Quote:
Originally Posted by Toy Soldier
I only really take issue with 7; it's not even that I think everyone should denounce Israel as a racist endeavour... Just that it's bizarre and unprecedented for it to be "banned" to even suggest it?? It's a step too far IMO and cripples normal and vital international political debate. It also doesn't stop people thinking it. It just shuts down the discussion so that those opinions "go underground" and rather than being aired and debated, they're whispered among like-minded individuals, and that is where true xenophobia is borne. A foolish and dangerous policy, in my opinion.
|
It's not banning those discussions. It's just a grouping of examples together in one space that
can fit underneath the umbrella. I don't think it is meant to be taken so broadly, so much so that from the POV of the average person, an innocuous discussion from someone about Israeli-related topics automatically becomes an anti-Semitic affair... in fact, if anything, this IHRA definition is having the opposite effect of stimulating the discussion since we are all having this discussion now... which is a great thing.
From a governmental perspective, it's very useful to be able to point out where we may have cases of really bad actors who want to disrupt the achievements and development of a particular culture/group of peoples using very specific language. The racist example is seemingly innocuous, but it crafted in such a way to subvert the will of an entire ethic group... by claiming their choices as a people automatically fall under <insert stigmatized word>, in this case "racism"... That's an easy way to pigeon-hole an entire ethnic group of people into the suspicious category. That is very clearly anti-Semitic... but I think that that persecution complex would have to be there to fit into the first portion of #7.