This non-binding resolution from the Oklahoma House of Representatives condemns boycotts for Palestinian rights, specifically focusing on student activism and academic boycotts. The resolution falsely links boycotts for justice with a rise in antisemitism. A nearly identical resolution, HR 1037, introduced two days later with additional coauthors, was adopted.
This anti-boycott bill prohibits state contracts with and state investment in entities, including sole proprietorships and non-profits, that boycott Israel or territories occupied by Israel. The bill requires contractors to sign a written certification that they do not and will not engage in boycotts of Israel. It excludes contracts worth less than $1,000 or contractors who bid at least 20% less than other bidders. The bill calls for the creation of a blacklist of companies that boycott Israel and prohibits Oklahoma public retirement systems from investing in these companies. It also prohibits Oklahoma public entities from boycotting Israel, a provision aimed at discouraging divestment campaigns at public universities.
This anti-boycott law prohibits state contracts with and state investments in entities, including sole proprietorships, that boycott Israel or territories occupied by Israel. The law creates a blacklist of restricted companies and prohibits the state from investing in or entering into contracts worth over $1,000 with companies on the blacklist. Entities can be removed from the blacklist if they provide a written certification that they will not reengage in a boycott of Israel for the duration of any business with the state. Although this bill was defeated, the companion bill HB 161 was passed.
This joint resolution condemns the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement and academic boycotts in particular. The amended version deleted language that explicitly blamed boycotts for justice for increased antisemitism, focusing instead on how the human rights movement threatens Israel’s legitimacy. The companion resolution, SJR 81, passed both houses.
This antisemitism redefinition bill adopts a definition of antisemitism for use in enforcing existing anti-discrimination laws and regulations. Though the bill does not focus on criticism of Israel, the bill declares that the IHRA definition—a distorted definition of antisemitism that could encompass virtually all criticism of Israel—includes examples of “anti-Israel acts” that cross the line into antisemitism. This statement bolsters ongoing efforts to use the IHRA definition to suppress protected speech. The bill was introduced alongside companion bill A5939.
This antisemitism redefinition bill amends the state’s anti-discrimination law applying to public schools and universities. The bill adopts a distorted definition of antisemitism that could encompass virtually all criticism of Israel, circumscribing protected political speech activities. After civil rights groups raised constitutional concerns about this bill and companion bill A5755, legislators introduced A5939/S4169, which removed several Israel-related examples from the definition.
This anti-boycott bill requires state pension funds to withdraw investments from companies that boycott Israel, entities doing business with Israel, or entities in Israel or territories it occupies. The bill requires the state to create a blacklist of companies that boycott Israel. Though the bill failed, its companion bill S1923 was enacted in 2016.
This anti-boycott bill prohibits state investment in companies that boycott goods, products or businesses of Israel. The bill requires the state to create a blacklist of all investments that violate this prohibition. The bill makes an exception for companies providing humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people. Related bill: S3044.
This antisemitism redefinition bill adopts a definition of antisemitism for use in enforcing existing anti-discrimination laws and regulations. Though the bill does not focus on criticism of Israel, the bill declares that the IHRA definition—a distorted definition of antisemitism that could encompass virtually all criticism of Israel—includes examples of “anti-Israel acts” that cross the line into antisemitism. This statement bolsters ongoing efforts to use the IHRA definition to suppress protected speech. The bill was introduced alongside companion bill S4169.
This antisemitism redefinition bill amends the state’s anti-discrimination law applying to public schools and universities. The bill adopts a distorted definition of antisemitism that could encompass virtually all criticism of Israel, circumscribing protected political speech activities. After civil rights groups raised constitutional concerns about this bill and companion bill S4001, legislators introduced A5939/S4169, which removed several Israel-related examples from the definition.
