Royal Commission into Antisemitism a “$131 Million Whinge”
by Andrew Brown | Aug 5, 2026, https://michaelwest.com.au/royal-commission-into-antisemitism-a-131-million-whinge/
“Australians are not being investigated for hating Jews. They are being investigated for objecting to a genocide.” Andrew Brown on the Royal Commission into Antisemitism.
Apparently antisemitism simply fell from the sky. Fully formed. Immaculately conceived. Entirely unrelated to anything happening in Gaza. That is the finding Australia has pre-purchased for $131.1 million, confirmed at Senate Estimates in February, with $91 million alone for staffing, property, lawyers and security.
“Every single dollar buys theatre.“
Measure the obscenity. The banking royal commission, which gutted an entire industry’s misconduct, cost $75 million. Aboriginal Deaths in Custody cost $50.2 million.
This inquiry outspends both combined. Meanwhile there is no royal commission into the domestic violence killing a woman most weeks, none into Islamophobia, now soaring. Australia found $131 million for the one inquiry designed never to ask an obvious question.
Blame where it belongs. Anthony Albanese wrote the answer into the question. His Letters Patent instruct the Commission to find the drivers of antisemitism in extremism and radicalisation, the war deleted from the terms of reference before Virginia Bell was even sworn in.
The Albanese government wrote the verdict into the terms of reference, then spent more than the banking royal commission to have a judge read it back. Here is what the money is buying.
Commissioning an alibi
Albanese promised the inquiry would deliver, in his own words, the right outcome. A Prime Minister announcing the right outcome in advance is commissioning an alibi.
This is the government that will gesture at recognising Palestine while refusing to utter the word genocide, that ships F35 components into the supply chain of the slaughter, that sanctions two Israeli ministers and calls it courage. It needed a grand national explanation for collapsing social cohesion that never once mentions its own complicity.
“For $131 million, it has bought one.“
The process delivered. In the first three days of hearings, 23 of 36 witnesses characterised criticism of Israel, opposition to Zionism or Palestine advocacy as antisemitic. Jewish organisations opposed to Zionism were refused leave to appear. Palestinian voices were excluded for lacking a direct and substantial interest.
The accused were barred from the courtroom so the prosecution could run unopposed at public expense.
The grievance parade
And the substance? A grievance parade.
The ABC and SBS hauled in to answer for Jillian Segal’s strong perception, her phrase, that their Gaza coverage lacks balance, then interrogated for declining the contested IHRA definition Bell waved through as uncontroversial.
Keffiyehs, flags, watermelon art, chants of Free Palestine, student encampments and fundraisers for maimed children tendered as exhibits of hate. Protest. Tents. Journalism. Every place an ordinary Australian expressed solidarity with a people being exterminated, recast at public expense as a crime scene. Australians are not being investigated for hating Jews.
“They are being investigated for objecting to a genocide.“
The complainants were welcomed like royalty. Alex Ryvchin of the ECAJ, who called the anti-Israel movement indistinguishable from neo-Nazism, testified at length while his silk objected to opposing counsel merely uttering the word genocide, a finding the International Court of Justice considered plausible back in January 2024.
Robert Gregory of the self-appointed Australian Jewish Association, which the ECAJ itself calls unrepresentative, told the Commission the government egged on antisemitism, fresh from blaming Bondi on visas for Palestinians fleeing the bombs.
Sky’s the limit
Sky News completes the circuit, wheeling Gregory out to demonise protesters, then feeding its own segments back into the panic as evidence.
The outcomes are as predetermined as the terms.
Come 14 December, expect IHRA stamped across the public service and pushed onto civil society, work Segal has begun. Expect ABC oversight its own ombudsman rejected. Expect protest reframed as policing, and regulators monitoring speech the way AHPRA already does, having admitted under oath it watches nurses and doctors for criticism of Israel after Segal’s pressure.
“Expect everything blamed but the war.“
And expect antisemitism not to fall, because you cannot cure what you refuse to diagnose. Every recommendation will manufacture the resentment it claims to fight, and Labor will call the wreckage cohesion.
For almost three years the world has watched a genocide live-streamed by a state claiming to act in the name of the Jewish people, while its Australian cheer squad defended, excused or denied every atrocity.
Now they ask why anger grows.
None of this excuses antisemitism. Not one word of it. The Bondi gunmen murdered Jews for being Jews, and the law should fall hard on every bigot who follows them. Fifteen dead Australians deserved a fearless inquiry. They got a pantomime, their graves deployed as a shield for a foreign state and the government that armed it.
The elephant is blocking the doorway and eating $131 million of paperwork, yet everyone keeps peering around it, declaring there is nothing to see.This Commission will not defeat antisemitism. It will deliver the most expensive whinge in Australian history, commissioned by a government purchasing its own absolution with public money.
Royal Commission: lawyers spar over Gaza genocide, health regulator admits Segal pressure
by Stephanie Tran and Wendy Bacon | Jul 30, 2026 , https://michaelwest.com.au/royal-commission-lawyers-spar-over-gaza-genocide-health-regulator-admits-segal-pressure/
A heated exchange erupted at the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion on Wednesday after counsel for the Jewish Council of Australia, Kirsten Edwards SC, questioned Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) chief executive Justin Untersteiner about whether healthcare workers could face complaints for describing Israel’s conduct in Gaza as genocide.
The exchange prompted strong objections from counsel for the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, Michael Borsky KC, who argued the commission should not become
“a platform” for “false claims” about Israel.”
Edwards’ questioning centred on an example contained in the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism’s handbook, which AHPRA adopted alongside the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition in June.
One reading of the analysis provided of this example is that describing or using the words genocide, apartheid, or ethnic cleansing in connection with Israel’s actions in Palestine is antisemitic,” Edwards said.
She noted that international bodies, including the International Court of Justice, had used the term genocide in relation to Israel’s conduct in Gaza and asked how practitioners expressing similar views would be treated under AHPRA’s new approach.
“Prior to the publication of this handbook in January 2024, the International Court of Justice ruled that it was
plausible that Israel’s acts in Gaza could amount to genocide,” Edwards said.
“Genocide claims antisemitic, claims Israel lobby lawyer“
Borsky immediately objected and said the “false claims” would “fuel antisemitism”.
“I object. We respectfully submit that this Commission ought not be used as a platform for referring to such allegations. My friend is wrong. That’s not what was found, and the suggestion is, in any event, irrelevant to the Commission’s terms of reference, it could only be relevant to the subject of the Commission’s terms of reference in fuelling anti-Semitism and eroding social cohesion for these false claims to be advanced through this forum,” he said.
Commissioner Virginia Bell rejected the submission that the questioning was irrelevant.
“As I understand where Ms Edwards is going,” Bell said, “it is to contend that in some contexts, use of the word genocide … might nonetheless not be evidence of hostility towards Jews, but might reasonably be taken as a political statement about the conduct of the State of Israel.”
“I think that’s very much at the heart of aspects of the work of this Commission.”
Genocide denied
Borsky doubled down.
“Commissioner, with the greatest of respect, we understand and accept that. But accuracy matters and what my friend put was inaccurate. It was false. She put that the International Court of Justice has ruled that it was plausible that Israel’s acts in Gaza could amount to genocide.
“That is false, and its airing in public is liable to exacerbate the problem of anti-Semitism in his country,” he said.
Commissioner Bell disagreed.
“Mr Borsky, calling it false might be going one step beyond a neutral way of framing it,” she said.
Bell observed that the ICJ had not determined whether genocide had occurred but had accepted there was a prima facie case warranting provisional measures while proceedings continue.
Counsel assisting the Royal Commission, Richard Lancaster SC also interjected Edwards’ line questioning twice.
On the first occasion, Lancaster objected to Edwards’ characterisation of the example in the Special Envoy’s handbook, telling the Commission:
“I object to that because it refers to Zionism. It doesn’t refer to Israel.”
On his second interjection, he once again emphasised that the example of antisemitism in the handbook referred to the term “Zionist”.
“The launching pad for Ms Edwards’ questions was an example given in the ASECA handbook.The example does not involve expressions using the word Israel or the government of Israel. It uses the terms Zionist, and so the launching pad for the question does not sit well with Miss Edwards’ explanation of it,” Lancaster said.
The analysis of the example on page 76 of Segal’s handbook argues that “trying to separate ‘antisemitism’ from ‘antizionism’ ignores the history of misinformation, disinformation and antisemitic propaganda that has shaped narratives about Israel and Zionism … Antisemitism and antizionism are both expressions of hatred towards Jews.”
Untersteiner was unable to answer whether the handbook example would be found to be antisemitic. He said that it would depend on “context” in each case and that he was not a decision maker of complaints.
Segal handbook was “tipping point”
Earlier in his evidence, AHPRA CEO Justin Untersteiner confirmed AHPRA had resisted adopting the IHRA definition because of concerns it could inhibit legitimate political speech.
We resisted it for a period of time,” he said, because AHPRA had heard concerns about “the risk of the IHRA definition stifling free speech … within the healthcare system.”He said publication of the Special Envoy’s handbook earlier this year altered the regulator’s assessment.
