‘Confected furore', ‘trust-breaker': Readers debate donation from Jillian Segal's husband
SPECIAL ENVOY
Australia's antisemitism envoy, Jillian Segal, has every right to be appalled by the selective outrage over her husband's donation to the Advance lobby group.
Her husband, John Roth, has no capacity in the Australian government. If instead, he had donated money to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), the silence of his critics would be deafening. Apparently, Roth has no right to donate to the ″wrong″ cause.
It is besides the point anyway. Does anyone seriously believe that Segal's vital work would be compromised by a donation by her husband? Anyone who believes that is effectively saying women have no capacity to form their own, independent opinions. If nothing else, this confected ″furore″ is an embarrassing insult to women everywhere.
Jeremy Browne, Ripponlea
Loss of trust in Segal's role
Jillian Segal's husband gave $50,000 to help fund the Advance lobby group's vision of Australia that is narrow, brittle, and hostile to dissent. She says she had no involvement in the donation, but her role as Australia's special envoy on antisemitism is not just any role.
Segal has been entrusted with leading a national conversation about hate, about how we live together, about where the lines of decency and bigotry are drawn. That task demands moral clarity—and public trust.
Even if her husband wrote the cheque alone, the proximity matters. Judgment is shaped by what we accept, what we ignore, and what we quietly let pass.
This is not a question of guilt. It is a question of trust. And that trust, I'm afraid, is already broken.
Nadia Green, Sunshine North
Segal must declare views on Advance
Minister for Home Affairs Tony Burke says in relation to Jillian Segal's husband making donations to the far right organisation Advance that 'claims that she should not be held responsible for her husband's actions are outdated' (″ Burke Slams Advance ″ 15/7).
However, just claiming she didn't know is not good enough. We need to hear Jillian Segal herself condemn the racism of the Advance agenda. As a special envoy dealing with racism, such a condemnation is long overdue.
To have any credibility in her role she must be unequivocal in condemning all forms of racism, not just antisemitism.
Bruce Francis, Brunswick
Muslim and Jewish communities need own envoy
Your correspondent does not have her facts correct, (Letters ″Another envoy needed″ 15/7. Indigenous Australians have a federal minister representing them in cabinet. This minister has a huge budget and a department of 1200 public servants receiving and seeking and providing advice to the government on the needs for the Indigenous community. The Muslim and Jewish communities now have special separate envoys giving recommendations to the government on how to stop hate speech, incitement and terrorist acts against their respective communities.
Ian Fayman, Malvern East
Israel does not get special treatment
All those who oppose antisemitism envoy, Jillian Segal's recommendation to apply the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism claim the definition prevents or unduly restricts criticism of Israel.
However, the definition itself specifically states that 'criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic'.
Those complaining about the definition want to criticise Israel in a way they wouldn't criticise any other country. Perhaps they should explain why they want to apply such double standards to the Jewish state.
Mark Kessel, Caulfield North
THE FORUM
Trump's war calendar
Re Ukraine war: Donald Trump's ″I will have it solved within one day″ has proven to be a seismic miscalculation, notwithstanding his later comment that his promise was made in″jest″. Now, thankfully (after 175 days in office), he appears to be taking the thrust of his promise seriously.
His commitment to supply Ukraine with Patriot missiles for Ukraine's defence and his threats of secondary tariffs on Russia are certainly steps in the right direction. They say a week is a long time in politics. Trump is finding ″a day″ is a long time in warfare and peacemaking.
Brian Marshall, Ashburton
Men of steel
Maureen Dowd (″ Why Donald Trump's good-looking cabinet can't stop making him look bad ″, 15/7) relates how White House staff posted a meme of Donald Trump as the 'Man of Steel″. Perhaps the staff got it unintentionally correct; we 85 year-old or more European immigrants, especially those of us from Eastern Europe, know who the Man of Steel was – the USSR dictator Stalin.
Richard Crago, Burwood East
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
West Australian
30 minutes ago
- West Australian
Climate justice push turns to leaders after court loss
Political leadership is needed on climate change, experts say following the rejection of a landmark case in the Federal Court. On Tuesday, the court rejected the case led by Uncle Pabai Pabai and Uncle Paul Kabai, which argued the Commonwealth owed a duty of care to protect their Torres Strait homelands from the impacts of climate change. The uncles filed the landmark case against the government in the Federal Court in 2021, seeking orders from the court that would require the government to take steps to prevent harm to their communities, including cutting greenhouse gas emissions in line with the best available science. In handing down his decision, Federal Court Justice Wigney Michael accepted many of the key factual elements of the case, including the impacts of climate change on the islands. The case failed, Justice Wigney said, because negligence law does not allow compensation when it comes to government policy decisions. "That will remain the case unless and until the law in Australia changes, either by the incremental development or expansion of the common law by appellant courts or by the enactment of legislation," Justice Wigney said. "Until then, the only real avenue available to those in the position of the applicants and other Torres Strait Islanders, involves public advocacy and protest and ultimately recourse via the ballot box." La Trobe University anthropology lecturer Aidan Craney, whose work is focused on understanding social change in the Pacific Islands region, said the decision shows the need for political leadership on climate justice. Dr Craney said the government's reaction to the case could influence Australia's relationships in the Pacific. "How the Australian government responds to this decision may influence the levels of support it receives from the region," he said. "Current sentiment is broadly positive. However, dissent has come from respected sources, such as the Pacific Elders Voice." Uncle Pabai Pabai and Uncle Paul Kabai said they were shocked and heartbroken after the decision, but vowed to continue pushing to protect their islands. "I'm feeling very emotional," Uncle Pabai Pabai told AAP after the decision. "I wasn't thinking we'd lose this case ... I'm very heartbroken." Griffith University Law School professor Susan Harris Rimmer said the decision was indeed a heartbreaking outcome. She urged the federal government to pass human rights legislation that would allow for the right to a clean, healthy and safe environment. "The United Nations Human Rights Committee has already ruled that rights have been breached by Australia in relation to climate impacts in the Torres Strait," she said."Australia is running out of time for the kind of incremental advocacy and protest that Justice Wigney noted was the only current avenue for reform."
