Albanese government told to ‘step in' to fight antisemitism in Australia
'Education is the only way you can stop it,' Mr Boas said.
'But the governments got to step in.
'I'm getting fed up with this government.
'If they don't go about it differently, it's only going to get worse.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Herald Sun
5 days ago
- Herald Sun
US to leave UN cultural body, citing 'national interest'
Don't miss out on the headlines from Breaking News. Followed categories will be added to My News. The United States said Tuesday it would quit UNESCO, saying the UN cultural and education agency, best known for establishing world heritage sites, is biased against Israel and promotes "divisive" causes. "Continued involvement in UNESCO is not in the national interest of the United States," State Department spokeswoman Tammy Bruce said. UNESCO called the US departure -- which it said will take effect in December 2026 -- regrettable, but unsurprising, and said its financial impact would be limited. President Donald Trump had already ordered withdrawal from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation once before, in 2017 during his first term. President Joe Biden then reestablished US membership. "I deeply regret President Donald Trump's decision to once again withdraw the United States of America from UNESCO," Director-General Audrey Azoulay said, adding the move contradicted fundamental principles of multilateralism. "However regrettable, this announcement was expected, and UNESCO has prepared for it". In recent years, Azoulay said, UNESCO had "undertaken major structural reforms and diversified our funding sources", including with private and voluntary governmental contributions. The US share of UNESCO's total budget currently stands at eight percent, she said. This compares to an estimate of nearly 20 percent a decade ago, according to a UNESCO source who asked not to be named. No staff redundancies were planned, Azoulay said. Bruce described UNESCO as working "to advance divisive social and cultural causes" and being overly focused on UN sustainability goals, which she described as a "globalist, ideological agenda." - 'Same as seven years ago' - Bruce also highlighted what she said was the body's anti-Israeli position in admitting Palestine as a state. "UNESCO's decision to admit the 'State of Palestine' as a member state is highly problematic, contrary to US policy, and contributed to the proliferation of anti-Israel rhetoric within the organisation," Bruce said. The administration has also objected to UNESCO's recognition of heritage sites in the occupied West Bank and east Jerusalem as Palestinian. Azoulay said the reasons put forward by the US "are the same as seven years ago" although, she said, "the situation has changed profoundly, political tensions have receded, and UNESCO today constitutes a rare forum for consensus on concrete and action-oriented multilateralism". Washington's claims "contradict the reality of UNESCO's efforts", she added, "especially in the field of Holocaust education and the fight against antisemitism". The source at UNESCO described the US move as "purely political, without any real factual base". The organisation had already been "forced" to do without US money for several years after the 2017 departure, the source told AFP. UNESCO adapted but new sources of funding would still need to be found, the source said. - 'Always welcome' - Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar said he welcomed the US decision. "This is a necessary step, designed to promote justice and Israel's right for fair treatment in the UN system," he said on X. French President Emmanuel Macron meanwhile said, also on X, that UNESCO had his "unwavering support" that would not weaken after the US departure. The UN organisation describes its mission as promoting education, scientific cooperation and cultural understanding. It oversees a list of heritage sites aimed at preserving unique environmental and architectural gems, ranging from Australia's Great Barrier Reef and the Serengeti in Tanzania to the Athens Acropolis and Pyramids of Egypt. The UNESCO source said that the US will continue to be represented on the world heritage committee even after leaving the organisation formally, just as it had in 2017. Trump was not the first to pull the United States out of UNESCO. President Ronald Reagan ended US membership in the 1980s, saying the agency was corrupt and pro-Soviet. The United States reentered under the presidency of George W. Bush. The American return under Biden was a major success for Azoulay, who became UNESCO chief in 2017, also because it included a pledge to pay back the US's contribution arrears to the tune of $619 million. On Tuesday, Azoulay said the US could always return to the fold in the future. "The United States of America is and always will be welcome," she said. burs-jh/as/dc Originally published as US to leave UN cultural body, citing 'national interest'
SBS Australia
15-07-2025
- SBS Australia
Liberal MP raises free speech concerns over legislating antisemitism definition
Australia shouldn't legislate a controversial definition of antisemitism or impose penalties for breaching it, Coalition frontbencher James Paterson says. She recommended Australia adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which some groups argue conflates criticism of Zionism and Israel with antisemitism. The plan also urges the government to cut funding to universities, programs or academics that enable or fail to act against antisemitism. All public funding agreements with festivals or cultural institutions should include terms to allow for the termination of the agreement when they promote or facilitate hatred, it further states. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is mulling over the findings and has yet to commit to implementing the recommendations. Paterson said the IHRA definition is a "helpful guideline" because what constitutes antisemitism is highly contested. "It has been a very helpful tool and helpful guideline. No-one in Australia, though, is proposing that [it] should be legislated or that there should be consequences under the law for transgressing IHRA," he told ABC's RN on Tuesday. "I don't think anyone should propose that. I don't think that'd be consistent with Australia's approach to free speech." Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said he will consider the plan's recommendations but has not committed to it in full. Source: AAP / Dan Himbrechts IHRA's definition, finalised in 2016, states: "Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities." Calls for antisemitism envoy to resign Segal has been called on to resign in recent days after revelations that a trust linked to her husband donated to the right-wing political lobby group Advance Australia. Her husband, John Roth, is a director of Henroth Discretionary Trust, which made the donation in the 2023/2024 financial year, according to Australian Electoral Commission records. Segal is not listed as a director or shareholder of the company, and there is no suggestion Segal herself was directly involved in the donation. Segal denied any involvement following reports of the donation, which were published by the Guardian and, more recently, by independent outlet The Klaxon. "No-one would tolerate or accept my husband dictating my politics, and I certainly won't dictate his," Segal told SBS News in a statement. "I have had no involvement in his donations, nor will I." Former foreign minister Bob Carr said Segal must clarify she does not share her husband's political views. "What I'm asking for her is a full-bodied repudiation of views that are every bit as repugnant as the antisemitism that she focuses on and she addresses," he told Sky News. Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke defended Segal, saying she should not be held accountable for the actions of a man. "It's a long time since we've been a country where you would blame a woman for decisions of her husband," he told ABC's 7.30 show on Monday. "She said she didn't know about it, and I've got no reason to do anything other than believe her."
The Advertiser
15-07-2025
- The Advertiser
Envoy's recommendations have put the Prime Minister in a bit of a bind
An old adage says a government should never set up an inquiry unless it has a very good idea as to what its findings might be, lest it comes back to bite. That was certainly true of last week's report by the special envoy to combat anti-Semitism, Jillian Segal. It seems Prime Minister Anthony Albanese felt he had to be seen to be doing something about the appalling violence inflicted upon members of the Jewish community. Segal's recommendations, however, will put him in a bit of a bind. He says the government is considering the recommendations. But whatever he does will be seen as too much by some and too little by others. The trouble for Albanese is that there are several cogent objections to some of Segal's recommendations, and there is the possibility that enacting some of them could be contrary to the religion clause of the Constitution. Segal recommended that the government withhold financial support from universities, programs or people that facilitate, enable or fail to act against anti-Semitism and that Holocaust and anti-Semitism education be embedded in the school curriculum. The trouble with this is that it favours one religion over another. Section 116 of the Constitution says: "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion..." Early constitutional scholars John Quick and Robert Garran (Australia's fist Attorney-General) wrote that "establishment" means "the erection and recognition of a State Church, or the concession of special favours, titles, and advantages to one church which are denied to others". The High Court held in the 1981 DOGS (Defence of Government Schools) case that state aid to religious schools did not offend Section 116 because all religious schools were equally entitled to funding based on criteria that applied to all. And that really is the answer here: have tough laws against all violence and incitement to violence and hatred. It might be that the appointment of envoys to combat anti-Semitism and Islamophobia (which the government has done) might run foul of Section 116 on Quick and Garran's special-favours test. Perhaps a more important point is that even if the constitutional challenge is a weak one, the mere fact that someone might run it in the High Court would unnecessarily stir up religious controversy. Another of Segal's recommendations is that all public institutions be required to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Association's definition of anti-Semitism. The text of the definition is not the problem; rather, it is the fact that seven of the 11 illustrative examples referred to criticism of Israel and therefore suggest that any criticism of Israel can amount to anti-Semitism. This is dangerous territory. Criticising governments is a fundamental part of freedom of speech, freedom of association, and assembly. Attacking the behaviour of the Israeli government and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over its violence in Gaza should not be seen as anti-Semitic. Again, if Albanese tries to legislate for this, he might run foul of the implied constitutional protection for political communication. The High Court has held that representative democracy implies an informed electorate, which in turn requires freedom of political communication. Any curtailing of that freedom has to be justified as serving a legitimate purpose that is compatible with representative and responsible government. Creating offences based on the Holocaust definition might not pass muster. Perhaps the best use of the constitutional arguments would be for the government to use them as a reason for not acting on these over-reaching and specific recommendations, but rather to work on a campaign promoting general religious and racial tolerance; a campaign against religious hatred; and action to prevent and punish violence during all protest action. Segal also recommended that public funding be withheld from universities, programs or people