“The handbook really provided greater granularity and detail about the definition, about what it does mean and what it doesn’t mean,” Untersteiner said.
“It was on the basis of that handbook, as well as all the feedback that we’d had over a period of time, that we felt it was the right decision then to adopt it.”
When Edwards suggested the handbook had been the “tipping point” in AHPRA’s decision, Untersteiner agreed.
Handbook to inform disciplinary action
Untersteiner also confirmed the handbook would not simply assist staff in triaging complaints but could
“inform disciplinary decisions made by professional boards.“
Asked whether the IHRA definition would be referenced if AHPRA alleged a practitioner had breached professional standards through antisemitic conduct, Untersteiner replied that it would.
“The recommendation and the report … would very much reference IHRA,” he said.
“The appropriate board would be referencing IHRA in making that final decision.”
He further agreed that AHPRA was embedding not only the IHRA definition but also the Special Envoy’s handbook into its regulatory framework.
When asked whether both documents could inform assessments of whether conduct was antisemitic and whether complaints were vexatious, Untersteiner answered: “Correct.”
AHPRA begins social media monitoring
The hearing also revealed AHPRA has begun using social media monitoring tools to monitor practitioners’ social media activity.
“We, like most regulators, use a range of different regulatory tools,” Untersteiner said.
“That includes the use of social media monitoring tools … to help us identify where there might be activity of concern to us related to, for instance, racism or discrimination.”
“We’ve engaged a service provider that undertakes general social media monitoring, and they will use a range of different methods to identify. And by the way, this isn’t just about discrimination, which relates to other issues that might play out in the health system,” he said.
Pressed on whether the monitoring involved searching for particular terms, such as “genocide”, Untersteiner said he was not sufficiently familiar with the technical operation of the system to answer.
Untersteiner said that 85% of complaints related to Islamophobia and anti-Semitism were related to social media activity compared to 40 to 45% of overall complaints regarding racism and discrimination.
Chilling effect acknowledged
Edwards also questioned Untersteiner about complaints made against doctors who had spoken publicly about Gaza.
She referred to correspondence from the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners raising concerns that complaints relating to political speech, even when ultimately dismissed, were taking months to resolve and causing considerable stress to practitioners.
Untersteiner acknowledged that even
“unsubstantiated complaints could have a “chilling effect”.
He said AHPRA was considering whether practitioners should sometimes not be notified about complaints unlikely to result in regulatory action in order to reduce unnecessary anxiety.
Abuse after adopting IHRA
Questioned later by Borsky, Untersteiner said he had received abuse following AHPRA’s adoption of the IHRA definition, including allegations that he supported genocide or had been influenced by the Israel lobby.
Borsky also referred to abuse directed at Special Envoy Jillian Segal, who will reappear at the Commission on Thursday.
The hearing did not examine claims that AHPRA had also come under sustained lobbying from pro-Israel organisations before adopting the IHRA definition.
MWM previously revealed that AHPRA’s decision followed months of lobbying by the Australian Zionist Health Alliance and other advocacy groups, including calls for Untersteiner’s removal and repeated engagement with senior government officials.
UN refutes Jillian Segal’s Gaza death toll claim before Royal Commission
by Aleta Moriarty | Jul 17, 2026 https://michaelwest.com.au/un-refutes-jillian-segals-gaza-death-toll-claim-before-royal-commission/
Responding to Special Envoy Jillian Segal’s claim of a “grossly inflated” death toll in Gaza, UN spokesperson for Secretary-General António Guterres backed the Gaza Ministry of Health. Aleta Moriarty reports.
The integrity of Australia’s Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion depends on an accurate factual record. Public confidence in its findings relies on evidence being tested and claims being verified.
Too much is at stake. Hate is on the rise, and the safety of the Jewish community is rightly being examined in the wake of the Bondi Terror Attack. With distrust and polarisation at near-record levels, the process deserves to be respected.
Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Jillian Segal, told the Royal Commission on July 9 that Gaza death toll figures from the Gaza Health Ministry reported by SBS and the ABC were “grossly inflated,” and that this was “well known and even accepted by the United Nations”.
I’ve spent most of my career working for the UN and its agencies. I’m not an official UN employee right now, but I remain a firm believer in the institution and its integrity, which is why I sought clarification regarding the UN’s position on the Gaza death toll directly from the office of the Secretary-General.
The UN responds
Responding on behalf of Secretary-General António Guterres, UN spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric said:
“For us the Ministry of Health in Gaza is a source we, and many others, often cite. Independent validation of subsets of the data has found no significant discrepancies in their numbers.”
The Department of Home Affairs was asked if it would issue a clarification. A spokesperson provided the following response:
“The Special Envoy has been appointed as non-statutory Ministerial appointment. The Department does not comment on statements made by individuals.”
Misinformation broadcast nationally and left unchallenged doesn’t just cast aspersions on the UN. It cheapens the seriousness of the allegations Israel is facing, and it’s an insult to the scale of civilian life already lost. It also undermines the commission’s noble cause of promoting greater social cohesion.
Envoy Segal’s testimony before the Royal Commission was also rejected by the ABC Alumni whose Jonathan Holmes referred to as “propagating serious inaccuracies, and some outright untruths, in her sworn testimony to a Royal Commission”.
On the Gazan Health Ministry numbers referred to by Ms Segal as “grossly inaccurate”, Holmes wrote:
This is simply untrue. The UN has said repeatedly that the Gazan Ministry of Health estimate of 70,000 deaths in Gaza since October 2023 is probably too low because so many bodies are still buried under the rubble. And even the IDF admitted in January this year that those statistics were “broadly accurate”.
Australia’s coal and gas exports violate our human rights, group says in new UN case
Lana LamSydney, 23 June 26, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn8q5nx6jw6o
A group of Australians have accused the government of violating their human rights by continuing to export coal and gas and are asking the UN to take action.
The group say their lives have been harmed due to extreme weather in Australia – bushfires, floods, heatwaves, rising sea levels and toxic algal blooms – and the government’s support of fossil fuel companies is to blame.
It is the first legal claim taken to an international body or court since 2025’s ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that countries can be sued over climate change.
Any decision by the UN is not legally binding but Australia – one of the world’s largest coal and gas exporters – would be expected to respond.
The BBC has contacted Environment Minister Murray Watt for comment.
Dr Barry Traill, a wildlife ecologist and volunteer firefighter, is one of the ten litigants.
In 2009, several of his friends died during the devastating Black Saturday bushfires in Victoria, despite being prepared and experienced, he said.
“That deeply changed me,” Traill said, and “it became clear that the old rules around fires and survival no longer applied”.
In 2019, he was on the frontlines battling severe blazes in Queensland during the so-called Black Summer fires where he saw that climate change was not a future problem.
“It is already killing people and hurting lives, landscapes and communities across Australia,” he said.
“Continuing to allow coal and gas companies to increase pollution, while people face worsening disasters, is a profound failure of responsibility.”
Brendon Donohue has also joined the legal claim, describing how he was trapped in his home for 10 days in 2022 when floods in Brisbane damaged the power supply of his apartment block, meaning the lifts, intercom and exits were not accessible.
“Because I live with blindness and mobility challenges, climate impacts affect me differently and can make everyday life much harder to navigate safely,” he said.
Another case is that of Prof Anne Poelina, an Indigenous woman from the Kimberley region in Western Australia, who describes being displaced from the area around the Fitzroy River, one of the state’s most important waterways, because of catastrophic flooding.
“When the river is healthy, our people are healthy,” she said, and “when the river suffers, our people suffer.”
“What concerns me most is the intergenerational loss of cultural knowledge,” she added as “so much of our knowledge is not written down”, but passed on by being physically present on the land.
“They are asking the United Nations Human Rights Committee to declare that it’s unlawful for Australia to continue approving and subsidising coal and gas for export without a plan to protect people from dangerous climate change,” said Hannah White, senior lawyer with Environmental Justice Australia.
Last July, the ICJ – considered the world’s highest court with global jurisdiction – ruled that countries can sue each other for climate change, including over historic emissions of planet-warming gases.One of the lawyers helping the group with their claim said that “climate harm caused by Australia’s coal and gas doesn’t stop at a border, and neither does Australia’s responsibility for it”.
The Bondi Royal Commission. Truth telling and uncontested falsehoods
by David Heilpern | May 12, 2026, https://michaelwest.com.au/the-bondi-royal-commission-truth-telling-and-uncontested-falsehoods/
The focus of the Bondi Royal Commission hearings has been witnesses recounting their experience of antisemitism, mostly unchallenged. But facts matter, former magistrate David Heilpern reports.
I have been listening to the Anti-Semitism Royal Commission evidence this week, and it has been a rollercoaster. That a religious minority feels terrified in that way is deplorable, and I hope that the Royal Commission can come up with some solutions.