Perth Now
42 minutes ago
- Perth Now
Tibetans raise rights abuses as PM meets Chinese leader
Tibet's president in exile has cautioned Australia about appeasing China for economic gain as he warns about Beijing's repression stretching into Australia. Penpa Tsering has urged Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to use his trip to China, which coincides with his own to Australia, to call out Chinese human rights abuses, including in Tibet. Mr Albanese met Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing on Tuesday, where he said he discussed several issues but did not refer to human rights in his opening remarks or the subsequent press conference with Australian media. Mr Tsering said it was important human rights issues were raised as more than just a box-checking exercise at the start of meetings, as the Chinese government would brush off timid remarks knowing there would be no follow-through. He said most Tibetans in Australia were former political prisoners and needed to self-censor criticisms of China if they wanted to get a visa to go back to the autonomous region to visit family. "I would like to believe that Australia is concerned about human rights situations, religious freedoms in every part of the world because that's a value that Australians cherish as a democratic, free country," he told AAP. Human Rights Watch's Australia director Daniela Gavshon said vague statements by the prime minister minimised the seriousness of China's abuses. Mr Albanese said Australia would "disagree where we must" when asked about China's human rights record in Shanghai. "By glossing over human rights as a difference of opinion, the Australian government risks undermining the very system that was established to protect and promote people's rights all over the world," she told AAP. As Mr Albanese promotes greater trade between Australia and China during his trip, Mr Tsering encouraged Canberra to reverse course and give China less business. This would deprive it of the economic benefits it then uses to prop up the very military build-up and human rights abuses Canberra then criticises, he said. "People look for material benefit more than moral values, unfortunately," the president in exile said. "As long as you have business, economic development, everybody feels comfortable and they don't talk about human rights - everything goes under the carpet, that's very sad." Mr Tsering is using his week-long tour in Australia to meet with the Tibetan community rather than political meetings, but will return for a second trip in February on a more diplomatic mission. China tightly controls Tibet and has been widely accused of severe human rights violations including torture, arbitrary detention and forced labour. Mr Tsering said Tibet was autonomous in name only as Beijing cracks down on freedoms and suppresses local culture. A major point of contention is religious freedoms, with China demanding the authority to determine the next Dalai Lama, Tibetan Buddhism's spiritual leader. The Dalai Lama has just turned 90 and followers believe His Holiness is reincarnated upon his death and China should have no say in the religious process.
Perth Now
42 minutes ago
- Perth Now
Climate justice push turns to leaders after court loss
Political leadership is needed on climate change, experts say following the rejection of a landmark case in the Federal Court. On Tuesday, the court rejected the case led by Uncle Pabai Pabai and Uncle Paul Kabai, which argued the Commonwealth owed a duty of care to protect their Torres Strait homelands from the impacts of climate change. The uncles filed the landmark case against the government in the Federal Court in 2021, seeking orders from the court that would require the government to take steps to prevent harm to their communities, including cutting greenhouse gas emissions in line with the best available science. In handing down his decision, Federal Court Justice Wigney Michael accepted many of the key factual elements of the case, including the impacts of climate change on the islands. The case failed, Justice Wigney said, because negligence law does not allow compensation when it comes to government policy decisions. "That will remain the case unless and until the law in Australia changes, either by the incremental development or expansion of the common law by appellant courts or by the enactment of legislation," Justice Wigney said. "Until then, the only real avenue available to those in the position of the applicants and other Torres Strait Islanders, involves public advocacy and protest and ultimately recourse via the ballot box." La Trobe University anthropology lecturer Aidan Craney, whose work is focused on understanding social change in the Pacific Islands region, said the decision shows the need for political leadership on climate justice. Dr Craney said the government's reaction to the case could influence Australia's relationships in the Pacific. "How the Australian government responds to this decision may influence the levels of support it receives from the region," he said. "Current sentiment is broadly positive. However, dissent has come from respected sources, such as the Pacific Elders Voice." Uncle Pabai Pabai and Uncle Paul Kabai said they were shocked and heartbroken after the decision, but vowed to continue pushing to protect their islands. "I'm feeling very emotional," Uncle Pabai Pabai told AAP after the decision. "I wasn't thinking we'd lose this case ... I'm very heartbroken." Griffith University Law School professor Susan Harris Rimmer said the decision was indeed a heartbreaking outcome. She urged the federal government to pass human rights legislation that would allow for the right to a clean, healthy and safe environment. "The United Nations Human Rights Committee has already ruled that rights have been breached by Australia in relation to climate impacts in the Torres Strait," she said."Australia is running out of time for the kind of incremental advocacy and protest that Justice Wigney noted was the only current avenue for reform."
