स्रोत: वार्तालाप
इस गर्मी controversy arose around the hiring of Valentina Azarova as the director of the University of Toronto faculty of law’s international human rights program.
कुछ faculty accused the dean of rescinding a job offer because public figures were uncomfortable with her scholarly criticism of Israel’s human rights record.
This incident is particularly concerning to scholars who conduct research on Palestine and Israel. Many see it as part of a बढ़ती प्रवृत्ति to equate criticism of Israeli state policies with antisemitism.
Globally, scholars who criticize Israel are facing an increasingly uphill battle to protect their शैक्षणिक स्वतंत्रता.
Redefining antisemitism
At the heart of the issue rests the new definition of antisemitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). Proponents of the IHRA definition are part of what some are calling a new antisemitism movement that seeks to label criticism of Israel as antisemitic.
While challenging antisemitism is vital, Canadian critics of the IHRA definition argue that the new language could “chill political expressions of criticism of Israel as well as support for Palestinian rights.”
The IHRA definition is अस्पष्ट. It fails to connect antisemitism to other forms of racism. It also appears more intent on silencing critics of Israel than halting antisemitic threats from far-right white supremacists.
A series of open letters by scholars have warned against adopting this definition, including in कनाडा, यूनाइटेड किंगडम और इजराइल.
The main issue with the IHRA’s definition of antisemitism is not its short 38 word definition, but the 11 illustrative examples of anti-Semitism. Seven of these examples equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism. Two of them reference Israel without mentioning Jewish people.
Israel should be subject to the same critiques as other nations.
One of the original draftees of the IHRA definition, Kenneth Stern, now says that the new language “हथियार बनाता है” the definition of antisemitism.
Academic silencing: Scholars face harassment
Earlier this year, in Germany where the IHRA definition and its illustrations have been adopted nationally, renowned scholar Achille Mbembe (currently teaching at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg) was accused of racism and antisemitism by public figures and institutions because of his support of the BDS movement. BDS (बहिष्कार, विनिवेश, प्रतिबंध) is a Palestinian-led movement for the freedom, justice and equality of Palestinians.
In the United States, where various jurisdictions have adopted the IHRA working definition, investigations of alleged antisemitism have been launched at several institutions. These include: Rutgers विश्वविद्यालय, Duke University, the University of North Carolina और विलियम्स कॉलेज, with another possible investigation into न्यूयॉर्क विश्वविद्यालय.
In each case, the “antisemitic speech” being investigated is criticism of Israel.
उक में, universities face funding cuts if they do not adopt the IHRA definition. Universities have रद्द किए गए कार्यक्रम, punished faculty और expelled students who criticize Israel.
Websites run by neoconservative campus groups demonize, harass and intimidate scholars who support Palestinian rights, support BDS और कर रहे हैं critical of Israel’s policies. These targeted attacks have a ठंडा प्रभाव on classrooms, research and campus politics.
Canadian campuses
On Canadian campuses, student governments at रायर्सन विश्वविद्यालय और मैकगिल विश्वविद्यालय have adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism in their anti-discrimination policies. This will potentially allow them to deny critics of Israel access to campus resources.
A recent conference at the University of Winnipeg focused on the Trump administration’s decision to move its embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Citing the IHRA definition, the university condemned the conference और declared certain statements expressed at the conference to be a violation of the institution’s anti-harassment policy.
Legal controversy in Ontario
On Oct. 26, the Ontario government led by Doug Ford abandoned its controversial private members’ Bill 168 “Combating Antisemitism Act” and instead used Order in Council 1450/2020 to adopt the IHRA definition. An order-in-council is an executive decree that effectively shuts down the legislative process, including public discussion on the bill.
RSI आदेश-में-परिषद recognized “the working definition of antisemitism, as adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA).”
While Bill 168 was still under consideration by the Standing Committee on Justice Policy in Ontario, faculty unions across the province passed motions to oppose it.
Earlier this year, Premier Ford gave universities an ultimatum: adopt free speech policies or risk losing their funding. The new IHRA definition of antisemitism in Ontario seems to subvert the government’s demand that universities uphold free speech and academic freedom.
It is unclear whether or not Ontario’s adoption of the IHRA working definition includes the illustrative examples. Without a clear position on this, academic freedom in this province remains vulnerable to political interference.
Scholarly freedom to criticize racism
Arguments made by many of the world’s leading scholars contain statements that are critical of Israeli state violence and racism. This writing could easily be censored as antisemitic under the new definition.
Under this type of legal censure, professors could be at risk for teaching influential Jewish scholars such as हन्ना ARENDT और जूडिथ बटलर, the post-colonial legend एडवर्ड ने कहा, Black liberation scholar एंजेला डेविस and a long list of other scholars because of their critical work on Israel.
कनाडा की संघीय सरकार has adopted the IHRA definition and its examples, and it is possible that other provinces and institutions may feel pressured to follow suit.
Equating criticism of Israel with antisemitism undermines the ability of scholars to engage in important anti-racist and decolonial work.
Ontario’s adoption of the IHRA definition leaves academics and students vulnerable. Enacting laws or adopting statements that potentially criminalize criticism of state violence and racism subverts the struggles of marginalized communities seeking social justice. These decisions set a dangerous precedent.
is Professor of Sociology, Wilfrid Laurier University.
is Associate Professor, Sociology, Wilfrid Laurier University.
is Associate Professor, Department of Global Studies, Wilfrid Laurier University.
ZNetwork को पूरी तरह से इसके पाठकों की उदारता से वित्त पोषित किया जाता है।
दान करें
1 टिप्पणी
The ” facts ” speak for themselves. Read Professor Phylis Bennis 2007 Primer – Understanding the Palestinian – Israeli Conflict. Olive Branch Press.
Who is questioning the facts and why? https://www.tni.org/en/publication/understanding-the-palestinian-israeli-conflict
श्री ब्लेयर एम. फिलिप्स
कनाडा
सेवानिवृत्त