I have marital advice for our anti-Semitism envoy
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
West Australian
11 hours ago
- West Australian
No Lattouf contempt probe after Nine names lobbyists
Nine has dodged a contempt prosecution despite publicly naming several pro-Israel lobbyists who had their identities suppressed after complaining about an ABC radio host's views on Palestine. Antoinette Lattouf was ousted from her casual position on ABC Radio Sydney's Mornings program in December 2023 after a concerted email campaign by the lobbyists demanding she be sacked. She was awarded $70,000 for her unlawful termination in June. As her Federal Court hearing against the ABC started in February, Justice Darryl Rangiah suppressed the names of nine individuals who had complained about Lattouf. He said there were safety fears if they were publicly identified. Then-ABC chair Ita Buttrose wrote to former managing director David Anderson that she was getting over the complaints two days into Lattouf's fill-in hosting shift, in an email presented during the trial. Nine published a series of articles in the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age in January 2024 naming four of the complainants, and did not remove the names until March 2025. The complainants then urged Justice Rangiah to refer the matter to a Federal Court registrar who could prosecute the two Nine-owned publications for contempt. The contempt case was also brought against journalists Michael Bachelard and Calum Jaspan, editors Bevan Shields and Patrick Elligett and Nine's in-house lawyers Larina Alick and Sam White. On Friday, Justice Rangiah declined to refer the matter for prosecution. The complainants had brought a "reasonably arguable" case that Nine was in contempt, he acknowledged in his judgment. But Nine had an arguable defence that the court's suppression order only related to the names of nine complainants found in documents tendered during Lattouf's trial against the ABC, he wrote. Nine argued it had sourced the names from other material, more than a year before the trial started. In declining to send the matter onto a registrar, the judge said the complainants could prosecute the case themselves if they wished. "I consider the intervening parties are 'the ones most naturally placed' to conduct proceedings for contempt of court," he wrote. He ordered the lobbyists pay half of Nine's legal costs, saying the network's failure to properly respond to repeated correspondence from their lawyers was "discourteous and unhelpful". However, he did not order all costs be paid because there was no reasonable basis for contempt proceedings to be brought against Mr White and Ms Alick. The in-house lawyers had no control over whether the articles were amended and there was no evidence about the legal advice they had given, the judge said.
Perth Now
11 hours ago
- Perth Now
No Lattouf contempt probe after Nine names lobbyists
Nine has dodged a contempt prosecution despite publicly naming several pro-Israel lobbyists who had their identities suppressed after complaining about an ABC radio host's views on Palestine. Antoinette Lattouf was ousted from her casual position on ABC Radio Sydney's Mornings program in December 2023 after a concerted email campaign by the lobbyists demanding she be sacked. She was awarded $70,000 for her unlawful termination in June. As her Federal Court hearing against the ABC started in February, Justice Darryl Rangiah suppressed the names of nine individuals who had complained about Lattouf. He said there were safety fears if they were publicly identified. Then-ABC chair Ita Buttrose wrote to former managing director David Anderson that she was getting over the complaints two days into Lattouf's fill-in hosting shift, in an email presented during the trial. Nine published a series of articles in the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age in January 2024 naming four of the complainants, and did not remove the names until March 2025. The complainants then urged Justice Rangiah to refer the matter to a Federal Court registrar who could prosecute the two Nine-owned publications for contempt. The contempt case was also brought against journalists Michael Bachelard and Calum Jaspan, editors Bevan Shields and Patrick Elligett and Nine's in-house lawyers Larina Alick and Sam White. On Friday, Justice Rangiah declined to refer the matter for prosecution. The complainants had brought a "reasonably arguable" case that Nine was in contempt, he acknowledged in his judgment. But Nine had an arguable defence that the court's suppression order only related to the names of nine complainants found in documents tendered during Lattouf's trial against the ABC, he wrote. Nine argued it had sourced the names from other material, more than a year before the trial started. In declining to send the matter onto a registrar, the judge said the complainants could prosecute the case themselves if they wished. "I consider the intervening parties are 'the ones most naturally placed' to conduct proceedings for contempt of court," he wrote. He ordered the lobbyists pay half of Nine's legal costs, saying the network's failure to properly respond to repeated correspondence from their lawyers was "discourteous and unhelpful". However, he did not order all costs be paid because there was no reasonable basis for contempt proceedings to be brought against Mr White and Ms Alick. The in-house lawyers had no control over whether the articles were amended and there was no evidence about the legal advice they had given, the judge said.
