Tag Archives: israel

Introduction

Australia should remain a nation in which people of all religions, ethnicities, and identities can live safely and freely. Assimilation to Australian culture and society is a fundamental aspect of social cohesion. Providing education and training of Australian values, beliefs and etiquette with ongoing assessment, may contribute to positive cross-cultural understanding and safe interactions.  Obviously, violence, intimidation, harassment, and criminal acts directed toward any community, including Jewish Australians, must  be condemned and addressed by strictly enforcing the law.

Antisemitism is a serious form of prejudice that must be confronted wherever it occurs. Jewish Australians, like all Australians, deserve protection from threats, violence, and discrimination. However, the underlying issue confronting social cohesion in Australia is not limited to one form of hatred. The more fundamental challenge is violent extremism and criminal conduct, whether motivated by religious ideology, political radicalism, racial hatred, or other extremist beliefs.

Australia already possesses an extensive legislative framework to address these behaviours. The priority should therefore be effective enforcement of existing laws, education and training on Australian culture to curtail antisocial, extremist behaviours, rather than the creation of additional legislation that may unnecessarily restrict lawful speech.

Existing Criminal Law Framework

The Criminal Code Act (1995) Subdivision C already contains strong provisions addressing inciting violent extremism and incitement against groups or members of groups.

Relevant provisions include:

• Section 80.2A – Advocating force or violence against groups.

• Section 80.2C – Advocating terrorism.

• Division 101– Terrorism offences, including engaging in or preparing terrorist acts in the form of training, collecting or making documentation. Possession of material or other acts done connected to terrorist acts.

• Division 102– Offences relating to membership of or support for terrorist organisations.

These provisions provide significant legal tools for prosecuting individuals who incite or participate in violence against any group in Australia.

At the same time, protections against racial discrimination and vilification already exist under the Racial Discrimination Act (1975).

Notably:

• Section 18C makes it unlawful to perform public acts reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate, or intimidate individuals or groups because of race or ethnicity.

• Section 18D provides important safeguards for freedom of expression, including protections for artistic expression, academic debate, and fair comment made reasonably and in good faith.

Together, these provisions attempt to balance protection from racial harm with the preservation of democratic freedoms.

Immigration and Deportation Powers

Social cohesion is threatened when individuals engage in violent extremism or serious criminal conduct. Deportation may be appropriate within the Migration Act (1958) for the cancellation and removal of visas for non-citizens.

In particular:

• Section 501 allows the Minister to refuse or cancel a visa on character grounds, including where a person has been convicted of serious criminal offences or is considered a risk to the Australian community.

These powers already allow the government to act decisively when non-citizens engage in serious criminal conduct, including violence motivated by extremist ideology.

There are no existing laws which allow deportation of Australian Citizens. Therefore, legislation must be adjusted to include framework for deporting a person convicted of violent extremism and criminal conduct or considered a risk to the Australian community.

Freedom of Expression and Democratic Principles

Australia’s democratic framework depends upon the protection of freedom of expression.

In Victoria, these principles are reinforced through the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act (2006), which recognises:

• Section 15 – The right to freedom of expression.

• Section 16 – The right to peaceful assembly and freedom of association.

While these rights are not absolute and may be limited where necessary to protect others from harm, any new legislative restrictions should be carefully scrutinised to ensure they are necessary, proportionate, and compatible with democratic values. Overly broad restrictions on speech risk driving extremist views underground, where they may be more difficult for authorities and communities to identify and address.

Policy Considerations

While hateful rhetoric can be offensive and distressing, it is violent acts, threats, and criminal intimidation that directly endanger public safety and social cohesion. Law enforcement efforts should therefore focus primarily on those who:

• Incite violence against individuals or groups

• Engage in acts of terrorism or extremist violence

• Commit criminal damage, harassment, or intimidation

Existing criminal laws already allow authorities to prosecute such conduct effectively.

Recommendations

1. Prioritise enforcement of existing criminal provisions under the Criminal Code Act (1995), particularly those relating to incitement to violence and terrorism offences.

2. Maintain the current balance within the Racial Discrimination Act (1975) including protections against racial harm alongside the free expression safeguards in section 18D.

3. Ensure individuals who commit violent acts, threats, intimidation, or terrorism are prosecuted and incarcerated under existing criminal law.

4. Where non-citizens engage in serious extremist violence or criminal conduct, utilise deportation powers available under the Migration Act (1958), including visa cancellation under section 501 where appropriate.

5. Where Australian citizens engage in or are convicted of violent and/or extremist criminal conduct or considered a threat to the Australian way of life, legislation should exist for their deportation.

6. Provide new migrants with ongoing training and education on Australian values and etiquette to ensure cultural assimilation to reinforce social cohesion.

7. Exercise caution before introducing new speech-restricting legislation, ensuring any reforms are compatible with rights recognised under instruments such as the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act (2006).

Conclusion

Australia should remain a society in which all communities, including Jewish Australians, can live safely and without fear of violence or intimidation. Racism, bigotry, and violence are major threats to social cohesion and must be firmly rejected.

However, the most effective response lies in strong enforcement of existing criminal and immigration laws, rather than the creation of additional legislation that may unnecessarily restrict freedom of expression. By upholding the rule of law while protecting democratic freedoms, and ensuring ongoing education, training and assessment, Australia can safeguard both community safety and the open society that underpins its democratic institutions. It also acts as a deterrent for future extremists.

The focus of policy responses should therefore remain on preventing violence, prosecuting offenders, protecting all communities, including Jewish Australians and banning likely offenders from entry into Australia, while preserving the democratic freedoms and values that underpin Australian society.