A bill officially defining antisemitism, which can be used by authorities when identifying anti-Jewish hate crime, was passed in the US state of Georgia’s General Assembly on Tuesday.
House Bill (HB) 30 passed 136-22 with bipartisan support. Democrat Esther Panitch, the only Jewish American representative in the state house, submitted and presented the bill with the support of several other members including Republicans like John Carson.
Panitch noted on Monday that the bill was assessed by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution of having a 26% chance of passing. The Jewish representative said that she would “channel my inner Queen Esther and beat the odds,” in honor of Purim.
“Hate has no place in Georgia,” said the Georgia House Republicans. “The House stands in solidarity with our state’s Jewish community.”
Antisemitism: A pervasive problem in American society
The law contends that antisemitism is a pervasive problem in American society that needs to be addressed, with data showing that Jews are often the religious group most targeted by hate crime. Consequently, Georgia has a responsibility to protect Jewish citizens.
Under HB 30, Georgian law enforcement will now consider antisemitism as motivation for laws that prohibit discrimination against immutable characteristics and carry enhanced penalties.
Antisemitism in Georgia will be defined along the outline of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition. The General Assembly agreed with the notion that while there was no exhaustive definition, it was an essential tool adopted by over 30 countries.
The IHRA definition defines antisemitism as “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.”
The guidelines present offer examples including supporting and engaging in violence against Jews as part of an ideology. Dehumanization and demonization of Jews using stereotypes of Jewish control and power or accusing Jews as a group of the ills in society would also be considered antisemitism. Variations of Holocaust denial also fall under the definition.
Critics of the definition take issue that the IHRA includes as examples dual-loyalty tropes, denial of Jewish right to self-determination, double standards towards Israel and using classic antisemitic or Nazi imagery in criticism of Israel.
The bill contended that IHRA’s examples on Israel were instructive for when anti-Israel acts cross the line into antisemitism. The bill notes that the law would not infringe on free speech rights.
“Use of this definition of antisemitism, although it is not to be taken as an exhaustive definition, will increase the awareness and understanding of the parameters of contemporary anti-Jewish discrimination in certain circumscribed areas,” reads the text of the bill.