But on the other hand, I find myself screaming at times. When a witness describes their children too fearful to wear their kippah in public, I feel sympathy. But then I say to myself, “Well, at least they have all their limbs”. When a witness claims to have been degraded on a bus, I cannot help thinking, “welcome to what Aboriginal people have been suffering for generations”.
But that aside, this is a valuable part of the process – for those affected by antisemitism to have a voice and tell the world of their hurt and fear. We have seen this in other inquiries on child sexual assault and the stolen generation, and it makes for a permanent record and justifiable recognition. It is about victim response and reactions, not about legalities, and that is as it should be.
However, some witnesses have said things that are just wrong, and demonstrably so. They have stated as facts matters that simply are not true. This should not be allowed to go unchecked.
I have selected the example below carefully. In doing so, I don’t want to denigrate the witness’s (whom I have not identified) experience or invalidate their concerns. There is other evidence they gave, which was compelling and highly critical of the police response to a complaint of violent anti-Semitism. I have selected this passage also because they were invited by the commission to read a letter written shortly after Bondi.
Here is what was said, verbatim:
“Most of you outside Australia don’t realise what Jewish families here having living threw (sic). A small glimpse:
– “Gas the Jews” chanted at the Opera House – no response.
– A mass march across the harbour bridge with giant posters of Ayatollah Khamenei – no condemnation.
– A Kosher business firebombed – no outrage.
– Synagogues torched – no headlines.
– Cars and homes attacked – no concern.
– A child care centre firebombed – no national alarm.
– Explosives prepared for Jewish schools – no crisis.
– Nurses vowing to kill Jewish patients – no consequences.
– A synagogue firebombed with people inside – silence.”
Facts matter
I accept that in the aftermath of Bondi, responses were rightly emotional and exploratory. I would not have been concerned then. But now, it is worth taking stock, fact-checking and seeing whether these claims are factual, given that they were repeated and read onto the record.
“Gas the Jews” chanted at the Opera House – no response.
This refers to a protest at the Opera House in October 2023. This claim has been the subject of forensic examination by the NSW police, and it has been debunked. “Where’s the Jews”, which is less serious, was said, and is not just antisemitic but also threatening.
But to suggest that there was no response to this conduct, whatever was said, is simply wrong. Apart from the intensive police investigation concluding with “overwhelming certainty” that “gas” was not said, the Prime Minister, the Premier of NSW and the Foreign Minister, among others, were quick to condemn the protest and the words used.
A mass march across the harbour bridge with giant posters of Ayatollah Khamenei – no condemnation.
There undoubtedly was a single smallish poster carried in a prominent position by one person out of 300,000 in the August 2025 March for Humanity. This was condemned by all and sundry, including ALP identities Bob Carr, Ed Husic, Tony Sheldon, who were all at the march, as well as Matt Thistlewaite, speaking for the PM and the Government.
It was also widely condemned by multiple media outlets, rally organisers, other politicians and mainstream Jewish organisations. To suggest it was not condemned paints a picture of indifference that did not exist.
A Kosher business firebombed – no outrage.
This refers most likely to the burning of Lewis’s Kitchen in Bondi in October 2024, later identified by ASIO as part of the Iranian regime’s targeted attacks.
In the days following the initial fire, the police were denying ($) that this was a targeted attack, which naturally muted any commentary. However, once it became apparent that this was one part of the alleged Iranian attack, and people were charged, then the condemnation and outrage were widely expressed.
Indeed, this attack was one of several that led to the Australian Government expelling the Iranian ambassador, the first such action since World War II. To suggest there was no outrage once this link was made is simply incorrect. It is worth noting that the Iranian involvement in this fire was declared in August 2025, months before this witness’s letter.
Synagogues torched – no headlines/ A synagogue firebombed with people inside – silence.
There have been three synagogue attacks in relevant timeframes. The Adass Israel Synagogue was set on fire in a terrorist arson attack in December 2024. Newtown Synagogue was vandalised and subjected to attempted arson in January 2025. The East Melbourne Hebrew Congregation had its doors set alight on fire on July 4, 2025.
To test the hypothesis that there were no headlines, I looked at Trove on the print versions of the prominent city newspapers on the appropriate days, Herald Sun, The Telegraph, The Age and Sydney Morning Herald. There were prominent or front-page headlines for each. Online is harder, however, the ABC and The Guardian, news.com.au and Sky had it as a lead story at times on the days following.
For the Australian, the events were headlined as expected. Commercial radio and television news either had the first as their first or second story. To suggest that there were no headlines is factually unsustainable.
“To state that there was silence is even worse and paints a completely false picture.”
Cars and homes attacked – no concern.
This likely refers to a series of attacks in Sydney during 2024 and 2025, including:
- The graffiti attack on a house formerly owned by prominent Zionist Alex Ryvchin;
- Two incidents in Woollahra where vehicles were graffitied with anti-Semitic slogans and set on fire;
- A spray paint incident in Queens Park in January 2025 on a car with “Fuck the Jews”;
- A spray paint attack on buildings in Maroubra in January 2025, including Mount Saini College.
Again, to suggest that there was no concern for these attacks is fanciful. There were rare cross-party press conferences, condemnation from the Prime Minister down, and also from the Greens. The Premier Chris Minns was vociferous in his outrage and concern for each incident.
The Federal Government announced a $100m counter terrorist funding boost directly linked to these attacks. The Muslim community also voiced its concern in many outlets.
A child care centre firebombed – no national alarm.
On 21 January 2025, a preschool was set alight and graffiti with antisemitic words appeared 200 metres from the Maroubra synagogue.
Perhaps the best way to assess whether there was “national alarm” is the reaction of the Prime Minister. He was at the preschool condemning the attack the very next day. He then, directly as a result, convened a National Cabinet meeting, made up of every Premier and Chief Minister in the country.
If that is not ringing the national alarm bell, then I don’t know what is. To suggest, in those circumstances, that there was no national alarm is false.
Explosives prepared for Jewish schools – no crisis.
This refers to the finding of explosives in a caravan in Dural in 2025, which has now been declared by police to be an elaborate hoax. I can find no reference to “explosives prepared for Jewish schools” in any media or police reports, although there was a fake list of targets.
However, it was certainly treated as a crisis initially by the Minns government, and the find triggered legislation on hate speech rushed through parliament because of the perceived threat. A crisis is “a dangerous turning point”, and that is exactly how it was treated at all levels of government, until it was discovered to be fake.
It is hard to see what else governments could have done in response.
It is hard to see what else governments could have done in response.
Nurses vowing to kill Jewish patients – no consequences.
Of all the statements this witness made, this is perhaps the most blatant falsehood.
This is probably pedantry, but the nurses did not vow to kill Jewish patients; they identified Israeli patients. However, they were immediately suspended, they had their certification revoked nationally within days, both have been charged with criminal offences, and the health minister declared that they would never work in the health system again.
“Suggesting that there were no consequences for these actions is demonstrably and obviously incorrect.”
Witness statement uncontested
Why did Counsel Assisting the Royal Commission ask for this letter to be read into the record when basic internet searching shows it to be largely wrong?
If it stands solely as a rhetorical expression of a feeling of abandonment, perhaps that is sufficient purpose. However, what is the Royal Commission going to do about the record now that these claims have been shown to be false? If they are to stand, then what rights do the governments and police agencies at state and federal levels have to correct the record?
And why would a witness, on oath, make claims that are so baseless when the mere facts of the attacks themselves prove antisemitism is rife and dangerous?
The witness could have readily posited that not enough was done in response, but to suggest that there was no outrage, no headlines, no alarm, no crisis and just silence is gross overreach and only
“invites those prone to underplay antisemitism to point to this as an example of exaggeration.”
The point of every inquisitorial process is to get to the truth, and not to allow falsity to stand, let alone invite its repetition on oath.
If we are to have a rational discussion on how to reduce antisemitism, then it can only be in an environment where those who blur history to favour their existing position are corrected, however gently and sensitively. After all, we all share the same goal, even soft green lefties like me. And that is for peace, for harmony and for all religious, racial and ethnic minorities to live in safety, no matter their beliefs.
David HeilpernProfessor David Heilpern is Dean of Law at Southern Cross University and was previously a Magistrate for 22 years. He is the son of a holocaust survivor.
ISIS vs IDF. Selective justice and the fall of Australian law
by Andrew Brown | Feb 4, 2026, https://michaelwest.com.au/isis-vs-idf-selective-justice-and-the-collapse-of-australian-law/
Australians who went to fight for ISIS were prosecuted, their families vilified, while former IDF soldiers fighting for Israel walk freely among us. Andrew Brown reports on the double standards.
Australians like to believe our justice system is governed by principle, and crimes judged by what was done, not by who did them. We like a comforting story about ourselves. That justice is served, and accountability painful but even-handed. We tell it often. We believe it when it suits us.
That story collapses the moment it is tested.
After the Brereton Report, Australia demonstrated what accountability looks like when it chooses to take law seriously. Entire Australian Defence Force platoons were investigated. Whole units placed under suspicion. Soldiers interrogated repeatedly. Careers frozen. Medals questioned. Command structures dismantled. Hundreds of millions of public dollars spent. One soldier charged. Many others left suspended indefinitely, their lives stalled in legal limbo.
