Human rights for everyone, or privileges for some?

Human rights belong equally to everyone. They can’t depend on your religion, ancestry or willingness to support a particular political ideology or nationalist movement.

That’s the fundamental problem with Jillian Segal’s latest antisemitism report. Under the banner of protecting Jewish Aussies, she’s proposing measures that would shield Zionism from political challenge at the expense of other people’s freedoms - including Jews. Jewish Aussies deserve protection from discrimination, intimidation and violence. But so do all of us. Protection from racism must never become special protection for a political ideology.

Consider what’s proposed: enforceable university rules, research and arts funding conditions, greater scrutiny of public broadcasters, additional visa screening and further restrictions on protest. The report also seeks codes governing artists’ political activism outside the scope of advertised performances and exhibitions. These proposals have real consequences for people’s livelihoods and their ability to participate in public life.

Hatred of Jews is antisemitism. Blaming Jewish Aussies collectively for Israel’s genocide in Gaza is antisemitic. Threatening a synagogue or harassing someone because they’re Jewish is indefensible. But opposing Zionism, challenging Israel’s political foundations or demanding equal rights for Palestinians is not, in itself, antisemitic. Zionism is a political movement encompassing different forms of Jewish nationalism. Some Jews see it as central to their identity and security. Others reject it. Neither position makes someone more or less Jewish. Neither should that determine whose voice Australian institutions protect and whose voice they suppress.

Yet Segal’s proposals would give one political position official protection, with institutional penalties for people who challenge it. People could face disciplinary action or lose their jobs, and institutions could lose funding, for speech judged antisemitic under a contested definition. And the threat alone encourages self-censorship. An exhibition becomes too controversial. A researcher avoids a question. A festival declines a speaker. People learn that silence is professionally safer. Nobody needs to impose a ban when people fear the price of speaking.

The report’s treatment of “progressive antisemitism” makes this especially concerning. It identifies this as the most pervasive manifestation of antisemitism in Australia and describes the language of social justice and human rights as a means of giving extremist ideas respectability. Of course prejudice can hide behind progressive language. But that doesn’t justify casting suspicions over human-rights advocacy. The task is to identify and confront the prejudice, not make advocacy itself suspect.

Palestinians and their allies must be able to describe their dispossession and genocide. Academics must be able to examine political ideologies, state structures and discrimination. Artists must be able to confront audiences with injustice. Journalists must be able to report suffering without being expected to soften the political implications. Their arguments should be tested against evidence, not against whether they unsettle supporters of Israel.

Nor should Jewish Aussies have to endorse Zionism to be heard. That’s why the Jewish Council of Australia’s opposition is so significant. The Council warns that the report threatens democratic freedom and could silence Jewish dissent. It rejects the idea that Jewish identity is inseparable from Zionism and the actions of the Israeli state.

The Jewish Council punctures the suggestion that we must choose between supporting Segal’s approach and tolerating antisemitism. The Council doesn’t represent every Jewish Aussie. But here’s the thing: neither does Segal. A democratic response must accommodate that diversity.

Nobody should be harassed for supporting Israel’s existence. But equally, nobody should have to accept a particular model of statehood or political ideology to participate in Australian economic, cultural, academic or political life. Equal rights for everyone must remain central.

Targeted measures to protect a threatened community are entirely justified. But protection from violence and discrimination is different from protection against political challenge. Governments must keep that boundary clear.

Australia needs effective action against antisemitism alongside action against Islamophobia, anti-Palestinian racism and racism against First Nations people. We need institutions capable of protecting people while allowing peaceful disagreement. We should reject any approach that makes one community’s safety contingent on another’s silence.

And there’s an uncomfortable Australian contradiction here. In 2023, Australians voted against constitutionally recognising a representative First Nations Voice to Parliament. That proposed body would have offered advice on matters affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Now an appointed envoy is recommending substantive changes that would affect us all and reach across universities, the arts, broadcasting, migration and protest, informed by a contested understanding of Jewish identity and Zionism.

Jillian Segal can’t enact her recommendations herself. Responsibility rests with the governments and institutions that choose whether to implement them. But the democratic question remains: how do we justify rejecting a constitutionally recognised First Nations Voice while giving an appointed voice promoting Zionism such influence over everyone else’s freedoms?

Human rights must belong equally to all of us. They cannot come with a political loyalty test.