Why I Cannot Stand By: Protesting Israeli President Herzog’s Visit to Australia
Herzog isn’t just any visiting dignitary. He reportedly signed artillery shells destined for Gaza – a symbolic endorsement of actions that have killed tens of thousands of civilians, the majority women and children.
By Sue Barrett, 7 February 2026 AIMN Editorial, https://theaimn.net/why-i-cannot-stand-by-protesting-israeli-president-herzogs-visit-to-australia/
When the Jewish Council of Australia says ‘not in our name,’ we have a moral duty to stand with them. Join us on 9th February 2026.
This Monday, I’ll be protesting Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s visit to Australia. This isn’t about politics. It’s about moral clarity.
The Context
On December 14, 2025, fifteen people were killed in a horrific attack at a Hanukkah event on Bondi Beach. The grief is real. The trauma is profound.
Nine days later, on December 23, the Zionist Federation of Australia invited Herzog to meet with victims’ families and survivors. That same day, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese elevated this to an official state visit. Herzog arrives Sunday, February 8, with full red-carpet protocol.
The intention – solidarity with Jewish Australians – is understandable. The execution is appalling.
Why This Matters
Because grief should never be weaponised to provide political cover for someone implicated in grave human rights violations.
UN experts, including Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese and Professor Ben Saul, have flagged Herzog’s statements as potentially inciting genocide in Gaza. The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and former Defence Minister Gallant for war crimes. Australia has obligations under international law.
Human rights lawyer Chris Sidoti has called for rescinding the invitation “for the sake of social cohesion,” arguing that Herzog’s presence inflames rather than heals divisions. Federal Labor MP Ed Husic has voiced deep concerns. Greens Senator David Shoebridge urges the government to withdraw the invitation immediately.
This is not about denying Jewish Australian grief. It’s about refusing to let that grief be used as a political prop while there is genocide in Gaza.
I Stand With the Jewish Council of Australia
The most powerful voices against this visit are progressive Jewish Australians themselves.
The Jewish Council of Australia launched a petition declaring: “Israeli President Herzog does not speak for us and is not welcome here.”
Their statement is unequivocal: “This visit betrays Jewish communities, multicultural Australia, and advocates for Palestinian human rights. It conflates Jewish identity with Israeli state actions – a dangerous and offensive move that puts Australian Jews at greater risk, not less.”
Executive Officer Sarah Schwartz warns against “using Jewish grief as a political prop.” The Council has joined a historic legal complaint with the Hind Rajab Foundation and Australian National Imams Council, calling for Herzog to be arrested or barred entry over allegations of incitement to genocide and war crimes.
Progressive Jewish groups like Jews Against the Occupation ‘48 are organising protests. These are not fringe voices – these are Jewish Australians refusing to let their identity be weaponised to justify the unjustifiable.
What Herzog Represents
I stand with them. I support their work. This is what true solidarity looks like
Herzog isn’t just any visiting dignitary. He reportedly signed artillery shells destined for Gaza – a symbolic endorsement of actions that have killed tens of thousands of civilians, the majority women and children.
When UN experts warn that a leader’s rhetoric contributes to potential genocide, when the ICC issues arrest warrants for war crimes against his government’s senior officials, when respected Australian human rights lawyers call for his arrest upon arrival – we have an obligation to listen.
Australia Deserves Better
This visit doesn’t foster unity. It deepens divisions.
It tells Palestinian Australians their lives matter less. It tells progressive Jewish Australians their voices don’t count. It tells the world that Australia will provide red-carpet protocol to leaders implicated in humanitarian catastrophes as long as they claim to represent “the Jewish community.”
That’s not solidarity. That’s complicity
True solidarity means:
Condemning all violence unequivocally- Supporting Jewish Australians in their grief
- AND refusing to let that grief be exploited to normalise violations of international law
- AND standing with Palestinians facing unimaginable suffering
- AND listening when progressive Jewish voices say “not in our name”
These things are not contradictory. They’re all essential to justice.
Monday, February 9
Protests are planned across Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, and beyond. Thousands will gather. NSW Police have extended restrictions on demonstrations, citing “safety concerns” – an attempt to stifle dissent rather than address the root problem.
I’ll be there because silence is complicity
I’ll be there alongside the Jewish Council of Australia, Jews Against the Occupation, Palestinian Australians, and people of conscience from every background.
I’ll be there because when a government provides honours to someone implicated in potential genocide, when UN experts warn us, when our own international law obligations demand action – we have a moral duty to speak.
This Is About Values
Australia prides itself on fairness, multiculturalism, and standing against atrocities. We signed the Genocide Convention. We claim to uphold international law. We say we care about human rights.
Then we must act like it.
Hosting Herzog isn’t just poor judgement – it’s a betrayal of everything we claim to stand for. It says Australia’s commitment to human rights is conditional. It says some lives matter more than others. It says international law applies only when convenient.
I reject that. So do thousands of Australians who will protest Monday.
What I Ask
Join us Monday. If you can’t attend, speak out. Share the Jewish Council of Australia’s petition. Contact your MP and demand they condemn this visit. Support organisations doing the hard work of building true solidarity across communities.
Listen to progressive Jewish voices. The Jewish Council of Australia, Jews Against the Occupation, and countless Jewish Australians who refuse to let their identity be weaponised are showing us what courage looks like.
Understand that opposing this visit is not antisemitic – it’s anti-racist. It refuses the conflation of Jewish identity with Israeli state actions. It protects Jewish Australians by rejecting the very logic that puts them at risk.
Demand better from our government. Australia can support Jewish Australians in their grief without providing state honours to leaders implicated in war crimes. These are not incompatible positions.
Final Word
On December 14, fifteen people were murdered in a tragic attack. That grief is sacred. Those lives mattered. That horror demands justice.
However, justice cannot be built on hypocrisy
We cannot condemn violence against Australians while honouring a leader whose government’s actions are under investigation for war crimes and potential genocide. We cannot claim to stand for human rights while rolling out red carpets for those who violate them.
The families who lost loved ones at Bondi Beach deserve genuine solidarity – not the politicisation of their grief. The Jewish Council of Australia is showing us what that looks like: refusing to let tragedy be exploited, demanding accountability for all, building a future where no community’s safety depends on another’s suffering.
That’s the solidarity I choose. That’s the Australia I believe in
Monday, February 9. We stand for justice. We stand with progressive Jewish voices. We stand against complicity.
