44 No. 67 JUSTICE peaking at a conference on counteracting antisemitism in 2010, held atYale University, Professor Ruth Wisse asked, “What are we going to do with antisemitism?”More than a decade later, we are asking ourselves this same question, including today, at the 7th Global Forum for Combating Antisemitism. As we search for the best answer to Wisse’s question, we also reach for the tools of law. The legal tools available to tackle antisemitism include various national and international legal regulations, such as anti-hate speech and anti-hate crime provisions; antidiscrimination law; Holocaust denial and distortion bans; and minorities’ protection provisions, as well as the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. Moreover, the existing case law of national and international courts should be invoked and applied. In addition to this list, various NGOs undertake legal and litigation action, and there are also diplomatic efforts that deal with this issue. Academics continue to conduct research on this topic. Still, law cannot be considered a fully effective means of combating antisemitism, as evidenced by the high statistics of antisemitic hate crimes in countries that have accepted all the above-mentioned legal instruments. Perhaps then, we first need to clarify our expectations of law as a tool to counteract antisemitism. Do we see it more as a method of punishment for antisemitism or a method of preventing its public dissemination, or are we rather treating law more as an educational mechanism to shape social attitudes? The way we define these expectations determines the method of drafting relevant legal regulations and the mode of their implementation. There are, of course, additional issues to be addressed. For example, how do we introduce to the public the existing legal framework used against antisemitism? Legal education seems to be key in this respect, as the so-called human factor determines the chances for proper implementation of law. And because most often it is exactly this factor that fails in most instances, the law is openly disregarded, and even ridiculed as a tool to counter antisemitism. The reasons and motivations for such negative or ignorant attitudes toward law vary. It may be simply the public’s lack of knowledge of such regulations, or the regulations’ level of specificity. The disregard for relevant legal provisions might be also based on ideological or political motives, or simple negligence. An example of the law being ridiculed is its de facto non-application in an ongoing case taking place in Poland – a case that arouses very strong controversy. For the last six years, the Public Prosecutor has not been able to – or does not want to – determine whether the person hiding under the internet nickname jorry123 is Judge Jarosław Dudzicz – one of the most prominent members of the so-called “good change,” i.e. an unprecedented policy of destroying the rule of law and independence of the courts and judges in Poland, imposed by the current Polish authorities.1 Antisemitic internet entries that are under investigation include calling Jews “a vile, lousy nation,” and claims that the Kielce Pogrom of 1946 was just a communist secret service“provocation.”As reported by the press, when questioned on the radio whether he had authored these entries, Judge Dudzicz, who, interestingly, has the status of a witness in the case, did not even care to deny it but only asserted that he“could not remember.”2 Law cannot be an effective tool against antisemitism without the understanding by lawmakers and law enforcement agencies of the essence and seriousness of this phenomenon. Even when such understanding is Limits of the Power of Law S AleksandraGliszczyńska-Grabias 1. For the description of this process, see Laurent Pech, Patryk Wachowiec and Darius Mazur“1825 Days Later: The End of the Rule of Law in Poland (Part I),”VERFBLOG (Jan. 13, 2021), available at https://verfassungsblog.de/1825-dayslater-the-end-of-the-rule-of-law-in-poland-part-i/ 2. Wojciech Czuchnowski and Antoni Kowalski,“Jarosław Dudzicz, judge of 'good change,' about Jews: ‘Vile, lousy nation',”GAZETA WYBORCZA (Sept. 12, 2019), available at https://wyborcza.pl/7,75398,25182479,jaroslaw-dudziczsedzia-dobrej-zmiany-o-zydach-podly-parszywy.html
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=