In the fight against antisemitism, free speech must be upheld

Antisemitism in this country is a problem. This is beyond argument and it is deeply troubling.

The events of the past two years are irrefutable evidence: from the synagogue attack of last Friday to the firebombing of the Adass Israel synagogue, the antisemitic graffiti, online comments against Jews, and the disruption in universities and to daily life.

Special envoy to combat antisemitism Jillian Segal.Credit: Dylan Coker

The need for a coherent national strategy to address the problem is clear.

This week the government’s special envoy to combat antisemitism, Jillian Segal, released her report on how to develop such a strategy.

The position of special envoy was created in July last year after attacks and harassment against Jewish students in universities, and against Jewish institutions. A special envoy to combat Islamophobia in Australia was announced two months later. That position is filled by Aftab Malik.

The role of special envoy is one that has been established in other countries. The US also uses the definition Segal has used of antisemitism, which is one developed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in 2016: “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.”

Key recommendations from special envoy’s report

• Withhold financial support from universities, programs or people that facilitate, enable or fail to act against antisemitism.
• Include terms in all public funding agreements with cultural institutions or festivals to combat the promotion of antisemitism, or lack of effectively dealing with incidents.
• Screen visa applicants for antisemitic views and affiliations, and ensure visa refusals or cancellations for antisemitism.
• Work with social media platforms to reduce the reach of people who peddle hate, including bot accounts.
• Embed Holocaust and antisemitism education in school curriculum.
• Work with governments to require the International Holocaust Remembrance Association definition of antisemitism to be used across all public institutions.
• Monitor media organisations to ensure fair and accurate reporting about Jewish people.

Professor Ben Saul, of the University of Sydney, a UN special rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, is a critic of the definition in its conflating of antisemitism and possible criticism of Israel. He warns it would have a “chilling effect” on people and their right to free speech. It is a view shared by Greg Barns, SC, spokesman for the Australian Lawyers Alliance, who said: “The temptation will be for universities, cultural institutions and others, including NGOs, to suppress alternative views in relation to Israel.”

Segal’s report says that from October 2023 (the time of the Hamas massacre in Israel) to September 2024, antisemitic incidents surged by 316 per cent – more than 2000 cases were reported of threats, assaults, vandalism and intimidation. So, clearly, action is needed.

Given recent examples of antisemitic incidents at universities, it is evident that something needs to be done to give students and staff the assurance that they will be studying in a safe environment.

As Christopher Harris and Bridie Smith wrote yesterday, the report suggests universities that fail to end their “tolerance for antisemitic conduct” on campus could be stripped of funding. Under the plan, universities would be issued a report card by the envoy to grade the ability of Jewish students to participate actively and equally in campus life.

Zionist Federation of Australia president Jeremy Leibler.Credit: Penny Stephens

Universities have cautiously welcomed the report, some saying they welcome any suggestions to combat racism, but have so far stopped short of backing the recommendations. Given that universities should be incubators of open intellectual debate, this requires a balanced approach. So too does the report’s suggestion of media monitoring. There are already legal and industry-enforced boundaries designed to protect Australians from malicious or dangerous reporting.

Zionist Federation of Australia president Jeremy Leibler has said Segal’s report is a milestone in fighting antisemitism. Segal says: “The plan has to evolve, it’s ambitious. This, unfortunately, is no silver bullet, and it needs support rather than people reacting that it’s bad and dangerous.”

When more than 1200 people have been massacred, when in retaliation 50,000 people, including women and children are dead, when cities have been razed, when, in effect, a homeland has been destroyed, the edges of reason can be blurred. Indeed, they have been blurred so that thousands of kilometres away in Melbourne and Sydney, the actions of a government and its army have merged into the visage and facade of a people who have nothing to do with the conflict. They are targeted simply because of their religion.

It should never become the norm that public criticism of a country’s actions is illegal. Strong views on a conflict, such as the war in Gaza, do not amount to antisemitism. Targeting Jewish people and their religious and community institutions with fire, graffiti and intimidation, however, clearly does. It should not be allowed to continue.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, however, is right to give due consideration to the report’s recommendations before adopting them.

The special envoy’s position is advisory. The government will decide which of the report’s recommendations to implement. It will be answerable for their impacts, good and bad. And questions remain as to how they will be enforced.

If implemented in full, these recommendations could have far-reaching consequences on free speech and institutions like universities and the media. Such action should not be rushed.

The baseline of this work must, by necessity, be reconciling the urgency of combating antisemitism in this country and defending the rights of free speech. It is a balance that needs constant vigilance.

Get a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up for our Opinion newsletter.