A Jewish author, Mr Anthony Halas, is considering legal action against a literary editor who has refused to work on his Holocaust-themed book.

The editor has stated publicly she could not "comfortably work with someone who supports Israel's actions" in terms of the ongoing conflict there.

Mr Halas said growing up he never experienced antisemitism, but recently he told the Bondi Royal Commission, hatred of Jews has gotten so bad he might leave Australia altogether.

http://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/the-radio-national-hour/how-antisemitism-has-changed-life-for-this-jewish-australian-/106650424

Mr Halas is now seeking legal advice to explore whether the refusal breaches Australia's protections against discrimination and our anti-discrimination laws.

We have seen many cases over the years where people have tried to push a discrimination line for/against:

1. Bakers not wanting to bake wedding cakes for gay weddings.
2. Gay nightclubs not allowing hetrosexual people into their venues.
3. Transwomen not allowed to participate in women's sports.

These are just some examples.

Are we an inclusive society in Australia or is it O.K to discriminate against people of a Jewish background considering what many Jewish people have been put through over the years?

Don't forget

4. A biological man wanting to be a member of Giggle Group.

5. The death of George Floyd leading to discriminatory policing, recently resulting in the horrific death of Henry Nowak.

What I accept is that we all have our own view of things. Provided that a view is not a harm to others, it should not be legally restricted. The fault I see is that the legal interpretation of what is harmful is far too broad.

Society will always have good people and aholes. Sometimes they are the same people, but I don't see much point in a legal system throwing aholes in prison. Jailing aholes is like weeding out the bad people, which is a defining feature of authoritarian regimes.

Hi NathanJ,

"Are we an inclusive society in Australia or is it O.K to discriminate against people of a Jewish background considering what many Jewish people have been put through over the years?"

It's a complicated question, my response might need some thought.
I've listened to half of the podcast, and wish to firstly respond to:

Anthony Halas says he believes the starting point for discussion should be:
(Q1) 'Do you believe in Israel's right to exist'

I think the question is a trap, and a two-part question.
If I say yes, then it just prompts the next part of the question, which is:

(Q2)'Does Israel have a right to defend itself?'
- And from there Israel attempts to justify all the things I oppose, dressing up ethnic cleansing and land theft as 'defense'.

It complicated.
Someone like me would respond to Q1 with 'Firstly state your borders' and 'How much of that stolen land exactly are you planning to return?' or 'Do Palestinians also have a right to exist?', 'Do they have a right to defend themselves' or not respond to the stupid trap-question at all.

What makes them think Israeli's have a right to a State if Palestinians don't?
What makes them think Israeli's have a right to defend themselves if Palestinians don't?
What make them think Israeli's have some right to peace, dignity, safety or anything else if the Palestinians don't?

They don't have any right to those things.
Israelis have a right to reap what they sow.
To have what they put out into the world returned to them.

Israeli's like to torture Palestinians.
Do the Palestinians have a right to torture Israelis?
Israelis like to murder women and kids.
Do the Palestinians have a right to murder Israeli women and kids?

They don't have any 'right' to even 'claim a right' that does not also exist equally for Palestinians.

Volunteers patrol Lag Ba’omer bonfires to rescue animals from flames
http://www.jpost.com/israel-news/politics-and-diplomacy/volunteers-patrol-lag-baomer-bonfires-to-rescue-animals-from-flames-490742

>>For the sixth year in a row, Liani and volunteers around Israel were leading patrols to “stop the horrific phenomenon of burning animals on Lag Ba’omer,” according to her Facebook event page. This year, the group recruited hundreds of people to join the effort, with nearly 900 signed up to observe bonfires and save animals from abuse.<<

Maybe I should just answer the question with another question?
- Israeli's like to throw puppies and kittens into bomfires once a year.
Do the puppies and kittens have a right to exist?

Hi AC,

The discussion isn't about whether an opinion is right or wrong, rather it is about what an opinion entitles you to do. In the case of Henry Nowak, the opinion of the arresting officers led them to dismiss the claims of a dying man, manhandle him and hasten his death, and make his last moments of life horrific. I suspect that the reason the officers have not been charged is because they might use the Nuremberg defence of following orders, thus identifying more culpable people.

Hi Fester,
The case of Henry Nowak is significant due to the fact police assumed Henry was the guilty party and instigator of conflict simply because the perpetrators brother was the one who called the police and said that they were "racially attacked by a white person".

NathanJ gave some examples of discrimination and you added a few more.
Each one:
1/ Matter of conscientious objection.
2/ Non-inclusion in a group (like your giggle group example)
3/ Is a matter of harm, women being hurt by biological men
4/ Non-inclusion in a group
5/ Discrimination is policing (Although Floyd was known to police)
6/ Henry Nowak - Also discrimiation in policing,

- Though it could also be argued that they screwed up believing the person who called police...
I'm not sure how they dismissed a man laying on the ground dying, obviously Henry did not have his phone or was able to call police himself.
Cops messed up because of a seemingly false allegation that framed the confrontation as one Nowak had initiated with a racial attack.

"The discussion isn't about whether an opinion is right or wrong, rather it is about what an opinion entitles you to do."
- I'm not sure I follow you here...

I was responding to the specific Jewish aspect of NathanJ's question involving Anthony Halas, founder and Chair of the Jewish Centre for Law and Justice, which regarding the editing of his Holocaust related book, seems to be a matter of conscientious objection.

It would be similar to a web designer saying to Anthony Halas 'I will not build your website or be associated with you or the promotion of your book'
- And I think there are double standards here when recently Jews have been attacking Pro-Palestinian writers and Writers festivals.