Defining antisemitism is no threat to free speech. Without a definition, we are adrift
Thirty-plus democratic governments, the European Parliament, the UN secretary-general, and tech giants such as Meta, have endorsed or incorporated the definition. Australia's special envoy to combat antisemitism, Jillian Segal, grounded her national plan released this month in the same wording, citing a 316 per cent surge in antisemitic incidents.
All 39 Australian universities have endorsed or adopted a similar version to the IHRA definition. The universities do not include some of the IHRA's specific examples of antisemitism but do refer directly to criticism of Zionism as potentially being antisemitic, unlike the IHRA definition, which does not mention Zionism.
The definition has become the world standard because it provides 11 practical illustrations that police, teachers and human rights watchdogs can map onto real-world cases – swastikas on playgrounds, synagogue bomb threats, or, yes, demonisation of Israel when it slips into Nazi analogies.
Since Segal released her plan, there have been several recurring objections:
'It chills free speech.' Amnesty International warns the plan 'threatens people's rights to freedom of expression and assembly'.
'It stifles criticism of the Israeli government.' Labor MP Ed Husic has said the 'definition instantly brings into question whether or not people will be able to raise their concerns of the actions, for example, of what the Netanyahu government is doing in Gaza.'
'It will be weaponised to defund universities and media.' Headlines warn of an 'inappropriate definition' used to strip funding from institutions.
'Weaponising antisemitism insists on the exceptionalism of the Jewish community'. Some argue that the 'Jewish establishment' is insidious in using antisemitism for nefarious ends.
At first blush, these arguments sound like principled liberal concerns. Probe a little and they dissolve into a curious double standard that leaves every minority except Jews entitled to define the hatred they face.
Why the 'free speech' objection misfires is because the IHRA definition is diagnostic, not punitive. The document itself states it is 'non-legally binding.' No one is jailed for foot-faulting it.
While the special envoy has called for punitive action if patterned institutional antisemitism is not dealt with, the IHRA definition itself does not demand sanction. It is a working guide to what anti-Jewish racism looks like.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Sky News AU
6 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
‘Scam': Net zero benefits billionaires and multinational companies
Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce discusses the Albanese government's push toward net zero. Mr Joyce told Sky News Australia that net zero is a 'scam' for the benefit of billionaires and multinational companies. 'Which are making billions of dollars out of the Australian taxpayer in the first instance,' he said.

Sky News AU
6 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
Government urged to ‘hurry up' with strengthening childcare safety laws
Shadow Education Minister Jonathon Duniam urged the government to commit to improving the childcare safety system to better protect Australian youth. 'We don't have a day to waste, and every measure needs to put in place to protect young people in childcare centres,' Mr Duniam told Sky News Australia. 'We owe it to them, we owe it to their families that we have let down collectively. 'We are calling on the government … to act with haste, to have ministers bring together the reforms needed, the laws that need to change the regulations that need to be introduced to improve our broken childcare system, to protect young.'


Perth Now
6 minutes ago
- Perth Now
Holdout territory to reintroduce spit hoods for kids
A plan to reinstate controversial spit hoods in youth detention centres has been defended in the crime-troubled territory. The proposal is part of a suite of measures overhauling youth justice, to be debated in the Northern Territory parliament within days. The Country Liberal Party government has vowed to table the legislation "on urgency" after a 15-year-old was stabbed and seriously injured in front of shocked onlookers at the Royal Darwin Show on Saturday. A 15-year-old has been charged, with police alleging the teen knew the victim. The NT Police Force confirmed in October that spit hoods had been made available to use on youths in police watch houses and cells, with strict protocols in place. The proposed youth justice law changes would extend the use of the hoods to youth detention centres, reversing a ban imposed eight years ago. Aboriginal Affairs Minister Steve Edgington defended anti-spit guards in youth centres, saying they were already being used in adult settings. "When young people come into custody that are spitting, biting their tongue and spitting blood at correctional officers, we want to ensure that our frontline staff are protected," he told reporters on Tuesday. "We're hoping that we will never need to use these." The CLP promised during last year's NT election to reintroduce spit hoods for youth detainees. In 2016, an ABC Four Corners report into the NT's Don Dale Youth Detention Centre prompted outrage over the use of spit hoods and led to then prime minister Malcolm Turnbull announcing a royal commission into juvenile justice in the territory. The NT government subsequently stopped the use of spit hoods and restraint chairs in youth detention centres in 2017, following the federal government's formal endorsement of a United Nations protocol against torture and inhumane punishments. In 2022, the use of spit hoods for youths in police custody was also banned by the then-NT Labor government. NT Children's Commissioner Shahleena Musk said the territory was the only Australian jurisdiction reverting to using spit hoods on children. "This is against international law and is incredibly risky," she told the ABC. "It has actually led to deaths in custody in other jurisdictions." Other proposed legislative changes by the NT government include considering a youth's full criminal history when sentencing for adult offences and removing detention as a last resort. Youth justice officers will have greater powers to use reasonable force to "maintain safety and prevent escapes". Powers for the territory's commissioner to manage emergencies will also be expanded. Opposition Leader Selena Uibo hit out at the youth crime overhaul, describing them as "rushed, knee-jerk laws". The NT government committed a record $1.5 billion towards law and order in its May budget.