Congressional Actions and Hubris
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
According to Twitchy's own Aaron Walker, and legal expert:
While it is definitely true that the 'Christ-killer' slur has been used by antisemites to attack Jews, it's also not unreasonable for Christians to be concerned that the right combination of lawyer and left-leaning judge could interpret a completely innocent action to be discrimination under Title VI because a person stated basic Christian teaching publicly at some point.
This is, frankly, a specific instance of the larger problem of 'hate crime' legislation. It puts the state in the position of mind-reading rather than punishing acts.
Again, either of these statements can be used (and are) in an antisemitic manner (think, 'CHRIST IS KING, JEW!!!'), but they are innocent enough outside that context.
So how did we get here and whose 'fault' is it?
The bill is H.R.6090 - Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023. Yes, 2023. This has been in the works for some time.
What the bill actually does is make the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism the definition of antisemitism used when evaluating Title VI cases. The 'contemporary examples of antisemitism' listed in this definition include the exact text that has caused such an uproar:
This is not a new definition. It is the definition from 2016 that has been used for this purpose by the Department of Education since 2018. This bill seeks to make it the legal definition for investigating Title VI violations, across the board.
This definition, however, has already been used for this purpose because President Trump decreed it to be so with Executive Order 13899 (Combating Anti-Semitism). The text of President Trump's Executive Order is very similar to the text of H.R. 6090, including the reference to the 'contemporary examples of antisemitism'.
So, who let this happen to us? President Trump and Congress, and there's no reason to believe either intended to criminalize Christianity. Both were attempting to address rising antisemitism and were largely opposed by leftist groups who often criticize Israel.
That's a lot of background, but what do we make of the bill? Well, opinions will vary, but clearly, many conservatives are concerned about the potential for abuse against people's First Amendment rights.
The bill is H.R.6090 - Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023. Yes, 2023. This has been in the works for some time.
What the bill actually does is make the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism the definition of antisemitism used when evaluating Title VI cases. The 'contemporary examples of antisemitism' listed in this definition include the exact text that has caused such an uproar:
Yesterday ABC ran a knee-jerk story headlined, “House passes GOP antisemitism bill amid college unrest.” Showing it can move fast when it wants to, yesterday Congress rushed through a poorly-considered antisemitism law to show support for Israel amidst a terrifying national outbreak of anti-Israel messaging and mostly peaceful protesting.
The bill was led by Representative Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), and 15 Democratic co-sponsors. Many Republicans and Democrats who voted against the bill said it infringed on free speech. The new law requires the Department of Education to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of ‘antisemitism’ when enforcing federal anti-discrimination laws.
Some complained that the IHRA defines antisemitism, in part, as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.” That definition, relying as it does on subjective perceptions, seems too squishy to survive Constitutional scrutiny.
Other complained about the expansion of federal criminal laws, worrying that a law like this gives Biden’s DOJ more tools to arrest and over-charge actually peaceful protestors, as we’ve recently seen happen to Christians protesting abortion clinics.
Supporters of the bill expressed worry about legitimate fears experienced by ordinary Jewish folks who feel like all this mostly peaceful outrage and hatred is directed right at them.
Opposition to the bill was bipartisan. Several Democrats argued against the IHRA definition and some of the contemporary examples on antisemitism provided in the IHRA materials. Humpty-Dumpty-like Representative Jerry Nadler, who is Jewish, said he opposed the bill because it would put the "thumb on the scale" in favor of one definition of antisemitism and could "chill" constitutionally-protected free speech.
In March, Governor DeSantis controversially signed a bill with new protections for Jewish Floridians. He took a lot of heat for doing so. None of the students arrested this week on Florida campuses have, to my knowledge, been charged with any hate crimes under the new law.
Is it clear this federal bill was needed now, or is it a sloppy, knee-jerk response to the current crisis? What do you think? Please be understanding of different views in the comments.
☕️ THE MATRIX CRASHED ☙ Thursday, May 2, 2024 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠
OMG catfishes the CIA; DeSantis bans fake WEF meats; New York arrests radicalized agitators; House Covid Committee suggests criminal charges; Hersh calls Biden dumber than rocks; lots more.
www.coffeeandcovid.com
Rep. Banks Grills Biden’s Labor Sec On Claim That Apprentice Programs Are Racist, Sexist
Banks challenged Su again on the DOL document. “The recommendations also — say that registered apprenticeships have been ‘the domain of white able-bodied men.’ That’s a direct quote from the recommendation from the committee in your department,” Banks noted before asking “Do you agree with that comment?”
“Is having fewer white men in apprenticeships the goal of all of the DEI provisions in the proposed rule?” Banks went on to press, with Su responding, “Absolutely not.”
That’s not even close to all the good news! On Wednesday, in a story completely ignored by corporate media, Senator Ron Johnson published an announcement on his website headlined, “Sen. Johnson Leads Letter Demanding Biden Reject “Unacceptable” WHO Agreements.”
Johnson’s announcement referred to a highly-controversial set of proposed amendments to the WHO’s Pandemic Treaty, which are set for the final approval vote next month. Critics have claimed that in its horrible original drafts, the amendments would have put the WHO in charge of declaring pandemics and then mandating every country’s response, right down to lockdowns and vaccine mandates that arguably would even override national, state, and local laws.
It is hard to imagine a worse, more apocalyptic scenario.
But thanks to diligent independent efforts — no thanks to corporate media lapdogs, who’ve steadfastly refused to cover the story — the WHO’s proposed treaty amendment package has failed approval several times. The first time it failed by the thinnest of margins, rejected only by a couple small countries. But as people began learning and talking about the threat, it has been revised through several rounds and is much improved. But still dangerous.
Senator Johnson (R-Wi.), bless him, organized the entire Republican Senate, all 49 Senators, to sign a letter of objection addressed to Joe Biden. In the letter, the Senators argue the WHO’s treaty amendments would constitute a brand new treaty requiring ratification by two-thirds of the Senate, which the 49 Senators could easily block. The Biden Administration would surely argue the amendment package is not a new treaty at all, but is merely a minor adjustment to an existing treaty not requiring ratification.
Still, this is a significant development, signaling swift and difficult litigation looming if Biden does sign on to the amendment package. Here’s Johnson’s letter:
This is the progress that people who’ve been decrying the horrible WHO amendment have been waiting for.
☕️ THE DAM BREAKS ☙ Saturday, May 4, 2024 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠
Astonishing NYT article breaks open the jab denial dam; I'm suing the federal government; half the Senate opposes WHO amendments; Lancet study fails to infect; new city offers hope; and lots more.
www.coffeeandcovid.com
Education Secretary Falls Apart When Asked Whether He Would Force His Daughter to Undress in Front of Men
Now, White House officials are in the hot seat, being forced to explain and defend this decision. Education Secretary Miguel Cardona recently gave testimony before the Senate. Sen. Burgess Owens (R-UT) grilled Cardona, asking him whether he would allow his daughter to be forced to deal with biological men in women’s space. Naturally, the secretary had trouble answering.