We cannot – we will not – stand by.
Join us.
You know what to do.
Onward we press
Details:
When: Monday, February 9, 2026
Where: Protests in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth, and other cities – see the list below.
Who: Jewish Council of Australia, Jews Against the Occupation ‘48, Palestine Action Group, and thousands of Australians of conscience.
This is a peaceful protest. If you’re attending, bring water, wear comfortable shoes, know your legal rights. Legal observers will be present.
Support: Jewish Council of Australia petition and information at jewishcouncil.com.au
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.
Precarious Invitations: Israel’s President Isaac Herzog’s Visit to Australia
4 February 2026 Dr Binoy Kampmark AIM Extra, https://theaimn.net/precarious-invitations-israels-president-isaac-herzogs-visit-to-australia/
Things are getting rather ropey on the invitation of Israeli President Isaac Herzog to visit Australia on February 8. It came amidst the anguish following the Bondi Beach attacks of December 14, 2025 on attendees of a Hanukkah event by two gunmen, leaving 15 dead. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese obviously thought it a sensible measure at the time. For months, his government has been snarled at by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for providing succour to antisemitism. The wretched thesis: that Australia’s recognition of a Palestinian State at September’s UN General Assembly meeting somehow stirred it.
Albanese had thought dealing with the gargoyle of antisemitism and engendering good will could be achieved by inviting Herzog. “We need to build social cohesion in this country,” he insists. The Australia/Israel Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) also thought the invitation sound, sending “a powerful message of solidarity and support… following the tragic events at Bondi and the surge of antisemitism across the country.”These claims of fluffy approval ignore the serious and blindingly obvious prospect that legal grounds might arise regarding Herzog’s visit, not to mention the public protest and agitation it will cause. Australia, being a party both to the UN Genocide Convention and the Rome Statute which establishes the International Criminal Court, must always be wary about the injunctions of membership. A determined opposition, armed with legal arguments and indignation, has shown itself keen on foiling the visit.
On January 30, the Hind Rajab Foundation (HRF), the Jewish Council of Australia, and the Australian National Imams Council (ANIC), announced that a joint legal complaint to have Herzog arrested or barred from entering Australia had been sent to the Australian Attorney-General Michelle Rowland, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke and the Australian Federal Police (AFP). As Netanyahu would be unlikely to visit Australia without discomfort, given an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court, the complaint asserted that as “the Prime Minister of Israel is not permitted to visit Australia, the President should not be allowed to act as his surrogate.”
The complaint implores the Australian authorities to do any of three things: refuse or cancel any visa held by Herzog under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), which covers character and public interest grounds; refer him to the AFP for investigation under the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 (Cth) and Australian hate crime legislation; and ensure Australia’s compliance with international obligations to investigate and prosecute who enter the country who are reasonably suspected of committing serious international crimes.
In their body of evidence, the group cites the President’s “Entire Nation” declaration of October 2023 claiming that no civilians in Gaza were “uninvolved” in that month’s attack on Israel by Hamas; the grotesque denials of famine in August 2025, suggesting that images of chronic starvation featuring Palestinian children had been “staged”; and the broader endorsement of military operations entailing the commission of war crimes. Reference in the complaint is made to a December 2023 visit by Herzog to the Nahal Oz military base where he provided encouragement to troops two days before their “wanton destruction” and “flattening” of the town of Khuza’a in Khan Yunis.
The complaint also rejects any application of Head of State immunity, citing the Nuremberg Principles and international law as removing that shield when it comes to the commission of such grave offences as genocide and war crimes.
The complaint is certainly accurate in drawing attention to Herzog’s incitements to collectively punish an apparently complicit populace in Gaza. South Africa’s filing of proceedings against Israel in the International Court of Justice alleging acts of genocide in Gaza cites his remarks from October 12, 2023: “It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible. It’s not true this rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved. It’s absolutely not true… and we will fight until we break their backbone.” The submission also notes a social media post by Herzog showing him addressing reservists and writing messages on bombs destined to be used on Palestinians.
The September 2025 analysis by the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel, which found Israel’s conduct in Gaza after October 7, 2023 to be genocidal in nature, also references Herzog’s October 12, 2023 remark, further adding those words of blame that Gazans “could have risen up.” In the Commission’s view, the President had damned Palestinians to equal responsibility for the attacks on Israel on October 7 that year. Such a statement, along with those of similar kidney made by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, constituted “direct and public incitement to commit genocide” under the Genocide Convention.
AFP Commissioner Krissy Barrett has also been reminded in a submission by the Australian Centre for International Justice, along with two Palestinian non-government human rights organisations, the West Bank-based Al-Haq and the Gaza-based Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, that Australia has obligations to investigate “credible allegations of serious international crimes” and has domestic laws permitting “the initiation of an investigation” into their commission. Even if immunity was enlivened for the Israeli President, it would not prevent the AFP “from undertaking preliminary investigative steps, including seeking a voluntary interview with Herzog upon his arrival to Australia.”
The AFP states that Division 268 of the Criminal Code Act grants the Commonwealth “jurisdiction to investigate core international crimes that occur offshore. However, it is not usually practical for the AFP to do so.” With something of a shrug, the AFP would rather that the country where such alleged offences had taken place pursue the matter. (What a rosy convenience that would be.) Investigating such crimes would also pose problems, among them evidentiary matters regarding location, identifying and locating witnesses, the occurrence of crimes in an ongoing conflict, the unwillingness of foreign governments to assist.
Australian lawmakers have also shown themselves reluctant to block the visit. The waters were tested in an attempt by the Greens Senator David Shoebridge on February 3 to suspend standing orders to move a motion seeking the government’s rescinding of Herzog’s invitation. “When someone is accused by the United Nations of inciting genocide, you don’t invite them for tea, you don’t give them a platform, and you certainly don’t welcome them as a guest of honour.”
His effort was thwarted by a large Senate majority. At this point, Herzog’s five-day visit, with all its combustible precariousness and legal freight, is scheduled to take place. A citizen’s arrest might be in order.
Let’s stop pretending AUKUS makes us safer.
Margaret Beavis, February 2, 2026 —https://www.theage.com.au/national/let-s-stop-pretending-aukus-makes-us-safer-20260202-p5nysl.html
A couple of weeks ago, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney highlighted the need for
“naming reality”. Accordingly, we have to “name” the wishful thinking that is AUKUS. While it
is clear Australia needs a credible submarine capability, the AUKUS plan is neither credible
nor capable of meeting Australia’s defence needs. The Australian Defence Force has
correctly described this as a high-risk project – with no Plan B.
