League of Nations Makes Enquiries About Feasibility of International Convention Against Antisemitism

The Secretary-General of the League of Nations has written to the Rector of Rome University, Professor de Francisci, asking him for his opinion of the project put forward by Professor Tedesci for creating an international convention against antisemitism under the auspices of the League of Nations.

Professor de Francisci is General Secretary of the International Institute of Civil End, which has been founded by the League of Nations and has its seat in Rome.

Professor Tedesci is now engaged in drawing up a detailed scheme for his proposed convention to fight antisemitism on an international scale, which he will submit to the League of Nations and to the interested Jewish bodies in various counties.

Professor Tedesci, who outlined his scheme in the J.T.A. Bulletin of February 3rd., told the J.T.A. representative in Rom that he has received a large number of communications from important individuals Jews and Jewish bodies expressing approval of his plan.

My proposal to obtain an International Convention which will bind all States to take measures by law to combat the antisemitism which is endangering the peace of the State, does not conflict in any way, he said, with the aims or tactics of any section in Jewry.

There is naturally no intention to restrict liberty of speech, he said. Every antisemite will retain the right to express his views about the Jews in books and articles. The intention is to make it possible to punish antisemitic actions. People making statements which are in the codex classed as insulting to the honour and the religion of the Jews would be liable to a penalty. Incitement of one section of the population against another, desecration of cemeteries, or the insult

ing of a religion, would be more severely punished than ordinary political offences, because they constitute a menace to public order. The Governments must have the same interest in suppressing such incitement in the interests of the security of the State as in putting down the trade in opium of cocaine, or white slave trafficking.

An international convention binding Governments to take legal action against violent antisemitism under the control of the League of Nations would not be altogether the same thing as the Treaties for protecting minorities under the control of the League of Nations, Professor Tedesci went on. The protection of minorities applies only in certain countries, and aims at guaranteeing to the minorities the protection of their rights. The international convention against antisemitism, however, would have to be effective in all countries. All Governments would have to bind themselves to include this international convention in their legislation:

There are several such international conventions, he explained, already in existence, for putting down the trafficking in girls and women, opium-trafficking, etc.

The London “Jewish Chronicle” dealt with Professor Tedesci’s plan editorially at the time it was first mooted. His proposition is attractive, it wrote, and as it has received a certain measure of publicity we feel in duty bound to express an opinion on it. He does not gloss over the difficulties, and he admits that the realisation of his idea depends upon the ardour with which it is taken up. We fear, however, that he is beating the air. Even if such a convention could be brought into force, it would have little effect. You may lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. Prohibition in the United States well illustrates that the enactment of a law is not sufficient to secure its fulfilment. If judges and juries and public opinion regard an offence as venial, the penalties of transgression may be ignored. Antisemitism will disappear not because of penal laws but because of a change in the social religious and economic atmosphere in which the virus is fostered.

And furthermore, we make bold to prophesy that in present circumstances Professor Tedesci’s Convention could not secure ratification in those countries where we should most desir to see it applied. It would be ratified only by those countries in which antisemitism does not exist. What prospect has it, then, of being brought into force in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe? It is not generally realised that of the seventy conventions (apart from Labour conventions) so far adopted under the auspices of the League of Nations, no less then thirty-nine have not yet received sufficient ratifications to bring them into force. No, we feel that the solution of the problem has not yet been found.