Weaponization of ‘Islamophobia’ Begins in the Law

Virginia’s Senate Bill 624, introduced this year by a Democratic state senator, Saddam Azlan Salim, defines “Islamophobia” as “malicious prejudice or hatred directed toward Islam or Muslims” and proposes to insert this definition into the state’s assault-and-battery statute and incorporate it into “hate-crime” reporting.To some, the language and intent of the bill may sound familiar. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance adopted its working definition of antisemitism in 2016: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews,” it states.It then goes on to list examples of antisemitism such as holding Jews collectively responsible for Israel’s actions or accusing Jewish citizens in countries around the world of having dual loyalties to both Israel and to their home nation.The lead drafter of the IHRA antisemitism definition, Kenneth Stern, director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate, was clear that the IHRA definition is non-binding and “was not drafted, and was never intended, as a tool to target or chill speech on a college campus.” Mr. Salim was equally emphatic about his Islamophobia bill. “I didn’t want to put anything in place that would limit someone’s First Amendment rights,” he said. The bill itself includes a disclaimer that the definition “shall not be construed to…regulate or restrict any speech, expression, or belief protected under the First Amendment”.None of this is particularly reassuring. Mr. Salim’s bill, if it were to pass, would introduce into the law a broad definition of Islamophobia that could easily then be used as a pliable precedent for future censorious policies or legislation — those that might, say, prevent American citizens from criticizing Muslim clerics at Dearborn, Michigan, who eulogized the Iranian Ayatollah, or from drawing cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed.It could even allow for prosecution of Zionist speech under the theory that pro-Israel rhetoric is “hatred directed toward Muslims.” The irony is that the legal weaponization of the loosely defined term “Islamophobia” would have found legitimacy in the IHRA’s definition of antisemitism which was, in part, created because of the wave of antisemitism affecting Jewish Americans who support Israel, especially on college campuses.Unlike S.B. 624, though, the IHRA definition of antisemitism was not proposed for inclusion in any legislation. However, 47 countries and 37 American states, plus the District of Columbia and other municipalities, have adopted it and use it as authoritative guidance for police training, education, and Title VI complaints. Similarly, S.B. 624 could begin innocently as one thing and eventually turn into another.The IHRA definition of antisemitism was well intended. It was created, in part, to help institutions, especially college campuses, navigate the workaround being deployed by some groups who freely discriminated against pro-Israel students and clubs without running afoul of civil rights law which did not understand the connection to Israel as a critical part of one’s Jewish identity.However, once the definition became formally embraced by governments and organizations, it became a threat to the First Amendment and a template which other identity groups could utilize to further threaten civil liberties in the name of protecting minorities. The escalation journey of good intentions can often result in bad outcomes.S.B. 624 will be reviewed in 2027. It has already faced significant criticism and is not expected to pass, though Virginia’s Senate Committee on Courts of Justice voted unanimously to push the bill into next year rather than to kill it now. We should all hope the delay was election year strategy rather than an indication of the Democratic-dominated legislature’s orientation on this issue. It, too, may be born of good will but may not be constrained by it.Definitions of “Islamophobia” and “antisemitism” should remain in the cultural and educational domains where they can be debated and even rejected without fear of institutional or governmental consequences. We already have laws on the books and codes of conduct on campuses to protect individuals. That they are not evenly enforced is the problem to solve for — offensive speech is not.

Weaponization of ‘Islamophobia’ Begins in the Law

More from the New York Sun

Fauci’s Refusal To Answer Questions Matches Hubris of America’s Botched Covid Response

America Risks Falling Behind Communist China in the AI Development Race

State Department Tells Americans To Prepare To Flee From Middle East

More from the New York Sun

Fauci’s Refusal To Answer Questions Matches Hubris of America’s Botched Covid Response

America Risks Falling Behind Communist China in the AI Development Race

State Department Tells Americans To Prepare To Flee From Middle East

Trump Threatens to Revive Anti-Weaponization Fund as Blanche Nomination Stalls

Spain Claims Ceuta Crisis Easing, With Most Migrants Already Returned to Morocco

George Santos Agrees to $35,000 To Settle Federal Probe Over Kalshi Trades

Infantino Abandons Kushner Deal But Fails To Halt Global FIFA Uprising

Trump Lashes Out at Pirro Over Dropped Reflecting Pool Case: ‘I Disagree 100%’