Season 3 - Episode 2- What about the Rule of Law

In Episode Two of Tensions Transplanted, Rob Kaldor and Isy Oderberg examine the rule of law, the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion, and the limits of law in confronting hate. Featuring Julian Leeser MP, former judge Ron Sackville AO KC, Australian Human Rights Commission President Hugh de Kretser, and Project Shema co-founder Zachary Schaffer, the episode explores hate speech, terrorism, coded language, Zionism, free speech, social cohesion and the difficult question of what governments, institutions and communities can do next. It is a conversation about the role of law, leadership and public language in a moment when Jewish Australians are asking not only what has gone wrong, but what meaningful repair could look like.

Transcript

SPEAKER_01 0:00

Coming up on this episode of Tensions Transplanted.

SPEAKER_04 0:05

It's very important, in my view, and not everybody will agree with this, that the mainstream Jewish community should not try and go too far so as to open the way to other organizations using this as a forum to attack.

SPEAKER_05 0:21

There's absolutely a role for political leadership, for community leadership to say, under no we don't want a society where people are saying those things to each other.

SPEAKER_00 0:31

And when we begin to treat individual Jews as part of an evil collective, we are perpetuating anti-Jewish harm.

SPEAKER_01 0:41

Welcome to Tensions Transplanted for the Jewish Independent. I'm Rob Caldor. Joining me for this series is Izzy Oderberg. Izzy, tell us a bit about what's happening in today's episode, the second of the series.

SPEAKER_02 0:53

So today we're going to be looking really at the rule of law and the lead up to the Royal Commission. What are the levers that are available to government and statutory authorities in terms of hate speech, in terms of terrorism, in terms of violence, and looking at where we can go constructively, both within the Royal Commission but also outside of that mechanism.

SPEAKER_01 1:16

Full interviews will be available linked in the show notes and obviously on the tensions transplanted website. If you want to send us emails and we've had some great feedback already on our first episode, you can contact us tt at the Jewishindependent.com.au via email and all over the Jewish Independent socials. But enough talk. I think we should get straight into episode two.

SPEAKER_02 1:43

In the wake of the massacre at Bondi, there was a movement that really gained traction in Australia to have a Royal Commission into anti-Semitism. And at the forefront of that campaign to get that Royal Commission off the ground was Member of Parliament Julian Lisa. So we went to Julian and we asked him why he felt so strongly that a Royal Commission was needed.

SPEAKER_03 2:05

The reason we needed a Royal Commission, the reason why I jumped on so strongly is that there are large sectors of our society that have failed to recognise the gathering storm of anti-Semitism that's occurred in this country, have failed to root out Jew hatred from government-funded organizations, particularly in education and the cultural sector. And the Royal Commission, it's the highest form of public policy making in this country, in a sense. You've got a retired judge, you've got experienced silks cross-examining witnesses, you know, you can't evade questions like you can at a parliamentary committee. And the history of Royal Commissions is that, you know, they're the one they're the one body where if recommendations are made, they tend to be adopted. They're taken very seriously. And the time for pussy footing was well and truly over.

SPEAKER_02 2:54

So, Rob, were you in favour of a Royal Commission or not? Like we're already now, since that was recorded, we are actually in the Royal Commission. But were you in favour or were you against or were you neutral?

SPEAKER_01 3:05

I mean, I think overall I was for it because it was such a horrendous event that happened and it had been it wasn't I didn't believe it was an event that came in isolation, like you know, me we spoke about in the first episode. So I think I was for it, but it wasn't without ambiguity. What about you?

SPEAKER_02 3:24

Oh gosh. I mean I I think that I I wasn't against it and I wasn't for it. I was comfortable to sit back and let it play out and fall where it where it did. And you know, I'm making a submission now that now that it is happening, I'll be making a submission. And I didn't think the reason I was neutral was because I could see the advantages and the disadvantages. I definitely feel like now that we're actually in the middle of it, you know, it is pros and cons to it. Like it is positive, like I didn't know it was happening. I mean, I didn't even know what happened. Like, you know, watching it all about it. There is a reason there is a reasonable commission. Now we don't have to do anything else.

SPEAKER_01 4:51

Or if it's always been there. So I yeah, I look I think the big piece will be what will be the outcome. And I do I do find it pretty horrible that the people that have testified at the Royal Commission have then been further targeted.

SPEAKER_02 5:05

It takes a lot of guys to speak out publicly and and you know, you put your face and name to the things that you're saying because there are keyboard warriors that just want to you know drag you down. And we see this among other communities as we go out as well, the African community, the you know, Aboriginal and original island communities. It has to be called out. But yeah, I think it'll be interesting to see not only what it recommends a commission and whether those recommendations are put into practice, but also what are the other things that we're gonna do to wrap around any recommendations that it makes, you know, around social cohesion and and equality and equity and these sorts of issues.

SPEAKER_01 5:43

I think we should get into your chat with Ron Sackville because he's someone that really that that really does know his his way around the courtroom anyway.