This pursuit of accountability was not timid or symbolic. It did not flinch at rank, reputation, or heroism. Australia went after its returning heroes, including Victoria Cross recipients, and some of the most decorated units in its military history. It did so publicly and without fear or favour.
“No medal or mythology placed anyone beyond scrutiny.”
Australia wanted the world to see that it would investigate its own forces, not just individuals but units and chains of command, even when it was humiliating and politically costly.
Soldiers going overseas
When Australians travelled to join ISIS, the response was faster and harsher. Passports cancelled. Homes raided. Surveillance expanded. Citizenship stripping powers deployed. Wives treated as accomplices. Children framed as future threats. Suspicion alone was often enough to trigger punishment. Due process became optional.
If Australians fought for Russia against Ukraine, arrests would follow. Prosecutions under foreign incursion and war crimes laws. Media outrage before the luggage carousel stopped turning. The word traitor would appear instantly.
That is the standard Australia claims to uphold.
Gaza
Now consider Gaza. What is occurring is not chaotic warfare. It is a civilian catastrophe with a measurable pattern. Credible casualty analyses based on hospital records, death registries, and independent verification show that approximately 84% of those killed are civilians and around 33% are children. Not combatants miscounted. Not teenagers caught in crossfire. Children.
By comparison, in Ukraine, children account for around 0.3% of casualties. That is a difference of more than one hundredfold.This is not incidental harm. It is demographic concentration.
The destruction follows the same logic. Entire residential districts have been levelled. Homes, schools, universities, bakeries, water infrastructure, and sewage systems have been systematically destroyed. This is not damage caused by fighting around civilians.
“It is the removal of the conditions required for civilian life to continue.”
Hospitals have been a central target. Gaza’s major medical complexes were besieged, raided, and rendered inoperable. Electricity was cut. Fuel was denied. Oxygen supplies ran out. Patients died untreated on floors. Premature infants were left in incubators without power. Medical staff were detained directly from wards and operating theatres, taken without charge, many remaining in detention months later.
This is not collateral damage. It is the dismantling of a healthcare system in real time.
Human rights atrocity
Mass detention has accompanied the physical destruction. Thousands of Palestinians have been taken without charge or access to legal counsel. Human rights organisations have documented beatings, starvation, stress positions, and sexual abuse in detention. Medical professionals and journalists were not spared. They were targeted.
Journalists have been killed at a rate unmatched in any modern conflict. Aid workers have been killed despite operating in clearly marked vehicles and facilities. Among them was Australian humanitarian Zomi Frankcom, killed during a coordinated strike on an aid convoy.
And then there is Hind Rajab.
A six-year-old girl was trapped in a car after her family was shot dead. She called emergency services. Her voice was recorded. An ambulance was dispatched to rescue her. The ambulance was destroyed. Hind was later found dead alongside the paramedics sent to save her.
There was no firefight. No exchange of fire. No ambiguity.
Doctors from Australia, the United States, and Canada who worked in Gaza later testified publicly to treating repeated waves of children with gunshot wounds consistent with sniper fire. Identical entry wounds to heads and chests. These were not anecdotes.
They were clinical observations recorded by trained professionals.
The crime scene
This is why the language of genocide is no longer rhetorical. It is legal. The International Court of Justice has found a plausible risk of genocide and ordered provisional measures. The International Criminal Court is pursuing accountability for war crimes and crimes against humanity arising from Israeli actions.
What is unfolding in Gaza is not a tragedy without authorship.
It is a crime scene.
Australia has chosen silence.
That silence is no longer ignorance. At the National Press Club, senior human rights lawyer Chris Sidoti warned that Australians who served in Gaza may face criminal liability if genocide or war crimes are established. He was explicit. Genocide does not require pulling a trigger. Assistance, facilitation, or knowing contribution can be enough.
“The government did not contest the law. It did nothing.”
The government did not contest the law. It did nothing.
No Australian Federal Police task force. No examination of units or command chains. No transparency. No framework for investigating potential complicity in genocide or war crimes under Australian law.
Instead, indulgence.
An estimated 1,000 former or current Israeli Defence Force soldiers now live freely in Australia. They stroll through Caulfield, Bondi, Dover Heights, and Double Bay. They drink lattes in Sydney cafes. They enjoy suburban normality without scrutiny, while Gaza remains a ledger of rubble, amputations, mass graves, and dead children.And the indulgence does not stop at inaction. It now edges toward empowerment.
NSW Premier Chris Minns has publicly canvassed expanding armed community protection roles, including the involvement of current or former Israeli soldiers in guarding Jewish institutions in Australia. The stated aim is protection against antisemitism. That aim is legitimate. The implications are not.
Policing and the authorised use of force are public functions. They exist because weapons in civilian life require training, oversight, accountability, and law. When governments contemplate arming individuals with recent service in a foreign military now under investigation for genocide, the issue becomes immediate and domestic.
Run the test honestly.
ISIS vs IDF
If ISIS returnees sought to bear arms in public under the guise of community protection, the state would answer with handcuffs and prison, not consent. The request itself would be treated as evidence of danger.
That this proposal can be entertained for one category of foreign fighter while unthinkable for another exposes the fiction at the heart of Australia’s claim to equal justice. The law has not changed. Only who it is prepared to protect has.
“This is not neutrality. It’s policy.”
Australia destroyed careers investigating its own soldiers. It went after its most decorated units without fear or favour. It acted ruthlessly against ISIS recruits. It would move instantly if Australians fought for Russia.
When Australians fight in Gaza under the Israeli flag, amid credible allegations of genocide now before international courts, the state looks away.
“That is not restraint, but complicity.”
History will remember this as the moment Australia blinded its own law, allowing returning IDF soldiers to pass unexamined and exposing fairness before the law as a deliberate lie.
Clear as a bell
The question put to the Prime Minister; whether Richardson will have the same powers as the royal commissioner, misses the point. Richardson does not need the same powers. He needs different ones. He needs access to classified intelligence briefings, internal agency communications, and operational protocols that a public Royal Commission cannot examine without compromising national security or prejudicing the trial.
| By David Tyler on 9 January 2026, https://theaimn.net/clear-as-a-bell/ |
Bondi deserves answers. A Royal Commission, right now, will struggle to deliver them. The nation is being sold catharsis; what is on offer is legally hobbled – a rarefied type of theatre that cannot go where the public most wants it to go.
There is a reflex in Australian politics that turns grief into a ladder-climbing contest. We are world champions at it. A calamity shatters lives. Families are inconsolable. Cameras roll. A chorus forms. And before the ambulances have finished their last run, someone on air is demanding the biggest, most theatrical instrument in the civic toolkit: a Royal Commission. After Bondi, that chorus has swelled into something close to compulsory. Families, community leaders, health professionals, MPs and commentators have all called for a federal Royal Commission, framed as the only “serious” response.
It’s our modern-day Malleus Maleficarum. This mirrors the 15th-century Malleus Maleficarum – the infamous “Hammer of Witches” – a witch-hunting playbook by Heinrich Kramer that turned folk panic into systematic purge. Written around 1486, it codified hysteria as policy: classify deviance as heresy, mandate torture for confessions, and execution as the only cure. Our modern model? Calamity spawns moral panic; the “inquiry” becomes the hammer smashing dissent, delay or difference.
A blast from the past
Kramer’s manual thrived on spectacle – public trials, devil pacts, women’s “weakness” fuelling mass executions (but not in England) – much like today’s commissions that amplify grief into political theatre before facts settle. In both, urgency trumps evidence; the ladder-climbers win by promising exorcism.
Time-wasters HQ and the live crime scene
You can see how this plays in Canberra. A reporter fronts the Prime Minister and asks whether “his man”, Dennis Richardson; retired spook, now hunched over Manila folders while staffers colour-code Post-it notes – will be given the same powers as the royal commissioner.
The daft question treats coercive powers like a staff entitlements issue, not a matter of statute and jurisdiction. It also sidesteps the central, inconvenient fact: Bondi is not just a national trauma; it is a live criminal matter.
Lawyer Michael Bradley puts it simply in Crikey: one alleged shooter is alive, in custody and facing charges; that makes Bondi, first and foremost, a crime scene. While that prosecution is afoot, the justice system’s first priority is the accused’s right to a fair trial – an obligation that exists not to protect the accused from scrutiny, but to protect the public from injustice and to preserve the integrity of verdicts. Sub judice rules are built precisely to prevent material with a real and definite tendency to prejudice a trial from being sprayed across the public square.
A Royal Commission inquiry; even one led by someone as formidable as Virginia Bell, the former High Court judge now appointed, does not sit outside those rules. It sits squarely within them. The terms of reference granted to Bell are careful, constrained and cognisant of the legal reality: while criminal proceedings remain on foot, what can be examined, what witnesses can be compelled to say, and what findings can be published are all subject to the overriding requirement not to interfere with the trial.