It is highly questionable whether a few nuclear-powered submarines (SSNs) will be effective
in defending Australia: too big for our northern waters, too few, difficult to man, unreliable
and potentially obsolete by 2050, if not before. But not to worry – they will probably never
come.
It is very unlikely, under the AUKUS Pillar I agreement, that the US will sell us three to five
Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines, given US legislation, ongoing US shipyard
sustainment difficulties and major build delays.
The US legislation is very clear. The AUKUS Submarine Transfer Authorization Act, Code
10431, says that the transfer of Virginia-class submarines to Australia “will not degrade the
United States undersea capabilities”.
To meet its own needs, the US must build two Virginia-class SSNs per year. To supply
Australia, it must build at a rate of 2.33 annually; the current rate is 1.13 and has proved very
resistant to increasing, despite major increases in funding (by $US9 billion since 2018).
Australia’s $US3.3 billion contribution is not enough. In addition, the US is now prioritising
construction of the much larger Columbia submarines, making increased production rates of
Virginia-class submarines even less likely.
Operational availability is also a problem, though seldom mentioned. Rear Admiral Jonathan
Rucker, the program executive officer for Attack submarines, noted that with the “Virginia-
class of Attack submarines suffering from maintenance woes and low operational availability,
the US Navy is working to ensure its next Attack submarine is easier to sustain”. This makes
it even less likely the US can spare submarines. Even if they do – how available will they
be? Indeed, during a conflict, would we even get spare parts if US subs needed them too?
How many times does Australia need to be told this a very long shot? Last year, the US
Navy’s Chief of Operations Admiral Daryl Caudle testified that there are “no magic beans” to
boosting the US’ shipbuilding capacity. UK submarine building is even more behind, but that
is another story.
Elbridge Colby, the US under-secretary of defence for policy, said in 2024 that “it would be
crazy for the United States to give away its single most important asset for a conflict with
China over Taiwan when it doesn’t have enough already … money is not the only issue – it’s
also time, limits on our workforce, so both sides of this vitally important alliance need to look
reality in the face.”
From our partners
Late last year, his Pentagon review of AUKUS was reportedly significantly modified by the
president’s office before Trump declared AUKUS was “full steam ahead”.
The US Congressional Research Service in October 2024 proposed that Australia did not
receive any US SSNs but focused on other defence capabilities. It noted that “there is little
indication that, prior to announcing the AUKUS Pillar I project … an analysis of alternatives
or equivalent rigorous comparative analysis was conducted to examine whether Pillar I
would be a more cost-effective way to spend defence resources”.
So why is the US keen to go ahead with this? The benefits for it are obvious. Much more
important than the (non-refundable) billions of dollars is having a new base at Garden Island
and a new maintenance shipyard at Henderson in WA. Even better, the AUKUS agreement
locks us into US war-fighting plans for the next 40 years. Decisions when Australia goes to
war will be made in DC, not in Canberra.
Current US missile and warhead developments mean Virginia-class subs (in reality US-
operated subs) will probably carry nuclear missiles by the early 2030s. The initial assurance
that they would not be nuclear-armed has vanished, just as the initial assurance we would
not end up with the weapons-grade nuclear waste has vanished.
Fuel for these subs requires serious enrichment technology, significantly weakening nuclear
non-proliferation norms. Japan, South Korea, Iran and Turkey are now interested in this
technology. Also, which lucky community will host the high-level nuclear waste?
‘High probability of failure’: Former top official’s dire AUKUS warning
By hosting these submarines (and nuclear-capable B-52 bombers in the Northern Territory),
we not only lose sovereignty but also become a target ourselves. These submarines are too
big to defend Australia’s northern waters, and there will be too few of them – if any – toprovide meaningful defence. Advances in underwater detection technology will probably render them obsolete by 2050, if not before.
Finally, the massive cost of these submarines will cannibalise spending on other more
effective defence weaponry. It will also limit funds available for health, education and other
critical social needs. Austerity in the UK has severely damaged the NHS, once a source of
national pride. Don’t think it can’t happen here.
AUKUS Pillar II and the UK submarines are also extremely problematic, but that needs
another article.
We must have a public independent review of AUKUS. We need to consider alternatives that
are more cost-effective and in our national interest. Sovereignty matters.
Defence secrecy is no excuse, and wishful thinking is very poor strategy. It is time to stop
gaslighting the public.
Dr Margaret Beavis is the vice president of the Medical Association for Prevention of
War.
Australia: HRF, Jewish Council and ANIC Demand Arrest or Entry Ban of Israeli President
January 30th 2026, https://www.hindrajabfoundation.org/posts/australia-hrf-jewish-council-and-anic-demand-arrest-or-entry-ban-of-israeli-president
In a historic joint action, the Hind Rajab Foundation (HRF), the Jewish Council of Australia, and the Australian National Imams Council (ANIC), have lodged a formal legal complaint to have Israeli President Isaac Herzog arrested or barred from entering Australia. The groups, represented by renowned barrister Robert Richter KC, allege that Herzog has incited genocide and aided and abetted war crimes, rendering him unfit to enter the country under Australian law.
The 30-page submission, sent yesterday to Attorney-General Michelle Rowland, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke and the Australian Federal Police (AFP), warns that the President’s visit is “highly inflammatory”.
The groups are calling on the AFP to initiate a criminal investigation of Herzog under the Commonwealth Criminal Code.
The urgent request details a “sustained pattern of incitement and hate speech” by the President, specifically citing:
- The “Entire Nation” Declaration: Herzog’s October 2023 statement that there are no “uninvolved” civilians in Gaza, which the groups argue stripped 2.3 million people of their protected status under international humanitarian law and urged the IDF to treat the entire population as a military target.
- Famine Denial: Herzog’s August 2025 claims that images of starving Gazan children were “staged”—a statement made while famine was setting in and which the brief describes as a “conscious effort to obscure war crimes”.
- Endorsement of Military Operations Involving War Crimes: A December 2023 visit to the Nahal Oz military base where Herzog reportedly “encouraged” troops 48 hours before the “wanton destruction” and “flattening” of the Palestinian town of Khuza’a.