SPEAKER_02 5:54

There are very few people better qualified to talk about royal commissions than Ron Sackville AOKC. Um he was the chair of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with a Disability. He's also a former acting judge of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, a former judge of the Federal Court of Australia, and he spoke to us about the Royal Commission into Anti-Semitism. I started by asking Ron why he was in favour of a Royal Commission.

SPEAKER_04 6:24

Well, at the outset, I had my reservations, and I still do, in a sense, because there are things that can go wrong with that Royal with the Royal Commission. I think Commissioner Bell has done a very good job in the opening her opening statement of quelling some of the fears that might uh be held of where the Royal Commission will go. But thinking about it after 14 December, it seemed to me that because of the demands within the Jewish community for Royal Commission and from the families of victims and survivors for Royal Commission, there was a great deal of good that could come out of it if it was properly handled not only by the commissioner but by the Jewish community. So I thought that the Royal Commission could do very good work in exposing the nature and extent of anti-Semitism, anti-Semitism in Australia, in, for example, universities, in the art sector, and the sort of experiences that Jewish writers and artists have experienced, as well as the anti-Semitism that Jewish people in general, including kids at school and people going to shuls and so on, uh, it was very important to expose the extent of that. I do think the worker can do in public hearings and exposing the extent of uh anti-Semitism and in uh clarifying the nature of anti-Semitism and what can be done by way of public policy to address levels of anti-Semitism and not merely changing the criminal law, which is a fairly blunt instrument, but in a whole variety of ways, I think that can lead to very, very useful outcomes.

SPEAKER_02 8:14

What do you think are some of the other legal mechanisms that could be put in place to assist in fighting anti-Semitism? I mean, this there's no silver bullet, right? We need a suite of different mechanisms that can address it, given how complicated and nuanced and multifaceted it is. Are there other things that you would like to see put in place?

SPEAKER_04 8:38

Well, there are many things that can be done. Um remember that uh solutions to problems don't just lie on the law. Uh we've already seen that uh the attempts to legislate so as to curtail hate speech, to curtail demonstrations, run into problems, and sometimes they actually make things worse. And we have a problem in it's either a problem or a great advantage in this country, depending upon your point of view, that uh we have uh a constitution which has been interpreted to protect uh an implied right of political, implied freedom of political communication. And some laws have already been struck down, and I have a suspicion that others will be as well. So that there is a there is room, obviously, for the operation of the criminal law or for laws that provide for civil remedies, such as the Racial Discrimination Act, to curb anti-Semitism. But I think we've got to be a bit cautious about relying upon the criminal law to achieve those objectives. As I say, it's a fairly blunt instrument and not always calculated to bring about the changes in attitudes that might be required. So there are many other things that can be done, and some of them are underway. The university sector, for example, has received a message pretty loud and clear that they need to do much better in uh protecting the safety of Jewish students and Jewish staff, for that matter. And there are steps that have been already taken by universities to correct the situation that was allowed to prevail for a considerable period of time. The University of Sydney is an example. I don't think for one moment that what's been done will necessarily eliminate anti-Semitism at Sydney University, but at least there is now an awareness of the nature of the problem and mechanisms that have been introduced that don't involve the criminal law, but can involve other procedures and practices of the university that will identify and deal with actions or speech that amount to anti-semitism. There have been mechanisms set up as the result of Gillian Siegel's inquiry that are in the nature of reporting what happens at universities and proposing strategies to deal with it. Similarly, when we're dealing with schools, there of course there are mechanisms that can be done. The sort of thing that uh Rabbi Mendel Castell has done in bringing together students from different uh schools, some Muslim, some Christian, some Jewish, presumably some atheists or agnostics, learning about each other, learning to respect each other's views, even if uh they're quite different and their backgrounds are quite different. That sort of interaction seems to me to be the sort of thing that needs to be explored and for the Royal Commission to make some recommendations as to how that kind of endeavour can be expanded because that's the kind of grassroots educational program that is required not just to curb anti-Semitism but to curb other forms of uh prejudice.

SPEAKER_02 12:02

One of the um fears from some of the people that I've spoken to who weren't in favour or were were concerned about a Royal Commission is that sometimes the loudest voices tend to be the most extreme and that there was a potential for this to become a platform for people that don't necessarily always represent the best interests of our community, but also other people who represent interests that are not necessarily constructive. Do you have any concerns on that particular fear?

