Ron Tusler, a Republican Wisconsin state representative who is not Jewish, opted to become one of the lead authors of a bill that aims to codify the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of Jew-hatred in state law, after hearing from his former University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee professor.
The latter, who is Jewish, told Tusler why recognizing the IHRA definition in state law was so important for him at a time when the university “was getting more and more antisemitic every year—the professors, the pro-Palestinian people, the protests,” the state representative said.
“He was fed up with it,” he told JNS. (When JNS sought comment from the professor, he referred JNS to an op-ed he penned recently.)
Tusler learned more about the subject and met with others who support the bill.
“Because we don’t have a definition of antisemitism, people can just claim they’re not being antisemitic and we don’t really know, because we don’t know what that word means,” he told JNS. “By defining that word, it makes it really clear what is and what isn’t.”
The state representative told JNS that the bill wouldn’t criminalize Jew-hatred. “It doesn’t make it against the law to say something antisemitic,” he said. “You can say it. We can determine if we think it’s antisemitic, because now we have a definition.”
If the bill passes, the IHRA definition could be used in court, according to the state representative.
“There will be a Wisconsin jury instruction that’s drafted regarding antisemitism,” he said. “If the jury finds it’s antisemitic, and decides it doesn’t want to do anything about it and note it as antisemitic, at least it will be recognizable as antisemitic clearly, and that’ll help for tabulating increases and decreases in antisemitism in the country.”
A jury would likely award higher damages to a victim of antisemitism under the definition if codified into law, whereas current state law would only consider an anti-Israel attack on Jewish students to be battery, according to Tusler.
The antisemitic aspect “isn’t at all really being addressed by our court system, unless it was so severe that it went to a hate crime, which is hard to prosecute and rare,” he said. Juries could award higher damages under the IHRA definition, even if the incident doesn’t meet the hate crime threshold, he said.
‘On an upward trend’
Lisa Subeck, a Democratic member of the Wisconsin State Assembly and a co-sponsor of the bill, told JNS that the IHRA definition would be used to determine “when there are enhanced criminal penalties or hate crime enhancers,” but it “wouldn’t be the only thing taken into consideration.”
“There’s a lot of questions about what is and when is it antisemitism, when it isn’t,” the Jewish state representative said. “I think this is the kind of guidance that those who enforce our laws really need.”
The Milwaukee Jewish Federation, one of the advocates for the bill, has been tracking antisemitic incidents for years, and even before Oct. 7, “it seems that we’ve been on an upward trend, but that upward trend really magnified over the past couple of years,” Subeck told JNS.
“It really became pretty clear and evident that there would be real value in having a clear definition of antisemitism,” she said.
Subeck told JNS that opponents of the bill have “really framed this as a speech issue,” though a provision in the legislation makes clear that the law wouldn’t interfere with the constitutional free speech protections.
“There’s nothing in this law that makes even hate speech actually illegal,” she said. “This all really ties to determining what is antisemitism, as it relates specifically to the application of existing laws.”
Two state lawmakers who had been co-sponsors of the bill, state senator Melissa Ratcliff and state representative Christine Sinicki, withdrew their support for it. Both are Democrats. (JNS sought comment from both.)
“That never is a good sign,” Tusler told JNS of the withdrawals.
The representative isn’t sure why the two colleagues decided to axe their sponsorship of the bill. He told JNS that an anti-Israel, socialist state representative appeared to try to talk Democrats out of supporting the bill. It still has Democratic support, he said.
Sinicki told JNS that the socialist legislator is “probably the last person I’d listen to on this or many other issues.”
“I took my name off after duly considering the pros and cons of the policy,” she said.
Tusler is 80% sure that the bill will pass the legislature and that Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, will sign it. Subeck also expects it to pass.
“Unfortunately, this proposal has become mired in politics in a way that it shouldn’t need to, and the reality is that at the end of the day, we all need to push back against antisemitism,” she said. “When people commit hate crimes, they should be held accountable for that.”
“There’s no reason this should be so political, and it’s unfortunate that a small group of very vocal individuals has turned it into something that it shouldn’t be,” Subeck said.
“At the end of the day, we should be able to come together and pass this and recognize that this is one tool that the state would have to fight antisemitism,” she said.