Virginia Bell is not the problem. She is a jurist of the highest calibre. Her terms of reference ; drivers of violent extremism, systemic failures in mental health, gaps in intelligence sharing, the adequacy of threat assessment frameworks, are comprehensive in ambition. But ambition is not the same as reach. Her commission can summon documents, hold hearings, hear from families and experts. What it cannot do, while the accused awaits trial, is probe the specific circumstances, decisions and chains of causation that led to fifteen people being murdered at Bondi, Sunday, 14 December 2025.
The commission may hear about systemic failures in surveillance services. It may document coordination breakdowns between state and federal agencies. It may map the ideological landscape of online and in community radicalisation. But it cannot ask: why did this person, with this history, acquire that weapon? Why was this red flag ignored? What did this officer know, and when?
Those are questions for the criminal trial. And until that trial concludes, a process that may take years, those questions remain legally out of bounds.
This is not pedantry. It is constitutional bedrock. The separation between investigation and prosecution, between inquiry and trial, exists to safeguard the administration of justice. A Royal Commission that wandered into the specifics of a pending criminal case would risk tainting the jury pool, compromising witness testimony, and handing the defence grounds for appeal or even a mistrial.
The public interest in accountability does not override the public interest in a fair trial. Both matter. And right now, one must yield to the other.
The theatre of inquiry: catharsis without closure
So what, then, is the Royal Commission for? If it cannot answer the questions the public most urgently wants answered, what function does it serve? The answer, increasingly, is symbolic. Royal Commissions have become our civic grief ritual. They signal that something momentous has occurred, that the state is Doing Something, that the dead will not be forgotten.
They offer a stage for testimony, a forum for families, a mechanism for catharsis. These are not trivial functions. Grief demands witness. Trauma demands acknowledgment. But they are not the same as accountability. And they are certainly not the same as answers.
Michael Bradley is blunt about this in his Crikey analysis. A Royal Commission into Bondi, launched now, will be “an elaborate and expensive exercise in delay”. It will take a year. It will produce an interim report that skirts the live criminal matter, and a final report that arrives long after the initial trauma and public attention has moved on. Its recommendations will be debated, some accepted, others shelved. Governments will thank the commissioner, express solemn commitment to reform, and then do what governments always do: implement the easy bits, defer the hard ones, and declare victory.
This is the pattern. We have seen it before. One of the most shocking is the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (1987-1991): 339 recommendations on care, justice reform, and reconciliation. Implementation: partial at best; data collection improved, coronial processes tightened, but Indigenous incarceration rates soared 300% since: with the number of Aboriginal people dying in custody is reaching appalling, record figures (26 in 2024-25 alone).
The aged care royal commission delivered a damning report; the government’s response was a fraction of what was recommended. The banking royal commission uncovered systemic corruption; prosecutions were few, structural reform limited. The disability royal commission has been hearing harrowing testimony for years; whether it produces genuine change remains to be seen.
Royal Commissions are better at diagnosis than cure. They are superb at mapping failure. They are far less effective at compelling repair.
Dennis Richardson and the consolation prize
Enter Dennis Richardson. The Prime Minister’s pick. The interim investigator. The placeholder while the Royal Commission gears up and the criminal trial grinds on. Richardson is reviewing national security coordination, intelligence sharing, and threat assessment protocols. His task is narrower, more technical, less theatrical. He will not hold public hearings. He will not take testimony from grieving families. He will not generate headlines. But he might, if given the resources and the mandate, deliver something useful: a clear-eyed account of what went wrong in the machinery of state surveillance and response.
The question put to the Prime Minister; whether Richardson will have the same powers as the royal commissioner, misses the point. Richardson does not need the same powers. He needs different ones. He needs access to classified intelligence briefings, internal agency communications, and operational protocols that a public Royal Commission cannot examine without compromising national security or prejudicing the trial.
His work is not meant to satisfy the public’s hunger for spectacle. It is meant to identify, quietly and methodically, the points of failure that allowed a known threat to become a mass casualty event.
Whether Richardson will be allowed to do that work; whether his findings will be acted upon, or filed away as politically inconvenient, is another question entirely. History suggests caution. Reviews commissioned in the shadow of tragedy tend to be weapons of delay, not engines of reform. They allow governments to say “we’re looking into it” while doing very little. But Richardson, at least, has the advantage of operating outside the glare of a public hearing. He can ask uncomfortable questions without a media gallery taking notes. He can follow the evidence without worrying about headlines. If there is a chance of learning something concrete from Bondi, it may lie more with Richardson’s quiet review than with Bell’s necessarily constrained commission.
What the public is owed – and what it can have
The families of the victims deserve answers. The community deserves to know what failed. The nation deserves accountability. None of that is in dispute. But a Royal Commission launched now, while criminal proceedings are live, cannot deliver those things. It can offer process, yes. It can offer visibility, acknowledgment, a national platform for grief. It can produce a report, eventually, that maps systemic failures and makes recommendations. But it cannot; legally, constitutionally, practically, go to the heart of what happened in Bondi Junction and why. That work belongs to the criminal justice system.
And it could take years.
This is not an argument against accountability. It is an argument for realism. The appetite for a Royal Commission after Bondi is understandable. The political pressure is immense. But the law does not bend to political pressure, and for good reason. The accused has the right to a fair trial. Witnesses have the right not to be compelled to give evidence that could prejudice that trial. The criminal process has priority. This is not a technicality. It is a cornerstone of the rule of law.
What the public is being offered, then, is not what it thinks it is getting. It is being sold a Royal Commission as the gold standard of inquiry, the big gun, the serious response. What it is actually getting is a carefully circumscribed process that will spend months skating around the core questions, deferring the hard answers until after the trial, and producing a report that will be debated, diluted and half-implemented. That is not cynicism. That is the historical record.
The alternative no one is offering
There is another way. It is less theatrical, less politically satisfying, and almost certainly more effective. It involves letting the criminal justice system do its work; properly resourced, properly scrutinised, properly held to account. It involves giving Dennis Richardson the mandate and the access to conduct a serious, classified review of intelligence and coordination failures, and then acting on his findings. It involves empowering existing oversight bodies; the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, parliamentary committees, to do their jobs without interference. It involves, in short, using the accountability mechanisms we already have, rather than reaching for the shiny new one that makes for better television.
This approach has no champions. It generates no headlines. It does not satisfy the public hunger for a Big Moment. It is not what families are calling for, because families – rightly – want something that feels commensurate with their loss. But it is the approach most likely to produce actual change. Royal Commissions delay, defer and dilute. They turn urgent questions into multi-year research projects. They produce doorstop reports that governments cherry-pick. They are a mechanism for managing political heat, not for delivering accountability.
If the goal is to learn from Bondi, to fix what broke, to prevent the next tragedy, then the focus should be on the hard, long, unglamorous work of institutional repair. Strengthening intelligence sharing protocols. Closing gaps in mental health and law enforcement coordination. Ensuring that red flags are acted upon, not just filed. Resourcing frontline services properly. None of that requires a Royal Commission. It requires political will, funding, and a commitment to follow through. Those are the very things Royal Commissions tend to defer.
Conclusion: grief, law and the limits of theatre
Virginia Bell will conduct her inquiry with rigour and integrity. Her final report will be thorough, considered and damning in its account of systemic failure. It will make headlines. It will be tabled in Parliament. The families will read it. The media will dissect it. And then it will join the long shelf of Royal Commission reports that documented failure, recommended reform, and achieved far less than they promised.
This is not Bell’s fault. It is the nature of the instrument. A Royal Commission is not a magic wand. It is a legal process, bounded by the same constraints as any other. It cannot override sub judice protections. It cannot compel witnesses to incriminate themselves. It cannot force governments to act. It can investigate, document and recommend. That is all. And while the accused awaits trial, it cannot even do that much.
The nation is being sold catharsis. What is on offer is a legally hobbled, year-long process that will arrive at conclusions long after the moment of grief has passed. The families deserve better. The victims deserve better. And if the goal is genuine accountability, not the theatre of it, but the substance, then we need to stop pretending that a Royal Commission is the answer. The courtroom is where the answers will be found. The trial is where accountability begins. Everything else is noise.
A Royal Commission is not a memorial. It is not closure. It is not justice. It is a process. And right now, it is the wrong one. The lobbyists have got their way. The PM has conceded to their pressure. But it’s very hard to see the healing; impossible to spot that social cohesion, he is so overly fond of invoking. That at least, from the outset, is as clear as a bell.
This article was originally published on URBAN WRONSKI WRITES
Navi Pillay. Don’t be complicit in genocide Australia, warns former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
Former Chair of the UN Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Judge Navi Pillay has warned that Australia risks complicity in genocide if we fail to act on Israel’s assault on Gaza, Stephanie Tran reports.
by Stephanie Tran | Nov 5, 2025 https://michaelwest.com.au/navi-pillay-dont-be-complicit-in-genocide-australia-warns-former-un-judge/
Speaking at the National Press Club, the former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights reiterated calls for the Australian government to fulfil its obligations under international law in light of the findings of the UN Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory which concluded that Israel’s actions in Gaza meet the threshold for genocide under international law.