SPEAKER_04 12:34

I've had concerns, but those concerns have been to a considerable extent ameliorated by the opening statement of uh Commissioner Bell. And I do think it will be sensible for people who hold those views to read uh the transcript of the opening hearing, which is available on the Royal Commission's website. It's not very long. But to give you an example, Commissioner Bell has said that her present view is that the IHRA, that is the International Holocaust Remembrance Association definition of anti-Semitism is one that she proposes to adopt. Now that is a potential source of conflict because, of course, there are many people who, not necessarily all of goodwill towards the Jewish community, who say that, oh, the uh IHRA definition is designed to limit or curtail criticism of Israel. That is a misreading of the definition, and I've explained in an article that I put on Substeck some time ago exactly why I take that view. I'm sure Commissioner Bell hasn't read my article, but she's reached pretty much what seems to be the same conclusion, at least on a tentative basis. And I don't think she's giving much hope to those who would say, oh, we want to use this as a platform for attacking the definition because it curtails criticism, legitimate criticism of Israel. In my opinion, it does no such thing. And she has explained that in her view, the critics pay too little attention to the actual wording, not just of the definition, but of the examples which allow for nuance and where everything depends on context. So that's one way in which I think her opening statement uh serves to limit the potential for the Royal Commission to allow people not necessarily of goodwill to create difficulties. Um there are other things that she has uh said that I think are quite helpful. She has made the point that this is a Royal Commission whose terms of reference focus upon anti-Semitism, dealing with anti-Semitism, the causes, the nature, the extent, and asked the Royal Commission to come up with recommendations to address anti-Semitism. There is a reference to social cohesion, and some groups, some Islamic groups are among these, have seized upon the reference to social cohesion and said, ah well, this gives the Royal Commission the authority and perhaps even the obligation to look at social cohesion as it affects uh Islamic communities and to and the Commission should take the opportunity to address Islamophobia. LGBTQI plus groups have said yes, this is a good opportunity to look at uh other forms of hatred, including against our community, and so on. Commissioner Bell has said quite clearly in the opening statement that she intends to focus on anti-Semitism, that social cohesion needs to be understood in the sense, in its context, in the terms of reference, that is to say, social cohesion as it is affected by anti-Semitism, and she intends to use the Royal Commission as a case study in how social cohesion can be improved. She gives a clear indication that she does not go intend to go into uh Islamophobia, discrimination, and prejudice against other groups. She recognises that that is a genuine social problem, but that's not what this Royal Commission is about. That, in my view, limits the opportunity for some who would seek to broaden the commission so far that it would be uh unable to perform its uh core tasks.

SPEAKER_02 16:42

If you had to summarize how you feel about the Royal Commission going forward, what would you tell me if I said what what's your outlook?

SPEAKER_04 16:51

I would have preferred to have a Royal Commission that was more of a truth-telling exercise. Given that we are where we are, I'm encouraged by the way in which the Commissioner has sought to narrow the issues and to head off potentially disruptive claims or submissions or whatever that might be made that will divert the attention, that would divert the attention of the Royal Commission from the core issue, namely anti-Semitism. So I am at the moment, uh, with some reservations, cautiously optimistic about the exercise, and a lot depends on the nature of the interaction between the mainstream Australian Jewish community and the Royal Commission. And by that I mean it's very important, in my view, not everybody will agree with this, that the mainstream Jewish community should not try and go too far in, for example, the way they interpret the IHRA definition and so on. They've got to be a little bit careful not to go too far so as to open the way to other organisations using this as a forum to attack an overreach by the mainstream Jewish community. I think that can be done, but I think there's a risk.

SPEAKER_02 18:12

One of the questions I was really eager to discuss with Ron was the issue of coded language, and in particular the word Zionist, which has been sort of misappropriated by people outside of the Jewish community, although some probably within as well, and made to mean something that doesn't remotely resemble what the people who actually use it to identify themselves would recognise as being in the meaning of the word. There's also been some controversial statements made that seek to use Zionist as a code word for the word Jew. I wanted to talk to him about how we can deal with that issue and in the legal sense, but also whether the Royal Commission could potentially be involved in that.

SPEAKER_04 18:56

Of course, the use of Zionism or Zionist as a label is capable of being anti-Semitic. But let's move away a bit from anti-Semitism as such. The test is really not all that difficult to state. Is speech or conduct uh leveling hate at Jewish Australians by virtue of their identity as Jews? That's essentially the test. And where Zion where when someone, for example, says all Zionists are terrorists, all Zionists support genocide, or all Zionists are supporters of apartheid or whatever, and that is directed at Australian Jews, uh, then of course you're into the realm of hate speech because it's a classic example of uh hate speech because it uh attributes uh a characteristic to an entire group of people, regardless of their individual beliefs, and it's designed to denigrate them. Uh and that's the sort of approach. So there's a recent decision by a Victorian tribunal, for example, uh just uh I think the other day, that more or less adopts that uh approach to some of the uh uh slogans that were shouted by someone at one of the demonstrations. And uh I think that as long as there is a clear-eyed understanding of what test you've got to apply, and it's not just a definition of anti-Semitism, it's really turning upon whether what is said or done amounts to hate directed at a particular group in the community, in this case Jewish Australians. So I think uh that uh there are mechanisms to draw that line, allowing sufficient leeway for freedom of speech, but also recognizing that freedom of speech uh in our society, maybe as distinct from the United States, is not a license to engage in um hate speech, and there are lines that have to be drawn.

