Anti Semitism Envoy’s Report

“Australians are rightly appalled by the rise in antisemitism, including arson, vandalism, assaults, and threats. Every person in our country has the right to live free from violence, racism and discrimination. However, the recommendations of the Segal report will not address these issues and likely to be a serious threat to fundamental liberties “says Council President Michael Cope

“The Segal report is a rather woolly document - long on assertions and claims for power to be given to the Envoy but short on argument and facts.

“To be a proper report, the Segal Report would have included a list of the major attacks, rates of apprehension, prosecution and conviction, and what’s known about perpetrators and motivations. It would also have included similar information about what has happened on campuses. As it is it just contains extraordinary claims to power.”

Much has been said about the definition of anti semitism. The Council does not need to repeat it other than to say that it is too vague for use in legislation given, for example, that it can be invoked to silence, legitimate discussion of a plural “one state” solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

QCCL is resolutely opposed to a number of recommendations of the envoy.

First, the proposal that all public grants provided to universities and researchers be subject to termination where the recipient engages in antisemitic or otherwise discriminatory or hateful speech or actions. The grant of such a broad grant of power will inevitably result in universities being subject to unacceptable political censorship.

Secondly the Envoy wishes to expand hate speech laws. The Council remains opposed to further expansion of such laws.

Given the lack of consensus about values in our society the underlying idea must be that everyone of us would want equal freedom with everyone else to be able to express our values and ideas as they relate to government and the management of our society. What must be added to this is the notorious fact that Governments consistently overestimate threats to the country and to their policies. Furthermore, when regulating speech which interferes with its activities government is in a conflict-of-interest situation. 

Mr Cope says ‘When making laws about speech the state must use criteria that are generalisable. In this regard we have long argued that the fact that someone might be offended is not an appropriate ground for restricting speech as too many things offend people.”

Certain categories of conduct can and must clearly be regulated by the government. Incitement is the obvious category. But what is incitement? Words intended to incite or produce imminent lawless action and likely to incite or produce such action.

Laws against harassment, intimidation and the like do not offend against free-speech principles. Firstly, because such laws are directed at conduct, where speech is only usually an incidental component of little or no value. Secondly, such laws are directed at communications to one person, and to whom the communications are intended to cause psychological harm, or the recipient has made it clear, that they do not wish to receive those communications. Even when those communications are posted on a social media site, they are still directed at that person in circumstances where that person is an unwilling recipient of the communications. Furthermore, the recipient of those communications has very strong reasons for being protected from the psychological and potential physical harms that flow from the continuation of that behaviour.

“Having made all of these criticisms, we do support the Envoy’s proposals to get at the cause of problems through education. In particular, we need to dispel myths and false ideas about the holocaust “says Mr. Michael Cope.

For further information contact Michael Cope President QCCL on 07 3223 5939 during office hours and at all times on 0432 847 154  18 July 2025