The submission rejects any claim that Herzog has diplomatic immunity, citing the Nuremberg Principles and international law to argue that heads of state have no shield against charges of genocide or war crimes. The groups warn that if the government fails to act, it would signal “acquiescence to genocidal rhetoric”.
“If the Prime Minister of Israel is not permitted to visit Australia, the President should not be allowed to act as his surrogate,” the complaint states, referencing the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Dyab Abou Jahjah, Hind Rajab Foundation:
“When a head of state publicly denies civilian protection, dismisses famine, and encourages military operations marked by widespread civilian harm and destruction, those acts carry legal consequences everywhere. No country — including Australia — should become a safe haven for individuals credibly accused of inciting genocide or aiding and abetting war crimes. Australia has a duty to uphold the rule of law and protect its communities from such threats.”
Ohad Kozminsky, Executive Member, Jewish Council of Australia:
“President Herzog represents a state found to be committing genocide in Gaza. His presence in Australia would identify this state with Australian Jews, which risks exacerbating social division and endangering Australian Jewish communities. We stand firmly against all forms of racism, and President Herzog’s statements attributing collective guilt to an entire people are a textbook manifestation of anti-Palestinian racism and Israel’s ongoing campaign of dehumanisation.”
Bilal Rauf, Senior Advisor, Australian National Imams Council (ANIC):
“In recent times, Australia’s social cohesion has been under threat. Now more than ever, it is incumbent upon all of us, particularly our political leaders, to seek to protect our social cohesion as a country and society and ensure that individuals who may inflame the situation by their very presence, are not permitted into our country. The proposed visit by the Israeli President Isaac Herzog, a highly controversial foreign head of state accused of serious international crimes, risks inflaming social tensions, undermining Australia’s hate-speech protections, and placing Australian communities at risk. ANIC calls on the Government, which has hurriedly passed laws in the name of social cohesion, to refuse or cancel any visa held by President Herzog. In pursuing this, among other outcomes, ANIC joins with the Jewish Council of Australia and the Hind Rajab Foundation, in pursuing the complaint.”
As Trump Threatens Weekend Strike on Iran, Albanese Pretends Pine Gap Isn’t Complicit
1 February 2026 David Tyler AIM Extra
Albanese’s Iran Illusion: How Australia Sleepwalks into Someone Else’s War
While our federal government waffles on about rules based order, Iran is rewriting the rules of modern warfare. Trump is threatening regime-change. The Strait of Hormuz has become a kill box where $13 billion aircraft carriers play sitting duck to lethal, glorified speedboats, where cyberattacks double as deterrence, and where Australia, ever the loyal deputy, pretends it’s all someone else’s problem. Labor’s silence isn’t prudence. It’s complicity in a US strategy that’s already unravelling, and we’ve got the scars to prove it.
Trump already bombed Iran once. In June 2025, Operation Midnight Hammer saw seven B-2 stealth bombers drop bunker-busters on three nuclear facilities while Pine Gap provided the targeting data. Iran’s face-saving response, a telegraphed missile strike on Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, fooled no one. But it burned through 25% of America’s total THAAD interceptor stockpiles, missiles the US produces at a rate of roughly one per month. Now Trump’s threatening round two, this time with explicit regime-change goals, and Albanese still won’t acknowledge that Australia’s uncritical alignment has painted a target on our own facilities.
The real damage? Washington’s isolation campaign isn’t weakening Tehran. It’s shoving Iran into Beijing and Moscow’s arms, locking in an anti-Western axis that thrives on American blunders, while teaching every threshold nuclear state that compliance buys nothing but bombs. Why won’t Labor admit the scale of the mess? Because doing so would mean confessing its own role in a policy already fraying at the seams.
Iran’s Budget Warfare: Turning American Strength into Liability
Iran isn’t trying to match the US ship for ship. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has crafted a playbook that turns American firepower into dead weight: coastal swarms, cyber harassment, proxy deterrence. The goal isn’t winning a war. It’s making escalation so unpredictable, expensive, and politically toxic that the US thinks twice before starting one.
In the cramped waters of the Strait, even Iran’s modest fleet of fast-attack craft becomes a force multiplier. The IRGC doesn’t need a knockout punch, just enough chaos to trap US commanders in a no-win scenario. Push ahead and risk humiliation. Retreat and signal weakness. Dither in the middle while morale drains away. So far, the Pentagon has mostly chosen door number three, proving you can outspend your opponent by billions and still lose the initiative to speedboats and audacity.
The Strait of Hormuz: Where Geography Beats Firepower
The USS Abraham Lincoln isn’t just another, elderly ship in the Strait. It’s a floating monument to American overreach, now redeployed for what Trump calls an “armada larger than Venezuela,” the latest regime-change operation on his scorecard. Iran’s swarm tactics don’t need to sink a nuclear-powered carrier to succeed. They just need to make every transit a gamble, every patrol a potential disaster.
The IRGC’s speedboats may look like dinghies, but in these confined waters where 20% of the world’s oil flows, they’re a constant reminder: geography, not firepower, decides who blinks first. Tehran isn’t trying to win a shootout. It’s turning the Strait into a quagmire where the US loses whether it escalates or backs down, and every crisis burns through irreplaceable defensive systems while China takes notes.
Cyber Jihad: How Iran Turned Hacking into Deterrence
Iran may not match Russia or China’s cyber prowess, but it doesn’t need to. Its campaigns against US, Israeli, and Gulf targets aren’t about knockout blows. They’re about raising costs, sowing doubt, ensuring any strike on Iranian soil comes with a digital counterpunch. From disrupting Saudi oil facilities to probing Israeli water systems, Tehran’s message is simple: hit us, and we hit back, not just with missiles, but with chaos in your backyard.
At home, the regime has weaponised the internet itself, using imported surveillance tech and homegrown censorship to crush dissent. Since January 8, Iran’s internet connectivity has been throttled to 1% of normal levels, a digital blackout designed to hide what appears to be one of the bloodiest crackdowns in modern Iranian history. It’s crude, effective, and one more layer of deterrence the Pentagon now factors into every war plan.
