UN expert Albanese, protesters warn against Italy’s anti-Semitism bill

Hundreds of demonstrators gathered outside Italy’s lower house in Rome to protest a proposed law that would enshrine the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti‑Semitism in national legislation. Organisers timed the rally to coincide with a meeting of the Chamber of Deputies’ Constitutional Affairs Committee, which is reviewing text already passed by the Senate on March 4. Under Italy’s legislative process, the two chambers must approve identical text before it can become law.

Opponents argue the IHRA formulation risks treating criticism of the State of Israel as antisemitic and would chill debate in universities, media and cultural organisations. Amnesty International told lawmakers the draft would reach into schools, social platforms and associations; activist groups including Tikkun have urged that opposition to Zionism should not be conflated with hostility to Jews. Many protesters said existing criminal laws are sufficient to tackle hate crimes and instead backed the non‑binding Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism as an alternative framework.

The proposal has drawn warnings from UN special rapporteur Francesca Albanese, who told reporters the measure could make it harder to investigate and criticise Israeli policies and might privilege protecting Israel from scrutiny over other legal and human‑rights concerns. Other campaigners at the rally expressed fear that the law would be used to target newsrooms, online platforms and civil society actors who denounce Israel’s conduct in Gaza.

Support for legislative action against antisemitism has come from parts of Italy’s Jewish institutional leadership. Noemi Di Segni, president of the Union of Italian Jewish Communities, has described intervention as urgent and has rejected characterisations of Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide, saying in January 2025 that terms such as “genocide,” “Nazi” or “apartheid” should not be applied to Israel. The bill has produced cross‑party divisions: it passed the Senate with broad backing that included some opposition senators, while voting patterns in the Chamber have split parties and individual lawmakers.

The Constitutional Affairs Committee adjourned without advancing the text and has not set a firm timetable, even as the Chamber of Deputies has a final plenary vote pencilled in for October 2. Activists on both sides say they will continue mobilising to influence the committee stage and the final parliamentary decision.