Proposed antisemitism laws in France, Italy stir free speech debate

In France and Italy, a crucial debate is unfolding over how best to combat the alarming rise in antisemitism. Both nations are considering new legislation, with France set to debate a law that would sanction speech implicitly justifying terrorism or comparing Israel to Nazis, and Italy moving to legally adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. Proponents, like French MP Caroline Yadan, argue these measures are necessary to address "new forms of antisemitism" and the societal tendency to equate Jewish people with the state of Israel, especially in the wake of the October 7th attacks.

“

The (IHRA) definition confuses what is permitted speech - and that is criticism of Israel as a state - with what is prohibited speech, which is antisemitism and racial and religious incitement to violence.

However, these proposed laws have ignited fierce opposition from civil liberties advocates, academics, and left-wing politicians. They contend that the legislation, particularly Italy's embrace of the IHRA definition, risks overreach. Critics like UN special rapporteur Irene Khan warn that the IHRA definition blurs the line between legitimate criticism of Israel and prohibited antisemitism, potentially censoring pro-Palestine activism. The French law's vague language and the sheer volume of public opposition, evidenced by a petition with over 700,000 signatures, highlight the deep divisions.

“

The French law, which references the IHRA definition without fully adopting it, contained vague language, she added.

The statistics underscore the urgency: Italy saw a 100% rise in antisemitic incidents in 2025, and France, while experiencing a slight decrease last year, still recorded 1,320 incidents. The French human rights commission has cautioned against conflating hatred of Jews with hatred of Israel, a concern that resonates deeply within our societies. This debate is not merely about legal definitions; it's about safeguarding free speech while genuinely protecting minority communities from hate. The challenge lies in finding a balance that upholds both principles, a task that requires careful consideration and broad public discourse.

“

The (IHRA) definition confuses what is permitted speech - and that is criticism of Israel as a state - with what is prohibited speech, which is antisemitism and racial and religious incitement to violence.