that facilitate, enable or fail to act against anti-Semitism. MORE CRISPIN HULL: Imposing collective punishment for an omission to act has its drawbacks. As we have seen in the US, when governments threaten the funding of institutions that do not behave the way the government commands, those institutions often buckle, and academic freedom and freedom of speech suffer. Freedom of speech, assembly and association are hallmarks of democracy and are keys to combating authoritarianism. One sort of authoritarianism is theocracy. Iran is a good example. It would be better to take religion out of the equation altogether. Once you have freedom of speech, assembly and association (with the usual attendant lawful limits), there is no need for a separate, additional freedom - that of religion. If people can preach to assembled associations of people whatever they might regard as "truth" and other people can freely preach a different "truth", what more do they need? Shutting down protests and free speech is not the way to stop violence. People should be protected against violence and the perpetrators punished, regardless of the motive - religion, gang enforcement, greed, or politics. Throughout history, protest has been an important element in the pursuit of peace and the exposure of violence, corruption and colonialism - Vietnam moratoriums and Gandhi come to mind. Albanese now faces a difficult task of deciding what to do with these recommendations. He should be mindful that freedom of speech, assembly and association are more important than a separate freedom of religion because the former three already guarantee the last. An old adage says a government should never set up an inquiry unless it has a very good idea as to what its findings might be, lest it comes back to bite. That was certainly true of last week's report by the special envoy to combat anti-Semitism, Jillian Segal. It seems Prime Minister Anthony Albanese felt he had to be seen to be doing something about the appalling violence inflicted upon members of the Jewish community. Segal's recommendations, however, will put him in a bit of a bind. He says the government is considering the recommendations. But whatever he does will be seen as too much by some and too little by others. The trouble for Albanese is that there are several cogent objections to some of Segal's recommendations, and there is the possibility that enacting some of them could be contrary to the religion clause of the Constitution. Segal recommended that the government withhold financial support from universities, programs or people that facilitate, enable or fail to act against anti-Semitism and that Holocaust and anti-Semitism education be embedded in the school curriculum. The trouble with this is that it favours one religion over another. Section 116 of the Constitution says: "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion..." Early constitutional scholars John Quick and Robert Garran (Australia's fist Attorney-General) wrote that "establishment" means "the erection and recognition of a State Church, or the concession of special favours, titles, and advantages to one church which are denied to others". The High Court held in the 1981 DOGS (Defence of Government Schools) case that state aid to religious schools did not offend Section 116 because all religious schools were equally entitled to funding based on criteria that applied to all. And that really is the answer here: have tough laws against all violence and incitement to violence and hatred. It might be that the appointment of envoys to combat anti-Semitism and Islamophobia (which the government has done) might run foul of Section 116 on Quick and Garran's special-favours test. Perhaps a more important point is that even if the constitutional challenge is a weak one, the mere fact that someone might run it in the High Court would unnecessarily stir up religious controversy. Another of Segal's recommendations is that all public institutions be required to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Association's definition of anti-Semitism. The text of the definition is not the problem; rather, it is the fact that seven of the 11 illustrative examples referred to criticism of Israel and therefore suggest that any criticism of Israel can amount to anti-Semitism. This is dangerous territory. Criticising governments is a fundamental part of freedom of speech, freedom of association, and assembly. Attacking the behaviour of the Israeli government and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over its violence in Gaza should not be seen as anti-Semitic. Again, if Albanese tries to legislate for this, he might run foul of the implied constitutional protection for political communication. The High Court has held that representative democracy implies an informed electorate, which in turn requires freedom of political communication. Any curtailing of that freedom has to be justified as serving a legitimate purpose that is compatible with representative and responsible government. Creating offences based on the Holocaust definition might not pass muster. Perhaps the best use of the constitutional arguments would be for the government to use them as a reason for not acting on these over-reaching and specific recommendations, but rather to work on a campaign promoting general religious and racial tolerance; a campaign against religious hatred; and action to prevent and punish violence during all protest action. Segal also recommended that public funding be withheld from universities, programs or people that facilitate, enable or fail to act against anti-Semitism. MORE CRISPIN HULL: Imposing collective punishment for an omission to act has its drawbacks. As we have seen in the US, when governments threaten the funding of institutions that do not behave the way the government commands, those institutions often buckle, and academic freedom and freedom of speech suffer. Freedom of speech, assembly and association are hallmarks of democracy and are keys to combating authoritarianism. One sort of authoritarianism is theocracy. Iran is a good