The Massacres Under the Blackout: What Trump’s “Humanitarian” Intervention Ignores
Here’s what Trump won’t mention when he frames the next strike as protecting Iranian protesters: his administration is planning regime change in a country already reeling from mass killings. Since late December, Iran has experienced its largest uprising since 1979, sparked by currency collapse and spreading nationwide. The regime’s response has been catastrophic…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
The Pine Gap Paradox: Australia’s Uncritical Complicity
Australia isn’t a neutral observer. Through Pine Gap, we provided the intelligence backbone enabling the June 2025 strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, operations now drawing genocide allegations at the ICJ given the broader context of US-Israeli coordination. That makes us complicit, and Tehran has noticed.
Iranian Brigadier General Mohammad Akraminia was explicit in his warning: if the US strikes again, “the scope of war will certainly extend across the entire region… From the Zionist regime to countries that host American military bases, all will be within range of our missiles and drones.” That’s not bluster. That’s a direct threat to Australian facilities, delivered after we’d already enabled one round of strikes.
The Herzog visit crystallises Labor’s paralysis. Albanese frames it as “solidarity” with Jewish Australians, but the timing, amid ICJ hearings, domestic protests, and credible reports of an “imminent” second US strike aimed at regime change, screams political theatre. Hosting an Israeli president while Pine Gap’s data flows unrestricted into contested operations isn’t tone-deaf. It’s a neon sign for Iranian retaliation: cyberattacks, grey-zone harassment, or worse.
Yet Albanese won’t acknowledge the risks, because doing so would mean admitting our uncritical alignment with Washington has made us a target. So we get silence, deflection, empty platitudes about “shared values,” while senior US military officials tell Middle Eastern allies that Trump may strike Iran “as soon as this weekend.”
Greg Moriarty, our ambassador in Washington, saw this coming. His warnings about blowback from sanctions and military-first strategies should be shaping the debate. Instead, they’ve been sidelined, because realism doesn’t win elections, and admitting the Pine Gap Paradox would require honesty this government doesn’t possess.
The Nuclear Cascade: What Comes After Trump Bombs Iran Again
If Trump follows through, the consequences extend far beyond the Middle East. Every regional power watching this crisis is recalculating. Saudi Arabia has made no secret of its nuclear ambitions, with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman publicly declaring the kingdom would pursue weapons if Iran did. Riyadh’s deepening defence cooperation with nuclear-armed Pakistan isn’t coincidence. It’s a hedge against American unreliability and regional instability……………………….
Crossroads: The Choice Albanese Won’t Make
Australia still has options, but the window is closing fast. We can deepen our operational integration with the US, provide targeting for regime-change strikes, and hope Iran decides we’re more trouble than we’re worth. Or we can use our position inside the American security ecosystem to argue for de-escalation, regional guarantees, diplomacy over another roll of the dice with irreplaceable defensive systems and global proliferation architecture.
The second path means telling a distracted superpower our support has limits, that we won’t sign a blank cheque for a strategy multiplying our exposure while delivering only drift. It means acknowledging publicly that Pine Gap’s role in the June strikes has already made Australia complicit, and that a second round aimed at regime change crosses a line we should never have approached.
But if Albanese won’t level with the public about the stakes, we risk sleepwalking into a conflict shaped by other people’s decisions, on other people’s timelines, with Australian facilities providing the targeting data that helps trigger a regional war and global nuclear cascade.
Drop Site News reports the strike could come “as soon as this weekend.” Common Dreams notes 56% of Americans already believe Trump has gone too far with military interventions. Even many Iranian protesters warn the US will exploit their struggle rather than support it. The pieces are in place for a catastrophic escalation, one that makes the June strikes look like a warning shot.
The question isn’t whether Australia can afford to speak plainly about these risks. It’s whether we can afford not to, and whether Albanese has the courage to admit that our “shared values” with Washington don’t extend to enabling regime-change operations that will make us targets while accelerating nuclear proliferation across the Middle East.
The silence from Canberra isn’t prudence. It’s complicity. And if Trump pulls the trigger this weekend, Albanese’s refusal to acknowledge our role will look less like diplomacy and more like dereliction.
This article was originally published on URBAN WRONSKI WRITES, https://theaimn.net/as-trump-threatens-weekend-strike-on-iran-albanese-pretends-pine-gap-isnt-complicit/
The Rules-Based Order: Where America Gets Away with Murder, and Everyone Else Gets the Bombs
When the US bombs Iranian nuclear sites, it’s a “strike”. When Iran defends itself, it’s “aggression”. When the US funds insurrections, arms rebels and sabotages economies, it’s “promoting democracy”.
While Ms Penny Wong chants the “rules based order” mantra, Mr Moriarty, gets the gong: he is off to Washington to ensure Australia remains locked in step with the world’s biggest bully. Meanwhile, as the ICJ rules that Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute plausible genocide, and as the US and Australia continue to arm and fund Israel’s apartheid regime, the hypocrisy would knock you over. The “rules based order” isn’t about justice. It’s about power and who gets to wield it without consequences.
31 January 2026 David Tyler , Australian Independent Media
Australia’s Foreign Minister Penny Wong chants “rules based order” like a sacred hymn.
Order? In reality, it’s a squalid, pseudo-legal jargon for a world where might is right. While the US drops depleted uranium on Iraqi children, arms Israeli apartheid and fuels insurrections in Iran, any nation that dares assert its independence is crushed under a tonne of bricks. In Iran’s case, a hail of “precision strikes” designed to wound, maim and cause lifelong agony. Meanwhile, in Gaza, the International Court of Justice has declared Israel’s actions plausible genocide, ordering an immediate halt to atrocities and unimpeded humanitarian access. The US and its allies, including Australia, have ignored every ruling, proving once again that the “rules based order” is nothing more than a mafia protection racket, and we’re collecting the rent.
Depleted Uranium is often said to drop but it’s part of the super new bullets or “rounds” in use. The A-10 Warthog’s GAU-8 Avenger, for example, fires 30mm DU rounds. Tank rounds (e.g., the US M829 series) use DU in their cores to penetrate enemy armour. So kids get a spray of it, rather than a drop.
When these rounds hit a target, they aerosolise into fine, toxic dust, which can be inhaled or contaminate soil and water, leading to long-term health risks (e.g., cancer, birth defects) and environmental damage.
The Rules Based Order A Licence to Kill
Penny Wong stands in Parliament, her voice trembling with moral certainty. To her, Australia stands with the brave people of Iran as they struggle against an “oppressive regime”. She invokes the rules based order like it’s a force field against tyranny, a beacon of justice in a murky, chaotic and mercenary world. Just one snag. The rules apply to everyone else. Only.
