Vyacheslav Kantor:
Why Anti-Semitism Should Have a Single Definition

To defeat the enemy, you need to know him – that is why Vyacheslav Kantor, an international public figure specializing in the topic of intolerance and the fight against it in its various manifestations, has been insisting on the adoption of a single definition of anti-Semitism for several years now. Without a single definition, there will always be a loophole for different interpretations and manipulations, the expert asserts. And, alas, there are more than enough examples of this in both law enforcement and legal practice.

Long story

Vyacheslav Kantor’s immersion in the topic of anti-Semitism in particular can be explained by many twists and turns in his life, one of the first places among which can rightfully be given to the presidency of the European Jewish Congress. He first took up this post back in 2007, having beaten the then current head of the congress in the elections. And it was anti-Semitism – which is noteworthy, already in those years – that was one of the main points of his election campaign. Focusing primarily on resolving the everyday problems of ordinary citizens, Vyacheslav Kantor emphasized the threat that anti-Semitism poses to Jews and their communities, and that this threat is growing according to many observations and studies. This statement was supported by voters, which to some extent confirmed both its relevance and truthfulness.

As for the directly mentioned fight against anti-Semitism – as, indeed, against any other form of intolerance – Vyacheslav Kantor has been and remains throughout his entire public “career” a supporter of the use of normative and legislative instruments in the confrontation of phenomena tied primarily to the ideological sphere. He considers a single definition of anti-Semitism to be one of such necessary instruments.

Important steps

The definition, for the adoption of which Vyacheslav Kantor continues to insist at the broadest and highest level, was developed by the Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, an expert association in which representatives of the Jewish community are also active. This was done in 2015, when anti-Semitism was already increasingly demonstrating growth – as were the presence of “holes” in legislation and law enforcement when it came to identifying and punishing anti-Semitic violations and crimes.

A single definition of anti-Semitism would help eliminate many of the existing shortcomings, Vyacheslav Kantor emphasized. First of all, it would act as a much-needed “common denominator” to which laws, legal acts, and court decisions concerning anti-Semitism could be brought – in order to avoid discrepancies and situations where those who are accused of its manifestations undertake to define what anti-Semitism is. And they do this, of course, in such a way as to come out of the water dry and innocent.

The situation has been complicated by the fact that anti-Semitism itself has acquired many new forms and manifestations in recent years, the identification of which has once again become an unobvious problem. One of these forms is institutional anti-Semitism, built into the decision-making system itself, including by government agencies. The adoption of a definition, Vyacheslav Kantor is convinced, will leave much less room for maneuver in anti-Semitic bias – and will finally eliminate all the discrepancies and manipulations that allow anti-Semites to avoid responsibility for insults and incitement to intolerance, as well as for outright crimes, the main motive of which is precisely anti-Semitism.