SPEAKER_02 21:03

I I was really shocked by that decision because I feel like there have been so many instances where uh people could have been pulled up on very similar statements that were made, whether it was on social media or at rallies or anything else. That was actually brought about by uh by private individual. It wasn't charges laid by police or anything like that. Why do you think there had been a lot of people?

SPEAKER_04 21:29

Well that was also true of the other case that was brought by uh Peter Werlheim and I think Robert Goot that was successful ultimately in New South Wales. And the problem here may be that uh there are no obvious mechanisms for cases to be brought, not necessarily to apply criminal sanctions, but to apply the sort of civil remedies that are available under the uh anti discrimination. Act and similar similar legislation to bring people who engage in hate speech to account and require them to desist from making similar statements in the future. Now relying upon individual members of the Jewish community or even the organized Jewish community through its uh representative institutions to bring these proceedings may present an unfair burden and maybe that we need to have other mechanisms that are much more effective in, as you say, holding these people uh to uh account. You're absolutely right that uh there's no material difference between uh what this uh person is alleged to have said and what uh we know that others have said uh from time to time.

SPEAKER_02 22:51

After speaking to Ron and getting his perspective, I also wanted to get a new perspective on this. And I went to Hugh De Kretzer, who is the president of the Australian Human Rights Commission. He was formerly the CEO of the Europe Justice Commission, which is the first formal truth-telling process or was into historical and ongoing injustices experienced by First Peoples in Victoria. Previously, he was the Executive Director of the Human Rights Law Centre and the Executive Officer of the Victorian Federation of Community Legal Centres. Hugh and I talked about a range of issues, but we started off on this issue of coded language.

SPEAKER_05 23:48

So that was clearly recognised in 1948 off the back of you know the Holocaust and horrors of World War II. So that's always been a key principle of international human rights law. Um, as you allude to, where you draw the line between uh and and when particularly you're using coded language, um, well, if you look at section 18c, it says is this language in all the circumstances reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate, or intimidate on the grounds of race? And so courts over since um you know the decades since that was passed have uh interpreted that and helped to draw that line. And um in Victoria, we've just had a an important case in the Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal where um uh um a person brought a complaint under the racial and religious um vilification law in Victoria, um which says that if you incite hatred, serious contempt or ridicule because of someone's race or religion, that's unlawful. And the phrase, as I understand it in that case, I haven't analyzed the case properly, was all Zionists are terrorists. And that was held to breach the uh those provisions in Victoria, civil provisions, not criminal provisions, but um creates the avenues for an order from the court prohibiting people from saying those, prohibiting the people subject to that order from saying those things and potentially compensation or apology and things like that. So there, as I understand it, and again I haven't I've got to read the case properly, the um court has recognized where you said that uh that the large majority of Australian Jews are um Zionists, they support the existence of the State of Israel as an expression of the self-determination of the Jewish people, and the um uh therefore it's it's uh effectively coded language that you're by saying those words you're inciting um ridicule or hatred against uh Jewish people.

SPEAKER_02 25:49

But that word has been so weaponized, and I mean, you know, it it's like any political group, I mean, it there are Zionists from all different sides of politics. Um, and you know, now I see in the gu, you know, in in left wing uh in left-wing publications people uh who aren't Jewish being asked to define what Zionist means. And I'm like, I don't or aren't Zionist and aren't Jewish, you know, and they're being asked to define what Zionism means, and it's it's just it's a co it's for us it's become very difficult.

SPEAKER_05 26:23

Um and a lot of context dependent, yeah. So you have to put it.

SPEAKER_02 26:29

But listen, you know, you get three Jews in a room and you'll get five opinions. There are 300,000 people in Israel on any given weekend marching against the Israeli government. No one is saying don't criticize the Israeli government, Jews are excellent at it, as are Israelis. But we all know there's a line, and you know, I think any other marginalized group when when they as when they explain where that line is, most reasonable people would listen, but that isn't happening to our community. And I think there are some extreme voices within our community that have made it very difficult because they have shouted anti-Semitism at things that weren't anti-Semitic.

SPEAKER_05 27:10

So in a way they've devalued Prime Minister Netanyahu, who has said anti-Israel sentiment is anti-Semitic.

SPEAKER_02 27:20

So I see again, anti-Israel or anti-Israeli government or anti because if you're saying Which is clear clearly wrong.

SPEAKER_05 27:31

So very unhelpful for people who are trying to address, genuinely address anti-Semitism. And so calling it.

SPEAKER_02 27:43

I never thought in my lifetime I would see some of the conservative organizations in in Australia, conservative Jewish organizations actually say to Netanyahu, just stop, when they tried when Netanyahu came after Albo, um, and they just said, no, this is not helpful to us right now. Please don't do that. And I mean it's pretty, you know, extraordinary. He is not well liked. I wouldn't have thought it's a question of um you know closing down ranks because it's a community that's traumatized and being attacked on all sides all the time for doesn't matter whether you agree with Israel or not, there's always a reason.

