We share your grief and we will always stand by you.

Antisemitism (anti-Jewish racism) should have no place in Australia. We should all feel and be safe in our identities – free to practice our faiths, live our cultures, celebrate with family, and be in community with one another. Everyone has a right to live in peace and safety, no matter their belief or background.

In the aftermath of this shocking violence, we remember our shared humanity. We honour the memories of those killed. We celebrate the unity, courage, and care being shown by millions of people across Australia as we mourn together.

We have seen what happens when a community is singled out and scapegoated based on their identity, ethnicity, race or religion; and we reject efforts to create further division through fear, polarisation, and disinformation.

We come together and echo the words of the NSW Faith Affairs Council that “We will not let hatred and violence divide us. Across all our cultures and faiths, we will stand united in sympathy, compassion and solidarity.“

We are resolute in our collective commitment to defend everyone’s rights to safety, culture and faith, and to build a peaceful society.

We commit to deepening our understanding of how anti-Jewish racism arises, in order to better identify and prevent it from being committed against the Australian Jewish community ever again.

We stand with the Australian Jewish community, in love and solidarity.

List of signatories

• 350 Australia
• 5point Foundation
• ABC Friends
• ActionAid Australia
• Advocacy for Oromia
• Alannah & Madeline Foundation
• Amnesty International Australia
• Animal Liberation
• ANTAR
• Anti-Poverty Network SA
• ARRCC (Australian Religious Response to Climate Change)
• Art + Environment
• Astha Nepali Hindu Society Victoria- PashupatiNath Temple
• Asylum Seekers Centre
• Atkinhead Centre for Medical Discovery
• Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility (ACCR)
• Australia Multicultural Organisation Network
• Australia Palestine Advocacy Network
• Australia Strongim Bisnis
• Australian Arab Institute for Culture and Ideas
• Australian Childhood Foundation
• Australian Communities Foundation
• Australian Conservation Foundation
• Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS)
• Australian Democracy Network
• Australian Environmental Grantmakers Network (AEGN)
• Australian Muslim Advocacy Network (AMAN)
• Australian Progress
• Australian Youth Climate Coalition
• Baby Give Back
• Basic Rights Queensland
• Beyond Zero Emissions
• Biomimicry institute
• Bob Brown Foundation
• Boronia Multicultural Services
• Boys to the Bush
• Browns For Better
• Bushfire Survivors for Climate Action
• Bushwalking Victoria
• C Milliner consulting
• Caladenia Dementia Care
• CASPA
• Cherished Pets
• Children and Young People with Disability Australia
• Cini Australia
• Circus Oz
• Citizens Climate Lobby
• CLIMARTE
• Climate Action Network Australia
• Climate and Health Alliance
• Climate Council
• Climate Integrity
• Climate Resource
• Common Ground First Nations
• Communify Qld
• Community Directors
• Complementary Medicine Association Limited
• Conservation Council ACT Region
• Country Hope
• Country Needs People
• Cowra Early Childhood Services
• Darlinghurst Theatre Company
• Darts Australia Ltd
• Democracy in Colour
• Denmark Baroque
• Digital Rights Watch
• Doctors for the Environment Australia
• Dying with Dignity NSW
• Edith Cowan University Student Guild
• Effective Philanthropy
• Environment Centre NT
• Environment Victoria
• Equality Australia
• Eritrean-Australian Community & Settlement Support Network Inc.
• Every Home for Christ Australia
• Fair Agenda
• Financial Counselling Victoria
• FoodCare Orange
• For Purpose Alliance (FPA)
• Foundation for Young Australians
• Friends of the Earth Australia
• Future Earth Australia
• Gaye Mason Advisory
• Gender and Disaster Australia
• GetUp
• Gippsland Disability Advocacy Inc
• GoodWolf
• Graham F Smith Peace Foundation
• Grassroots Action Network Tasmania
• Greater Melbourne Foundation
• Greenpeace Australia Pacific
• Groundswell Giving
• Haemophilia Foundation Victoria
• Homelessness NSW
• Human Rights Law Centre
• Impact Recovery Ltd.
• Infoxchange
• Inner City Legal Centre
• Innov8 HQ
• Institute of Community Directors Australia
• International Women’s Development Agency (IWDA)
• IWD Meanjin Brisbane
• Justice Connect
• Justice Reform Initiative
• K Farmer Dutjahn Foundation
• Kiwanis Brighton Bayside
• Koala Action Inc.
• KU Children’s Services
• Kyabram Community and Learning Centre Inc.
• Leading Progress
• Let’s talk peace – Ballarat
• Liberty Victoria
• Light of Hope Foundation
• Lighter Footprints
• Lorne Sculpture Exhibition Inc
• Macarthur Community College
• Macdoch Foundation
• Mackay Regional Community Legal Centre
• Mannifera
• Mary MacKillop Today
• Maurice Blackburn Lawyers
• Medical Association for Prevention of War
• MHA Care Limited
• Morrow Studio
• Multicultural Community Services Of Central Australia (MCSCA)
• Multicultural Leadership Initiative
• Nature Conservation Council NSW
• New England Family Support Service
• New Israel Fund Australia
• Ngala
• Noisy Boy Media
• North & West Melbourne Neighbourhood Centre
• North East Community Assistance Project Inc
• NSW Council for Civil Liberties
• NTCOSs
• NYID
• Older Women’s Network NSW
• Oromia Peace Institute
• Oromo community in Melbourne
• Our Community
• Oxfam Australia
• Palm oil detectives
• Parents For Climate
• Peacifica
• Peoples Climate Assembly
• Per Capita
• Perinatal Wellbeing Centre
• Permaculture for Refugees
• Permanent Care and Adoptive Families Inc.
• Plan International Australia
• Play Australia
• Polonia Polish Association of Qld Inc
• PRISM
• Pro Bono Australia
• Project Planet
• Prosper Australia
• Psychology for a Safe Climate
• Queensland Council of Social Service (QCOSS)
• Rainbow Giving Australia
• Rainbow Hollow
• Redfern Legal Centre
• Reichstein Foundation
• Resilient Lismore
• Rights Resource Network SA
• Sapna South Asian Climate Solidarity
• SarasCare
• Save the Children Australia
• Scarlet Alliance, Australian Sex Workers Association
• SEARCH FOUNDATION
• Sexual and Reproductive Health Australia
• Sexual Health Victoria
• Social Good Summit Australia
• Social Responsibilities Committee, Anglican Church Southern Queensland
• Social Ventures Australia
• South Australian Council of Social Service
• South Australian Rainbow Advocacy Alliance Inc.
• South East Arts
• South East Volunteers
• St Andrew’s Meals on Wheels
• St Andrews Uniting Church, Mildura
• Strength Potential
• Tackling Leukaemia Inc
• Teach Learn Grow
• The All One Foundation
• The Benevolent Society
• The Fred Hollows Foundation
• The Funding Network Australia
• The Learning Future
• The Menora Foundation
• The NFP backroom
• The Revillaging project
• The Sunrise Project
• The Unquiet Collective
• The WeirAnderson Foundation
• The Wyatt Trust
• Tipping Point
• Unharm
• Vets for Climate Action
• Victorian Aboriginal Child and Community Agency (VACCA)
• Vietnamese Women’s Association SA
• Voices of the Top End (VoTE)
• Volunteering Australia
• Wagga Women’s Health Centre
• Welcoming Australia
• West Australian Council of Social Service
• Western Australian Innovation, Technology & Talent Alliance
• White Eagle Lodge of Australia Pty Ltd
• Wildlife Rescue South Coast Inc
• Women’s Legal Centre ACT
• Worker Assist Tasmania
• Working Women’s Centre Australia
• Working Women’s Centre SA
• World Animal Protection
• YLab

