Counteracting Antisemitism with Tools of Law: An Effort Doomed to Failure?
Aleksandra Gliszczyńska‐Grabias · 2019
Antisemitism is an everlasting phenomenon-and while its manifestations keep changingo vert he ages, this "longest hatred," as rightlye mphasized by Robert Wistrich, refuses to give up and remains resistant to various attempts to counteract it.¹Debates over the most effectivew aysofc ombatingantisemitism,racism, and xenophobia have been going on for decades, and legal instruments are very often floated as one potentiallyu seful remedy.²This approach, however,i sf requentlymet with opposing voicesarguing that offensiveattitudes bred by hatred and discrimination based on race, ethnicity,n ationality,o rr eligion, so deeply rooted in social and historical contexts, do not lend themselvest ol egal definitions and should not be tackled with legal norms.When these debates are waged against the backdrop of the American doctrine of freedom of speech, one point that is obviouslyand immediatelybrought to the fore is thatf reedoms mayb er estricted by lawi nv ery few cases alone.³This is very much unlike the situation in the memberstates of the Council of Europe, one fundamental reason for this being the impact the Holocaust had on the historical heritageo fw hat is todayafree Europe.The values and principles underpinning the European human rights protection system, which also rests on the European ConventiononProtection of HumanRights and Fundamental Freedoms, call for legal steps to be taken against manifestations of hatred.⁴Council of Europe member states are thereforer equired to counteract phenomena such as antisemitism with legal measures.However,when thosevalues and principles are ostensiblydisrespectedand not applied, this maybeseenasabreach of multiple fundamental rules all democratic states based on the rule of lawm ustobserve, and also as amockery of lawwhich, while dulypromulgated and in force, R.