IHRA vote chills ‘ethical criticism of Israel’
Given the definition’s track record, it is preposterous to claim its use will not impact constitutionally protected speech.
On April 13, Select Board members discussed how, in their proclamation adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s Definition of Antisemitism, they never intended to adopt the definition’s examples of antisemitism. Yet the examples of antisemitism, three of which are political speech about Israel, are the bulk of the definition document. Astonishingly, the Select Board chose not to correct the proclamation to reflect their intentions.
Recent letters to the Bridge seem to imply that opposition to the definition is rooted in hatred of Jewish people, but groups opposed to its use in government policy include the civil rights organizations ACLU and FIRE, Human Rights Watch, and many Jewish organizations, as well as the definition’s lead author, Kenneth Stern.
These groups oppose the definition not because they yearn for the freedom to insult Jewish people, but because the definition’s examples put ethical criticism of Israel at risk of being labeled antisemitic. The ACLU describes how, in countries where this definition has been adopted, it is routinely used to punish speech about Israel in ways that would violate Americans’ First Amendment rights. Further, Human Rights Watch has warned that, among other problems, the definition puts people who share Human Rights Watch reports on race-based laws and apartheid in Israel at risk of accusations of antisemitism.
The proclamation adopted the definition “with the understanding that this adoption does not create new legal standards, enforcement authority, or limitations on constitutionally protected speech.” But given the definition’s track record, it is preposterous to claim its use will not impact constitutionally protected speech.
Other Massachusetts towns, such as Shrewsbury, restrict Select Board proclamations from including controversial political content to avoid end runs around our famous system of direct democracy. If Acton had such protections, this dangerous blunder would have been prevented.
Jennifer Bell
Edgewood Road