The post Civil society statement of solidarity with the Australian Jewish community appeared first on Australian Muslim Advocacy Network.

The call comes amid growing concern over Ms Machado’s public support for far-right movements, anti-Muslim extremism, and military intervention in Venezuela.

A Call for Moral Integrity

In a joint letter sent to the Nobel Committee in Oslo, the signatories expressed deep concern over the decision. They stated that the Nobel Peace Prize should honour individuals who defend justice and peace for all, not those who promote war, racism, or fascism.

Reasons for Concern

The letter outlined several issues that contradict the Nobel Committee’s values.
Ms Machado reportedly:

• Spoke at the Patriots of Europe conference alongside far-right figures including Geert Wilders, Marie Le Pen, and Viktor Orbán.
• Formed a political alliance between her party, Vente Venezuela, and Israel’s Likud Party — whose leaders face war-crime allegations at the International Criminal Court.
• Declared that “the struggle of Venezuela is the struggle of Israel,” and supported moving Venezuela’s embassy to Jerusalem.

According to Reuters, participants at the conference called for a “new Reconquista,” invoking medieval wars against Muslims in Spain.

These public stances, the organisations said, undermine the credibility of the Nobel Committee and the moral authority of the Peace Prize itself.

What the Letter Calls For

The signatories urged the Nobel Committee to ask Ms Machado to:

1. Renounce her alliance with Israel’s Likud Party.
2. Apologise for joining a conference promoting fascism and anti-Muslim hate.
3. Retract her calls for war as a means to achieve democracy in Venezuela.

If she refuses, they say the Committee should rescind the award and instead recognise someone who truly upholds peace — such as activists, journalists, and medical professionals who risk their lives defending human rights worldwide.

United Global Voices

The letter was co-signed by major Muslim and human rights organisations from across the Western world, including:

• Australian Muslim Advocacy Network (AMAN)
• Canadians United Against Hate
• Collective Against Islamophobia in Europe (CCIE)
• Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)
• Forum of European Muslim Youth and Student Organisations (FEMYSO)
• Islamophobia Studies Center
• Muslim Council of Britain (MCB)
• The March 15th Forum – Combating Islamophobia
• US Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO)

Together, they represent millions of people who believe that peace prizes should celebrate courage, not hypocrisy.

Plea for Accountability

AMAN stands with its international partners in urging the Nobel Committee to uphold the integrity of one of the world’s most respected awards.

By ensuring that the Nobel Peace Prize reflects the true meaning of peace, justice, and equality, the Committee can restore faith in its mission.

