitism that classifies some criticisms of the state of Israel as antisemitic. The changes, some of which have been long sought by pro-Israel Jewish organizations, come ahead of a possible deal with the Trump administration to restore more than $400 million in research funding that was frozen as a result of allegations that Columbia was not doing enough to curb antisemitism on campus. That agreement, which could come as early as this week, is likely to require Columbia to pay a fine of hundreds of millions of dollars to settle antisemitism claims. It is likely to also require further reforms in exchange for reopening the federal funding spigot, two people with knowledge of the matter told The New York Times last week. The latest efforts to fight antisemitism were disclosed in a letter to the Columbia community from Claire Shipman, the acting president. 'In my view, any government agreement we reach is only a starting point for change,' she wrote. 'Committing to reform on our own is a more powerful path. It will better enable us to recognize our shortcomings and create lasting change.' Ms. Shipman announced that the changes would include formally incorporating the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of antisemitism into the work of a recently established office at Columbia that considers complaints of discrimination and discriminatory harassment. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