SPEAKER_05 28:21

Um you go back to basic principles, which is hate speech is harmful, uh, the law should respond to certain forms of hate speech. You have to draw the line somewhere, then you ask courts to interpret that and you provide ways for people to seek redress around that. All of that is uncontroversial and uh and appropriate. The the issue is how do you draw the line and you know, speech is evolving. The Sydney Uni, after controversies around anti-Semitism and their response and encampments and things like that, commissioned some uh help from a barrister and he said something important, which is he was talking about from the river to the sea, and he said how many people in the Jewish community hear that phrase, regardless of what was intended, and he said, you know, there's a there's a responsibility on people who use particular language. If you don't want to be uh misinterpreted that you mean something, you have to be extraordinarily careful and clear about what you do mean. And I think forget the law for a second, that there's a responsibility that we all have when we're using phrases that we know that parts of our community are telling us are deeply harmful and create fear of violence, uh, that you uh you you you be very careful. If you if you if what you mean is freedom for all Palestinian people and human rights and and border these types of borders and these types of policies, be very clear about that when you use that language.

SPEAKER_02 29:47

So I asked Hugh, what are the other options that Albo has? What are the other levers that he can pull other than the Royal Commission? Because there seems to be universal agreement that a Royal Commission alone is not enough to bring about the change that we need to see in terms of racism, not just directed towards uh Jewish Australians, but directed towards any Australian. So this is the next issue that we discussed. What are the other options that Albert has?

SPEAKER_05 30:14

It's hate speech law. So one of the complexities of a country like Australia is you have nine different jurisdictions, you've got a national jurisdiction, and then you've got uh states and territories, each with the power to pass anti-discrimination laws, um, laws around criminal laws, around incitement of hatred and hate speech, laws around doxing, laws around prohibition of Nazi symbols, and so uh one of the challenges is there's a lack of harmonization of these laws, which means that people have varying protections depending on which where they live in Australia, and it's from any public policy angle you want to make sure that you have a good minimum protection across the country and you have harmonization as well. Uh, it's important to sort of say what are we looking at here? There's criminal laws, that's the bluntest, strongest instrument a government has or a parliament has to prohibit something that requires that the prosecution prove something beyond reasonable doubt, and then you have criminal penalties that flow from that fines, imprisonment for the most serious offences and serious conduct. Then you have civil laws, um which are approved on the balance of probabilities, more likely than not. And if you can prove that, so it tends to be one person suing another person or organization, and if you prove that, you get remedies like an order from the court to stop the behaviour, compensation, sometimes an apology, or other things to address the impact of that uh unlawful behaviour. So when you look at something like Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, that is a civil law that gives one person the power if they if there's conduct that is reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate, or intimidate on the grounds of race, it gives someone the ability to complain about that if it's happened in public life and to seek redress from that. And there's versions of that civil law provision in uh across the country in the different jurisdictions. And then you have conduct that you say is uh awful but lawful, where you say there's actually not a role for the law to address that conduct, but there's absolutely a role for political leadership, for community leadership to say, under no, we don't want a society where people are saying those things to each other. And so, from a public policy point of view, you've got the criminal law, the civil law, and then you've got things that you don't necessarily have a legal response to, but you have a social response to. Part of that is education, culture, um, you know, social media, the sewer of hatred on social media and addressing misindigen disinformation. This is all part of the picture around how you respond to hate and prejudice.

SPEAKER_02 33:06

Can you explain to me exactly what the position was of your your organization and and and why it was important? And I say this as a free speech advocate, to not rush out on hate speech laws that that were had overreach in like for a layperson, what were they presenting? What was the opposition and why was there opposition?