When the US bombs Iranian nuclear sites, it’s a “strike”. When Iran defends itself, it’s “aggression”. When the US funds insurrections, arms rebels and sabotages economies, it’s “promoting democracy”.
When anyone else does it, it’s “terrorism”. And as the US sprays depleted uranium, children become cancer statistics? Birth defects are an inter-generational curse, it’s “collateral damage” a euphemism for war crimes.
This isn’t a rules based order. It’s a licence to kill, and Australia through our defence secretary Greg Moriarty, our intelligence agencies and our slavish alignment with US foreign policy is complicit at every step.
And now, as the International Court of Justice declares Israel’s actions in Gaza a plausible genocide, ordering Israel to halt its military operations and allow humanitarian aid, the US and its allies, including Australia, have done what they always do ignored the ruling and doubled down.
Loaded Language “Regime” vs “Government”, “Strikes” vs “Slaughter”
Let’s talk about the language of empire. The US and its press never refer to the “Iranian government”. It’s always the “Iranian regime” a term that strips legitimacy, implies tyranny and justifies intervention. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia, a brutal monarchy that beheads dissidents and bombs Yemeni school buses, is a “key ally.”
Israel, an apartheid state with nuclear weapons, is a “vibrant democracy”
When the US bombs a Syrian hospital, it’s a “precision strike”. When Iran fires a missile in self defence, it’s “terrorism”. When the US funds, arms and trains insurgents in Iran such as the Network of Iranian Activists for Democracy (NAD), which distribute Molotov cocktails to protesters and boast about “turning Tehran into a warzone” it’s “supporting democracy”. When Iran arrests those same insurgents, it’s “crushing dissent”.
This isn’t reportage. It’s propaganda, and it’s designed to manufacture consent for the next war.
The Dirty Weapons Engineered to Maim, Designed to Terrorise
The US doesn’t just kill. It maims. It terrorises. It leaves behind a legacy of suffering so grotesque that it defies the term “war crime”. What’s happening is worse than death. Generations suffer. The US has used depleted uranium munitions in every major Middle East conflict since the Gulf War. Why? Because DU is dense enough to pierce armour, but its real legacy is cancer, birth defects and environmental poisoning.
In Fallujah, where the US used DU in 2004, doctors reported a 14 fold increase in birth defects; babies born with two heads, missing limbs and organs outside their bodies. The called the city “the new Hiroshima”. In Syria, the Pentagon confirmed using DU in 2015, despite international condemnation. The result? Radioactive dust that lingers for decades, poisoning soil, water and people. In Iraq, the US ignored its own guidelines, firing DU at unarmoured targets, buildings and even troops turning cities into toxic wastelands.
The US knows DU is a war crime in slow motion. It just doesn’t care.
The US military has set out to maximise suffering. From cluster munitions banned by 100 countries, but still used by the US to white phosphorus, which burns through flesh to the bone, the goal isn’t just to win wars it’s to leave populations traumatised, disabled and dependent.
Cluster bombs scatter hundreds of tiny bomblets, many of which fail to explode until a child picks one up years later. White phosphorus doesn’t just burn. It melts flesh and re-ignites when exposed to air, ensuring victims suffer excruciating, prolonged deaths. Drones don’t just kill targets. They terrorise entire communities, turning the sky into a permanent threat and leaving survivors with PTSD for life.
This isn’t warfare. It’s sadism, dressed up in the language of “national security”.
The Australian Connection Greg Moriarty and the Art of Complicity
Australia isn’t just a bystander to this horror-show. We’re in it up to our necks. Greg Moriarty, our defence secretary and soon to be ambassador to the US, cut his teeth in Iran. As Australia’s ambassador to Tehran from 2005 to 2008, he briefed George W. Bush on Iranian politics at the height of US sabotage operations, assassinations and economic warfare against Iran.
Moriarty’s stellar career is a masterclass in how Australia punches above its weight in the US empire from intelligence sharing to military drill, from sanctions enforcement to diplomatic cover for US aggression.
While Ms Penny Wong chants the “rules based order” mantra, Mr Moriarty, gets the gong: he is off to Washington to ensure Australia remains locked in step with the world’s biggest bully. Meanwhile, as the ICJ rules that Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute plausible genocide, and as the US and Australia continue to arm and fund Israel’s apartheid regime, the hypocrisy would knock you over. The “rules based order” isn’t about justice. It’s about power and who gets to wield it without consequences.
Historical Parallels Chile, Guatemala, Iraq, Syria and Now Iran (and Gaza)
This isn’t new. The US has been skittling independence for decades. In Chile in 1973, the CIA sabotaged the economy, funded strikes and backed a coup against Salvador Allende all to protect US corporate interests. The result? Seventeen years of Pinochet’s torture chambers……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Call tyranny for what it is. While we are still permitted to express dissent.
This article was originally published on URBAN WRONSKI WRITES https://theaimn.net/the-rules-based-order-where-america-gets-away-with-murder-and-everyone-else-gets-the-bombs/
The Preaching Pentecostal: Scott Morrison in Israel
29 January 2026 Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.net/the-preaching-pentecostal-scott-morrison-in-israel/
Australia’s former Prime Minister and faithful Pentecostal Scott Morrison never passes up the chance to express an opinion if it will net him a reward. As one of various politicians of the right (and far rightist) hue invited by Israel’s Minister for Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism, Amichai Chikli, he was in good company. The occasion: the second international conference on combating antisemitism held between January 26 and 27 at Jerusalem’s International Convention Center, ambitiously titled Generation Truth.
The December 14, 2025 attack by two ISIS-inspired gunmen on those attending a Hanukkah event on Sydney’s Bondi Beach had supplied him with a hot script. Australia’s Albanese government had been previously barked at by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for going wobbly on Israel and soft on Palestinians. Morrison was in hearty agreement, claiming that the Labor government had “walked away from the Jewish state while antisemitism has taken root in Australia,” feeding the hate through unilateral recognition of Palestinian statehood.
In keeping with various Christian groups of the right, Morrison is of the view that Israeli interests need to be protected, shielded and treasured against other, undesirable members of the Book. Christians and Jews can make a common alliance against their enemies, even if evangelical Christianity has a well-stocked reserve of antisemitic attitudes. As Prime Minister, Morrison recognised West Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, despite its contested status in international law, going so far as to open a Trade and Defence Office there in 2019. In 2021, his government officially adopted the definition of antisemitism proposed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), one that fudges criticism of Israeli policies with antisemitism. Since losing office he has been further courting Israel’s favour by attacking the United Nations for being a forum for antisemitism garbed in the argot of human rights.
