Latest news with #MigrationAct
West Australian
04-07-2025
- Politics
- West Australian
Michelle Grattan: Free speech fight reignites as sparks fly in Australian politics
Political and news cycles often work in a certain and predictable way. Issues flare like bushfires, then rage for weeks or even months, until they are finally extinguished by action or fade by being overtaken by the next big thing. On two very different fronts this week, we're reminded how these cycles work. Last term, the Opposition constantly hammered the Government over its handling of the former immigration detainees released after the High Court found they couldn't be held indefinitely. These included people who had committed murder, child sex offences and violent assaults. On Sunday, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke admitted in a Sky interview that the legislation the Government passed to re-detain some of these people was, in effect, impossible to use. Burke's comments attracted only limited attention. The other reminder of an old story came when the Federal Court ordered a militant Muslim preacher to remove inflammatory lectures from the internet. He had lost a case brought by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry under Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. More than a decade ago, political passions ran high in conservative circles about the alleged evils of 18C. First, to the Burke admission. Burke said he had 'a lot of resources' dedicated to trying to get applications to court for preventative detention orders. But 'no one has come close to reaching the threshold that is in that legislation.' For a long time, the Government had kept saying it was working up cases to put to the court. But, realising the difficulty, it also passed legislation facilitating the deportation of these people to third countries. There are now three former detainees due to be deported to Nauru, following a financial agreement with that country. But there's a hitch: their deportations are tied up in court appeals. (They can however be held in detention while the cases proceed.) The challenge still presented by the former detainees is no small matter, despite the political storm having calmed and the media interest dissipating. According to the Home Affairs department, 300 people had been released as at the end of February. Of these, 104 had offended since release, and 30 were incarcerated. Some 83 had only a State or Territory criminal charge; seven only a Migration Act charge; 14 people had both a Migration Act charge and a State or Territory charge. In recent weeks, one former detainee is alleged to have murdered a photographer in Melbourne. The political context can be very relevant to whether the embers of an old issue re-spark into something major. Anthony Albanese's decision last year to put Burke into home affairs was something of a political masterstroke. If Clare O'Neil and Andrew Giles had still been in their former respective portfolios of home affairs and immigration, the present failure to deal more successfully with the former detainees would have been a much bigger issue. Burke is skilled at throwing a blanket over contentious areas. On the other side of politics, James Paterson was moved out of home affairs in Sussan Ley's reshuffle. Paterson pursued the former immigration detainees relentlessly. The new spokesmen, Andrew Hastie (home affairs) and Paul Scarr (immigration) haven't hit their strides yet. The Government would have been under more pressure on the issue if Parliament were sitting. But the new Parliament doesn't meet until July 22. When it does, one of the new arrivals will be a former face, Liberal MP Tim Wilson. Way back when, Wilson was a player in the story of 18C. For him, the way 18C resurfaced this week contains more than a little irony. In February 2014, Wilson took up his post of Human Rights Commissioner, appointed by the Abbott government with the special brief of promoting freedom of speech. That government was strongly opposed to 18C, which made it unlawful to 'offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate' a person or group because of their race or ethnicity. The assault on 18C ran into vigorous opposition from ethnic and other groups, including the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. Eventually PM Abbott retreated. A disappointed Wilson tweeted: 'Disturbed to hear the government has backed down on 18c and will keep offensive speech illegal. Very disturbed.' In his 2025 bid for election, Wilson — who had been member for Goldstein in 2016-2022 — was helped by the Jewish vote, after the rise of anti-Semitism. The debate about free speech has moved on a great deal since the Abbott government days, when conservatives were particularly agitated about 18C following a court judgement against journalist Andrew Bolt, who'd disparaged some fair-skinned Indigenous people. Today's debate is in the context of 'hate speech' associated with the Middle East conflict. Hate-crime laws have provoked another fierce round of controversy about the appropriate limits to put on 'free speech.' The Executive Council of Australian Jewry brought its case under the 18C civil law against preacher William Haddad, from Western Sydney, after no action was taken by the authorities under the criminal law. In lectures, Haddad made highly derogatory comments about Jews. Finding against Haddad, Judge Angus Stewart said the lectures 'were reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate Jews in Australia.' Reflecting on the decision, George Brandis — who was attorney-general during the 18C furore — says, 'My view hasn't changed. It should not in a free country be either criminally or civilly actionable to say something that merely offends. However, in this case the conduct went far beyond mere offence, to intimidation. It did not require 18C to get the redress that was sought in the case.' Wilson doesn't wish to re-enter the debate. The new Opposition industrial relations spokesman says his focus is 'my portfolio responsibilities'. It's likely many of those who fought 18C years ago hold to their original view, while having to applaud the judgement made under it this week. That's another irony.
