A few days ago, I made reference to a report from the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism. One thing in the report really struck me: the reference to the European Union's Agency for Fundamental Rights' definition of antisemitism.
The All Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism (2006) report recommended that the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia Working Definition of Antisemitism be adopted and promoted by the government and law enforcement agencies.
While the government has no plans to formally adopt the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, now the European Union Agency for Fundamental rights , definition of antisemitism, the College of Policing, the professional body for policing has included the definition in the College of Policing Hate Crime Operational Guidance (2014).
The guidance includes the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia definition in full and states that the ‘European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia definition helps to explain some of the characteristics that may be present in antisemitic hate crime. These include circumstances that amount to hate crimes and those that are likely to be non-crime hate incidents’.
Intrigued by this, I chased down the definition. Here it is here:
The purpose of this document is to provide a practical guide for identifying incidents, collecting data, and supporting the implementation and enforcement of legislation dealing with antisemitism.
Working definition: “Antisemitism is 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.”
In addition, such manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.
Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
- Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
- Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
- Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
- Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
- Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
- Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
Examples of the ways in which antisemitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include:
- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
- Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
- Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
- Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.
As you can see, the basic definition is extremely abstract and this is then filled out with a list of "Things the Goy are not allowed to do", the effect of which is to delegitimise virtually any critical remarks that anyone could ever make about Jews or Israel. From the Jewish perspective, it is about as favourable a definition of antisemitism as could possible exist. This is not surprising, as it was written by Jewish activists themselves then foisted upon a bamboozled Eurocrat called Beate Winkler on a visit to Washington.
The draft had no official status. She agreed to accept it essentially as a draft for discussion. Other agencies working in the field did not welcome it and it was quietly dropped. The Jews were not happy about this.
The European Union’s agency for combating racism dropped its definition for anti-Semitism and now is unable to define the term, an agency spokeswoman said.
“We are not aware of any official definition [of anti-Semitism],” Blanca Tapia of the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency told JTA on Tuesday.
Tapia was answering a query on the recent removal from the agency’s website of a “working definition” of anti-Semitism that was adopted in 2005 by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia — the EU entity that her organization has replaced. The removal was first reported by the pro-Palestinian website Electronic Intifada.
Campaigners against anti-Semitism said the document is significant because alongside classical anti-Semitic behavior, it lists the vilification of Israel or Israelis, which some scholars call “new anti-Semitism.” The definition lists “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” and drawing comparisons between Israel and Nazis as examples of anti-Semitism.
But Tapia said her organization had never viewed the document as a valid definition. Agency officials said the document had been pulled offline “together with other non-official documents.”
Shimon Samuels of the Simon Wiesenthal Center told JTA that the agency’s “disowning of its own definition is astounding” and that “those who fight anti-Semitism have lost an important weapon.” He also said the “Union’s about-face on its own definition damages its credibility.”
But Tapia said, “The agency does not need to develop its own definition of anti-Semitism in order to research these issues.”
In its 2012 “who we are” booklet, the agency listed “Deﬁne areas of work” among its tasks, but Tapia told JTA that the agency “has no mandate to develop its own definitions.” In 2008, the agency published a document that contains definitions for homophobia and transphobia. Tapia said, however, that the agency had defined neither and used “international standards” that “contain definitions, terms and concepts.”
Despite the definition never having been formally adopted even by an agency of the EU and now having been dropped completely, Jews have consistently misrepresented its status, often describing it falsely as the "EU's working definition of antisemitism". They have pushed it in almost every forum in which they have influence. They have pressured other agencies and institutions into adopting it, with great success. For example, universities and even the US government have made reference to this definition. Even today, they continue to push it despite the definition having been dropped years ago even as a discussion draft. For example, the first recommendation in the All-Party Parliamentary Select Committee on Antisemitism's report, issued in December 2014, so only a few months ago, is:
1 - We recommend that the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia Working Definition of antisemitism is adopted and promoted by the Government and law enforcement agencies. (Paragraph 26).Source
Here, you can even see that the Jews have even helpfully translated the definition into multiple languages.
We see here a good example of how the Jewish and Muslim lobbies work, continually scheming behind the scenes to have the free speech of the goyim/kuffar suppressed, continually promoting the un-European idea that what a person says should be judged not by its content but their presumed motivation for saying it, always with the Oriental conception of "Evilness" lurking in the background, polluting rational discourse.
The difference is that the Jews have been very successful in pushing the agenda; the Muslims haven't, yet. But the Jewish success acts as a foundation for the Muslims to build on. Once the basic premise is established that certain kinds of speech are "illegitimate", it is easy to extend it further. Indeed, it is almost an imperative to extend it further, even from a narrow Jewish perspective, otherwise the singularity of the special protection given to Jews would attract attention and itself become a source of antisemitism.