SPEAKER_05 33:30

You know, people were telling me that this is yeah, you know, the kit's been documented publicly. The the commission was it was having its own troubles navigating these issues. Uh, you know, when I started at the commission, we were being accused of um, you know, uh having lost the sorry, the executive counsel of Australian jury, who, you know, we I have a good constructive relationship with, they were saying that they don't have confidence in the commission in terms of its support for the Jewish community. And they've been very careful to say we have confidence in the complaints process as always being fair and impartial. Our complaints team have uh enormous integrity in the way that they um uh receive, inquire into and um uh attempt to conciliate complaints. Uh, but uh you know they they were they were critical of us, politicians were critical of us, and then the other side we were being accused of suppressing pro-Palestinian voices, of um treating uh staff on uh we on that side of the uh debate. Uh, you know, it's probably not the right language, but uh you know, we we had staff resigning in protest over these issues about how um yeah, we had staff, yeah, yeah, so so it's a very um I knew it would be a difficult environment to be going into. Fair to say that um the complexities and uh you know it's it's well a lot has happened in that time and the intensity of the anti-Semitism has um uh increased and got more acute, you know, going from, as you said, the synagogue attacks, the physical attacks, the awful graffiti, the um anti-Semitic hate speech leading to the uh worst terror attack in Australia's history in in December last year. And so um this has been a massive issue for human rights in Australia, and uh it is absolutely critical for us as a nation that we deal with it, and uh we uh yeah, well we'll we'll talk about ways to do that. I've seen criticism of us. I didn't receive a lot of criticism in that time. In fact, I received a lot of people saying thank you for your advocacy around this and thank you for trying to explain these laws very clearly. So um we after Bondi uh we obviously you know I'd reached out to executive counsel, the Australian jury, we talked about reform under enormous pressure. Um in my previous career, sorry, in my previous job at Human Rights Law Centre, we had we led the campaign around trying to stop Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act from being watered down or um removed entirely. So had those relationships with multicultural communities, um with faith communities, with with the um including with um the executive council of the Australian jury. So uh when Bondi happened, um we uh the government went away, they they'd made commitments to um uh bring these laws in, didn't know when they were going to do it, and then the um exposure draft of the bill, we had basically 24 hours to review it before we were giving evidence on in the parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and security, and then our submission was due a day uh later. So these are um complex laws. Um we um absolutely support government taking action to prohibit under the criminal law the incitement of uh hatred and racial discrimination. So Australia has signed up to the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Part of that convention requires us to do two things. One is prohibit under criminal law incitement of racial hatred in broad terms, and secondly, prohibit groups that promote and incite racial hatred. And so this bill in its first form did those two things, and we welcome that. We welcome that action. It's absolutely critical to calibrate those provisions properly so that you don't unnecessarily infringe or trample on freedom of speech, and that's where human rights law, we've got 80 years of um since almost 80 years since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the General Assembly, linked to the Holocaust, of course, where the international community is saying never again. And uh those provisions around protecting freedom of expression, protecting peaceful assembly, peaceful assembly, protecting um uh rights to equality and non-discrimination. We have plenty of thinking around the globe over the past eight decades around how to draw the line there, and we wanted to make sure that that those principles and that thinking was a part of this legislation. So we supported it. We were disappointed that the government didn't go ahead with that uh criminalization of the promotion or incitement of uh uh racial hatred. Um, other jurisdictions have gone ahead. Victoria's got its own laws around this that were um passed recently, so it'll be um important to analyze how those laws are actually applied in um uh you know, and and to work out so getting that balance right, the New South Wales version of these laws have been criticised for setting too high a bar, and there's been very few prosecutions. Um and uh so when it came to um those laws in the federal parliament, yeah, we we uh gave evidence, uh we we supported action being taken, we suggested ways that the laws could be better calibrated, and um and then you know the the government went ahead, split the two bills um and uh dropped that incitement provision, um, and then the rest of the bills were passed with some amendments.

SPEAKER_02 39:35

Do you have any observations, I guess, working in this space about the binary way that people are approaching their activism?

