Yes, I read of the visa cancellation as well. I don't think that a thing has changed since October 7 regarding antisemitism. Very much a two- tier system for haters here as it is in the UK, where the people being targeted are those questioning why nothing is being done about some people promoting hatred and violence against Jews as well as a reluctance to investigate some people for alleged crimes.

While it's still safe to say so, "Saying what the problem is .... is Islamophobic".

I pinched that of the cover of Spectator Australia. The uniparty (we can't any longer distinguish between Labor and Liberal when it comes to the right to speak) sweats more over Islamophobia than it does over antisemitism.

Their anti-freedom Act and the guidelines for the upcoming Royal Commission don't
mention the real causes of Bondi: their own multiculturalism mania and careless mass immigration of inappropriate people and their nasty cultures.

Radical Islam is ignored. Over a million Muslims and only about 100,000 Jews in Australia might be the reason for that. 25% of Minister Burke's constituents are Muslim.

I have to repeat the hackneyed phrase that not all Muslims (obviously) are a threat to Australia; but I add that for as long as they have been here, NO Jews have threatened Australia, Australians or our culture. Jew fit in seamlessly wherever they live.

Australia is not threatened by guns, opinions or anything else (at the moment) by anything but RADICAL ISLAM and the uniparty's refusal to acknowledge this fact, resulting from their own stupid decisions in the past, and their lack of action since the threat became obvious.

Their latest stupidity has been to excuse what most people would call hate speech, if it comes from a religious text!

ttbn,

I'd suggest that the issue is one of treating people equally. As one blogger observed:

"Burke has repeatedly denied visas to Israeli and Jewish speakers deemed likely to “spread division or hate,” including Israeli politicians Simcha Rothman and Ayelet Shaked, and American-Israeli entrepreneur Hillel Fuld, scheduled to keynote a charity launch on Israeli innovation. Each of these individuals was engaging in legitimate dialogue on Jewish resilience, Israeli politics, or community empowerment. Yet Burke’s office barred them, while figures who openly promote hostility operate with impunity.

Take Wissam Haddad, whose sermons and public statements have repeatedly alarmed Jewish Australians, or public commentator Randa Abdel-Fattah, whose rhetoric has included comments such as: “To hell with you all. Every last Zionist. May you never know a second’s peace in your sadistic miserable lives,” and describing Zionists as having “no claim or right to cultural safety.” Neither Haddad nor Abdel-Fattah has faced scrutiny comparable to that applied to Jewish or Israeli speakers. The contrast is stark: some forms of extremism are aggressively policed; others excused, even normalised."

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/australia-cancels-another-israeli-speakers-visa/

I believe that the constitution needs to enshrine the equal treatment of all citizens. That way, if you believed that there was blatantly unequal treatment of citizens by government, there could be legal redress available to reverse the inequality. Equality should be a democratic foundation for Australia.

Fester,

You can't treat people equally - i.e all in the same way - because we are not all equal; we are not all the same in actions or beliefs. Not all people are equally intelligent, or good, or bad and so forth. It might be true that ‘all men are born equal in the eyes of God’; but after that, people vary greatly.

Civilisations have mores that the majority observe. People who offend against those mores cannot be treated in the same way as those who do not. There is no point to laws, rules and values if we are going to treat those who flaunt them the same way as those who abide by them.

ttbn,

By equality, I refer to how a society treats its citizens. It means no privilege based on heritage or race, having the law applied impartially, and having an equal vote. In the case of antisemitism, I do not believe that the law has been applied impartially.

I see the inequality of human beings as a good thing.

Fester,

You've addressed ttbn's caricature of equality well. But so far as antisemitism and the application of the law are concerned, you haven't cleared the evidentiary bar that you yourself have set.

To show unequal treatment, it isn’t enough to point to objectionable rhetoric on one side and visa cancellations on the other. Those examples sit in different legal categories, governed by different powers and thresholds. Visa decisions for foreign nationals under the Migration Act are not comparable to the regulation of domestic speech by citizens or residents.

If the claim is that antisemitism is being treated less seriously in law, the comparison that matters is the same conduct, under the same law, in the same legal position, producing different outcomes. That hasn’t been demonstrated yet.

None of this is to deny that antisemitism exists or that enforcement can feel inconsistent or inadequate. But there’s a difference between arguing that the law is too weak, too slow, or too cautious, and arguing that it is being applied partially. Only the latter requires proof of differential application.

If the concern is that ministerial discretion under migration law is too broad or politicised, that’s a fair criticism and worth having. But it doesn’t, by itself, establish unequal treatment of antisemitism under Australian law.