example. It would be better to take religion out of the equation altogether. Once you have freedom of speech, assembly and association (with the usual attendant lawful limits), there is no need for a separate, additional freedom - that of religion. If people can preach to assembled associations of people whatever they might regard as "truth" and other people can freely preach a different "truth", what more do they need? Shutting down protests and free speech is not the way to stop violence. People should be protected against violence and the perpetrators punished, regardless of the motive - religion, gang enforcement, greed, or politics. Throughout history, protest has been an important element in the pursuit of peace and the exposure of violence, corruption and colonialism - Vietnam moratoriums and Gandhi come to mind. Albanese now faces a difficult task of deciding what to do with these recommendations. He should be mindful that freedom of speech, assembly and association are more important than a separate freedom of religion because the former three already guarantee the last. An old adage says a government should never set up an inquiry unless it has a very good idea as to what its findings might be, lest it comes back to bite. That was certainly true of last week's report by the special envoy to combat anti-Semitism, Jillian Segal. It seems Prime Minister Anthony Albanese felt he had to be seen to be doing something about the appalling violence inflicted upon members of the Jewish community. Segal's recommendations, however, will put him in a bit of a bind. He says the government is considering the recommendations. But whatever he does will be seen as too much by some and too little by others. The trouble for Albanese is that there are several cogent objections to some of Segal's recommendations, and there is the possibility that enacting some of them could be contrary to the religion clause of the Constitution. Segal recommended that the government withhold financial support from universities, programs or people that facilitate, enable or fail to act against anti-Semitism and that Holocaust and anti-Semitism education be embedded in the school curriculum. The trouble with this is that it favours one religion over another. Section 116 of the Constitution says: "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion..." Early constitutional scholars John Quick and Robert Garran (Australia's fist Attorney-General) wrote that "establishment" means "the erection and recognition of a State Church, or the concession of special favours, titles, and advantages to one church which are denied to others". The High Court held in the 1981 DOGS (Defence of Government Schools) case that state aid to religious schools did not offend Section 116 because all religious schools were equally entitled to funding based on criteria that applied to all. And that really is the answer here: have tough laws against all violence and incitement to violence and hatred. It might be that the appointment of envoys to combat anti-Semitism and Islamophobia (which the government has done) might run foul of Section 116 on Quick and Garran's special-favours test. Perhaps a more important point is that even if the constitutional challenge is a weak one, the mere fact that someone might run it in the High Court would unnecessarily stir up religious controversy. Another of Segal's recommendations is that all public institutions be required to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Association's definition of anti-Semitism. The text of the definition is not the problem; rather, it is the fact that seven of the 11 illustrative examples referred to criticism of Israel and therefore suggest that any criticism of Israel can amount to anti-Semitism. This is dangerous territory. Criticising governments is a fundamental part of freedom of speech, freedom of association, and assembly. Attacking the behaviour of the Israeli government and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over its violence in Gaza should not be seen as anti-Semitic. Again, if Albanese tries to legislate for this, he might run foul of the implied constitutional protection for political communication. The High Court has held that representative democracy implies an informed electorate, which in turn requires freedom of political communication. Any curtailing of that freedom has to be justified as serving a legitimate purpose that is compatible with representative and responsible government. Creating offences based on the Holocaust definition might not pass muster. Perhaps the best use of the constitutional arguments would be for the government to use them as a reason for not acting on these over-reaching and specific recommendations, but rather to work on a campaign promoting general religious and racial tolerance; a campaign against religious hatred; and action to prevent and punish violence during all protest action. Segal also recommended that public funding be withheld from universities, programs or people that facilitate, enable or fail to act against anti-Semitism. MORE CRISPIN HULL: Imposing collective punishment for an omission to act has its drawbacks. As we have seen in the US, when governments threaten the funding of institutions that do not behave the way the government commands, those institutions often buckle, and academic freedom and freedom of speech suffer. Freedom of speech, assembly and association are hallmarks of democracy and are keys to combating authoritarianism. One sort of authoritarianism is theocracy. Iran is a good example. It would be better to take religion out of the equation altogether. Once you have freedom of speech, assembly and association (with the usual attendant lawful limits), there is no need for a separate, additional freedom - that of religion. If people can preach to assembled associations of people whatever they might regard as "truth" and other people can freely preach a different "truth", what more do they need? Shutting down protests and free speech is not the way to stop violence. People should be protected against violence and the