SPEAKER_05 39:44

Or I mean human rights apply to everyone because of the mere fact that we're human. And that that seems uh uncontroversial now, but it was a radical concept in 19 after World War II, coming after slavery, eugenics, genocide, um, colonization, where different humans were treated as subhuman, and uh, you know, governments people tried to rank people according to their race. Uh the science behind that is obviously completely debunked. So the the world came together under the Universal Declaration and said everyone has these, we commit to provide these basic standards that everyone should have to lead a decent, dignified life, and you're entitled to them because of the mere fact that you are human, no matter who you are, where you are, what you believe, etc. And so, um, yes, of course, we see people trying to cherry pick those rights and applying them in in um ways that suit their particular worldviews, and that is uh dangerous and completely counter to the idea that human rights are universal and belong to everyone. And one of the things that has really struck me in this job and looking at this particular issue is the lack of understanding and acceptance of our common humanity, and the um communities on different sides are saying we are being dehumanized, our lives are being treated as less valuable than other people, and that is coming from all the communities that we're talking to in Australia, and so we've we've got this project that we've run. Uh lately, what I've learned about this conflict in the Australian debate is there are very loud voices. The media is set up in a way that encourages those loud voices to get prominence in the media. Social media monetizes division and conflict. But when you create safe spaces to have constructive dialogue, you have a very, very different conversation. And there's a lot of people, I think, who are struggling to work out how to respond to what is happening. Our focus is on Australia, it's a domestic focus and it's human rights for people here in Australia. How do you how do you process what is happening here? Um, you talked before about the dimensions of this uh this conflict playing out in Australia and and in some ways politics being turned on its head with ref left-right divide operating in ways like free speech that you know, free speech, it was the uh Abbott government that was seeking to uh abolish or water down um section 18C, and then we're having you know politicians from that side of politics saying we need much stronger um vilification laws, and then we have politicians from the other side of politics saying no, we don't, when they were strongly in favour of um racial vilification laws uh under 18C. So um we we've got this project that's funded by the Australian government, which the team, very diverse, um sensitive, skilled team that we pulled together to do consultations with the communities affected by the rise in racism since in Australia since October 7. And so this is Jewish, um, to the extent we could, Israeli, um, Muslim, Arab, and Palestinian communities. And so we ran consultations across the country and uh created uh what we hoped were safe spaces for people to share those experiences. And I looked at the evaluation of people from those participations, it's overwhelmingly positive. Um, so people and I got private feedback from friends as well to say we've just been to one of your consultations, it was run very well, and we appreciate you listening to us about our experiences and what's happened. And the what struck me that there's unique aspects to every form of racism. If you look at First Nations racism, that that history of colonization. And the way that injustice is shapes shifting. So we had child removal to erase indigenous identity. Now we have child removal for child protection concerns, but at higher rates than from the apology. And so Aboriginal community would say the past is the present and that injustice is ongoing. The Jewish community with anti-Semitism is this ancient hatred with well-worn tropes and particular complex dimensions around the left-right political way that is playing out, and also around accusations that the Jewish community is white for some, and from the white supremacists, the Jewish community is not white. And so, you know, I remember Daniel Ageon, the president of the ECHO, wrote a good piece, I think, in January last year saying we're we're not white enough for some and too white for others. And so there's those dimensions of that that uh that that form of racism. And for in Islamophobia, you have a particular gender dimension where uh Muslim women uh wearing the hijab are very prominent and and experience uh particular forms of racial hatred and vilification and physical assaults and things like that. So, having said that, we then saw very common experiences as well. Uh the sort of um feedback that people's sense of belonging in the Australian community is being shattered by what's happened, and that people aren't listening to or understanding the impact on uh communities and the pressure that families feel to shed aspects of identity, religious and cultural identity just to feel safe, and telling your kids, worrying for your kids, don't wear the Star of David or don't wear the Kippa because we we are worried for your safety or the retreat from public life. You talked about please saying don't don't go down to the opera house protest or university saying don't you know if you feel unsafe, don't come to university. That can't be the answer. We have to have safe spaces for all communities. And so so those those experiences they're they're unique, and there's different intensities to them across different communities at different times, but there's also some common um parts or common themes that are emerging, and so one we've we've um uh you know, my colleague Gary Silver Raman, who's a race commissioner, and myself and Lorraine Finlay, the Human Rights Commissioner, have spent a lot of time talking about these issues and how we respond as a society, and from the Human Rights Commission, how we respond as an institution that's here to protect human rights for all communities in Australia. And um Special Envoy for anti-Semitism, she's got a good metaphor, which is a layer cake, um, where you need a basic foundation in society of respect and human rights, and then a general foundation around addressing racism in Australia, and then you need specific responses to different forms of racism, whether it's First Nations racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, anti-Palestinian racism. And so uh there are things where um like uh better education, better literacy of what racism is and how it impacts on people, how bystanders should respond to racism, how we equip workplaces with the ability to handle uh conversations when staff are coming to the this came through very strongly in the Seen and Heard project that people wanted us to focus on workplaces because workplaces there's there's almost a and we're seeing this play out in arts organisations, universities, uh human rights organizations in particular, but also in general organizations where uh it workplaces don't want to talk about uncomfortable things, so so people can't bring their identity. They're grieving because relatives uh uh overseas are um either being killed or in in horrific situations, and then they come into work and everyone's saying, Don't talk about that. So, how can we equip our workplaces with the literacy and the policies and procedures to be able to navigate um these issues? And we're yeah, so so these are some of the things in terms of um the feedback we've been trusted with.

SPEAKER_02 48:38

The next discussion that I wanted to share with you in this episode is with Zachary Schaefer, who we originally met in our first episode, who is one of the founders of Project Shema based out of uh New York, and he travels the world talking about anti-Semitism, running education sessions. Um The first question that I asked him is one of the most difficult questions that I've been grappling with, which is Israel and where it sits in the schema of anti-Semitism, how it relates to anti-Semitism, how it is connect both connected and simultaneously disconnected from anti-Semitism. And I wanted to talk to him about that, and it was a really difficult question to ask. Um, but I think he gives some really insightful answers.

SPEAKER_00 49:31

I've got a few like one-liners, I'll say, and and I'll also share a little bit of a of a story, but a couple of the like the one-liners I've been thinking about. Um the pressure is always there. Israel is just a release valve today. We are all socialized and conditioned into anti-Jewish ideas. There is no contemporary cause of anti-Semitism, and any attempt to place the cause of anti-Semitism on the actions of any individual Jew or Jewish community is, of course, wrong. It's inaccurate, and it causes even more harm. I don't think Israel is the cause of anti-Semitism today. It is sparking anti-Semitism, it is a lightning rod revealing where the electricity already is. It is triggering these tremors, but it is not the earthquake. It is activating it. Anti-Semitism has existed everywhere Jews have lived in places we haven't for thousands of years, and it shows up differently in every generation. We could call it a machinery that is being updated every century, right? We could call it a virus that mutates in different social, political, and cultural contexts, but I think it's very important that we reiterate antisemitism has been around for thousands of years, and there is nothing that is, quote, causing it today, and certainly nothing causing it today that is an action of the Jewish community. We need to be able to engage in free political discourse and critical discourse around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the leaders, governments, and armies of those nations. When we begin to demonize or dehumanize the collective of Jews, when we begin to treat Jews as abstracts rather than individuals, and when we begin to treat individual Jews as part of an evil collective, we are perpetuating anti-Jewish harm.

