Antisemitism Definition Set in Law

Summary#

SB-1489, titled “In rules of construction, providing for definition of antisemitism,” would amend Title 1 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes. It would set a default meaning for “antisemitism” when that term appears but is not defined in a statute or regulation. The bill’s stated aim is to provide that definition; it has been introduced and is not law.

  • The definition would be based on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition adopted May 26, 2016. It includes certain speech or actions directed at Jewish or non-Jewish people, their property, Jewish community institutions or religious facilities, including manifestations that target Israel as a Jewish collective or use sinister stereotypes.
  • The bill lists examples in public life, media, schools, workplaces and religious settings, taking overall context into account. These include calls to harm Jews; conspiracy claims and collective blame; Holocaust denial or claims it was invented or exaggerated; claims of dual loyalty; denying Jewish self-determination; applying a double standard to Israel; using classic antisemitic imagery about Israel; comparing Israeli policy to Nazi policy; and holding Jews collectively responsible for Israel’s actions.
  • It says criticism of Israel similar to criticism of any other country is not included.
  • It defines when a criminal act is antisemitic: the target must be a person or property selected because the target is, or is perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews. It also defines antisemitic discrimination as denying Jews opportunities or services available to others.
  • It says the definition must not infringe First Amendment or Pennsylvania constitutional rights or conflict with state or federal discrimination law.

What it means for you#

  • People affected by laws or regulations using the term: If a Pennsylvania statute or regulation uses “antisemitism” without defining it, the bill would supply this meaning. How that could affect a person would depend on the other law that uses the term.
  • People, schools, workplaces and religious institutions: Their settings appear in the definition’s examples, but the bill does not require them to adopt policies, report incidents or create a review process.
  • People accused of antisemitic conduct: The bill does not itself create a new crime, penalty or process for deciding a case. It does provide a definition that could matter where another statute or regulation uses the term.
  • The bill does not directly change taxes, benefits, or anyone’s ownership of property.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

  • The bill specifies no appropriation or staffing requirement. It also gives no estimate of costs to apply the definition.
  • It does not set fees, fines or a new funding program.

What is unclear#

  • The supplied material does not include the current text of Title 1 or other relevant laws, so the existing definitions and possible overlap with current law could not be verified.
  • The bill does not explain how decision-makers should apply terms such as “double standard,” “similar” criticism, “linked to Jews,” or “overall context.”
  • It does not set out procedures, evidence rules, appeals, enforcement roles or remedies for antisemitic discrimination.
  • The bill would take effect immediately if enacted, but it is only introduced; whether it will pass is uncertain.

Case for#

  • A possible argument for the bill is that it gives a consistent default meaning when a Pennsylvania law uses “antisemitism” without defining it.
  • Its examples identify forms of anti-Jewish hatred and discrimination, including targeting people or property because they are Jewish and denying Holocaust facts.
  • The exclusions and constitutional safeguard could help distinguish antisemitism from comparable criticism of Israel and protect speech rights.

Case against#

  • One concern is that terms such as “double standard” and “similar” criticism are not defined, so applying them could require difficult judgments about context.
  • The bill lists several Israel-related statements as examples of antisemitism while also excluding similar criticism of other countries. How decision-makers should reconcile those provisions is not explained.
  • The bill does not specify who decides whether conduct fits the definition or what procedures apply. The constitutional safeguard does not supply those details.