The Advertiser
04-07-2025
- Politics
- The Advertiser
How two once hot-button issues this week barely sparked media and political interest
Political and news cycles often work in a certain and predictable way. Issues flare like bushfires, then rage for weeks or even months, until they are finally extinguished by action or fade by being overtaken by the next big thing. On two very different fronts this week, we're reminded how these cycles work. During the last term, the opposition constantly hammered the government over its handling of the former immigration detainees released after the High Court found they couldn't be held indefinitely. These included people who had committed murder, child sex offences and violent assaults. On Sunday, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke admitted in a television interview that the legislation the government passed to re-detain some of these people was, in effect, impossible to use. Burke's comments attracted only limited attention. The other reminder of an old story came when the Federal Court ordered a militant Muslim preacher to remove inflammatory lectures from the internet. He had lost a case brought by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry under Section 18C for the Racial Discrimination Act. More than a decade ago, political passions ran high in conservative circles about the alleged evils of 18C. First to the Burke admission. Burke told Sky he had "a lot of resources" dedicated to trying to get applications to court for preventative detention orders. But "no one has come close to reaching the threshold that is in that legislation". Burke insisted he was "not giving up", but there is little reason to believe things will change. The opposition has suggested amending the preventative detention legislation, but Burke says that would hit a constitutional obstacle. For a long time, the government had kept saying it was working up cases to put to the court (and given the impression action was close). But, realising the difficulty, it also passed legislation facilitating the deportation of these people to third countries. There are now three former detainees due to be deported to Nauru, following a financial agreement with that country. But there's a hitch: their deportations are tied up in court appeals. (They are, however, able to be held in detention while the cases proceed.) The challenge still presented by the former detainees in the community is no small matter, despite the political storm having calmed and the media interest dissipating. In evidence in Senate estimates in March, the Department of Home Affairs said 300 people had been released from immigration detention as at the end of February. Of these, 104 had offended since release, and 30 were incarcerated (including on remand). Some 83 had only a state or territory criminal charge; seven only a Migration Act charge; 14 people had both a Migration Act charge and a state or territory charge. In recent weeks, one former detainee is alleged to have murdered a photographer in Melbourne. The political context can be very relevant to whether the embers of an old issue re-spark into something major. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's decision last year to put Burke into Home Affairs was something of a political masterstroke. If Clare O'Neil and Andrew Giles had still been in their former respective portfolios of Home Affairs and Immigration, the present failure to deal more successfully with the former detainees would have been a much bigger issue. Burke is skilled at throwing a blanket over contentious areas. On the other side of politics, James Paterson was moved out of home affairs to become shadow finance minister in Sussan Ley's reshuffle. Paterson pursued the former immigration detainees relentlessly. The new spokesmen, Andrew Hastie (home affairs) and Paul Scarr (immigration) haven't hit their strides yet, and what they have said on the issue hasn't grabbed much attention. The government would have been under more pressure on the issue if parliament were sitting. But the new parliament doesn't meet until July 22. When it does, one of the new arrivals will be a former face, Liberal MP Tim Wilson. Way back when, Wilson was a player in the story of 18C. For him, the way 18C resurfaced this week contains more than a little irony. In February 2014, Wilson took up his post of Human Rights Commissioner, appointed by the Abbott government with the special brief of promoting freedom of speech. (He was even dubbed the "freedom commissioner".) The Abbott government was strongly opposed to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which made it unlawful to "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" a person or group because of their race or ethnicity. The assault on 18C ran into vigorous opposition from ethnic and other groups, including the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. In the end, then prime minister Tony Abbott retreated. Wilson was disappointed, tweeting: "Disturbed to hear the government has backed down on 18c and will keep offensive speech illegal. Very disturbed." In his 2025 bid for election, Wilson - who had been member for Goldstein from 2016-2022 - was helped by the Jewish vote, after the rise of anti-Semitism. The debate about free speech has moved on a great deal since the days of the Abbott government, when conservatives were particularly agitated about 18C following a court judgement against journalist Andrew Bolt relating to what he had written about some fair-skinned Indigenous people. Today's debate is in the context of "hate speech" associated with the Middle East conflict. Hate-crime laws have provoked another fierce round of controversy about the appropriate limits to put on "free speech". The Executive