Protesters urge Israel sanctions ahead of MPs return
The rally on Sunday was held on the first of three days of planned protest action in Canberra, culminating with the first sitting day of the new parliamentary term on Tuesday.
Sunday's rally saw hundreds of demonstrators gather on the lawns of Parliament House, before heading towards the embassy.
Thousands of paper kites were placed on the lawns, some bearing the names of children who have been killed in the Middle East conflict.
Protesters called for the government to impose Israeli sanctions for attacks on Gaza.
Criticism was also levelled against a report to the federal government handed down by anti-Semitism special envoy Jillian Segal.
The report urged the government to withhold funds from universities and cultural institutions who fail to act against anti-Semitism, or if they facilitate it.
One speaker at the rally, Janet Parker from Jews for Palestine WA, said the proposal from the special envoy in the report went too far.
"The result would be censorship and surveillance of public institutions and the repression of expressions of solidarity," she told the rally.
Ms Segal's report said intervention was needed to address rising levels of anti-Semitism in the community.
"The plan supports the safety, visibility and contribution of Australia's Jewish communities, so that no Australian feels the need to hide who they are," she said after the report's release.
The federal government is waiting for a report from the special envoy to combat Islamophobia, Aftab Malik, to consider the recommendations alongside Ms Segal's report.
Sunday's rally in Canberra came a day after activists vandalised the Australian-American memorial in Canberra.
The base of the almost 80-metre column was sprayed with red paint on Saturday, with activists saying it was a "toxic" reminder of the role of the nations' alliance in the Israel-Gaza conflict.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Defining antisemitism is no threat to free speech. Without a definition, we are adrift
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's working definition of antisemitism was adopted in 2016 as an educational and data-collection tool. It is deliberately non-legally binding and begins with a clear, universal sentence: 'Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.' 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.
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Trump's ‘big new' visa fee could slug thousands of Australian travellers
Thousands of Australian business travellers, students and workers heading to the United States are set to be charged a $US250 ($383) visa application fee as part of changes introduced under President Donald Trump's 'big beautiful bill'. Most Australians visiting the US as tourists enter the country under the Electronic System for Travel Authorisation, known as the ESTA waiver program, and will have to pay a small increase for the cost of the waiver – from $US21 ($32) to $US40 ($60). The US Department of Homeland Security has the authority to begin the new 'visa integrity fee' from October 1. It can be applied to anyone who is not eligible for the ESTA visa waiver, including the Visa H-1B (specialty occupations), Visa F-1 (academic student), Visa B-1/B-2 (business visitor/tourist visitor), and Visa J-1 (exchange visitor). People will need to pay the charge once their visa application is approved – in addition to the cost of the visa. The fee will also apply to intra-company transferees (Visa L-1) or the visa category for extraordinary ability or achievement in arts, athletics and sciences (Visa O-1). Not everyone can qualify for the ESTA waiver. Among exclusions are people with criminal records or certain dual-nationalities. Travellers in line to be slugged by the 'visa integrity fee' could be eligible to recoup the full cost after legally exiting the country.
The Age
an hour ago
- The Age
Defining antisemitism is no threat to free speech. Without a definition, we are adrift
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's working definition of antisemitism was adopted in 2016 as an educational and data-collection tool. It is deliberately non-legally binding and begins with a clear, universal sentence: 'Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.' 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.
