Ex-governor hits out at Palestine rally 'hate speech'
Former Victorian governor Linda Dessau, who served in the role from 2015 to 2023 and describes herself as a Jewish Australian, said anti-Semitism had erupted in the community.
"Right throughout from our political leaders throughout the community, I don't think there's been a strong enough response," she told Nine's Neil Mitchell Asks Why podcast, released on Tuesday.
Police are investigating a string of attacks in Melbourne against Jewish places of worship and businesses with ties to Israel, including fires at two synagogues.
Recently some protesters at a pro-Palestine rally in Melbourne chanted "Death to the IDF (Israeli Defence Force)" which Ms Dessau described as hate speech.
It came the same weekend as one of the synagogue fires and violence erupted outside an Israeli-owned restaurant in the city.
"We call it the what it is, totally unacceptable, and we call out the hate speech, and we prosecute people," she said.
"We make it clear that we won't accept it, that's very different from saying we don't agree with what Israel's doing in Gaza or elsewhere."
The former barrister and magistrate said the Australian community took a stand against Islamophobia in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks in the United States and a 2019 mosque massacre in Christchurch, New Zealand.
"Jewish Australians, as well as Australians from all different backgrounds, were very quick to ensure that Muslims didn't feel that they were being treated differently because of what had happened on September 11," Ms Dessau told the broadcaster.
She said a similar act of solidarity happened after the NZ shooting when people stood "shoulder to shoulder" outside the State Library in central Melbourne.
"The (Jewish) community feels let down for the very reasons that you've just pointed out so eloquently," she told the broadcaster.
"That in other instances, these things have been stopped right at the source and they should have been here, too."
Political leaders including Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan have condemned the synagogue fires and attacks on businesses with links to Israel.
Two men have separately been charged over those fires.
A state anti-hate taskforce has been established and anti-vilification laws are due to come into force in September.
The Victorian government is also drafting laws to ban protests outside places of worship and demonstrators wearing face coverings.
Jillian Segal, Australia's special envoy to combat anti-Semitism, has recommended a review of laws around anti-Semitic and hateful conduct, including violent or intimidating protests.
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.
