Australia urged to make 'gutsy' call against China war
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
40 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
WATCH LIVE: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese shares details after meeting with China's President Xi Jinping
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is speaking to reporters after his fourth face-to-face meeting with China's President Xi Jinping. Subscribe to to watch the media conference live. Mr Albanese labelled the congregation the "most important meeting", with President Xi expressing China is ready to push their relationship further in order to maintain peace, security, and stability between the two nations. Australians will learn what was addressed in the talks and what was left to one side as the Prime Minister navigates ongoing criticism over his apparent neglect of Australia's US alliance over defence spending. One of the biggest discussions between Mr Albanese and President Xi is the Port of Darwin. With the Australian and Chinese national flags hanging from the walls in the Great Hall, the Prime Minister received a warm welcome in Beijing after arriving in China on the weekend.
Sydney Morning Herald
an hour ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Segal's report lays a trap for Albanese. How he responds will have profound implications
In December 2024, when the ABC was confronted with the relentless lobbying by some members of a WhatsApp group calling itself Lawyers for Israel and demanding the sacking of its broadcaster, Antoinette Lattouf, it had a clear choice. It could have responded by rejecting their demands to illegally sack Lattouf. Instead, as Justice Darryl Rangiah of the Federal Court of Australia recently found, the ABC capitulated and embarked on a $2 million campaign to defend the indefensible. In its ruling, the court made clear that sacking an employee who expressed criticisms of the Israeli government's treatment of Palestinians was illegal because Australian laws protected our right to express political opinion. Last week, antisemitism envoy Jillian Segal walked into a press conference with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and laid a similar trap for the government. Her 16-page report contained recommendations that undermine the rule of law by seeking to bypass the institutions which protect our democracy: the parliament, the courts, tribunals and the Australian Human Rights Commission. All forms of racism and antisemitism are already unlawful in Australia, and hate speech laws have been toughened in response to an increase in antisemitic incidents in the last year. Loading When the issue has been put to the test, existing laws have worked, too. A court found this month that a Sydney Muslim cleric's lectures were unlawful because they were 'fundamentally racist and antisemitic'. The court also correctly determined that 'political criticism of Israel, however inflammatory or adversarial, is not by its nature, criticism of Jews in general or based on Jewish racial or ethnic identity' and therefore was not antisemitic or unlawful. One of the key recommendations in Segal's report is that all levels of government, institutions and 'regulatory bodies' adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's controversial definition of antisemitism. In part, this definition states that it is antisemitic to target the state of Israel and/or claim the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour. Adopting the IHRA definition would render the opinions of many protesters in Israel as antisemitic, let alone those here in Australia. It is completely at odds with the Federal Court's recent finding and our existing anti-discrimination laws.
The Age
an hour ago
- The Age
Segal's report lays a trap for Albanese. How he responds will have profound implications
In December 2024, when the ABC was confronted with the relentless lobbying by some members of a WhatsApp group calling itself Lawyers for Israel and demanding the sacking of its broadcaster, Antoinette Lattouf, it had a clear choice. It could have responded by rejecting their demands to illegally sack Lattouf. Instead, as Justice Darryl Rangiah of the Federal Court of Australia recently found, the ABC capitulated and embarked on a $2 million campaign to defend the indefensible. In its ruling, the court made clear that sacking an employee who expressed criticisms of the Israeli government's treatment of Palestinians was illegal because Australian laws protected our right to express political opinion. Last week, antisemitism envoy Jillian Segal walked into a press conference with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and laid a similar trap for the government. Her 16-page report contained recommendations that undermine the rule of law by seeking to bypass the institutions which protect our democracy: the parliament, the courts, tribunals and the Australian Human Rights Commission. All forms of racism and antisemitism are already unlawful in Australia, and hate speech laws have been toughened in response to an increase in antisemitic incidents in the last year. Loading When the issue has been put to the test, existing laws have worked, too. A court found this month that a Sydney Muslim cleric's lectures were unlawful because they were 'fundamentally racist and antisemitic'. The court also correctly determined that 'political criticism of Israel, however inflammatory or adversarial, is not by its nature, criticism of Jews in general or based on Jewish racial or ethnic identity' and therefore was not antisemitic or unlawful. One of the key recommendations in Segal's report is that all levels of government, institutions and 'regulatory bodies' adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's controversial definition of antisemitism. In part, this definition states that it is antisemitic to target the state of Israel and/or claim the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour. Adopting the IHRA definition would render the opinions of many protesters in Israel as antisemitic, let alone those here in Australia. It is completely at odds with the Federal Court's recent finding and our existing anti-discrimination laws.