‘We are all witnesses to the carnage’
Pillay stressed that every government, including Australia’s, had witnessed the livestreamed atrocities in Gaza unfold in real time and could not claim they “didn’t know” what was happening.
“We are all witnesses to the carnage in real time on our TV screens…. 65,000 Palestinian civilians [have been] killed, including women and children and it was all shown live on our TV sets, so nobody can say we didn’t know what was happening. No Australian parliamentarian could say we didn’t know what was happening. That was the defence the Nazis put up. …That is what some South African whites said.”
The veteran jurist, who presided over the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, said the Commission’s findings were based on verified evidence collected over the past two years. Pillay said that in determining whether Israel had genocidal intent, the panel implemented the legal test established by the International Court of Justice, that genocidal intent is the “only reasonable inference” from the facts.
“We followed UN rules, and we followed the test for genocidal intent. … It must be the only reasonable inference from the acts themselves.”
In September, the Commission concluded that genocidal intent was “the only reasonable inference” from Israel’s conduct, pointing to the military’s use of heavy munitions in densely populated areas, the systematic destruction of cultural and religious sites, and repeated defiance of International Court of Justice (ICJ) rulings ordering provisional measures.
The report also found that Israeli authorities committed four of the five genocidal acts defined by the Genocide Convention, namely killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of the Palestinians in whole or in part, and imposing measures intended to prevent births.
Australia’s obligations under the Geneva Convention
Pillay criticised Australia’s muted response to the Commission’s finding that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.
“Under the Genocide Convention, every state… has the legal obligation to prevent the commission of genocide, to deal with the commission of genocide, and to protect against genocide.”
She called on the Australian government to define and publicise its policy on genocide prevention, warning that the government’s maintenance of ties to entities complicit in the genocide could leave it open to prosecution.
“Be careful what you’re doing,” Pillay said.
Listen to this story
4 min
Former Chair of the UN Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Judge Navi Pillay has warned that Australia risks complicity in genocide if we fail to act on Israel’s assault on Gaza, Stephanie Tran reports.
Speaking at the National Press Club, the former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights reiterated calls for the Australian government to fulfil its obligations under international law in light of the findings of the UN Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory which concluded that Israel’s actions in Gaza meet the threshold for genocide under international law.
‘We are all witnesses to the carnage’
Pillay stressed that every government, including Australia’s, had witnessed the livestreamed atrocities in Gaza unfold in real time and could not claim they “didn’t know” what was happening.
“We are all witnesses to the carnage in real time on our TV screens…. 65,000 Palestinian civilians [have been] killed, including women and children and it was all shown live on our TV sets, so nobody can say we didn’t know what was happening. No Australian parliamentarian could say we didn’t know what was happening. That was the defence the Nazis put up. …That is what some South African whites said.”
The veteran jurist, who presided over the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, said the Commission’s findings were based on verified evidence collected over the past two years. Pillay said that in determining whether Israel had genocidal intent, the panel implemented the legal test established by the International Court of Justice, that genocidal intent is the “only reasonable inference” from the facts.
“We followed UN rules, and we followed the test for genocidal intent. … It must be the only reasonable inference from the acts themselves.”
In September, the Commission concluded that genocidal intent was “the only reasonable inference” from Israel’s conduct, pointing to the military’s use of heavy munitions in densely populated areas, the systematic destruction of cultural and religious sites, and repeated defiance of International Court of Justice (ICJ) rulings ordering provisional measures.
The report also found that Israeli authorities committed four of the five genocidal acts defined by the Genocide Convention, namely killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of the Palestinians in whole or in part, and imposing measures intended to prevent births.
Australia’s obligations under the Geneva Convention
Pillay criticised Australia’s muted response to the Commission’s finding that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.
“Under the Genocide Convention, every state… has the legal obligation to prevent the commission of genocide, to deal with the commission of genocide, and to protect against genocide.”
She called on the Australian government to define and publicise its policy on genocide prevention, warning that the government’s maintenance of ties to entities complicit in the genocide could leave it open to prosecution.
“Be careful what you’re doing,” Pillay said.
“You may one day face charges of complicity in genocide.”
Her comments come amid growing pressure on the Albanese government over Australia’s defence ties with Israel, via the F-35 program and contracts with Israeli weapons manufacturers.
Danish Arbitration Court has decided against Greenland Minerals A/S case to develop uranium industry.
Energy Transition Minerals is an Australian company (formerly Greenland Minerals Limited)
On 28 October 2025, the Arbitration Court ruled on whether the case brought by Greenland Minerals A/S against Naalakkersuisut can be heard by an arbitration court. The Arbitration Court has decided that the issue of the right to exploit minerals at Kuannersuit cannot be brought before an
arbitration court and that the Danish state cannot be a party to the case.
The case was brought before the Arbitration Court by Greenland Minerals A/S on 22 March 2022. According to Greenland Minerals A/S’ claim,
Naalakkersuisut should be ordered to grant the company a permit to exploit minerals at Kuannersuit.
The case arose from the adoption of the Uranium
Act, which prohibits preliminary investigations, exploration and
exploitation of uranium. The Act prevents a permit for exploitation from
being granted in the company’s license area, as the uranium values exceed
the Uranium Act’s de minimis limit.
The Greenland Government was surprised that the company chose to bring the case before an arbitration court, as the Greenland Government’s discretionary decisions can only be brought before the courts, and the Greenland Government has maintained throughout the case that the arbitration court does not have jurisdiction to decide
the case. The arbitration court’s decision was therefore expected.
Naalakkersuisut 28th Oct 2025, https://naalakkersuisut.gl/Nyheder/2025/10/2810_voldgiftsretten
Zionists v Keane, Riemer, Kostakidis. Australia’s massive test cases for free speech.
by Michael West | Oct 12, 2025, https://michaelwest.com.au/zionists-v-keane-riemer-kostakidis-australias-massive-test-cases-for-free-speech/?fbclid=IwY2xjawNZg3NleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETFHazM4NnFGVW9VUEZ0S0xyAR7ySwD_jNr3_vorgPkT2cUqNmreGCAefd2xOE-r0WDxjuF9f0r3ZKf9jMf50A_aem_zu59pfZ3k4MYHUAsDOlS-Q
The Zionist lawsuit against Sydney Uni academics John Keane and Nick Riemer is – as is the suit against Mary Kostakidis – a mighty test case for free speech in Australia. Michael West reports.
Criticising Zionism and the state of Israel is *not* antisemitic. That is the guts of the defence in the case brought against two Sydney University academics in the Federal Court, which kicks off on Monday, 13 October.
This is a significant case for free speech in Australia. Critical even. The lawsuits, brought under Australia’s Racial Discrimination Act against academics Professor John Keane and Nick Riemer, are, in the opinion of this observer, lawfare; an attempt, as is the messy action against journalist Mary Kostakidis, to muzzle criticism of Israel and its atrocities against the Palestinians.
A mountain of costs
The interlocutory judgment in the Kostakidis trial foreshadows a long and difficult trial whose sheer costs may make it more of a contest of money than justice. More on this later.
The claim against Keane and Riemer is a similar story. It seeks to litigate the events and the myths of the Hamas attacks on Israel on October 7, 2023. And if the Judge rules that the examination of the events of October 7 is admissible, the case would have a global impact.
Clause 26 is unlikely to be true for a start.
Israel has never held an inquiry into October 7, and apparently for good reason. Wild Israeli claims of “40 babies beheaded” and “mass rapes” have been discredited – there is no forensic evidence of Israeli rape victims – and it is not known how many of the alleged “1,200 Israelis” mentioned in the claim were killed by the IDF.
Will this be tested in Court? If so, we are in for a long and expensive case.
It has been established in Israeli media and elsewhere that the Hannibal Directive was invoked that day. Under the Hannibal Directive, the IDF was ordered to prevent “at all costs” the abduction of Israeli civilians or soldiers, possibly leading to the death of a large number of Israeli civilians and IDF personnel in the area at the time.
Pictures of the carnage from that day prove the point that small arms fire from Hamas operatives could not have possibly caused so much destruction. Instead, by Apache helicopter gunships.
This is merely one disputed clause in the statement of claim and would prove costly for an Australian court to hear.
The “affected or aggrieved persons” making the Keane claim (it is not known who is funding it) – Zionist academics from Sydney University – assert they have been hurt by pro-Palestinian posts on social media; “offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated by the posting”.
MWM does not doubt that their feelings have been hurt. Feelings have been hurt daily on both sides since the events of October 7 and during the ensuing American/Israeli genocide in Gaza. Yet, the question should be asked … is an expensive court case testing the infamous clause 18c clause in the Racial Discrimination Act in the public interest?
Should the aggrieved persons win the case, it will have a chilling effect on free speech in Australia. And in the Kostakidis case the stakes are arguably higher.