The January 27 address recapitulated these points, and more. He pointed to a five-fold rise in antisemitic incidents in Australia following the October 7, 2023 attacks on Israel by Hamas. Context, such as Israel’s historical suppression of Palestinian autonomy and its ruthless campaign of pulverisation in Gaza, was absent. Regular protests in Sydney and Melbourne, including a Sydney Harbour Bridge march numbering 100,000 people, were all cut from the same cloth of antisemitism. Again, Israel’s conduct and policies deserved no mention, while slogans such as “from the river to the sea” and “globalising the intifada” could only be seen as antisemitic declarations.
With political illiteracy typical of the man, Morrison then linked the protests and a softer approach to Palestinian statehood directly to the Bondi attacks, his mind unblemished by any understanding about what ISIS is, and its hostility to Hamas. Shades, here, of the sham groupthink that marked Cold War analysis from Washington to Canberra on monolithic communism. Just as communism of the Chinese, Soviet and Vietnamese character was just communism, so can all forms of Islamism be considered identical.
The usual cod analysis of the “progressive Left,” with its “neo-Marxist identity frameworks” and the “radical Right,” with its “conspiratorial and ethno-nationalist forms,” are offered, both serving as the conduit for “grievance politics.” “When failure is moralised as systemic injustice, liberal norms collapse.” This is the golden apologia for Israel writ large: do not blame institutions and injustice as having any consequences, the spawn of their practices. Abandon grievance; it has no role.
This sets the scene for Morrison’s real concern, and in this, he was keeping to the theme pushed by Chikli from the outset. Whatever the issues on the Left and Right of politics, Islam posed the greatest antisemitic threat, with its “imported European conspiracy theories, recasting Jews as a hidden enemy responsible for global disorder.”
His solution to such malignancy in a Western secular context? More religion, not less. Morrison quotes Lord Rabbi Jonathan Sacks quoting Jonathan Swift: “we have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love.” But the faith in question had to be of the “good” sort, an inward individual consideration, rather than the “bad” variety that externalised the grievance and made people rush for placards, street rallies and arms.
That bilious right-wing figures demanding the expulsion of Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza have more than enough religion to go around (Israel’s National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich come to mind) suggests this formula to be flawed. But Morrison singles out Islamic leaders and institutions within Australia as alone in lacking accountability. What was needed was “a recognised accreditation framework for imams, a national register for public-facing roles, clear training and conduct requirements, and disciplinary authority for governing councils.” Sermons should also be translated into English, and links to foreign Islamic groups policed and curbed.
In Australia, Liberal Senator Andrew Bragg spoke approvingly of the former PM’s tarnishing method, with Australian Muslims having to “take some responsibility” for terrorist acts. “Unfortunately,” he told ABC radio on January 28, “there has been a mutation of Islam in Australia and other Western countries where they have sought to kill citizens, not just Jewish people, but other citizens.”
The Australian National Imams Council (ANIC), the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils (AFIC) and the Islamic Council of Victoria were suitably unimpressed. Chief executive of the Islamic Council of Victoria, Zakaria Wahid, made the far from startling point that the Australian government did “not hold entire communities accountable for acts of violence committed by individuals, and the same standard must apply to Muslims.”
Morrison has shown that he can be a good Pentecostal when required, demonstrating the sort of charity that never leaves his home or the halls of the Hill Song Church. As a cabinet minister and prime minister in various conservative governments, he showed a glacial contempt for women, welfare recipients, refugees, asylum seekers, those warning about climate change and open government. As prime minister, he gave Australia AUKUS, a criminally exorbitant, foolishly negotiated security pact between Canberra, London and Washington that has turned his country into an American satellite and forward base against China. But his less than secular admiration for Israel has won him friends, a point Chikli has unreservedly acknowledged. No doubt some well remunerated consultancy work is in the bag.
The Afterlife of Failed Prime Ministers
30 January 2026 Roswell , https://theaimn.net/the-afterlife-of-failed-prime-ministers/
There is a curious phenomenon in modern politics whereby leaders rejected by voters at home are reborn as sages abroad. It is a kind of political reincarnation, except instead of coming back as something wiser, they come back with a microphone, an expense account, and a suspiciously friendly audience.
Take Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison. Two of the most out-of-their-depth, ineffectual, policy-light and spectacularly uninspiring Australian prime ministers of the past 50 years. Governments so underwhelming that voters didn’t merely change their minds – they slammed the door, locked it, and put the furniture up against it.
This is surprising, because while neither man excelled at governing Australia, they have since been warmly embraced on the international speaking circuit – mainly by right-wing conferences, “freedom” forums, and governments that find Western accents useful when saying deeply illiberal things.
Tony Abbott, whose prime ministership was defined by instability, internal warfare and three-word slogans that passed for policy, is now invited to explain leadership. Abbott struggled to explain his own government to his own party room, but apparently this has not deterred organisers elsewhere.
Scott Morrison’s record is fresher – and stranger. A prime minister who treated government as a branding exercise, communicated almost exclusively through slogans, and managed crises with photo opportunities rather than competence. A man so committed to secrecy that, in his final months in office, he quietly appointed himself to five ministries without telling the ministers involved.
Ironically, since leaving office, Morrison appears to have lost the ability to keep secrets altogether.
The man who secretly ran half the government now speaks endlessly. Panels, conferences, fireside chats. There is no shortage of words – just an ongoing shortage of insight. Morrison’s speeches are long on grievance, heavy on culture-war talking points, and light on anything resembling reflection or accountability.
One might reasonably ask: who is paying to hear this?
The answer is not “the public.” These are not broad, curious audiences wondering what went wrong. They are curated rooms. Friendly rooms. Rooms where applause is guaranteed and difficult questions are optional. Rooms where electoral defeat is reframed as martyrdom and democratic accountability as persecution.
Failure, it seems, has become a credential.
In a healthy democracy, losing office used to mean something. It was feedback. A verdict. An instruction to step aside. Now it is merely the start of a second career – one in which rejection at home is marketed overseas as proof of courage.
None of this is illegal. None of it is particularly new. But it is revealing.
