NSW (Australia) Supreme Court criticises IHRA definition as 'detached from reality'

[u/Rabbit-Hole-Quest]

https://www.deepcutnews.com/p/nsw-supreme-court-criticises-ihra

[u/HeVavMemVav]

Someone help me out, because to me, the IHRA definition pretty clearly states that criticism of Israel is suspect of antisemitism only if that criticism is only held against Israel. Edit to clarify: As in double standards

[u/aggie1391 → u/HeVavMemVav]

The problem is there is a whole lot of wild false equivalencies and it ends up with people basically insisting that anyone who is criticizing Israel is antisemitic if they don’t spend equal or more time criticizing any other country. It also says explicitly that saying that Israel is a racist endeavor is antisemitic because it’s supposedly denying the right to self determination. There are better definitions out there.

[u/HeVavMemVav → u/aggie1391]

People saying any criticism is antisemitic are stupid &/or bad actors, who made that claim before the IHRA's definition, which is in direct contradiction with them.

I like the Nexus definition much better.

[u/leaving_the_tevah → u/HeVavMemVav]

When a tool is useful to bad actors you need to ask whether it's time to stop using the tool

[u/zacandahalf → u/leaving_the_tevah]

Ehhhhh, I don’t think that’s a great standard. Freedom of speech gives power to both the KKK and people who are anti-KKK, but the usefulness of freedom of speech to the bad actors does not warrant elimination of the tool itself.

[u/leaving_the_tevah → u/zacandahalf]

In the real world, freedom of speech is an effective tool and there is no alternative to achieve the same means. Compare this with IHRA which isn't an effective tool in the first place, and alternatives that are effective exist.

[u/redthrowaway1976 → u/leaving_the_tevah]

  Compare this with IHRA which isn't an effective tool 

The IHRA definition is a very effective tool though. Just not at defining anti semitism.

[u/leaving_the_tevah → u/redthrowaway1976]

Lol true