The antisemitism royal commission made two big mistakes - will these compromise their findings?
An opinion piece criticizes the Australian Royal Commission into Antisemitism for its adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism. The author argues that this decision creates legal conflicts and fails to distinguish between political criticism of Israel and prejudice against Jewish people.
Why it matters
The debate over how to define and address antisemitism has significant implications for free speech and legal standards in public inquiries.
Facebook X (formerly Twitter) At the outset of the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion , Commissioner Virginia Bell made what I believe was a fateful error: she adopted the highly contested International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism . Although Commissioner Bell made clear at the time that criticism of “the policies that may be pursued by the government of Israel … is not of itself antisemitic”, her decision effectively put the royal commission on a collision course with the courts.
The article takes a critical stance against the commission's methodology and the IHRA definition, which is a subject of ongoing political debate.
Get smarter about the news
Sign up free for a feed built around what you actually care about, Dive Deeper research on any story, and the full text of every article.
Create free accountAlready have an account? Sign in