Read the full joint letter here (PDF)

The post AMAN Joins Global Civil Rights Groups Call on Nobel Committee to Withdraw Award appeared first on Australian Muslim Advocacy Network.

But here’s the truth every professional should know:

Human rights advocacy is lawful in Australia.

Speaking out against injustice, supporting oppressed communities, or calling for accountability under international law is not only a moral duty—it’s a legally protected right.

Yet, many complaints made against professionals are not rooted in law. They are intimidation tactics meant to silence your voice.

That’s why AMAN has created a factsheet specifically for you—to guide you through how to respond to such complaints safely, confidently, and within your rights.

Click here to read the full AMAN factsheet

Who Is This For?

• University lecturers, researchers, and students
• Doctors, nurses, psychologists, and health sector professionals
• Social workers, educators, and counsellors
• Anyone facing workplace pressure for their human rights advocacy

What Should You Do if a Complaint Is Made?

1. Stay Calm
   • Advocacy for human rights—including the rights of Palestinians—is not racial vilification. It’s legal and protected under Australian and international law.
2. Request Full Information
   Ask your employer or institution:
   • Review and Respond Thoughtfully
   • Use AMAN’s guide to assess whether your speech breaches any policies.
   • Know that criticism of a state, military, or ideology is not the same as targeting people based on race or religion.
3. Seek Expert Help
   • Contact your union or a workplace lawyer.
   • Reach out to the Islamophobia Register Australia.
   • Document everything.

Know Your Legal Protections

Political Belief Is Protected
In VIC, ACT, QLD, and TAS, it’s unlawful to discriminate against someone based on political views.

Public Interest Expression Is Lawful
Criticism made in good faith and in the public interest is protected.

Defamation and Harassment Remedies Exist
If a complaint is made public and affects your reputation, or if it becomes drawn-out without basis, you may have legal recourse.

What If You’re in the Public Service or Health Sector?

• Be aware of any workplace policies around public commentary and symbols.
• Policies must be reasonable, consistent, and proportionate.
• If non-Palestinian cultural expressions are allowed, similar expressions should be too.

Get the Full Factsheet
The AMAN factsheet gives you practical steps, legal context, and expert guidance in clear language. It is designed to protect and empower professionals who are being unfairly targeted for standing up for human rights.

Download or read it here:
AMAN Factsheet: Human Rights Advocacy is Lawful

The post Facing a Complaint for Human Rights Advocacy? Here’s What You Should Know appeared first on Australian Muslim Advocacy Network.

On 17 May 2024, the Australian Muslim Advocacy Network (AMAN), along with numerous other organisations, issued a statement opposing the recent Senate motion that condemns the phrase “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free.” This condemnation is based on a fundamental misinterpretation of the phrase, which has historically been associated with the Palestinian cause for self-determination and statehood.

The True Meaning of the Phrase

The phrase “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free” is deeply rooted in the aspiration for freedom and dignity for all individuals living within the lands stretching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. It represents a vision for liberation and equality, regardless of background, faith, or nationality.

Misconceptions and Misuse

The recent Senate motion, spearheaded by Senator Birmingham, uses the words of Palestinians against them, implying that their calls for liberation are illegitimate. This motion not only distorts the meaning of the phrase but also silences the political and cultural expressions of Palestinians. Such actions detract from the actual issues at hand, including the ongoing genocide and humanitarian crises faced by Palestinians in Gaza.

Historical and Academic Perspectives

According to the University of Toronto’s Hearing Palestine Initiative, the phrase should be understood within the context of Palestinian history and culture. It is an expression of the Palestinian people’s collective memory and aspirations, not a political program advocating violence. This academic perspective underscores the importance of recognising the phrase as a call for liberation and equality in the face of colonisation and occupation.

The Impact of Reckless Language

The use of terms like “religiously motivated violent extremism” (RMVE) about Palestinian activism only serves to link terrorism with an entire religion, fostering fear and prejudice. This is not only inaccurate but also dangerous, as it fuels online hatred and increases the risk of hate incidents against the Muslim community. Public officials must use accurate language that reflects the political nature of terrorism rather than associating it with any religion.

AMAN’s Call to Action

AMAN, along with other supporting organisations, calls for an end to the reckless use of RMVE and urges a reconsideration of the Senate’s stance. It is imperative to focus on the real issues affecting Palestinians and to promote a narrative that supports liberation and human rights for all.

The post Understanding ‘From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free’ appeared first on Australian Muslim Advocacy Network.

The Australian Muslim Advocacy Network (AMAN) has been a relentless advocate for justice, equality, and human rights since its inception. In a recent submission to the Senate Standing Committees on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, AMAN has raised significant concerns about the proposed Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024. This Bill, if enacted, will have far-reaching consequences for many communities across Australia, potentially infringing upon fundamental human rights and freedoms.

Unchecked Ministerial Powers and Their Implications

The Migration Amendment Bill 2024 seeks to grant the Minister for Immigration unprecedented discretionary powers. These powers include compelling individuals to take any action necessary for their removal from Australia under the threat of severe penalties, including up to five years of imprisonment for non-compliance​​. This level of authority, coupled with the potential to impose travel bans reminiscent of those seen in the Trump administration, poses significant risks to the fairness and transparency of the immigration process.

