US government vs. "antisemitism"

[Madison320]

lol, think about it for a while ;-)

I give up, can you help me out?

 

[Anti Federalist]

If I am not mistaken, this is a first, where political lobby group's opinions will be used to define what is and is not "legal".

 

[PAF]

I give up, can you help me out?

Sure. Post #2 and #6, and then your statement:

There's no difference, however what anarchists don't understand is that there's no other option. There's always going to be a "state", "mafia", "warlord" presiding over a given area. Government is force and force is not going away anytime soon.

So, is Lew Rockwell's OP article valid or not, and what is your solution?

 

[Madison320]

Sure. Post #2 and #6, and then your statement:



So, is Lew Rockwell's OP article valid or not, and what is your solution?

Valid in what way? Solution to what?

 

[PAF]

Valid in what way? Solution to what?

Seriously? Ok, I'm sitting here wondering, if what you state is true:

There's no difference, however what anarchists don't understand is that there's no other option. There's always going to be a "state", "mafia", "warlord" presiding over a given area. Government is force and force is not going away anytime soon.

Should more, or less legislation be enacted to protect our freedoms, or would we be better off de-legislating even though we anarchists "don't understand"?

 

[Madison320]

Seriously? Ok, I'm sitting here wondering, if what you state is true:



Should more, or less legislation be enacted to protect our freedoms, or would we be better off de-legislating even though we anarchists "don't understand"?

If the legislation violates freedom, as in this case, then of course we want less of it.

 

[PAF]

If the legislation violates freedom, as in this case, then of course we want less of it.

Ok, so what do anarchists don't understand?

If only, there was more us, instead of people trying to justify existence of a corrupt state.

 

[Invisible Man]

If I am not mistaken, this is a first, where political lobby group's opinions will be used to define what is and is not "legal".

Can you find anything that is made illegal by this act that is not already illegal?

I can't.

 

[Madison320]

Ok, so what do anarchists don't understand?

If only, there was more us, instead of people trying to justify existence of a corrupt state.

Anarchist don't understand that there's no such thing as statelessness. So it's a waste of time talking about eliminating the state. The only option is to try to have a "least bad" state. And as long as you're an anarchist that believes in real solutions to minimizing the damage, then we're on the same page. The problem is a sizable percentage of anarchists mock any attempt to minimize the state, like term limits, end the federal reserve, etc.

 

[buck000]

Given that, then what is the basis for the claim that this Anti-Semitism Awareness Act criminalizes speech?

Matt Gaetz's perspective

 

[jmdrake]

Can you find anything that is made illegal by this act that is not already illegal?

I can't.

I quoted it to you. There are none so blind as those that cannot see. A private group's definition of antisemitism, which includes criticism of Israel, was written into the bill as prima facia evidence of discrimination.

 

[PAF]

Anarchist don't understand that there's no such thing as statelessness. So it's a waste of time talking about eliminating the state. The only option is to try to have a "least bad" state. And as long as you're an anarchist that believes in real solutions to minimizing the damage, then we're on the same page. The problem is a sizable percentage of anarchists mock any attempt to minimize the state, like term limits, end the federal reserve, etc.

To the contrary, anarchists attempt to minimize Starve the State wherever/whenever possible. It is the statist on whatever side who believe there must be at least some state and/or federal taxation. Which messes people like me up.

I do not support or endorse "term limits". It is yet another attempt to give a false sense of hope to "voters". If person is bad-bad-bad, they would be for the most part replaced with another bad-bad-bad. Look at Boehner, and Trump, for 2 off-the-top-of-my-head examples. If person is very good, such as Rand Paul, Tom Massie, term limits would simply do away with them, and then what do you do? So, term limits are bogus and not important to me at all. Grounded-in-principle-and-moral PEOPLE who engage in non-compliance are much more useful and effective.

 

[acptulsa]

I quoted it to you. There are none so blind as those that cannot see. A private group's definition of antisemitism, which includes criticism of Israel, was written into the bill as prima facia evidence of discrimination.

