XPost: uk.legal, soc.culture.jewish, comp.misc   
   XPost: alt.politics.democrats   
   From: void@invalid.noy   
      
   By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.   
      
      
   The House of Representatives passed the “Anti-Semitism Awareness Act”   
   on May 2, by a vote of 320-91 in reaction to demonstrations on   
   numerous university campuses and elsewhere against the brutal and   
   genocidal policy of Israel in Gaza. The Act has now been sent to the   
   Senate, where it seems certain to pass. This is an extremely dangerous   
   bill that could criminalize the Bible, many Christian Churches, as   
   well as any negative remarks about Israel and Jews. In brief, it   
   threatens us with totalitarian thought control. We must do everything   
   we can to oppose it.   
      
   First, let’s take an overview of the Act. It adopts the very broad   
   definition of anti-Semitism of the “International Holocaust   
   Remembrance Association.”  The Act calls this definition “a vital tool   
   which helps individuals understand and identify the various   
   manifestations of antisemitism.”   
      
   What does this definition say? “Antisemitism is a certain perception   
   of Jews, which may be expressed in hatred of Jews. Rhetorical and   
   physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or   
   non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community   
   institutions and religious facilities.” How you can be anti-Semitic   
   toward someone who isn’t Jewish isn’t immediately apparent.   
      
   The authors of the definition give someone examples of what they   
   consider anti-Semitic. These include saying that the Jews control the   
   media and Congress, saying that Israel is a racist state, propagating   
   the “blood libel” that the Jews killed Jesus, minimizing or denying   
   the Holocaust, and claiming that Jews in America have “dual loyalty.”   
      
   As a number of writers including Tucker Carlson and John Zmirak have   
   pointed out, the definition allows large parts of the Bible to be   
   banned. The most famous such passage is Matthew 27: 25. “His blood be   
   upon us and our children.” This is the “blood libel” that the Act   
   wouldn’t let us teach!   
      
   You might object that the Act would never be enforced in this way. The   
   American people would never stand for it! But it would always be   
   there, like a sword of Damocles, hanging over our heads. And don’t be   
   so sure it wouldn’t be enforced! The Scottish Hate Speech Act was   
   passed in 2021, and people predicted it would never be enforced.   
   Beginning in April 2024, though, it has been enforced, and many people   
   have been fined and imprisoned for violating it.   
      
   The biggest problem with the Act, though, isn’t the definition of   
   anti-Semitism. If it were, we could substitute a more reasonable   
   definition, such as “hatred for all Jews.” Even if this were done,   
   however, we would still be in an untenable position. Banning any kind   
   of speech, whether it is good or bad, is incompatible with a free   
   society. As the great Murray Rothbard has taught us, all rights are   
   property rights. Everyone can set the rules for speech on his own   
   property, and no one has the right to control what anyone says on   
   someone else’s property. This includes speech which counts as   
   “offensive.” Of course, we don’t live in a libertarian society, but we   
   should come as close as we can in practice to it. This means following   
   the strictest possible interpretation of the First Amendment.   
   “Congress shall make no law. .  .abridging the freedom of speech, or   
   of the press.”. ‘No law” means “no law” and that includes laws against   
   so-called “hate speech.” As the great legal scholar Dr. Wanjiru Njoya   
   says, “Jews must learn to live in a world where people say offensive   
   things about them, same as anyone else. You shouldn’t jail people for   
   saying offensive things about Jews or Israel.”   
      
   We need to ask ourselves, why the Act has been passed at the present   
   time. The answer is obvious. It is to block all criticism of Israel.   
   And Israel should be criticized, because of the genocidal policy it is   
   following in Gaza. The US government, led by brain-dead Biden and his   
   gang of neocon controllers, have supported Israel with money and   
   advanced weapons throughout Israel’s invasion. Anthony Blinken, “our”   
   Secretary of State, flew to Tel Aviv as soon as the invasion started   
   and, standing beside war criminal “Bibi” Netanyahu, said, “I come   
   before you not only as the United States secretary of state but also   
   as a Jew.” See here.   
      
   Is it “anti-Semitic” to report this? One of the examples the   
   International Holocaust Remembrance Day Association’s definition of   
   anti-Semitism is to say that Jews have a strong influence on American   
   foreign policy. But it’s the simple truth.   
      
   And what policy do Blinken and his cohorts support? It is Israel’s   
   policy to exterminate the Palestinians who live in Gaza. The great Ron   
   Unz has called it “the greatest televised massacre of civilians in the   
   history of the world.” Under the Act, Unz could be prosecuted for   
   saying that, because saying that Israelis are committing genocide, or   
   comparing then to Nazis, is forbidden.   
      
   As if that were not bad enough, conditions in Gaza are getting worse.   
   Because of Israel’s constant bombing and interdiction of food   
   shipments to Gaza, a famine is occurring there. According to Cindy   
   McCain, the Director of the World Food Program, “There is famine,   
   full-blown famine, in the north, and it’s moving its way south.” Now   
   it will reach the south, because Israel has just blocked food   
   shipments to Rafah.   
      
   Should calling attention to horrendous news like this be an offense   
   punishable by jail? You don’t have to be a libertarian to recognize   
   that we can’t have a free society under the censorship conditions this   
   Act would impose.   
      
   Many Jews would have to be banned by this standard. The eminent Jewish   
   historian Omer Bartov said last November that “functionally and   
   rhetorically we may be watching an ethnic cleansing operation that   
   could quickly devolve into genocide.” His worst fears have come to   
   pass since then. He too would be banned under the Act. So would Norman   
   Finkelstein and John Mearsheimer.   
      
   Jews who don’t criticize Israeli’s war could also be banned under the   
   Act. For example, some very religious Jews are anti-Zionist and don’t   
   recognize Israel as a legitimate state. They could be charged with   
   anti-Semitism. Also, what about Orthodox Jews who don’t recognize   
   conversions to Judaism supervised by Reform rabbis? If they say that   
   such converts aren’t Jewish, they could be charged under the Act as   
   anti-Semitic. So could Reform rabbis who mock the Orthodox as   
   benighted reactionaries.   
      
   One of the oddest aspects of this whole deplorable business is that   
   the Act bans statements that the Jews have a lot of political power.   
   One wonders how the Act passed by the astonishing margin of 320 to 91   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)