SPEAKER_02 51:49

But Zach, they're not talking about Jews, they're talking about Zionists. How do we deal with that? Because yes, there's a conversation to be had about any political persuasion, but the response is always, but we're not I'm not talking about Jews, I'm talking about Zionists. And you and I both know when that word's being used to mean something else. How do we deal with that? I'm not talking about Jews, I'm talking about Zionists. Not all Zionists are Jews. There are some, you know, very, very Zionist Christians. There are, you know, Zionist Palestinians. I'm not talking about Jews. I'm using all the same tropes and all the same stereotypes that have been used against Jews for time immemorial. But on this occasion, I'm talking about Zionists, Zach. I'm not talking about Jews. Where do we go with that one?

SPEAKER_00 52:44

To understand the ways in which anti-Jewish ideas are carried alongside the Israel-Palestine conversation first requires an exploration of Jewish identity and anti-Jewish tropes and the pattern of anti-Jewish violence and conspiracy theories throughout thousands of years. This is a question that I would only feel prepared to answer after some education and relational discourse with someone. There are many anti-Jewish ideas being carried alongside the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the way we talk about Israel-Palestine is leading to the dehumanization, demonization, exclusion, or calls for violence against Jews, Muslims, Zionists, Arabs, and allies of Palestinians and Israelis. This conversation is impacting the safety of many other communities, identities, and religious groups around the world. And we all need to recognize that the way we talk about the conflict is carrying with it certain tropes and stereotypes about Jews and Muslims. And I think if we can all start from that place, it allows us to investigate what those motifs are. Like I said, there is a conspiracy theory that Jews are uniquely, innately, and inherently evil or satanic. So when we are bringing that kind of language into a discourse around the Jewish state or Jewish people, we can reflect on the ways in which that language might create anti-Jewish harm. There is a history of blaming Jews of being disloyal or untrustworthy or backstabbers. And we have seen the ways in which that trope has led to anti-Jewish violence throughout thousands of years. So if I'm having a conversation around Israel-Palestine, and someone says to me that I'm using language that is making it sound like Jews around the world cannot be trusted or are disloyal, I can reflect on if that language might lead to anti-Jewish exclusion or harm. And if that is the case, I can think about another way to advocate for Palestinians to uphold my political and policy beliefs or to criticize the government or army of Israel in ways that still insulate Jews around the world from harm. Just like when I'm advocating and engaging in discourse around Israel-Palestine, I have to be very careful when I'm talking about the second intifada and suicide bombings to speak in a way that is not perpetuating Islamophobic or anti-Muslim or anti-Islamic beliefs. I think that we can all step into that care. There is no easy answer. We all define Zionism differently. I understand Zionism to be a belief in the right to and need for Jewish national self-determination in some part of our ancestral homeland. According to a recent JFNA survey, nine out of ten American Jews say they support Israel's right to exist as a Jewish democratic state. And even among younger adults, there's only been a modest drop. Yet that same survey found that just over a third of Jews positively identify as Zionist. Which is to say there is a lack of coherent understanding or agreement on what the word Zionist means, or there are folks who identify as Zionist but are afraid to say it. So I think we can actually get behind that label. And when someone says Zionists are evil, Zionists are racist, my question to them is always the same: what do you mean by Zionist? Or what do you mean by Zionism? And I will often ask them to replace the word with the definition.

SPEAKER_01 56:50

Thanks to our guests in episode two. Julian Lisa, Ron Sackville, Hugh DeKretzer, and Zachary Schaefer. It's been a pleasure making this, but there's more to come. Do you know what's happening in episode three?

SPEAKER_02 57:05

In the third episode of this series of Tensions Transplanted, we're going to be talking about media, power, cancel culture, and selective outrage. And we've got a really unbelievable lineup of people to talk to us about some of these issues. And I know that media coverage is always a very controversial thing. I've been a journalist for decades. I know you think I'm not that old, but I am. This is really, really core to understanding what some of the anti-Semitic, you know, movement that's happened post-October 7, but also post-Pondi, how this has come to pass and what role the media has played in that, and that is like really, really key here to understanding how we ended up where we are today.

SPEAKER_01 57:45

This episode of Tensions Transplanted was made by myself, Rob Caldor, and Izzy Oderberg. You can contact us on the email address tt at the Jewishindependent.com.au. Let your friends, let your family know about Tensions Transplanted. Rate and review us, you know the gig. We'll see you next episode. Watch your feed. And if you haven't had your filler podcast, why not try Asham2 Admit? Ashamed to Admit is a podcast for anyone ashamed to admit. They're not across the big issues and events affecting Jews in Australia, Israel, and around the world. Another podcast by the Jewish Independent.