The Australian reports that under a sweeping new plan to combat anti-Semitism, announced Thursday by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke, and special envoy Jillian Segal, border officials will be trained to identify and deport antisemites.
Ms Segal’s plan to tackle anti-Semitism in the streets, classrooms, and the arts also includes urging all sectors of society to adopt a national standard definition of anti-Jewish bigotry as part of a new strategy to combat the recent wave of attacks against Jewish Australians.
According to The Australian, universities and arts bodies will also lose government funding if they fail to combat antisemitic bigotry.
One obvious question is, who will get to decide what counts as “antisemitism”? It’s an increasingly broad and contested label, with little consensus on its boundaries. Some prominent groups have gone so far as to classify the New Testament, Norse Runes, the Celtic cross, Thor’s Hammer and phrases such as “It’s Okay to Be White” and “Christ is King” as inherently “antisemitic.”
“Never let them tell you that immigration can’t be selective. It can, they just refuse to do it on OUR behalf,” said a spokesperson for the British Australian Community in response to the report.
“The government is now planning to train border officials to detect and deport people based on their beliefs. Which, in many cases, correlate strongly with ethnic or cultural backgrounds. So don’t buy the lie that discriminatory immigration is impossible. It’s not, it’s just a question of who they’re willing to discriminate FOR.”
But if the real concern is incitement or harassment—already criminal under existing law—then why not simply deport any foreigner who commits a crime against any Australian, regardless of their race? Why introduce a race-specific policy when the principle of equal protection under the law should be the standard in a free and just society?
Laws that explicitly protect one group above others undermine the very concept of equal justice. They risk institutionalising double standards, not fairness. Much like a favoured child who receives special treatment, such laws may foster resentment rather than respect. Over time, people will ask: What kind of influence and power allows one group to receive special legal privileges?
In the end, these legal “protections” may become a form of punishment, fostering suspicion, social division, and backlash. They should be rejected by all who believe in equality before the law. If the law is not equal for all, it is not good law.
Australia should instead pursue a broadly pro-Australian legal framework—one that protects every citizen equally, regardless of background. Anyone who threatens Australian citizens, undermines our national culture, or seeks to subvert our laws should be removed, not depending on who their victims are, but because their actions violate the basic standards expected of them.
Everything they claim to be tackling with “antisemitism” laws could be dealt with under a broad, pro-Australian legal approach—one that protects all citizens equally, without resorting to race-based laws that privilege one group and risk fostering resentment among others.
