The Ohio Senate passed a bill that would use an international group’s definition of antisemitism in state law, a move that garnered strong opinions both in support and against it in committee as recently as the morning of the chamber vote.
Ohio Senate Bill 297, passed with a 27 to 4 vote, would add to Ohio law the definition of anti-semitism adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, and used in an executive order by Gov. Mike DeWine in 2022 encouraging state agencies, including state higher education institutions to use the definition as a guide for agency investigations.
The IHRA identifies antisemitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
In addition to cementing the definition into Ohio law, the bill would broaden the criminal offense of “ethnic intimidation” to add “riot and aggravated riot committed by reason of the race, color, religion or national origin of another person or group of persons.”
Senators on both sides of the aisle expressed support for the bill. Bill sponsor Sen. Terry Johnson, R-McDermott, used part of his floor speech to talk about the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel
“The level of barbarity in that attack can only be described as medieval,” Johnson said.
He said the demonstrations after the Hamas attack were “heightened and magnified,” including those on Ohio’s college campuses.
He warned against a “new wave of hatred” that he said is only getting worse in the United States.
Johnson said the antisemitism definition will not be used for criminal investigations, and will not be impact the freedom of speech, the freedom of public assembly and demonstration related to Israel or anything else.
“I want to emphasize now that the state of Israel is not above criticism,” Johnson said.
State Sen. Kent Smith, D-Euclid, joined Johnson in support of the bill, saying “all of us must stand united against antisemitism and against hate in all its forms.”
But fellow Sen. Paula Hicks Hudson, D-Toledo, was one of four senators to vote against the bill. Her opposition comes from “heated” conversations she’s had with constituents in her area.
She said S.B. 297 carves out a “super-protected class,” and doesn’t help solve the problem of antisemitism and hate speech.
“When we look at the language of this bill, and we look at how it comes down to what the law should and should not do, what we are doing is criminalizing free speech,” Hicks Hudson said. “We are not coming up with an answer by doing this.”
Opponents testify
Standing in contrast to last week’s testimony from supporters of the bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee, opponents urged against passage of the bill on Wednesday morning, calling it an “un-American” bill that “conflates legitimate criticism of Israeli government policies with hatred.”
“The bill before us silences dissent, places the government in the role of silencing political opposition and restricts the very freedoms that are the foundation of our democracy,” said Faten Odeh, executive director for the Ohio chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
Several of the opponents who spoke came from families with Palestinian ancestors or were from Palestine themselves.
While some Jewish groups spoke in support of the bill last week, some Jewish groups also came out against the bill for its “chilling” effect on free expression, particularly on criticism of Israel amid and outside of the strife of the Israel-Gaza conflict.
Aly Stein testified in defense of her grandparents, who hailed from Belarus, but were forced out of the country by Nazi occupation, and her grandfather moved to the states after refusing to settle in Israel, according to Stein.
“He would move to Columbus, he would find a place to fish and he would ensure that his family could finally be free and happy,” Stein told the committee.
But with this bill, Stein said she feared she won’t be able to tell her grandfather’s story, or fight against Ohio-level support of Israel.
“Will I show up to a public meeting and be arrested and charged with rioting simply for saying that I don’t think that my county should be investing in a country that has been accused of genocide by Amnesty International?”
For Dr. Shareen Naser, the daughter of Palestinian immigrants who were “forcibly displaced,” Senate Bill 297 “is the manifestation of my family’s nightmares, that they would flee for a better life in the U.S. only to be under the same boot that restricted their movement, their opportunities and their freedoms under Israeli occupation.”
The opponents also disagreed with the use of the IHRA definition and the “contemporary examples” included in the definition. Some of those examples were brought up specifically as reasons the bill should not be passed, considered by bill opponents of violations of the First Amendment.
“The use of the IHRA definitions in S.B. 297 exemplifies anti-Palestinian racism and deeply scars my community by sending a clear message of favoritism of the Israeli government over Palestinian lives,” Naser said.
Specific examples of antisemitism used in the IHRA definition with which opponents took issue included “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor,” and “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”
“By tying the IHRA definition to legal and administrative decisions, this bill risks confusing legitimate criticism of Israel’s policies or the political ideology of Zionism with antisemitism,” said Ann Ghazy. “Such conflation undermines valid discussions about human rights and self-determination and threatens to stifle debates necessary for a healthy democracy.”
Some opponents of the bill said the measure was overly broad and vague on what would be considered illegal.
“Who will interpret my words,” Patricia Marida asked the committee. “How far can I go in criticizing the state of Israel? How might I be pointed out, sanctioned, or even targeted by those who disagree with me?”
To conclude comments on the bill during Senate session on Wednesday, Johnson asserted that the bill would not impact free speech.
“There is nothing in this bill that prevents free speech and there is nothing in this bill that prevents freedom of assembly, and I’ll just leave it at that,” Johnson said.
The bill now heads to the Ohio House for committee consideration (including support and opponent testimony) and a chamber vote before it can be sent to the governor’s desk.
The current General Assembly is set to expire on December 31, so if the bill isn’t able to navigate the House before the end of the month, it will need to be reintroduced in the new year.
