Defining antisemitism is no threat to free speech. Without a definition, we are adrift
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AU Financial Review
an hour ago
- AU Financial Review
Beijing targeted Australia to send warning to US, says Morrison
Washington DC | Former prime minister Scott Morrison says Beijing's trade bans on Australian goods and diplomatic freeze during his leadership were aimed at making an example of a key US ally in the Indo-Pacific, where it seeks to gain control of neighbouring democracies. In a rare appearance for a former foreign leader in front of a congressional committee, Morrison warned on Wednesday (Thursday AEST) that the Chinese Communist Party has taken advantage of its growing economic power since the 1990s to build capacity to challenge the global order.
The Age
2 hours ago
- The Age
AUKUS agreement: Trump official questions Australia's commitment amid Pentagon review
'That's still a jump ball as far as I'm concerned. Because the Australians have been noticeably fickle. We need to understand, Australia has a population of around 30 million people. It's a remarkably small tax base, and they are making a significant tax investment in this over the next 10 years.' A jump ball in basketball is similar to a ball-up in Australian Rules Football, where either team has a chance of gaining control of the play. Both Labor and the Coalition have expressed consistent commitment to AUKUS. Hendrix has also argued AUKUS does not provide enough capacity for Australian shipyards to repair American and British submarines, as well as Australian ones, and the US should 'more heavily leverage' the agreement. He has said of Australia and the Philippines: 'We're going to need them and their assistance and their basing rights and infrastructure, and I don't think they're ready to host Americans in the way that we're going to need to be hosted to do a counter-campaign to the Chinese invasion.' Hendrix appears to have deleted a number of posts on X about Australia and AUKUS. In one that is still online, from April 2024, he said there were two key questions – 'whether the Australian government will sustain their commitment across the coming years and change of governments', and 'whether the US will actually be willing to give up Virginia-class boats'. Loading Last week, Hendrix welcomed a news story that reported the Pentagon was asking Australia and Japan to make clear commitments about what they would do in a conflict between the US and China over Taiwan. 'Given these nations [are] critical [to] the task of logistically supporting US forces should we come to the aid of Taiwan, this inquiry is legitimate,' he said. 'I would be shocked to find that the previous administration hadn't asked the partners.' Reached by text, Hendrix declined to comment and referred questions to the White House. Spokeswoman Anna Kelly supplied a statement that said US shipbuilding had been neglected for decades and would be boosted by a $US43 billion ($66 billion) investment in the president's One Big Beautiful Bill. 'No president has done more to bolster American maritime power, and his White House Office of Shipbuilding will operate under the Office of Management and Budget,' she said. In their letter to Hegseth, Republican committee chair John Moolenaar and Democratic representative Raja Krishnamoorthi said AUKUS had bipartisan support in Congress for a reason, and that it would strengthen US security as well as that of Australia and the United Kingdom. They noted Beijing's 'unprecedented' live-fire exercises in the Tasman Sea in February. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth watches a display of drone technology at the Pentagon on Wednesday. Credit: AP 'This attempt to project power as far south as New Zealand's front door highlights the importance of AUKUS in cementing ties to longstanding allies like Australia, as well as advancing vital undersea capabilities that will be central to deterrence,' they wrote. 'We are stronger together under the AUKUS framework.' The committee will hold a hearing on Wednesday in Washington on strategies to counter economic coercion by the Chinese Communist Party against democracies. Former Australian prime minister Scott Morrison, who brokered the AUKUS deal, is scheduled to appear, as is former US senator and ambassador to Japan Rahm Emanuel. Undersecretary of defence for policy Elbridge Colby, who is heading the Pentagon's AUKUS review, has posted actively on social media over the past fortnight, doubling down on his calls for American allies to 'step up'. Loading 'No one at the Pentagon is asking for a blank cheque from our allies. Rather, the United States and our allies all benefit from a reasonable expectation of what contributions we can anticipate each other to make,' he said on Monday, US time. 'That is why we are working closely with our allies to align expectations, an approach akin to what we have with NATO and South Korea. This will make our alliances sturdier and more equitable. That's just common sense.' Get a note directly from our foreign correspondents on what's making headlines around the world. Sign up for our weekly What in the World newsletter.
Sky News AU
4 hours ago
- Sky News AU
'Bunch of drunken sailors': Sky News host Steve Price scorns Labor's 'crazy' spending as NDIS budget exceeds defence by a billion
Sky News host Steve Price has hit out at Labor's 'crazy' spending as the NDIS budget overshadows defence while more than half the nation relies on some form of government subsidy. Price said the Albanese government was rightly happy to have won the federal election, but now needed to get the country 'back on track'. A report by the Centre for Independent Studies which found more than half of Australian voters rely on government for most of their income - through wages, benefits or subsidies - was proof of the major challenges ahead, he claimed. 'We have become a nation of leaners, not leaders, and I hate to say that,' Price said. 'We have continued to swamp the country with unprecedented numbers of migrants. We have workers relying on governments for their pay packets. That grows alarmingly.' CIS economist Robert Carling warned such widespread dependence has fuelled unsustainable government spending and eroded economic resilience. In a new paper published on Wednesday, Leviathan on the Rampage, Mr Carling warned federal spending alone has reached 27.6 per cent of GDP. This was up from between 24 and 25 per cent of GDP in 2012-13 and has been fuelled by a 'program expansion in social services, defence and debt interest'. 'How can that be sustainable?' Price said. 'According to that report, spending is driven largely by a small group of programmes including - surprise surprise - the NDIS, Aged Care, Medicare and Defence. The NDIS is actually costing taxpayers more than what we spend on defence. How crazy is that? This year alone, $52 billion on the NDIS. 'Simply not sustainable.' Australia's current defence budget is $51 billion. Price said the Labor government was 'spending like a bunch of drunken sailors'. According to the federal budget 2025-26, the NDIS recorded the second highest annual growth in major payments, behind only interest. It has been projected to cost more than $64 billion by the end of the decade. Meanwhile, the federal budget has been projected to endure a decade of deficits and surge past $1 trillion of debt. The findings come just days after leaked Treasury advice revealed the Albanese government has been told to pursue 'spending reductions'. Treasury said Treasurer Jim Chalmers would need to find 'additional revenue and spending reductions' to ensure a 'sustainable budget'.
