Australia’s special envoy, Jillian Segal, defends a proposed antisemitism plan that critics warn may suppress free speech.
Segal Stands by IHRA Definition Amid Backlash
Jillian Segal, Australia’s envoy to combat antisemitism, dismissed criticism of the IHRA definition. Critics argue it inappropriately conflates criticism of Israel with antisemitism. She emphasized that only calls to eliminate Israel count as antisemitic. “The train has moved on…Kenneth Stern has been left behind,” Segal told ABC Radio National.
The 20‑page plan, unveiled with PM Albanese, proposes teaching history and modern antisemitism in schools. It also suggests a national database for incidents, “university report cards,” and tougher vilification laws. Some educators worry such measures could chill academic freedom.
Legal Experts and Advocacy Groups Warn of Overreach
Critics like Amnesty International and legal expert Ben Saul call the IHRA definition “vague and overbroad.” Saul noted it could unduly restrict legitimate critique of Israel, especially over alleged apartheid. He warns universities are already over-policing speech.
Max Kaiser of the Jewish Council of Australia described the plan as a “blueprint for silencing dissent,” likening it to authoritarian tactics. Meanwhile, groups like ECAJ support the plan, citing recent antisemitic attacks in Melbourne and urging its immediate adoption.