Criminalising Survival and Family Decisions

One of the most alarming aspects of the Bill is how it effectively criminalises survival. Individuals fleeing persecution, torture, and imminent danger are forced to choose between returning to life-threatening situations or facing detention in Australian prisons for non-compliance with removal orders. This is not only inhumane but also places an undue burden on families, forcing parents to make impossible decisions regarding their children’s safety and future​​.

Impact on Community Trust and Safety

The Bill’s broad discretionary powers and severe penalties are likely to create a chilling effect across various communities. Many will live in fear of these unchecked powers being used against them, even those who have already been granted protection or are seeking to travel to Australia. This fear undermines trust in the government and erodes the sense of security and belonging that is essential for community cohesion​​.

A Step Towards Undemocratic Governance

AMAN views this Bill as a troubling indicator of a shift towards undemocratic governance. The haste with which this legislation has been introduced, following the High Court’s ruling in NZYQ, suggests a reactionary and authoritarian approach to lawmaking. This approach risks bypassing established judicial processes and undermining the rule of law, principles that are fundamental to a democratic society​​.

AMAN’s Recommendations

In its submission, AMAN has made several key recommendations:

1. Abandon the Bill: Focus on creating durable mechanisms to review immigration detention and release people safely into the community.
2. Support Refugees: Grant recognized refugees the opportunity to settle in Australia, regardless of their mode of arrival.
3. End Offshore Processing: Terminate offshore processing and detention policies, and close the ‘Regional Processing Centre’ in Nauru.
4. Provide Rights and Entitlements: Ensure that bridging visas allow refugees and asylum seekers to live in the community with full rights and entitlements​​.

Upholding Human Rights Frameworks

AMAN’s submission underscores Australia’s obligations under international human rights frameworks, including the Refugee Convention of 1951 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). These frameworks prohibit arbitrary detention and ensure the protection of refugees and asylum seekers. The proposed Bill, however, appears to contravene these obligations, highlighting the need for a more humane and legally sound approach to immigration policy​​.

The Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 represents a significant step backward for human rights in Australia. By granting excessive powers to the Minister for Immigration and criminalising the survival of vulnerable individuals, the Bill threatens to undermine the principles of justice, equality, and democracy. AMAN’s detailed submission to the Senate Standing Committees calls for a rejection of the Bill and a recommitment to humane and equitable immigration policies.

The post AMAN’s Stand Against the Migration Amendment Bill 2024 appeared first on Australian Muslim Advocacy Network.

CHAIR: Welcome. I understand that information on parliamentary privilege and the protection of witnesses giving evidence to parliamentary committees has been provided to you. I invite you to make an opening statement, and at the conclusion of those remarks we’ll invite our members to ask some questions.

Ms Jabri Markwell : I would like to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land I’m on—I want to say the Turrbal people, but I’m not exactly sure. I want to also say that AMAN very strongly supports the Voice to Parliament, and we are very firmly of the view that it will help better governance in Australia. We support it for better governance for First Nations peoples in terms of their engagement and their partnership with government. But one of the reasons why we also support a human rights act in Australia is that we want to see better governance for all Australians, and we think that a human rights act will be an essential part of improving that governance and increasing that trust in democracy, increasing every citizen’s sense of value and place in Australia. That is better for the whole of democracy. In the time that we live in at the moment, with all that instability around democracy and that erosion of trust, I think that it’s such a powerful thing that the Australian government could be doing right now—to embark on a human rights act.

With the greatest respect, I think that previous iterations of human rights plans invest too much ambition and confidence in the scope of government to foresee human rights issues and to problem-solve human rights issues. The benefit of a human rights act is that it introduces a civil process where people on the ground who are experiencing the real consequences are able to initiate structured conversations with the decision-makers that will make a difference. In that way, I think it makes a very good complement to even other reforms that you’re looking at, in terms of whistleblower protections and the national integrity commission—things that are all about strengthening democracy. This is another component where people can start a conversation to problem-solve with people that can make a difference and are in charge of different institutions around Australia, such as law enforcement, which is an institution that the Australian Muslim community continues to have a lot of concerns with because of the counterterrorism framework in Australia. We feel that that would give us a much better, stronger platform to have that engagement and to be heard, which is a difficulty at the moment.

One of the key issues which we want to be heard on is the terrorist act definition in Australia, which includes a motive element that a terrorist act is intended to advance a religious, political or ideological cause. A number of international legal experts have said that that motive element is wrong; it should be taken out of our definition. Our own Independent National Security Legislation Monitor in 2012 recommended it be removed, and the current counterterrorism and human rights special rapporteur has also recommended that a good definition of terrorism focuses on the special intent and the conduct elements but does not focus on the ideological reasons that someone gives for their act of terrorism. It shouldn’t matter what ideological reasons a person gives.