Sydney Morning Herald
14 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
To defend our democracy, PM must disavow and abandon Segal report
The eminent Jewish historian, the late Tony Judt, put it this way in the leading Israeli newspaper Haaretz in 2006: 'When Israel breaks international law in the occupied territories, when Israel publicly humiliates the subject populations whose land it has seized – but then responds to its critics with loud cries of 'antisemitism' – it is in effect saying that these acts are not Israeli acts, they are Jewish acts: The occupation is not an Israeli occupation, it is a Jewish occupation, and if you don't like these things it is because you don't like Jews. 'In many parts of the world this is in danger of becoming a self-fulfilling assertion: Israel's reckless behaviour and insistent identification of all criticism with antisemitism is now the leading source of anti-Jewish sentiment in Western Europe and much of Asia.' Anyone repeating Judt's words would risk no longer being able to speak in mainstream Australia because they would have been branded as antisemitic. Similarly, a university or writers' festival or public broadcaster could lose its funding for hosting Ehud Olmert, Israel's former prime minister, who last week compared plans for a 'humanitarian city' to be built in Rafah to 'a concentration camp', making him yet another antisemite according to the Segal report. Pointedly, Olmert said, 'Attitudes inside Israel might start to shift only when Israelis started to feel the burden of international pressure.' In other words, leading Israelis are saying criticism of Israel can be helpful, rather than antisemitic. Yet, even by me doing no more than quoting word-for-word arguments made by globally distinguished Jews, could it be that I meet the Segal report's criteria for antisemitism? Would I be blacklisted for repeating what can be said in Israel about Israel but cannot be said in Australia? At the same time, in an Australia where protest is being increasingly criminalised, the Segal report creates an attractive template that could be broadened to silence dissenting voices that question the state's policies on other matters such as immigration, climate and environment. Loading That the ABC and SBS could be censored on the basis of 'monitoring' by Jillian Segal, a power she recommends she be given as the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, raises the unedifying vision of our public broadcasters being policed from the Segal family lounge room. No matter how much Segal seeks to now distance herself from her husband's political choices, that his family trust is a leading donor to Advance – a far-right lobby group which advocates anti-Palestinian, anti-immigrant positions, publishes racist cartoons and promotes the lie that climate change is a hoax – doesn't help engender in the Australian public a sense of political innocence about her report. It is hard to see how this helps a Jewish community that feels threatened, attacked and misunderstood. Could it be that the Segal report's only contribution to the necessary battle against antisemitism will be to fuel the growth of the antisemitism it is meant to combat? If the ironies are endless, the dangers are profound. Loading It is not simply that these things are absurd, it is that they are a threat to us as a democratic people. That the prime minister has unwisely put himself in a position where he now must disavow something he previously seemed to support is unfortunate. But disavow and abandon it he must. Antisemitism is real and, as is all racism, despicable. The federal government is right to do all it can within existing laws to act against the perpetrators of recent antisemitic outrages. Earlier this month, the Federal Court found Wissam Haddad guilty of breaching the Racial Discrimination Act with online posts that were ' fundamentally racist and antisemitic ' but ruled that criticism of Israel, Zionism and the Israel Defence Forces was not antisemitic. It is wrong to go beyond our laws in new ways that would damage Australian democracy and seem to only serve the interests of another nation that finds its actions the subject of global opprobrium. The example of the USA shows where forgetting what is at stake leads. Just because the most powerful in our country have endorsed this report does not mean we should agree with it. Just because it stifles criticism of another country does not make Australia better nor Jews safer. Nor, if we follow the logic of Ehud Olmert, does it even help Israel. As the Auschwitz survivor Primo Levi wrote, 'we too are so dazzled by power and prestige as to forget our own essential fragility. Willingly or not we come to terms with power, forgetting that we are all in the ghetto, that the ghetto is walled in, that outside the ghetto reign the lords of death and that close by the train is waiting.' The lessons of the ghetto are not the exclusive property of Israel but of all humanity. In every human heart as well as the lover and the liberator, there exists the oppressor and the murderer. And no nation-state, no matter the history of its people, has the right to mass murder and then expect of other peoples that they not speak of it. If we agree to that, if we forget our own essential fragility, we become complicit in the crime and the same evil raining down on the corpse-ridden sands of Gaza begins to poison us as well.