Council of Australian Jewry brought its case under the 18C civil law against preacher William Haddad, from Western Sydney, after no action was taken by the authorities under the criminal law. Haddad described Jews as "a treacherous people, a vile people", among other offensive remarks, that included saying: "The majority of banks are owned by the Jews, who are happy to give people loans, knowing that it's almost impossible to pay it back". Haddad argued in his defence his lectures drew on religious writings, relating them to contemporary events, and were delivered for educational purposes. READ MORE GRATTAN: Finding against Haddad, Judge Angus Stewart said the lectures conveyed "disparaging imputations about Jewish people and that in all the circumstances were reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate Jews in Australia". Reflecting on this week's decision, George Brandis - who was attorney-general during the 18C furore - says, "My view hasn't changed. It should not in a free country be either criminally or civilly actionable to say something that merely offends. However, in this case the conduct went far beyond mere offence, to intimidation. It did not require 18C to get the redress that was sought in the case." Wilson does not wish to re-enter the debate. The new opposition industrial relations spokesman says his focus is "my portfolio responsibilities". It's likely many of those who fought 18C years ago hold to their original view, while having to applaud the judgement made under it this week. That's another irony. Political and news cycles often work in a certain and predictable way. Issues flare like bushfires, then rage for weeks or even months, until they are finally extinguished by action or fade by being overtaken by the next big thing. On two very different fronts this week, we're reminded how these cycles work. During the last term, the opposition constantly hammered the government over its handling of the former immigration detainees released after the High Court found they couldn't be held indefinitely. These included people who had committed murder, child sex offences and violent assaults. On Sunday, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke admitted in a television interview that the legislation the government passed to re-detain some of these people was, in effect, impossible to use. Burke's comments attracted only limited attention. The other reminder of an old story came when the Federal Court ordered a militant Muslim preacher to remove inflammatory lectures from the internet. He had lost a case brought by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry under Section 18C for the Racial Discrimination Act. More than a decade ago, political passions ran high in conservative circles about the alleged evils of 18C. First to the Burke admission. Burke told Sky he had "a lot of resources" dedicated to trying to get applications to court for preventative detention orders. But "no one has come close to reaching the threshold that is in that legislation". Burke insisted he was "not giving up", but there is little reason to believe things will change. The opposition has suggested amending the preventative detention legislation, but Burke says that would hit a constitutional obstacle. For a long time, the government had kept saying it was working up cases to put to the court (and given the impression action was close). But, realising the difficulty, it also passed legislation facilitating the deportation of these people to third countries. There are now three former detainees due to be deported to Nauru, following a financial agreement with that country. But there's a hitch: their deportations are tied up in court appeals. (They are, however, able to be held in detention while the cases proceed.) The challenge still presented by the former detainees in the community is no small matter, despite the political storm having calmed and the media interest dissipating. In evidence in Senate estimates in March, the Department of Home Affairs said 300 people had been released from immigration detention as at the end of February. Of these, 104 had offended since release, and 30 were incarcerated (including on remand). Some 83 had only a state or territory criminal charge; seven only a Migration Act charge; 14 people had both a Migration Act charge and a state or territory charge. In recent weeks, one former detainee is alleged to have murdered a photographer in Melbourne. The political context can be very relevant to whether the embers of an old issue re-spark into something major. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's decision last year to put Burke into Home Affairs was something of a political masterstroke. If Clare O'Neil and Andrew Giles had still been in their former respective portfolios of Home Affairs and Immigration, the present failure to deal more successfully with the former detainees would have been a much bigger issue. Burke is skilled at throwing a blanket over contentious areas. On the other side of politics, James Paterson was moved out of home affairs to become shadow finance minister in Sussan Ley's reshuffle. Paterson pursued the former immigration detainees relentlessly. The new spokesmen, Andrew Hastie (home affairs) and Paul Scarr (immigration) haven't hit their strides yet, and what they have said on the issue hasn't grabbed much attention. The government would have been under more pressure on the issue if parliament were sitting. But the new parliament doesn't meet until July 22. When it does, one of the new arrivals will be a former face, Liberal MP Tim Wilson. Way back when, Wilson was a player in the story of 18C. For him, the way 18C resurfaced this week contains more than a little irony. In February 2014, Wilson took up his post