The problem with having that ideological test in there is that it allows for arbitrary implementation in that it places a barrier there where police are considering: ‘Does this meet the test of a violent ideology? Does racism equal a violent ideology?’ We would prefer that they just try and meet the terrorism test and then apply it. If it’s a Nazi, if it’s a racist nationalist, if they meet the test of a terrorist act, the police should apply that so we experience the protection of Australian laws, and, at the same time, our Australian laws don’t become a vehicle for harm. The current framing of religiously motivated terrorism frames our religion as a cause of terrorism, and it perpetuates that at a national level, at a grassroots level, through media. It has been shown in social psychology research published last year by the Centre for Resilient and Inclusive Societies that, no matter how much you try and educate people about Islam and the Muslim community, no matter how much education you give them, no matter how much you try and prove that you’re a good person, no matter how much you try and build a relationship, if they see terrorism media coverage they will revert back to their original prejudice, and they will not be able to overcome that prejudice.

We are now understanding why there continue to be such high rates of anti-Muslim sentiment in the community and it hasn’t been able to shift. In a way, it puts a huge psychological health burden on our community in terms of the health impact of racism and of fearing what’s going to happen to our children who might be troubled, might have autism or might, for whatever reason, get mixed up with police, with what that means for them in terms of their trajectory, and also just being fearful because of how everyone looks at us and sees us and immediately has a lens over the way that they see us because of that framing. So we want a sense of freedom. That is really key to our religious freedoms agenda—to have that removed from the law so we can be free to form our own narratives as a community and not be hostage to misinformation and disinformation online about our community.

In terms of the gaps in our current legal framework, social media companies do not believe that they are subject to Australian discrimination and vilification laws, and they are resisting that in our legal actions, which we have afoot with Meta and Twitter at the moment. So I think there could be some clarification about that. I think that it would be in the public interest for discrimination laws at the federal level and the state level to have extraterritorial application, to give maximum effect and place expectation on those social media companies to apply our standards of hate speech and not their own standards. When I say ‘our standards’, I mean Australian standards. We also have recommendations around the Online Safety Act in terms of its current limitations and how it could reach out to take action to protect whole communities from hatred as opposed to just individuals. We’ve worked on definitions of ‘dehumanising material’ which aim to deal with the very practical problem of how to identify online hate speech, because judicial tests are not really applicable or don’t work very well when you’re trying to identify content at scale. So we’ve done a lot of practical problem solving in this space. I suppose I’ve taken up my five minutes, so I’ll stop.

CHAIR: We’re here to listen to you, not the other way around, so that’s fine. Thank you very much for that comprehensive opening statement as well as the submission. Maybe I’ll come back to the point that you were stressing at the start, around the definition of ‘motive’ versus that of ‘special intent’. Could you expand on the key differences and why you’re advocating for ‘motive’ to be taken out, versus something like ‘special intent’?

Ms Jabri Markwell : Sure. I appreciate the question. I don’t know if you’re a lawyer by background—

CHAIR: Definitely not.

Ms Jabri Markwell : Okay. I appreciate the question. With every criminal offence, you have your intention and your action or conduct components. The terrorist act definition has several intention parts to it and a whole list of possible actions that could go with it. The actions are: to cause serious injury, serious property damage—there’s a list of things. The intention parts are that you must intend to cause that serious injury and you must intend to advance an ideological, political or religious cause. The third intention part is that you must intend to coerce or compel the government or intimidate the population, or a segment of the population, or intend to intimidate the government. What we are talking about is that middle piece, which really speaks to motive. It is odd to put that in a criminal offence definition. For criminal offences—murder, rape—the law doesn’t care about why someone says they did it, typically. It’s very strange to put motive into a criminal offence definition. It’s not necessary, because the intention part that’s already there, which we call ‘special intent’—when I say ‘we’, I mean the UN; I shouldn’t say ‘we’—refers to coercing and compelling a government or intimidating the population. That’s what distinguishes terrorism from, say, mass homicide or whatever else. It’s there. It’s intended to communicate a message to a broader audience through violence. What we’re saying is that the ideological reasons that people give for their terrorism should not be counted in the law and it shouldn’t be endorsed, amplified or glamorised by the law. What we’re saying is that the ideological reasons that people give for their terrorism should not be counted in the law and shouldn’t be endorsed, amplified or glamorised by the law. When we call ISIS ‘religiously motivated’, we are elevating their stature and we’re calling them what they want to be called. The Muslim community doesn’t accept that they’re religious or religiously motivated, so it’s very strange and very hurtful to us that the Australian government refers to them as ‘religiously motivated’. We think that they should be called, if anything, politically or ideologically motivated.

In terms of conversations with international lawyers, I’m part of a lawyers group through the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism. In that group there are people who are affiliated with different European bodies and with the UN Security Council, and their very strong view is that the motive element is a problem because it’s unnecessary. What it does is create the opportunity for arbitrary implementation in the sense of deciding: ‘Okay, well, this person was planning violence. They said that they hate immigrants, Jews or Muslims.’ Is that a violent ideology? I don’t know. Can police say that? Really, that is not an appropriate question. The appropriate question is: ‘Did they plan violence and were they intending to intimidate a population or coerce the government to abandon multiculturalism as a policy?’ That is the key thing.

The problem with focusing on motive is that you end up stigmatising entire communities. There have been warnings about this for some time. The former Chief Justice of the Australian High Court, the late Gerard Brennan, wrote about this in 2007. He published a piece where he said, ‘We are at risk of stigmatising an entire religious community if we continue going down this path.’ Unfortunately it continued. We are now at a point where we are really pleading with the Australian government to stop this because otherwise we are essentially condemned to racism forever for our children and our children’s children. We don’t want that stigma for the rest of our time.

