Tell the American Bar Association (@ABAesq): Controversial IHRA definition that targets advocacy for Palestinian rights should have no part in resolution on antisemitism! #RejectIHRA 
40+ Civil and Human Rights Groups including @ACLU, @FMEP, @theCCR, @NLGnews, @adc, and @CAIRNational are calling on @ABAesq to remove reference to the controversial IHRA definition in a proposed resolution on antisemitism: aclu.org/letter/letter-…
Palestine Legal and @theCCR also wrote to @ABAesq about how IHRA is routinely used to censor Palestine advocacy—inc. efforts to shut down educational events, university classes, film screenings, divestment resolutions, and similar expressive activity: static1.squarespace.com/static/548748b…
The IHRA definition has been used not to fight antisemitism, but rather to silence criticism of Israel and advocacy in support of Palestinian rights, infringing on fundamental rights of free speech, freedom of assembly and protest, and academic freedom.
.@ABAesq’s endorsement of IHRA would legitimize and encourage its use as a censorship tool against Palestine advocacy and undermine @ABAesq’s ability to engage on issues relating to Palestinian rights, including supporting human rights defenders who are increasingly under attack.
We encourage our colleagues at the @ABAesq to reject the distorted and widely challenged IHRA definition, as a clear censorship tool. Read more here: palestinelegal.org/news/2023/1/23…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