of Human Rights Commissioner, appointed by the Abbott government with the special brief of promoting freedom of speech. (He was even dubbed the "freedom commissioner".) The Abbott government was strongly opposed to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which made it unlawful to "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" a person or group because of their race or ethnicity. The assault on 18C ran into vigorous opposition from ethnic and other groups, including the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. In the end, then prime minister Tony Abbott retreated. Wilson was disappointed, tweeting: "Disturbed to hear the government has backed down on 18c and will keep offensive speech illegal. Very disturbed." In his 2025 bid for election, Wilson - who had been member for Goldstein from 2016-2022 - was helped by the Jewish vote, after the rise of anti-Semitism. The debate about free speech has moved on a great deal since the days of the Abbott government, when conservatives were particularly agitated about 18C following a court judgement against journalist Andrew Bolt relating to what he had written about some fair-skinned Indigenous people. Today's debate is in the context of "hate speech" associated with the Middle East conflict. Hate-crime laws have provoked another fierce round of controversy about the appropriate limits to put on "free speech". The Executive Council of Australian Jewry brought its case under the 18C civil law against preacher William Haddad, from Western Sydney, after no action was taken by the authorities under the criminal law. Haddad described Jews as "a treacherous people, a vile people", among other offensive remarks, that included saying: "The majority of banks are owned by the Jews, who are happy to give people loans, knowing that it's almost impossible to pay it back". Haddad argued in his defence his lectures drew on religious writings, relating them to contemporary events, and were delivered for educational purposes. READ MORE GRATTAN: Finding against Haddad, Judge Angus Stewart said the lectures conveyed "disparaging imputations about Jewish people and that in all the circumstances were reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate Jews in Australia". Reflecting on this week's decision, George Brandis - who was attorney-general during the 18C furore - says, "My view hasn't changed. It should not in a free country be either criminally or civilly actionable to say something that merely offends. However, in this case the conduct went far beyond mere offence, to intimidation. It did not require 18C to get the redress that was sought in the case." Wilson does not wish to re-enter the debate. The new opposition industrial relations spokesman says his focus is "my portfolio responsibilities". It's likely many of those who fought 18C years ago hold to their original view, while having to applaud the judgement made under it this week. That's another irony. Political and news cycles often work in a certain and predictable way. Issues flare like bushfires, then rage for weeks or even months, until they are finally extinguished by action or fade by being overtaken by the next big thing. On two very different fronts this week, we're reminded how these cycles work. During the last term, the opposition constantly hammered the government over its handling of the former immigration detainees released after the High Court found they couldn't be held indefinitely. These included people who had committed murder, child sex offences and violent assaults. On Sunday, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke admitted in a television interview that the legislation the government passed to re-detain some of these people was, in effect, impossible to use. Burke's comments attracted only limited attention. The other reminder of an old story came when the Federal Court ordered a militant Muslim preacher to remove inflammatory lectures from the internet. He had lost a case brought by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry under Section 18C for the Racial Discrimination Act. More than a decade ago, political passions ran high in conservative circles about the alleged evils of 18C. First to the Burke admission. Burke told Sky he had "a lot of resources" dedicated to trying to get applications to court for preventative detention orders. But "no one has come close to reaching the threshold that is in that legislation". Burke insisted he was "not giving up", but there is little reason to believe things will change. The opposition has suggested amending the preventative detention legislation, but Burke says that would hit a constitutional obstacle. For a long time, the government had kept saying it was working up cases to put to the court (and given the impression action was close). But, realising the difficulty, it also passed legislation facilitating the deportation of these people to third countries. There are now three former detainees due to be deported to Nauru, following a financial agreement with that country. But there's a hitch: their deportations are tied up in court appeals. (They are, however, able to be held in detention while the cases proceed.) The challenge still presented by the former detainees in the community is no small matter, despite the political storm having calmed and the media interest dissipating. In evidence in Senate estimates in March, the Department of Home Affairs said 300 people had been released from immigration detention as at the end of February. Of these, 104 had offended since release, and 30 were incarcerated (including on remand). Some 83 had only a state or territory criminal charge; seven only a Migration Act charge; 14 people had both a Migration Act charge and a state or territory charge. In recent weeks, one former detainee is alleged to have murdered a photographer in Melbourne. The political context can be very relevant to whether the embers of an old issue re-spark into something major. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's decision last year to put Burke into Home Affairs was something of a political masterstroke. If Clare O'Neil and Andrew Giles had still been in their former respective portfolios of Home Affairs and Immigration, the present failure to deal more successfully with the former detainees would have been a much bigger issue. Burke is skilled at throwing a blanket over contentious areas. On the other side of politics, James Paterson was moved out of home affairs to become shadow finance minister in Sussan Ley's reshuffle. Paterson pursued the former immigration detainees relentlessly. The new spokesmen, Andrew Hastie (home affairs) and Paul Scarr (immigration) haven't hit their strides yet, and what they have said on the issue hasn't grabbed much attention. The government would have been under more pressure on the issue if parliament were sitting. But the new parliament doesn't meet until July 22. When it does, one of the new arrivals will be a former face, Liberal MP Tim Wilson. Way back when, Wilson was a player in the story of 18C. For him, the way 18C resurfaced this week contains more than a little irony. In February 2014, Wilson took up his post of Human Rights Commissioner, appointed by the Abbott government with the special brief of promoting freedom of speech. (He was even dubbed the "freedom commissioner".) The Abbott government was strongly opposed to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which made it unlawful to "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" a person or group because of their race or ethnicity. The assault on 18C ran into vigorous opposition from ethnic and other groups, including the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. In the end, then prime minister Tony Abbott retreated. Wilson was disappointed, tweeting: "Disturbed to hear the government has backed down on 18c and will keep offensive speech illegal. Very disturbed." In his 2025 bid for election, Wilson - who had been member for Goldstein from 2016-2022 - was helped by the Jewish vote, after the rise of anti-Semitism. The debate about free speech has moved on a great deal since the days of the Abbott government, when conservatives were particularly agitated about 18C following a court judgement against journalist Andrew Bolt relating to what he had written about some fair-skinned Indigenous people. Today's debate is in the context of "hate speech" associated with the Middle East conflict. Hate-crime laws have provoked another fierce round of controversy about the appropriate limits to put on "free speech". The Executive Council of Australian Jewry brought its case under the 18C civil law against preacher William Haddad, from Western Sydney, after no action was taken by the authorities under the criminal law. Haddad described Jews as "a treacherous people, a vile people", among other offensive remarks, that included saying: "The majority of banks are owned by the Jews, who are happy to give people loans, knowing that it's almost impossible to pay it back". Haddad argued in his defence his lectures drew on religious writings, relating them to contemporary events, and were delivered for educational purposes. READ MORE GRATTAN: Finding against Haddad, Judge Angus Stewart said the lectures conveyed "disparaging imputations about Jewish people and that in all the circumstances were reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate Jews in Australia". Reflecting on this week's decision, George Brandis - who was attorney-general during the 18C furore - says, "My view hasn't changed. It should not in a free country be either criminally or civilly actionable to say something that merely offends. However, in this case the conduct went far beyond mere offence, to intimidation. It did not require 18C to get the redress that was sought in the case." Wilson does not wish to re-enter the debate. The new opposition industrial relations spokesman says his focus is "my portfolio responsibilities". It's likely many of those who fought 18C years ago hold to their original view, while having to applaud the judgement made under it this week. That's another irony. Political and news cycles often work in a certain and predictable way. Issues flare like bushfires, then rage for weeks or even months, until they are finally extinguished by action or fade by being overtaken by the next big thing. On two very different fronts this week, we're reminded how these cycles work. During the last term, the opposition constantly hammered the government over its handling of the former immigration detainees released after the High Court found they couldn't be held indefinitely. These included people who had committed murder, child sex offences and violent assaults. On Sunday, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke admitted in a television interview that the legislation the government passed to re-detain some of these people was, in effect, impossible to use. Burke's comments attracted only limited attention. The other reminder of an old story came when the Federal Court ordered a militant Muslim preacher to remove inflammatory lectures from the internet. He had lost a case brought by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry under Section 18C for the Racial Discrimination Act. More than a decade ago, political passions ran high in conservative circles about the alleged evils of 18C. First to the Burke admission. Burke told Sky he had "a lot of resources" dedicated to trying to get applications to court for preventative detention orders. But "no