perpetrators punished, regardless of the motive - religion, gang enforcement, greed, or politics. Throughout history, protest has been an important element in the pursuit of peace and the exposure of violence, corruption and colonialism - Vietnam moratoriums and Gandhi come to mind. Albanese now faces a difficult task of deciding what to do with these recommendations. He should be mindful that freedom of speech, assembly and association are more important than a separate freedom of religion because the former three already guarantee the last. An old adage says a government should never set up an inquiry unless it has a very good idea as to what its findings might be, lest it comes back to bite. That was certainly true of last week's report by the special envoy to combat anti-Semitism, Jillian Segal. It seems Prime Minister Anthony Albanese felt he had to be seen to be doing something about the appalling violence inflicted upon members of the Jewish community. Segal's recommendations, however, will put him in a bit of a bind. He says the government is considering the recommendations. But whatever he does will be seen as too much by some and too little by others. The trouble for Albanese is that there are several cogent objections to some of Segal's recommendations, and there is the possibility that enacting some of them could be contrary to the religion clause of the Constitution. Segal recommended that the government withhold financial support from universities, programs or people that facilitate, enable or fail to act against anti-Semitism and that Holocaust and anti-Semitism education be embedded in the school curriculum. The trouble with this is that it favours one religion over another. Section 116 of the Constitution says: "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion..." Early constitutional scholars John Quick and Robert Garran (Australia's fist Attorney-General) wrote that "establishment" means "the erection and recognition of a State Church, or the concession of special favours, titles, and advantages to one church which are denied to others". The High Court held in the 1981 DOGS (Defence of Government Schools) case that state aid to religious schools did not offend Section 116 because all religious schools were equally entitled to funding based on criteria that applied to all. And that really is the answer here: have tough laws against all violence and incitement to violence and hatred. It might be that the appointment of envoys to combat anti-Semitism and Islamophobia (which the government has done) might run foul of Section 116 on Quick and Garran's special-favours test. Perhaps a more important point is that even if the constitutional challenge is a weak one, the mere fact that someone might run it in the High Court would unnecessarily stir up religious controversy. Another of Segal's recommendations is that all public institutions be required to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Association's definition of anti-Semitism. The text of the definition is not the problem; rather, it is the fact that seven of the 11 illustrative examples referred to criticism of Israel and therefore suggest that any criticism of Israel can amount to anti-Semitism. This is dangerous territory. Criticising governments is a fundamental part of freedom of speech, freedom of association, and assembly. Attacking the behaviour of the Israeli government and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over its violence in Gaza should not be seen as anti-Semitic. Again, if Albanese tries to legislate for this, he might run foul of the implied constitutional protection for political communication. The High Court has held that representative democracy implies an informed electorate, which in turn requires freedom of political communication. Any curtailing of that freedom has to be justified as serving a legitimate purpose that is compatible with representative and responsible government. Creating offences based on the Holocaust definition might not pass muster. Perhaps the best use of the constitutional arguments would be for the government to use them as a reason for not acting on these over-reaching and specific recommendations, but rather to work on a campaign promoting general religious and racial tolerance; a campaign against religious hatred; and action to prevent and punish violence during all protest action. Segal also recommended that public funding be withheld from universities, programs or people that facilitate, enable or fail to act against anti-Semitism. MORE CRISPIN HULL: Imposing collective punishment for an omission to act has its drawbacks. As we have seen in the US, when governments threaten the funding of institutions that do not behave the way the government commands, those institutions often buckle, and academic freedom and freedom of speech suffer. Freedom of speech, assembly and association are hallmarks of democracy and are keys to combating authoritarianism. One sort of authoritarianism is theocracy. Iran is a good example. It would be better to take religion out of the equation altogether. Once you have freedom of speech, assembly and association (with the usual attendant lawful limits), there is no need for a separate, additional freedom - that of religion. If people can preach to assembled associations of people whatever they might regard as "truth" and other people can freely preach a different "truth", what more do they need? Shutting down protests and free speech is not the way to stop violence. People should be protected against violence and the perpetrators punished, regardless of the motive - religion, gang enforcement, greed, or politics. Throughout history, protest has been an important element in the pursuit of peace and the exposure of violence, corruption and colonialism - Vietnam moratoriums and Gandhi come to mind. Albanese now faces a difficult task of deciding what to do with these recommendations. He should be mindful that freedom of speech, assembly and association are more important than a separate freedom of religion because the former three already guarantee the last.