CHAIR: I ask this question to get a deeper understanding. Is it that the Australian Islamic community feels that, by associating and affiliating terrorism with the religious views that they themselves hold to be true, it’s somehow connecting them with the actions of those who they have absolutely nothing to do with and who have committed these awful crimes?

Ms Jabri Markwell : That’s exactly right. It suggests that Islam supports terrorism, violence and sexual slavery—all these things which are absolutely abominable. In fact ISIS targets Muslims more than any other group. There have been more Muslim victims of ISIS than any other group, yet we are perpetuating, at a national level, that they are religious. They want to be known as religious—that they’re fighting a religious war. At the same time, racist nationalists out there want everyone to believe that Muslims are barbaric, savage and incompatible with Australian society. Then we have this message being repeated that our religion motivates terrorism and sexual slavery. It’s like a trap. It just feels like a prison or a trap that we can’t break free from.

CHAIR: I understand.

Ms Jabri Markwell : And in terms of the legal framework, it’s one of those examples where the law actually carries a harm. I’m sure you’ve heard many examples of where law can carry harm. At the moment the Australian government’s governance frameworks are not strong enough to hear where the community is hurting and then make adjustments. That process is not there. That engagement is not there.

CHAIR: We’ve moved a little bit away from the terms of reference, in terms of a key legal ask, clearly, of the advocacy network, which I really appreciate. I appreciate you being so generous with your explanation.

My final question before I hand over to the others is: in the context of looking at what rights need to be enshrined in order to ensure this sort of protection against forms of vilification such as this, do you have any advice to the committee about what things you would like to see in order to strengthen the rights of all people, including the Islamic community, so as to prevent laws such as this being drafted in the future?

Ms Jabri Markwell : I think a human rights act would go a long way. I know that the Human Rights Committee is a strong element but how I’d like it to be strengthened is I would like your review of legislation before legislation is enacted. I think that your perspective is very important because you’re focusing on human rights, whereas the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has a different lens. They are valid but we need both lenses with counter-terrorism legislation in particular. I would also just like to put on the record that it’s not only AMAN that’s calling for this change. There was a motion moved by the Alliance of Australian Muslims last year; 200 Muslim organisations asked for this to happen.

CHAIR: I appreciate that. Thank you.

Mr BROADBENT: It is an interesting conversation. How do we bridge that gap, though? I notice you referred back to the legislation, but it’s a basic human fear when they’re fed the information from around the world, and governments are going to react to what the people are feeling. I can entirely understand what you put to us today and thank you for your opening remarks; I really appreciate them. Working through how we deal with that is quite difficult. I am just getting my head around how we change that approach, because it doesn’t matter which national newspaper you go to, it’s the same sort of headline.

Ms Jabri Markwell : Yes. It is hard to change history. I mean, a decision was made 20 years ago by Tony Blair to introduce this category of ‘religiously motivated’ terrorism, then Australia adopted it along with New Zealand and Canada, so we’re the only countries that do this. But we also are countries that have had massive anti-Islam movements. Canada has had more mass shootings and deadly hate crimes than any other G7 country. There continues to be a massive anti-Islam problem in Australia. Our anti-Islam movement started to subside a little bit after Christchurch and it has been a little bit refocused on other communities in the last few years. But it’s still there and it can be awoken at any moment, which is our fear.

In terms of how to change it, we think that removing the motive element in the act will benefit not only the Muslim community; it will benefit all communities because it will just make a very strong message that terrorism is terrorism. Regardless of whatever reasons, ideological reasons people want to give for it, it will be treated as terrorism and punished that way. We then need to start to focus the conversation on not only the social pathway that people go down to when they decide to transition to violence but also the victims of terrorism. I think we need to focus our minds more there. I think it will take possibly another generation to undo the entrenched fear of Muslims that has come about because of this framing that, unfortunately, has happened in 10 years.

Mr BROADBENT: Ten years goes very quickly. I had a friend. I worked with him for a long time. He could not have been more anti-Muslim than anybody you’d ever meet in Australia until his boss gave him Ali to work with. So from then on, he just loved Ali, because Ali wanted to learn all that he had to give. From then on, he may be anti-Muslim, but ‘Ali is different’.

Ms Jabri Markwell : Yes. It’s a nice thing, but it’s also the problem. The studies show that it doesn’t matter how many good relationships you form, it won’t necessarily shift the underlying beliefs that then get passed on to children and influence how people treat other Muslims.

Mr BROADBENT: That may have been the case, but ‘Ali is different’.

Ms Jabri Markwell : Yes.

Mr PERRETT: Thank you for your wonderful work, Ms Markwell. I want to go almost back to something that the deputy chair said in terms of practical outcomes and how should the role or functions of the Australian Human Rights Commission be updated to reflect some of your concerns—so practical changes that we could make?

