Authored by the deputy (-SP), a bill that defines anti-Semitism divides experts between those who see the proposal as an advance in the discussion of protecting the Jewish community and those who see it as a risk to freedom of expression.
The main point of tension is in the conceptual model. The text classifies as anti-Semitic, for example, demonstrations that “may target the State of , seen as a Jewish collective”, or that compare Israeli policies to those of the Nazis.
The basis is the criteria adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (or IHRA). The idea of the project is to create a formal definition of anti-Semitism in Brazil that can guide the creation of public policies and educational actions.
Experts consulted by Sheet They agree that the creation of a taxonomy would be positive, but they are divided on the proposal. Part defends the project’s model or the adoption of a Brazilian version, while another warns of the risk of censorship and banning the debate.
The IHRA is a multilateral body of which the . According to diplomats interviewed at the time, accession, during the (PL) government, was carried out inappropriately. The controversy lies precisely in the definition of anti-Semitism.
UFRJ (Federal University of Rio de Janeiro) professor Michel Gherman, coordinator of the Interdisciplinary Center for Jewish Studies, is one of those who views the adoption of the IHRA model with concern. For him, the proposal mixes the definition of anti-Semitism with limits on criticism of Israel.
Gherman states that discussions about Israel and the Palestinian issue exist and are part of the debate, and should not be banned. “They can be tough, radical debates, which I’m uncomfortable with, but if you delegitimize, you propose censorship.”
The professor warns of the practical risks of approving a measure like this, citing the example of Escola sem Partido, which aimed to combat supposed indoctrination in teaching. Even without broad legal implementation, it would have already generated self-censorship among teachers.
The general coordinator of the Holocaust Museum, Carlos Reiss, defends the IHRA parameter because it has already been thought of as a tool for governments and public institutions. This criterion also opens up space for an international dialogue on the topic, he says.
“To date, the definition that has best addressed the need to be used as a basis for public policy is the IHRA definition”, he continues, but “there is no need to use the IHRA definition in the letters themselves and translate here.”
“Whether you like it or not, the definition is a translation. If the original words already contain ambiguities, the translation can often be problematic”, says Reiss. “Necessary defining international initiatives can and should be adjusted by each country.”
But the leader maintains, first of all, that the debate should be held. He criticizes groups that mix political, partisan and ideological issues about Israel with the very recognition of the existence of hatred and prejudice suffered by Brazilian Jews.
After presenting the project, Tabata’s team reported attacks directed at the deputy on social media. According to the PSB congresswoman’s office, a team of lawyers is considering filing a police report against the most serious statements.
The list of authors of the project is headed by her, but was composed of a miscellany of deputies, including (Missão-SP), (-SP), Otoni de Paula (-RJ), Gilvan da Federal (-ES) and Heloísa Helena (Rede-RJ).
On the 30th, congressmen, especially from , asked for signatures to be withdrawn: Heloísa Helena, Reginaldo Veras (PV-DF), Welter (PT-PR), Vander Loubet (PT-MS) Alexandre Lindenmeyer (PT-RS), Luiz Couto (PT-PB), Ana Paula Lima (PT-SC) and Reginaldo Lopes (PT-MG).
Despite the repercussion, the proposal has no prospect of a vote. The evangelical bench, more inclined to support projects to combat anti-Semitism, has not yet moved in favor of the project. The PSB will also analyze the text to define the best path.
Karl Schurster, professor at the University of Pernambuco and advisor to the Brazil-Israel Institute, says that society’s concern about the risk of censorship and silencing is legitimate, but that this can be resolved within the scope of qualified discussion.
The IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is not the only one in the world. There are other aspects, such as the Jerusalem Declaration, championed by Israeli and Palestinian intellectuals, and Nexus, more limited, but which attempts to mediate between the two.
“If you look at the three, you won’t be against any of them, because their ultimate goal is the same, the fight against anti-Semitism,” he says. “The fundamental thing is that we have a social and even political agreement that, yes, it is important to define anti-Semitism.”
History teacher, Schurster says that if he entered the classroom, displayed a world map and asked students where Israel is, 90% would say they didn’t know. “But everyone is against Zionism, everyone is against the definition of anti-Semitism,” he says.
“We are much more burdened by an image of Israel that is in our heads than by the knowledge we have about it”, he concludes. “We need great social literacy about anti-Semitism.”
According to him, regardless of the conceptual model, the important thing would be a Brazilian definition, which had a characterization of anti-Semitism that spoke to all these lines, but also adapted to our context.