And worse, it was written into the bill that their definition was the legal definition, but that definition itself doesn't seem to be there. I don't see any indication that they need permission from Congress to change that definition. So this group can change its definition, and that changes the law.

Who elected these people that they can change a U.S. federal statute at will?

 

[Anti Federalist]

I quoted it to you. There are none so blind as those that cannot see. A private group's definition of antisemitism, which includes criticism of Israel, was written into the bill as prima facia evidence of discrimination.

A perfect summary.

I'd only add that it is fickle as well, the definition subject to change as the Small Hat Club dictates.

And that should make any thinking person's hair stand on end.

 

[Anti Federalist]

And worse, it was written into the bill that their definition was the legal definition, but that definition itself doesn't seem to be there. I don't see any indication that they need permission from Congress to change that definition. So this group can change its definition, and that changes the law.

Who elected these people that they can change a U.S. federal statute at will?

Exactly.

Nobody.

But we are now being let to know who runs things around here.

 

[Invisible Man]

I quoted it to you. There are none so blind as those that cannot see. A private group's definition of antisemitism, which includes criticism of Israel, was written into the bill as prima facia evidence of discrimination.

You were not able to find any quotes from the act that made anything illegal that isn't already.

The act doesn't make criticism of Israel, or any other speech or opinion, de facto discrimination. Those things would still need to be accompanied with some kind of actual discrimination as defined by the Civil Rights Act.

 

[Invisible Man]

A perfect summary.

But it's not a perfect summary. You can check the text of the bill. It doesn't say what his summary says it says.

 

[Invisible Man]

You're right. It doesn't specifically mention the FBI. That said the impact of the law that you linked to is that it allows criticism of Israel to be used as prima fascia evidence of discrimination. Under the 1964 CRA having posters of Hitler all over the office could be seen as creating a hostile work environment. Under this bill a company taking a stand against what's happening in Gaza could be seen as creating a hostile work environment.

If a Jewish person worked at an office that had Hitler posters all over and could show that a promotion was given to a less qualified coworker, I am pretty sure that under current law those Hitler posters would be considered in court as evidence to support the charge that their employer discriminated against them because they're Jewish.

The same thing would be true if it were a black person and the office had posters of KKK members burning crosses.

 

[jmdrake]

You were not able to find any quotes from the act that made anything illegal that isn't already.

The act doesn't make criticism of Israel, or any other speech or opinion, de facto discrimination. Those things would still need to be accompanied with some kind of actual discrimination as defined by the Civil Rights Act.

More from the bill.

In reviewing, investigating, or deciding whether there has been a violation of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) on the basis of race, color, or national origin, based on an individual’s actual or perceived shared Jewish ancestry or Jewish ethnic characteristics, the Department of Education shall take into consideration the definition of antisemitism as part of the Department’s assessment of whether the practice was motivated by antisemitic intent.​

So under the old CRA if you said "We don't like Jews" and then fired someone you could be found liable for discrimination, but you couldn't be liable simply for taking the political stance "Israel is an apartheid stated." Candace Owens was fired by the Daily Wire for taking a stance that Ben Shapiro felt was anti Israel. If Candace Owens owned her own company and fired someone for taking Ben Shapiro's stance that would be evidence to show discrimination under this bill. A political stance is being conflated with ethnic discrimination.

 

[jmdrake]

If a Jewish person worked at an office that had Hitler posters all over and could show that a promotion was given to a less qualified coworker, I am pretty sure that under current law those Hitler posters would be considered in court as evidence to support the charge that their employer discriminated against them because they're Jewish.

The same thing would be true if it were a black person and the office had posters of KKK members burning crosses.

Right! But under this bill just having a "Free Palestine" poster on your wall counts the same as having Adolf Hitler or KKK posters on your wall!

Edit: And doesn't it bother you that rather than having the balls to just say what their own definition of antisemitism is, they delegate that to some third party by reference? As Matt Gatez pointed out, even the Christian Bible saying "the Jews killed Jesus" is antisemitism by this definition. So this is legalized discrimination against Christianity.