one has come close to reaching the threshold that is in that legislation". Burke insisted he was "not giving up", but there is little reason to believe things will change. The opposition has suggested amending the preventative detention legislation, but Burke says that would hit a constitutional obstacle. For a long time, the government had kept saying it was working up cases to put to the court (and given the impression action was close). But, realising the difficulty, it also passed legislation facilitating the deportation of these people to third countries. There are now three former detainees due to be deported to Nauru, following a financial agreement with that country. But there's a hitch: their deportations are tied up in court appeals. (They are, however, able to be held in detention while the cases proceed.) The challenge still presented by the former detainees in the community is no small matter, despite the political storm having calmed and the media interest dissipating. In evidence in Senate estimates in March, the Department of Home Affairs said 300 people had been released from immigration detention as at the end of February. Of these, 104 had offended since release, and 30 were incarcerated (including on remand). Some 83 had only a state or territory criminal charge; seven only a Migration Act charge; 14 people had both a Migration Act charge and a state or territory charge. In recent weeks, one former detainee is alleged to have murdered a photographer in Melbourne. The political context can be very relevant to whether the embers of an old issue re-spark into something major. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's decision last year to put Burke into Home Affairs was something of a political masterstroke. If Clare O'Neil and Andrew Giles had still been in their former respective portfolios of Home Affairs and Immigration, the present failure to deal more successfully with the former detainees would have been a much bigger issue. Burke is skilled at throwing a blanket over contentious areas. On the other side of politics, James Paterson was moved out of home affairs to become shadow finance minister in Sussan Ley's reshuffle. Paterson pursued the former immigration detainees relentlessly. The new spokesmen, Andrew Hastie (home affairs) and Paul Scarr (immigration) haven't hit their strides yet, and what they have said on the issue hasn't grabbed much attention. The government would have been under more pressure on the issue if parliament were sitting. But the new parliament doesn't meet until July 22. When it does, one of the new arrivals will be a former face, Liberal MP Tim Wilson. Way back when, Wilson was a player in the story of 18C. For him, the way 18C resurfaced this week contains more than a little irony. In February 2014, Wilson took up his post of Human Rights Commissioner, appointed by the Abbott government with the special brief of promoting freedom of speech. (He was even dubbed the "freedom commissioner".) The Abbott government was strongly opposed to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which made it unlawful to "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" a person or group because of their race or ethnicity. The assault on 18C ran into vigorous opposition from ethnic and other groups, including the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. In the end, then prime minister Tony Abbott retreated. Wilson was disappointed, tweeting: "Disturbed to hear the government has backed down on 18c and will keep offensive speech illegal. Very disturbed." In his 2025 bid for election, Wilson - who had been member for Goldstein from 2016-2022 - was helped by the Jewish vote, after the rise of anti-Semitism. The debate about free speech has moved on a great deal since the days of the Abbott government, when conservatives were particularly agitated about 18C following a court judgement against journalist Andrew Bolt relating to what he had written about some fair-skinned Indigenous people. Today's debate is in the context of "hate speech" associated with the Middle East conflict. Hate-crime laws have provoked another fierce round of controversy about the appropriate limits to put on "free speech". The Executive Council of Australian Jewry brought its case under the 18C civil law against preacher William Haddad, from Western Sydney, after no action was taken by the authorities under the criminal law. Haddad described Jews as "a treacherous people, a vile people", among other offensive remarks, that included saying: "The majority of banks are owned by the Jews, who are happy to give people loans, knowing that it's almost impossible to pay it back". Haddad argued in his defence his lectures drew on religious writings, relating them to contemporary events, and were delivered for educational purposes. READ MORE GRATTAN: Finding against Haddad, Judge Angus Stewart said the lectures conveyed "disparaging imputations about Jewish people and that in all the circumstances were reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate Jews in Australia". Reflecting on this week's decision, George Brandis - who was attorney-general during the 18C furore - says, "My view hasn't changed. It should not in a free country be either criminally or civilly actionable to say something that merely offends. However, in this case the conduct went far beyond mere offence, to intimidation. It did not require 18C to get the redress that was sought in the case." Wilson does not wish to re-enter the debate. The new opposition industrial relations spokesman says his focus is "my portfolio responsibilities". It's likely many of those who fought 18C years ago hold to their original view, while having to applaud the judgement made under it this week. That's another irony.
