Australian Politics

1777 readers

118 users here now

A place to discuss Australia Politics.

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone.

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

lodion@aussie.zone

Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone

'Antisemitism' directive exposes Australia to Israeli interference, public servants warn (www.deepcutnews.com)

submitted 3 days ago by Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone to c/australianpolitics@aussie.zone

3 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Investigations such as the one which led to HWMW’s clearance being revoked may be difficult to initiate or assign to staff following the adoption of the IHRA definition, which lists “accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations” as an example of contemporary antisemitism.

We are being given, and taking, exactly the wrong lessons from the Bondi massacre.

The article also says the adoption of this definition will likely increase distrust in the objectivity of the public service. I can see that being the case.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] pulsewidth@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yes, literally IHRA definition example 6 makes it illegal hate speech for an officer of the law to accuse an Israeli spy of being more loyal to Israel than Australia.

Utterly insane that we have incorporated the IHRA into our hatespeech laws.

Here's the entire list of examples, you'll currently not find it on Wikipedia because a fine editor decided to delete them as "copyright violation" back in mid-2025.. Editors are on the Talk page all agreeing it should be re-added, but as it's a locked topic it seems those with the keys to the article aren't swayed to add them back in. For some reason.

Reading through the list the one that most draws my ire is example 10, "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."

Speaking out against the genocidal policies of Israel's current govt: OK (maybe)

Drawing entirely historically logical and evidential comparisons to a mass government extermination event of multiple underclasses of their citizenry in WW2: Hate speech! Go to jail!

Israel features throughout the rules, yet should not be present at all. It is a state, not an ethnicity or protected class... well, it wasn't, until recently.

[–] Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone 2 points 2 days ago

Interestingly I whole-heartedly agree with Example 11, "Holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the State of Israel". Didn't expect to read through that and find any agreeable, although still self serving.

It's a little narrowly focused, but it does remind me of a better general rule.. Geneva comes to mind...

Article 33 - Principle of individual responsibility and prohibitions of collective punishment, intimidation, terrorism, pillage and reprisals.

Maybe they could re-read this example and apply it generally to groups of civilians in the places the IDF invade? Just a thought..

Example 8: Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

These are horribly and purposely conflated aren't they. We've gone from speaking of Jewish people, and transitioned to only refering to Israel without specifically being named. All in a telling example trying to smother Israel's crimes by comparison and deflection.