Ms Jabri Markwell : For starters, I think the Australian Human Rights Commission could end or discontinue its policy of not accepting complaints from the Australian Muslim community, which it currently has in place, which is inexplicable. We do believe that section 18(c) should extend to us because that was the legislators’ intent, to include Muslims within the category of ethno-religious groups, because we do experience racism.

Mr PERRETT: That was the second reading. Is that what you mean?

Ms Jabri Markwell : Yes, in terms of cultural superiority based racism, we experienced that, so we would really like to see that policy discontinued immediately. The Australian Human Rights Commission’s proposals around more positive duties and their inquiry powers around looking at more systemic forms of discrimination we support very much, because any avenue that allows for a structured conversation against a backdrop of human rights can be very powerful, especially where an organisation like ours also knows how to use the law and media. It can be very useful to have these doors that are just simply there for us to be able to open.

Mr PERRETT: It’s been a while since I’ve practiced in Queensland in anti-discrimination law, so I’m more familiar with the old 1991 act than the Queensland Human Rights Act. But could you make comment particularly on how the Queensland Human Rights Act goes in protecting human rights? You have a national focus. Is that right?

Ms Jabri Markwell : We also use the Queensland legislation because it is excellent in the sense that it does cover religion as a ground. We used it successfully to bring an action against former Senator Fraser Anning and were successful with that. He had to bring down 141 hate artefacts online as a result of that action.

Mr PERR ETT: Was that timely and effective?

Ms Jabri Markwell : No, it wasn’t timely. It was effective but not timely; it was drawn out. We think it’s important to have vilification protections, and the Human Rights Act is also a great win for Queensland. However, I would say that it should allow relevant entities to bring actions under the Human Rights Act on behalf of communities. So, for example, AMAN can’t bring an action on behalf of the Muslim community under the Human Rights Act; it has to be an individual. Again, that is sort of really putting the burden on individuals. That’s the whole problem. While I don’t want to see any of these laws be taken away, I think that we do need to start moving towards systems that treat racism as a public harm as opposed to a private complaint, where individuals have to constantly fight and where the financial emotional safety costs come from. I can’t bring actions against—sorry?

Mr PERRETT: Are there any similar jurisdictions that have changed from the individual complaint mechanism to representative complaints?

Ms Jabri Markwell : Queensland allows representative complaints under vilification laws but not under discrimination, which it needs to do; it needs to allow it under discrimination laws as well. It would be an easy fix, and I think that should be contemplated in relation to the federal legislation because a lot of really great conversations can be initiated by community organisations on behalf of their communities.

Mr PERRETT: But are there no other international jurisdictions from that group?

Ms Jabri Markwell : I would say there are no international jurisdictions that I’m familiar enough with that I would recommend. At this point, I do think that Australia is good in the sense that we have free human rights bodies that you can lodge a complaint with, and the process is entirely free up until the tribunal stage. Some of the international jurisdictions that I’m familiar with use criminal laws, which are not great. I don’t think we should be going down that criminal path. We’re not looking at expanding the responsibilities of police or the sorts of carceral approaches there. We would really like to keep this within the civil realm. I think the Human Rights Commission’s recommendations in the Free and equal report were good.

Mr PERRETT: Thank you, Ms Jabri Markwell.

CHAIR: We’ll go to Senator Stewart for the last couple of questions.

Senator STEWART: I just want to pick up on something that you talked about which goes to the burden on individuals, in having to bring something forward in lots of these cases and the costs that they experience. Can you just talk about that a little bit more? I’m interested in the community group stuff and groups being able to bring something forward, as opposed to individuals. Can you elaborate on that burden for individuals a bit?

Ms Jabri Markwell : Yes. In the context that we’re dealing with, the people who hate Muslims often want to see us exterminated or dead, so the idea of us having to go through a conciliation process or even bring actions against publishers who claim they’re not violent but just hate Muslims is not worth it, because they will use that to gain attention and they will compromise your safety. I think that, for a lot of individuals, it’s just a lot of emotional labour that goes through it. That’s why a lot of our attention goes towards upstream solutions that put the responsibility back on Australian regulators, such as ACMA and the eSafety Commissioner, and allow community organisations to also carry some responsibility. But I think it’s also tough because I know some communities don’t have an equivalent of AMAN and they face terrible racism. I’m thinking in particular, for example, of the First Nations community in the context of the Voice.

Senator STEWART: Where I’m going to go next. It’s a very nice lead-in, because you’ve talked about online safety and some of the big social media pages, and there’s been a rise in racism, discrimination and abuse online for First Nations communities. In another inquiry, we heard from the eSafety Commissioner that there’s often a spike in racism, abuse and harassment online in the lead-up to the Indigenous round in football.

Ms Jabri Markwell : Yes.

Senator STEWART: We’re heading into a referendum that’s looking at changing our Constitution, and that’s continuing to build that hate, I suppose. What are the things that the human rights framework or act can do to help with that both for the First Nations communities and for the Muslim community? I’ve been having lots of conversations with people about moderating your social media pages more closely so you’re not facilitating that discriminatory language in your comments section.