Mary Kostakidis
This week, Justice McDonald struck out parts of the statement of claim against Kostakidis while providing another opportunity for the applicants’ amended SOC to be amended again.
Taking to X, Mary Kostakidis tweeted that 18c was a “bad law, a lengthy and costly legal case can be brought against you by anyone who claims you are motivated by racism and are responsible for their feelings. And fair comment on a matter of public interest, and journalism, may be exceptions that can be pleaded, but that has to be proven at trial. Anyone involved in public discourse, including any journalist, must prove they are not motivated by racism.”
Proving that you are not a racist, proving intent, is a tough one. “It is not logically impossible that a particular news reporter, even when acting as a news reporter, might engage in particular acts because of people’s race or ethnic or national origin,” the Judge found. “Whether there is a basis to draw that conclusion in a particular case will depend on an assessment of the evidence in that particular case”.
Attempt to shut down genocide critics
Said Kostakidis, “The attempt to shut down criticism of a genocide is morally reprehensible and dangerous. Those trying to control the narrative will not prevail”. Her case is even more tricky than those engulfing Keane and Riemer, as the Zionist Federation of Australia has cherry-picked a lot of her social media activity for its claim, including tweets about Mossad and dead pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
It’s a test case for social media too, as the claim against her includes retweets, posts by other people, which may or may not be deemed to be endorsing a particular view. As she told MWM, “If I retweet Smotrich (Israel’s extremist finance minister Bezalel Smotrich) does that amount to an endorsement?”
The opening round of hearings in the Keane and Riemer cases will take place before Justice Kennett in the Federal Court of Australia in Sydney on Monday and Tuesday.
A large number of Jewish colleagues have defended Keane and Riemer’s statements. They have said the complainants ‘do not speak for us as Jewish people’, and demanded that the complaint, which they describe as vexatious, be dropped.
The University of Sydney, too, is in the crosshairs, also being sued because the plaintiffs claim the Uni has ‘vicarious liability’ for the statements of the defendants Keane and Riemer, who claim that if Palestine supporters can’t say what they have said, then criticism of Israel will be outlawed under the law.
Trump’s rap sheet is long, but this may top them all
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has not blown the whistle as claimed by the Australian government, nor has the UK or our European allies.
any resolution to condemn the bombing of Iran will be vetoed by the US , presumably with the support of Australia
The Age, Geoffrey Robertson , 24 June 25, – (print version)
Although few may bother to point this out, Trump has just committed a crime much worse than all the others on his rap sheet.
It is the war crime of aggression- the “supreme” war crime, according to the judgement at Nuremberg. It is constituted by using armed force against a felloe United Nations member with such “character, gravity and scale” that it violates the UN charter prohibition on one member country attacking another. A “spectacular military success, the bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities may have been, but it was, as a matter of international law, no different from Russia’s attack on Ukraine, or the George W Bush Tony Blair, John Howard invasion of Iraq. These a all cases of a breach of the world order agreed after the last war and likely to encourage emulation.
This is not about saving Iran, or the danger of making Putin look better. If any government in the world deserves to be destroyed, it is the mullahs without mercy in Iran. Many of them were involved in the mass slaughter of political prisoners in1988 – the worst crime against POWs since the Japanese death marches. – and ever since their record of killing peaceful protestors, women and dissidents has been disgusting. Iran has bankrolled terrorist organisations and wagedpropaganda wars against the Big (US) and Little (UK) Satan, but it has not invaded Israel or done anything to America to justify its aggression.
Were some hypothetical war crimes court ever to get its hands on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, it would reduce his sentence by taking Iranian provocation into account – but the man would still be guilty as charged. He could not argue self-defence, which requires the threat defended against to be reasonably proximate. The threat of Iran building and using nukes is much further away than the threat of Israeli submarines, said to be already stationed within range of Tehtan.
It is not even clear that Iran is close to building a nuclear weapon – several dozen countries also signatory to the nuclear weapons treaty by which they forswear any such development. could build nukes within a few months. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has not blown the whistle as claimed by the Australian government, nor has the UK or our European allies.. And just like Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction” there is no reason to think Iran has completed a project that in fact started under .the Shah in the 1970s.
Only last wee, Trump said in effect to the Ayatollah, in the tone of a gangster “Wee know where you live”, but he promised the cleric he would be safe “for now” and gave him two weeks. He bombed three days later (This is a man on whose word Australia has just made a down payment for AUKUS).
The true disaster of Trump’s attack is that it is another nail in the coffin of the rules-based world order that provided some protection for international pdeace and security since it was put in place in 1945.
It is now unfit for its purpose declared in the UN Charter to stop the slaughter of war. The General Assembly is a talking shop, while all power resides in the permanently poleAxed Security Council which cannot function because of the big power veto.
Resolutions for peace in Ukraine are vetoed by Russia, for peace in Gaza they are vetoed by America on behalf of Israel, and any resolution to condemn the bombing of Iran will be vetoed by the US , presumably with the support of Australia.
Besides, the problem with Iran goes beyond nuclear weapons. It’s a conflict between the rights of its people and the wrongs of its dictatorship. That is a conflict that only its people can resolve, however much the West may wish to help.
Trump has already made a mockery of US law, from which his Supreme Court has declared him immune. Hewill now make a mockery of international law, roo.
Geoffrey Robertson KC is an expert in international and human rights law. He is the author of Mullahs Without Mercy and Crimes Against Humanity.
“We will not back down:” Court tells Greenpeace to pay billion dollar damages bill to oil and gas company
The case has been mired in controversy from the outset with many jurors holding unfavourable views of the protests and it was reported that more than half the jurors selected to hear the case had ties to the fossil fuel industry.
the US decision is a good indicator about what may be in store for Australia.
Royce Kurmelovs, Mar 20, 2025,
https://reneweconomy.com.au/we-will-not-back-down-court-tells-greenpeace-to-pay-billion-dollar-damages-bill-to-oil-and-gas-company/
A jury in the US has hit Greenpeace with $US660 million ($A1.04 billion) in damages for defamation and other claims for the green group’s part in a campaign led by First Nations people against an oil pipeline in 2016 and 2017.
The Standing Rock protests marked a major turning point in the movement against new oil and gas infrastructure, when the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe led a campaign against the construction of the Dakota Access pipeline.
Right wing organisations and groups mobilised in response to the protests that became a flashpoint in the broader fight over climate change, with sweeping anti-protest laws rolled out across the United States.
The case against Greenpeace is the latest reaction to the protest with Dallas-based oil and gas company, Energy Transfer Partners, alleging it lost $70 billion as a result of the campaign. It pursued Greenpeace in the courts alleging defamation and incitement of criminal behaviour against the project.
The lawsuit relied upon a US-specific statute, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), that was initially written to target the mob, but has since been used to prosecute international football federation FIFA for corrupt conduct and ExxonMobil for its role in attacking the science of climate change.
By seeking hundreds of millions in compensation against an organisation that played a minimal role in the protests, legal experts have described the litigation known as “strategic litigation against public participation”, or a “SLAPP Suit”. These are cases brought by large corporation to shut down public criticism or protest about a company’s activities.
The case has been mired in controversy from the outset with many jurors holding unfavourable views of the protests and it was reported that more than half the jurors selected to hear the case had ties to the fossil fuel industry.
Greenpeace made multiple attempts to move the hearings to another venue over concerns it would not get a fair hearing but were denied.
Following the verdict, Greenpeace International Executive Director Mads Christensen linked the decision to a broader corrosion of the right to protest in the US under the Trump administration.
“We are witnessing a disastrous return to the reckless behaviour that fuelled the climate crisis, deepened environmental racism, and put fossil fuel profits over public health and a liveable planet,” Christensen said.
“The previous Trump administration spent four years dismantling protections for clean air, water, and Indigenous sovereignty, and now along with its allies wants to finish the job by silencing protest.”
“We will not back down. We will not be silenced.”
David Mejia-Canales, a senior human rights lawyer from the Human Rights Law Centre, said the US decision is a good indicator about what may be in store for Australia.
SLAPP suits are not new in Australia, but the US lawfirm representing oil company Santos in the recent Munkara decision that ruled against the Environmental Defenders Office used an approach similar to US-style RICO litigation.
Coalition leader Peter Dutton has already pledged to defund the Environmental Defenders Office after the ruling in Munkara found its lawyers had behaved improperly, but has recently proposed to formally introduce RICO-style laws into Australia if elected.
Mejia-Canales said it was early days on the opposition leader’s proposal that seemed “a bit of a thought bubble” but said that should these laws be introduced, they had “potential to be abused”.
“In a way, the Greenpeace decision in the US is peering a little bit into our own future,” he said. “What we are seeing happening in the US today might be happening here tomorrow.”
“If these RICO type laws get introduced in Australia, they’re not doing it for the greater good or the greater purpose, it’s to stop us critiquing these massive companies whose behaviour leads to a whole lot of criticism and we should be able to do that safely.”
The Human Rights Law Centre is working to draft a bill that would introduce a set of principles for Australian courts to follow when confronted by a SLAPP litigation.
