Published
Mon, Jan 22, 2024, 19:45
- The clause required recipients of public funding to comply with the IHRA definition of antisemitism, among other issues.
The Berlin Senate has blocked its controversial new anti-discrimination clause with immediate effect.
Earlier today, January 22nd, the senate published a statement announcing the decision. "Due to legal concerns that the anti-discrimination clause isn't legally secure in this form, it will no longer be used in grant notifications," the statement read.
The anti-discrimination clause—which was introduced on December 21st and required recipients of public funding to comply with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, among other issues—led to artists such as Kampire, Jyoty and Nikki Nair withdrawing from Berlin festival CTM, which is partially state-funded.
These acts did so in solidarity with the Strike Germany movement, which since launching earlier this month has been signed by more than 1,350 cultural workers. It calls for a boycott of German cultural institutions, whether state-run or independent, that have been complicit in the culture of repression of Palestine solidarity.
Many clubs and festivals in Germany receive government support. In 2020, the Berlin Senate gave out €600 million for cultural projects, spread across disciplines such art, theatre, literature and electronic music. The funding is distributed through a number of bodies, including Musicboard Berlin, which has supported organisations, festivals and venues such as Clubcommission Berlin, 3hd Festival and arkaoda. Countless more artists have received grants, including Efdemin, Laurel Halo and Nene H.
Writing via X, Strike Germany described the Berlin Senate's decision to drop the clause as a "temporary victory" and called for "a nationwide rejection" of IHRA. "The call to Strike Germany remains unchanged," the post continued.
Detractors of the controversial clause saw it as a way of stifling criticism of Israel's ongoing atrocities in Gaza, and pointed to its adoption of the IHRA's definition of antisemitism as the primary issue. The definition was first published in 2005 as a guideline to define and identify contemporary manifestations of antisemitism. Many states and institutions have since adopted it, including the EU.
But it's long been the subject of intense debate. According to the definition, examples of antisemitism include calling for the harming of Jews, Holocaust denial or believing that Jews control the media. More contested, though, is the definition's focus on Israel. Examples of Israel-related antisemitism include claiming that Israel's existence is a racist endeavour or holding Israel to standards not applied to other democratic nations.
More problematic still, according to critics, is that Germany adopted the IHRA definition in 2016 with an additional qualifying statement: "The State of Israel, which is understood as a Jewish collective, can also be the target of such attacks."
"With this implementation, IHRA is clearly a tool meant to silence critics of Israel and not a meaningful engagement by the government with Germany's long history of antisemitism," members of Strike Germany told Resident Advisor.
In addition, some critics of the IHRA definition—including someone who helped write the original draft—say it's been weaponised by right-wing forces. Dr. Mathias Berek, a researcher at The Center for Research on Antisemitism at the Technical University of Berlin, believes discussing the definition is a distraction.
"The definition is based on the work of scholars, but we shouldn't forget that it was also the result of diplomatic and political agreements," he told RA. "It's not meant as an academic definition, and it's not meant for legal use."
According to Dr. Berek, the real issue lies in the misuse of the definition rather than any inherent flaws. Instead of blaming the definition, he suggests a more focused critique on the specific instances of its misuse.
"We don't lack definitions [of antisemitism]," he added. "We lack a sincere and effective fight against antisemitism. The discussion about the definition in my eyes is like a placeholder for that fight, among both its advocates and adversaries."
We'll report more on this story as it unfolds.
Additional reporting by Michael Lawson.
Photo: Leon Seibert
Update, February 1st: This piece was updated with our video explainer on the situation unfolding in Berlin.