Ms Jabri Markwell : Yes. In our submission we referred to the fact that we would really like Australia to adopt anti-dehumanisation standards on top of its current vilification framework. The reason for that is that vilification laws in themselves don’t provide enough guidance to social media companies or even to the Australian people about what crosses the line when it comes to hate speech. Unfortunately, because there are so many different types of communities that are targeted, and so many different types of hate speech, it’s very important to be able to have standards that are clear enough and have a very clear red line on vilifying, with things that people can understand. Dehumanising material is material which suggests that a group of people, on the basis of a protected characteristic, are less than human and less than equal because they lack intrinsic qualities that belong to human beings. For example, suggesting that a group of people, based on a protected characteristic, are polluting, despoiling or debilitating society or that they prey on children, the aged and the vulnerable, that they don’t love their children, that they’re not able to think independently, that they act en masse in a hostile way—these are all dehumanising conceptions, in the sense that it deprives that group of the human qualities of all being different, because, in every group, people are different. Everyone has their own minds, their own stories, their own cultures, their own histories. But that is lost in a dehumanising narrative about a group, where they are just all interchangeable and they are all whatever.

That’s why we’ve said that Australia could really strengthen its approach to its obligations under the Rome statute to prevent genocide, by being very clear about what is dehumanising material and having antidehumanisation standards, which we’ve defined in some of our support material, which could then be used by judges when they’re considering discrimination cases. They could be used by the eSafety Commissioner when they’re considering online material. They could be used by ACMA when they’re considering disinformation and misinformation, to understand if it is dehumanising. That would provide a better understanding, and I think that’s what we’re missing at the moment. There’s a lot of weaponisation of concepts like hate speech, where people say, ‘I don’t believe in hate speech; you’re trying to undo my free speech with your hate speech,’ or ‘I don’t believe in your concept of racism; how can I be racist towards Muslims?’ These are all the arguments that are made. This just overcomes that by saying: ‘Here’s a standard that applies to all human beings. We all deserve to be treated the way that we treat others. Here are some basic guidelines of what is dehumanising.’

Senator STEWART: We could use it in parliament too.

Ms Jabri Markwell : We’ve also proposed it for the parliamentary code of conduct.

The post AMAN appearance at the Australian Parliament Joint Committee on Human Rights appeared first on Australian Muslim Advocacy Network.

PROFESSOR SHAHRAM AKBARZADEH ALFRED DEAKIN INSTITUTE FOR CITIZENSHIP AND GLOBALISATION DEAKIN UNIVERSITY

Surveillance

There is a strong sense of concern over the amount of scrutiny faced collectively by Australian Muslims, with the whole Muslim community bearing the brunt of perceived ‘guilt by association’ with terrorism. There are concerns that  community policing is now morphing into an intelligence gathering strategy, with detrimental effects on community confidence in law enforcement agencies. The success of community policing rests on community trust and support for police counter-terrorism efforts. 

Impact on Australian Muslims

Members of the Muslim community have stressed the importance of engaging with the community as a key factor to counter violent extremism. The success of community policing is often undermined by the police’s focus on surveillance and intelligence gathering, rather than on genuine efforts to include Muslims in creating counter-terrorism strategies and policies.^[1]

The question of trust – Anti-Muslim sentiments

Anti-terror tactics employed by the police against Muslims have contributed to the erosion of confidence in the police. Among these include ‘stop and search’ powers against Muslims, informal questioning of Muslims, and raids and searches of Muslims’ houses. Anti-terror police raids remain a source of contention, with many respondents expressing that the way such raids are conducted is offensive and upsetting to Australian Muslims. 

The politicisation of police

Many Muslims are disillusioned with the way politicians and the media sensationalise terrorist attacks and imply that there is a link between Islam and terrorism. This sensationalism is seen as fear mongering, often by politicians to advance ‘their own agenda.’  There is an overwhelming feeling that Australian public opinion of Muslims is skewered by sensationalism. Effective community policing facilitates two-way engagement between the police and Muslim community and requires that the police are responsive to Muslim concerns and recommendations. 

Valued as a citizen

The spike in anti-Muslim discourse following 9/11 has led to feelings of isolation within the Australian Muslim community. There are also sentiments that Muslims have to work significantly harder than non-Muslims for their voices to be heard and that when it comes to counter-terrorism strategies, their opinions, concerns and recommendations were not taken seriously by authorities. 

Freedom of religious expression and freedom

Members of the Muslim community have discussed this in relation to voting in elections, which they claimed was their ‘strongest power’ in validating their opinions, however, there are overall feelings of being treated as ‘second class citizens’.

The Muslim community and consultation

The feeling of not being heard among Australian Muslims is elevated at times of crisis. Many respondents expressed frustration over the lack of meaningful consultation with the Australian Federal Government and police regarding anti- terror laws and strategies.

To download the research paper, visit here.

Citation: Akbarzadeh, Shahram (2021) Australian Muslims’ Experiences of Policing and Surveillance (Australian Muslim Women’s Centre for Human Rights: Melbourne).

^[1] Cherney, Adrian and Kristina Murphy (2016) ‘Being a ‘suspect community’ in a post 9/11 world – The impact of the war on terror on Muslim communities in Australia’, Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, Vol. 49, No. 4, pp. 480 – 496

The post Policy brief – Australian Muslims’ Experiences of Policing and Surveillance appeared first on Australian Muslim Advocacy Network.