Nuclear law: Could Australia go nuclear?
Holding Redlich, 11 March 2025, Scott Schlink, Valentina Hanna
Key takeaways
- The Coalition continues to advocate for its plan to introduce nuclear into Australia’s energy mix, claiming that it will provide cheaper, cleaner and consistent power. Part of this plan includes the construction of 7 nuclear power plants across the country.
- Australia has legislated prohibitions at commonwealth, state and territory levels against the construction and operation of nuclear plants and installations.
- The House Select Committee on Nuclear Energy recently published an interim report, concluding that nuclear power generation is not a viable option for Australia’s energy needs due to the significant deployment time and costs.
- A future Coalition Government must therefore navigate through a series of social, political and economic barriers to bring nuclear energy into the mix.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… https://www.holdingredlich.com/nuclear-law-could-australia-go-nuclear
Judge Orders Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to Come Clean on Deleted Assange Docs
A judge in London has ruled that Britain’s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) must explain what happened to certain documents in the Julian Assange case that it claims no longer exist, reports Joe Lauria.
By Joe Lauria, Consortium News, January 10, 2025, https://consortiumnews.com/2025/01/10/judge-orders-cps-to-come-clean-on-deleted-assange-docs/
Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi has been waging a legal battle for seven years against the Crown Prosecution Service to discover the truth about a CPS claim that it deleted a number of documents Maurizi has sought in a Freedom of Information request about the case of Julian Assange.
Now a judge on the London First-tier Tribunal has ruled that the CPS must explain to Maurizi what it knows about when, why and how the documents were allegedly destroyed. The Jan. 2 ruling was first reported by Maurizi’s newspaper il Fatto Quotidiano on Friday.
Judge Penrose Foss has given the CPS until Feb. 21 to respond or it could be held in contempt of court.
The ruling says:
The Crown Prosecution Service must, by no later than 4.00 p.m. on 21 February 2025:
- (1) Confirm to the Appellant whether it held recorded information as to when, how and why any hard or electronic copies of emails referred to in the Appellant’s request to the Crown Prosecution Service of 12 December 2019 were deleted;
- (2) If it did hold such information, either supply the information to the Appellant by 4.00 p.m. on 21 February 2025 or serve a refusal notice under section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, identifying the grounds on which the Crown Prosecution Service relies.A failure to comply with this Substituted Decision Notice could lead to contempt proceedings.”
Swedish Case
The documents Maurizi seeks were in relation to Sweden’s request to the U.K. for Assange’s extradition.
Her argument was heard before the three judges of the tribunal on Sept. 24, 2024. The allegedly deleted emails involved a CPS exchange with Sweden about a Swedish prosecutor’s attempt, beginning in 2010, to extradite the WikiLeaks publisher from Britain.
Assange was wanted at the time in Sweden for questioning during a preliminary investigation into allegations of sexual assault, which was dropped three times, definitively in 2017. He was never charged. After losing his battle against extradition to Sweden at the U.K. Supreme Court, Assange took refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in June 2012, fearing that Sweden would send him to the United States.
Assange spent seven years in the embassy protecting himself from arrest until April 2019, when British police dragged him from the diplomatic mission and threw him into London’s maximum security Belmarsh prison.
It was only when the U.S. realized it would lose on appeal after a four-year extradition battle that the Department of Justice cut a plea deal with Assange who was released on June 24, 2024 and returned to his native Australia.
Assange had been charged in the United States under the Espionage Act for possessing and publishing defense information, which revealed evidence of U.S. war crimes. Britain took an active role in Assange’s prosecution.
In the earlier Swedish case, the CPS sought to stop Sweden from going to the embassy to question him.
Seeking to learn more about Britain’s role, Maurizi first made a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in 2015 for all emails between the British and Swedish governments concerning Assange.
Some of the emails she obtained showed political motivation on the part of the lead British prosecutor, Paul Close.
One email Maurizi obtained from the Swedish Prosecution Authority (SPA) revealed that Close appeared to be pressuring Swedish prosecutors to continue seeking Assange’s extradition instead of dropping the case or questioning him at the Ecuadorian embassy, where Assange had been granted asylum.
“My earlier advice remains, that in my view it would not be prudent for the Swedish authorities to try to interview the defendant [Julian Assange] in the UK,” Close wrote to the SPA, in 2011, according to one of the emails obtained by Maurizi.
Keir Starmer, the British prime minister, was head of the CPS at this time. He led the service from 2008 to 2013, though it is unknown what role Starmer may have played in this correspondence.
“Don’t you dare get cold feet!!!,” he wrote to Marianne Ny, Sweden’s director of public prosecutions, in 2012. A year after that, Close wrote, “Please do not think this case is being dealt with as just another extradition.”
After Maurizi noticed a sizeable gap in the emails released to her she filed another FIOA seeking to obtain the missing emails.
The CPS first claimed that it had destroyed the emails. It said that when Close retired, his account along with his emails, were automatically destroyed.
But Maurizi did not buy it. She asked the court at the hearing last month to order the CPS to turn over “metadata” — data about data, such as file creation and modification dates, email sender and recipient addresses, timestamps, email routing information, keywords, and subject lines — proving the emails really were deleted and when.
“We have NO certainty whatsoever” that the emails were destroyed, Maurizi wrote in a message to Consortium News. Maurizi went to court because she believes the allegedly deleted emails could provide additional evidence of a politically motivated prosecution of Assange.
She also wants metadata on a CPS document that it says is from 2012 explaining the CPS’ email deletion policy, which was only sent to her in 2023.
The supposed 2012 policy document says that 30 days after an email account is disabled, the “email data” associated with it “will be automatically deleted and no longer accessible.”
“How is it possible that they provided this document only in 2023, after multiple requests, multiple appeals, no-one ever mentioned it or knew about it?” Maurizi told CN.
Such a policy does not explain why thousands of emails related to an ongoing case would be deleted.
Denied on the Metadata
In order to figure out whether the 2012 policy document on deletions is genuine, Maurizi requested the relevant metadata of the file. She wanted to make sure it was not created years later as an attempt at retroactively justifying the deletion of Close’s emails.
Judge Foss for the Tribunal, however, ruled against Maurizi on the release of the metadata. Foss ruled
“In our view there was nothing in the letter or spirit of the 2019 Request as to when, how and why the emails of the CPS lawyer were deleted, which required the CPS to disclose the metadata of any document which substantiated the information it provided in response to that request. […]
It would be extraordinary, in our view, if every time a public authority was presented with a request for information recorded in such a way as to have meant that the creation of that record generated metadata, the request should be taken inevitably to require the metadata behind the form of record.”
Unsatisfactory Explanations
It is simply “not credible” Maurizi’s lawyer argued during the September hearing that Close neither sent nor received emails to Swedish prosecutors when Sweden issued the arrest warrant for Assange; when Assange took refuge in the embassy; and when he was granted asylum by Ecuador.
“[I]t has never been established that there was anything untoward in those gaps, that there were emails that weren’t published,” argued Rory Dunlop KC, on behalf of the prosecution authority, during his closing remarks.
“The CPS are keen to make clear that it has never been accepted and [it has] never been established one way or another,” he insisted. Over the years, in response to FOIA requests and appeals, the CPS’ position on the deletion of Close’s account has varied.
For example, in 2017, after Maurizi challenged the gap in the emails, a CPS employee said in a witness statement that, “If there ever existed further emails they were not printed off and filed” and therefore “are no longer in the possession of the CPS.”
According to an article by Maurizi in il Fatto Quotidiano, five years later, the CPS said in response to a separate FOIA request from Labour MP John McDonnell that “deletion of an email account of a former member of staff at the time would not have led to the deletion of emails held on the case file.”
The CPS also admitted to McDonnell that they are only aware of one other case in the last decade which resulted in the premature destruction of case materials, according to Maurizi’s article.
The Sept. 24 tribunal also heard that the CPS’ Records Management Manual states that general correspondence “should be retained in the case file within five years from the date of the most recent correspondence,” which would not allow for deletion upon retirement by the prosecutor on the case.
Mohamed Elmaazi contributed to this article.
1 This month.
Help Aunty Sue Protect Her Land and Sacred Sites From Destructive Rocket Testing.
29 August – UN International Day Against Nuclear Tests -HOW WE CAN PREVENT ANUCLEAR WAR DURING TRUMP’S PRESIDENCY
12:30 PM – 4 PM Saturday August 29 Pilgrim Church, Adelaide. Joint presentation afternoon with Doctors for the Environment Australia & Medical Association for the Prevention of War (SA)https://www.mapw.org.au/ Speakers are Professor Dale Bagshaw, internationally renowned mediator; Dr Kate Wylie, National Executive Officer of Doctors for the Environment (DEA);
Dr Teresa Pham, Drs for the Environment; Ben Crouch MPhil, Medical Physicist, and Amanda Ruler, PhD. – and hear expert opinion on how peaceful mediation and negotiation can prevent a nuclear war during Trump’s presidency.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 