The North Carolina Legislative Building (Photo: Clayton Henkel)
North Carolina Senate on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved an amended version of House Bill 942, also known as the “Shalom Act,” that would establish a definition of anti-Semitism in state law. The vote was 47-2.
Lawmakers removed a provision in the bill that would have appropriated $10,000 from the General Fund to the Department of Administration for the 2024-25 fiscal year.
Soon after the Senate vote, the House approved the Senate committee substitute (105-3), thereby sending the bill to the governor’s desk.
If the bill becomes law, North Carolina would, by reference, make the “Working Definition of Antisemitism Adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) on May 26, 2016” the state’s official definition of anti-Semitism.
Under the definition, several types of criticism directed against Israel, such as “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor,” would meet the definition.
The bill received its first committee hearing in the Senate on Wednesday and was advanced to the Senate Rules Committee before moving to the floor for a vote.
“I firmly believe that it’s the responsibility of the General Assembly to protect our citizens from hate and from bigotry,” said Sen. Bobby Hanig, R-Currituck during a committee meeting. “The ‘Shalom Act’ does just that, while in no way diminishes or infringes on any rights protected by the North Carolina or the United States constitutions.”
House Speaker Tim Moore, one of the bill’s chief sponsors, said at a committee meeting that the measure is a response to a rise in hate speech and attacks on Jewish people.
“We have seen firsthand the violence, the intimidation, the threats that are happening against the Jewish individuals in this state and this country. Some of those have become very violent. Some of those have been more — not physical violence — but more of an intimidation.”
Critics say the bill is an attack on free speech and conflates criticism of Israel and the actions of its government with anti-Semitism.
Some of what the definition targets isn’t anti-Semitism, said Reighlah Collins with the ACLU of North Carolina at a committee hearing earlier on Wednesday afternoon. Rather, she said, it’s “political speech.”
“The right to engage in political speech is one of the most important First Amendment protections even if we don’t agree with it, and for this reason, the IHRA definition cannot serve as a yardstick for determining what is hate speech or religious discrimination and what is not.”
While the bill provides for no particular enforcement mechanism, it specifies that the definition will be used as “a guide for training, education, recognizing, and combating antisemitic hate crimes or discrimination and for tracking and reporting antisemitic incidents.”
Moore said last month the bill does not create any new criminal penalties related to anti-Semitism, as state laws against “ethnic intimidation” already exist. But it provides a clear definition of anti-Semitism for prosecutors and law enforcement. “A prosecutor would look at that and look at the statutes that are already in place and make a determination if that conduct rose to that level.”
Collins said she’s worried that the bill will stifle constitutionally protected political speech.
“Whether this bill directly criminalizes or not, a definition of anti-Semitism that conflates criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism enshrined into law chills constitutionally protected political speech.”
Sen. Mujtaba Mohammed of Mecklenburg County expressed support for the bill but said it doesn’t go far enough to protect other minority groups.
“My concern is this bill offers only lip service, and fails to provide real real protections for our Jewish brothers and sisters, as well as others group other groups subjected to hate crimes and bigotry,” said Mohammed.
Mohammed proposed an amendment to the bill that would have expanded the scope and severity of penalties for hate crimes, created a hate crime database, and required training for law enforcement and prosecutors on identifying and prosecuting hate crimes. Republican members, however, moved successfully to “table” the proposal so that, technically, no vote was taken on the amendment itself.
Four House members voted against the bill last month. Democratic Rep. Marcia Morey voted against the bill, citing constitutional issues. Morey’s fellow Democrats, Representatives Pricey Harrison, Nasif Majeed and Renée Price also voted against it. Majeed (D-Mecklenburg) said he’s been working on an anti-hate crime bill for six years, yet House leadership has failed to act on more comprehensive protections for other faiths and other groups that experience hate.
The post State lawmakers approve bill enshrining controversial anti-Semitism definition in state law appeared first on NC Newsline.