Last year, the United Nations released a “Global Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech,” which includes anti-Semitism among the various forms of prejudice it is designed to combat. Such a move is most welcome from an institution that has often been a forum for the promotion of vicious hatred of Jews and the Jewish state. But, argue Emilie Kao and Joel Griffith, its approach is thoroughly wrongheaded:

The “Strategy” encourages states to censor “hate speech,” according to vague and subjective standards. This jeopardizes every person’s freedom to speak and live according to his conscience, including Jews. In reality, the safest space for religious and racial minorities is a free society.

Authoritarians abuse speech restrictions to enforce orthodoxy and maintain control. For example, Pakistan quickly embraced the “Strategy” as a means of combatting “Islamophobia.” But Pakistan’s record as a leader of a previous UN campaign to stop “defamation of religions” does not impress. . . . Recently, the Pakistani press has taken to blaming Jews for the coronavirus, calling it a plot to shut down mosques. What is needed in societies like Pakistan is more counter-speech by and on behalf of Jews, Christians, and all those who hold minority viewpoints.

[Moreover], it’s worth noting that Europe’s Holocaust-denial laws fail to address the roots of hatred, and have not prevented the growth of anti-Semitic parties in Austria, France, and Germany. They may even be counterproductive. Criminal prosecutions give anti-Semites added notoriety and a persecution narrative to exploit.

The UN, Kao and Griffith conclude, would do better to focus on cleaning its own house of anti-Semitism.

Established in 2012 and maintaining branches in Europe, North America, and Iran, the Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Network claims its goal is merely to show “solidarity” for imprisoned Palestinians. The organization’s leader, however, has admitted to being a representative of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a notorious terrorist group whose most recent accomplishments include murdering a seventeen-year-old girl. As Arsen Ostrovsky and Patricia Teitelbaum point out, Samidoun is just one example of how the European Union allows Iran-backed terrorists to operate in its midst:

The PFLP is a proxy of the Iranian regime, which provides the terror group with money, training, and weapons. Samidoun . . . has a branch in Tehran. It has even held events there, under the pretext of “cultural activity,” to elicit support for operations in Europe. Its leader, Khaled Barakat, is a regular on Iran’s state [channel] PressTV, calling for violence and lauding Iran’s involvement in the region. It is utterly incomprehensible, therefore, that the EU has not yet designated Samidoun a terror group.

According to the Council of the European Union, groups and/or individuals can be added to the EU terror list on the basis of “proposals submitted by member states based on a decision by a competent authority of a member state or a third country.” In this regard, there is already a standing designation by Israel of Samidoun as a terror group and a decision of a German court finding Barakat to be a senior PFLP operative.

Given the irrefutable axis-of-terror between Samidoun, PFLP, and the Iranian regime, the EU has a duty to put Samidoun and senior Samidoun leaders on the EU terror list. It should do this not as some favor to Israel, but because otherwise it continues to turn a blind eye to a group that presents a clear and present security threat to the European Union and EU citizens.