Mint
02-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Mint
Kanye West aka ‘Ye' in hot water over ‘Heil Hitler' track; Australia cancels rapper's visa
Ye, the US rapper formerly known as Kanye West, was recently stripped of an Australian visa after he released his single 'Heil Hitler,' a government minister said on Wednesday. Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke revealed Ye has been travelling for years to Australia, where his wife of three years, Bianca Censori, was born. Her family live in Melbourne. Burke said 'Heil Hitler', released in May, promoted Nazism. The song has been criticised as an antisemitic tribute to German dictator Adolf Hitler. 'He's been coming to Australia for a long time. He's got family here. And he's made a lot of offensive comments that my officials looked at again once he released the 'Heil Hitler' song and he no longer has a valid visa in Australia,' Burke told Australian Broadcasting Corp. 'We have enough problems in this country already without deliberately importing bigotry,' Burke added. Ye's representative did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday. Australia's Migration Act sets security and character requirements for non-citizens to enter the country. Australia's largest cities, Sydney and Melbourne, have seen a spate of antisemitic attacks since the war between Israel and Hamas began on 7 October 2023. Disclaimer: This story has been published from a wire agency feed without modifications to the text. Only the headline has been changed.
DW
02-07-2025
- Politics
- DW
Australia cancels Kanye West's visa over Nazi song – DW – 07/02/2025
Australia has canceled US rapper Kanye West's visa after he released a song glorifying Nazi leader Adolf Hitler. West released the track on May 8, coinciding with the 80th anniversary of Nazi Germany's wartime defeat. Australian Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke confirmed on Wednesday that the US artist Kanye West has had his Australian visa canceled after releasing a song that promotes Nazism. The rapper's track "Heil Hitler," which praises Nazi leader Adolf Hitler, was released across social media and music streaming platforms in May. The ban follows a series of antisemitic posts West made on X, where he stated "I love Hitler" and "I'm a Nazi." Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke said that although West's earlier comments had not affected his visa status, officials reassessed the situation after the song's release. "He's made a lot of offensive comments, but my officials looked at it again once he released the Heil Hitler song — and he no longer has a valid visa in Australia." Burke said West, who married his Australian architect wife Bianca Censori in December 2022 has family in Australia and had long been a regular visitor before his visa was cancelled. "It wasn't a visa even for the purpose of the concerts," said Burke. "It was a lower level, and the officials still looked at the law and said, 'You're going to have a song and promote that sort of Nazism, we don't need that in Australia'." Australia's Migration Act sets security and character requirements for non-citizens entering the country. Burke rebuffed criticism that the withdrawal of the vis could be seen as an affront to free speech. "For Australian citizens, yeah, you've got full freedom of speech. But we have enough problems in this country already without deliberately importing bigotry." Sydney and Melbourne, the country's largest cities, have seen a spate of antisemitic attacks since the war between Israel and Hamas began on October 7, 2023. "Heil Hitler" sparked outrage in Slovakia after it was announced the rapper would perform there in July. More than 3,000 people signed a petition demanding that West's planned concert in the Slovak capital, Bratislava, be cancelled. It called his performance "an insult to historic memory" and "a glorification of wartime violence." The petition, organised by two local groups, accused West — a vocal supporter of US President Donald Trump — of "repeatedly and openly adhering to symbols and ideology connected with the darkest period of modern global history." In the "Heil Hitler" music video, dozens of Black men dressed in animal pelts and masks chant the song's title while standing in a block formation. At the same time, West raps about being misunderstood and his custody battle with ex-wife Kim Kardashian. The song, released on May 8 to coincide with the 80th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany in World War II, ends with an excerpt from a speech by Hitler.
Leader Live
02-07-2025
- Politics
- Leader Live
Australia cancels Kanye West's visa over release of Heil Hitler single
Home affairs minister Tony Burke revealed that Ye – formerly known as Kanye West – has been travelling for years to Australia, where his wife of three years, Bianca Censori, was born. Her family live in Melbourne. Mr Burke said Heil Hitler, released in May, promoted Nazism. It has been criticised as an antisemitic tribute to German dictator Adolf Hitler. 'He's been coming to Australia for a long time. He's got family here. And he's made a lot of offensive comments that my officials looked at again once he released the Heil Hitler song and he no longer has a valid visa in Australia,' the minister told Australian Broadcasting Corp. 'We have enough problems in this country already without deliberately importing bigotry,' he added. Australia's Migration Act sets security and character requirements for non-citizens to enter the country. Its largest cities, Sydney and Melbourne, have seen a spate of antisemitic attacks since the war between Israel and Hamas began on October 7 2023.
