Just what is the Muslims’ problem, here? Mainstream (supposedly ‘moderate’) Muslim groups are complaining vociferously about two definitions in Australian law: those of anti-Semitism and terrorism. Just what is their end game?
The first howl of protest is in regard to the updated definition of anti-Semitism adopted by Universities Australia. It defines anti-Semitism as:
Discrimination, prejudice, harassment, exclusion, vilification, intimidation or violence that impedes Jews’ ability to participate as equals in educational, political, religious, cultural, economic or social life. It can manifest in a range of ways including negative, dehumanising, or stereotypical narratives about Jews. Further, it includes hate speech, epithets, caricatures, stereotypes, tropes, Holocaust denial, and antisemitic symbols. Targeting Jews based on their Jewish identities alone is discriminatory and antisemitic.
OK, so they’re not allowed to hate Jews just for being Jews? Where’s their problem with that?
Could it be the reminder that, “Substituting the word Zionist for Jew does not eliminate the possibility of speech being antisemitic”? Worried about losing your favourite weasel word, are we, fellas?
Lying through your teeth doesn’t make you look any less suspicious. The Australian Federal of Islamic Councils (AFIC) claims that the definition “conflates legitimate criticism of the State of Israel with antisemitism”. Does it, though?
In fact, the definition explicitly states that criticism of Israel can only be considered anti-Semitic,
“When it is grounded in harmful tropes, stereotypes or assumptions and when it calls for the elimination of the State of Israel or all Jews or when it holds Jewish individuals or communities responsible for Israel’s actions.”
This means that a scholarly, responsible and evidence-based discussion about the state of Israel and its policies is protected by academic freedoms and is not a form of antisemitism.
So, AFIC are simply lying.
Remember, this is the “Peak Muslim Organisation in Australia”. Presumably, the ‘moderate Muslims’ we’re so often lectured about.
Makes you wonder what the real radicals are up to.
Now these ‘moderate Muslims’ and their Islamophile camp-followers at the so-called ‘Australian Human Rights Commission’ have got their thobes all in a twist again.
This time, they’re demanding to alter Australia’s official definition of terrorism, to remove religion as a motivation for terrorist acts. They’re also demanding to water down the law to remove the “threat” of terrorism, property damage and the intimidation of “sections of the public” as offences that can be pursued under Australia’s terror laws.
Gee, I wonder why?
Concern about the slated reform mounted on Thursday after the government listed Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as the first official state sponsor of terrorism under news laws that hold foreign entities responsible for attacks. However a joint statement to the INSLM review from 15 Muslim groups, led by the Australian Muslim Advocacy Network, has called for “religion and ideology” to no longer count as a motivation for terrorist acts, arguing the current laws marginalise their faith communities.
If terrorism laws are ‘marginalising’ your religion, maybe it’s your religion that’s the problem?
As the review is finalised before being handed to Attorney-General Michelle Rowland for government consideration next year, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry warned the proposed reforms would water down the nation’s anti-terrorism laws.
Referring to its own submission to the review, the ECAJ, which represents 200 Jewish organisations across the country, said the changes would restrict authorities’ ability to prosecute terrorist acts.
It’s almost like that’s their whole objective.
Which leaves the rest us to wonder: why?