If Abbott and Morrison had left office respected, effective, and admired, their global speaking careers would make sense. Instead, they left behind governments remembered largely for chaos, secrecy, and exhaustion. And yet, somewhere overseas, there is always a stage, a lectern, and an audience eager not to ask why.
Australia’s New AUKUS Protest Police, and the Quiet Redefinition of Dissent
28 January 2026 AIMN Editorial, By Denis Hay
AUKUS protest police: FOI documents reveal the AFP’s Orcus Command and how protest is being treated as a national security issue in Australia.
Introduction
Public discussion of AUKUS has focused on submarine delivery dates, strategic alignment, and cost blowouts. Far less attention has been given to how the Australian government is preparing for domestic opposition to the agreement.
Freedom of Information documents obtained by transparency advocate Rex Patrick and reported by Michael West Media reveal that the Australian Federal Police has quietly established a new unit, Orcus Command, dedicated to protecting AUKUS-related defence facilities. The documents show this unit is also planning for public order management, including protest and political dissent connected to Australia’s growing role in US and UK military operations.
This matters because protest is a cornerstone of democratic accountability. When dissent is framed primarily as a security risk, the balance between public order and civil liberties shifts in ways that deserve close public scrutiny.
What has received far less attention is how the government is preparing to manage Australians who oppose it.
Internal link: “Australia’s AUKUS agreement”.
Editor’s note:
This analysis is based on Freedom of Information documents obtained by transparency advocate Rex Patrick and reporting by Michael West Media. All claims in this article are drawn from released documents, budget papers, and publicly available statements. Care has been taken to distinguish between documented facts, lawful policing powers, and broader democratic implications.
What Is Orcus Command
Orcus Command is a specialised AFP unit created to provide protective security for the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarine program, particularly at strategically significant defence bases such as HMAS Stirling in Western Australia.
FOI documents show that:
- The unit was created with minimal public disclosure.
- It has a mandate extending beyond physical asset protection.
- It is embedded within the Department of Defence, not a civilian oversight body.
- Its planning includes public order and protest activity.
This institutional placement is significant. By situating Orcus Command within Defence rather than a civilian agency, protest management around AUKUS is treated as a national security issue rather than a matter of routine democratic policing.
Internal link: “Defence influence in Australia”.
Protest and Dissent as a Security Issue
Internal AFP documents explicitly reference the monitoring and response to political opposition and protest activity linked to AUKUS and the expanding US military presence in Australia.
This reflects a broader shift in Australian governance. Over recent years, most states have introduced or strengthened laws restricting protest, increasing police powers, and imposing harsher penalties for disruption.
Rather than being framed as a democratic expression to be facilitated and protected, protest is increasingly framed as a risk to continuity and order.
The Orcus Command documents indicate:
- Planning for escalation scenarios
- Proactive monitoring of protest groups
- Coordination with state police
- Anticipation of increased protest intensity
Internal link: “right to protest in Australia”
Why is Protest Being Framed as a National Security Issue Under AUKUS?
The documents state that Orcus Command has Commonwealth responsibility for protecting the nuclear submarine program under existing legislative powers.
This places protest activity in the same conceptual space as counterterrorism and critical infrastructure protection. While such powers are lawful, their application to political dissent raises difficult questions.
When a protest is absorbed into a national security framework:
- Thresholds for intervention are lowered.
- Decision-making becomes less transparent.
- Oversight mechanisms are weakened.
- Civil liberties are more easily subordinated to strategic objectives.
This does not mean that protest is automatically criminalised. It does mean that the lens through which protest is viewed has changed.
Internal link: “national security frameworks”.
One of the most sensitive revelations in the AFP briefing material is the inclusion of lethal force within Orcus Command’s armed protection planning.
Lethal force authorisations are standard in many armed federal policing and counter-terrorism contexts. Their inclusion alone is not unlawful or unusual. However, the context matters.
These provisions appear within documents that also discuss protest and public order management. This signals that scenarios involving political dissent are being contemplated within a framework that allows for the highest level of force available to federal police.
This does not suggest protesters will routinely face lethal force. It does show that dissent around AUKUS is being planned for within a security paradigm where extreme outcomes are legally contemplated.
That distinction is important, but it should not be dismissed.
Reassuring Allies, Managing Citizens
FOI emails reveal that Australian authorities are keen to show to the United States and the United Kingdom that protest activity will not disrupt or delay AUKUS operations.
This highlights a core tension: Australian policing resources are being used not only to keep domestic order, but also to reassure foreign military partners.
The documents emphasise:
- Proactive responses to identified protest risks.
- The importance of continuity for allied operations
- Minimising disruption to US and UK interests
Internal link: “Foreign policy dependence“.
Budget Allocations Signal Long-Term Expansion
Funding figures reinforce the seriousness of the operation.
- $73.8 million allocated to Orcus Command in late 2025.
- Funding rising to $125.2 million in 2026.
This near doubling suggests the government expects expanded responsibilities and sustained operations, rather than a short-term security task.
Budgets reflect priorities. In this case, substantial public funds are being committed to a policing unit designed to manage both infrastructure security and anticipated dissent.
Internal link: “public money priorities”.
Secrecy, FOI, and Democratic Oversight
AUKUS is one of the most secretive projects in Australia’s modern history. While some confidentiality around defence capabilities is legitimate, secrecy has expanded far beyond technical details.
The government has:
- Refused a comprehensive public inquiry.
- Limited parliamentary scrutiny
- Relied heavily on national security exemptions
- Restricted public access to key information
Without FOI requests and investigative journalism, the existence and scope of Orcus Command would remain unknown.
The Broader Democratic Context
The creation of Orcus Command does not occur in isolation. It sits alongside:
- Tightened protest laws across states
- Expanded police powers.
- Increasing surveillance of activists
- Reduced tolerance for disruption
Taken together, these trends suggest a gradual rebalancing of the state’s relationship with citizens, particularly where dissent intersects with powerful economic or strategic interests.
Why This Matters for Democracy……………………………………………………………………………………. https://theaimn.net/australias-new-aukus-protest-police-and-the-quiet-redefinition-of-dissent/
United Israel Appeal. Charity channels tax free donations direct to IDF soldiers
by Stephanie Tran | Jan 28, 2026 , https://michaelwest.com.au/united-israel-appeal-channels-tax-free-donations-direct-to-idf-soldiers/
Since 2013, more than $400 million in tax-deductible donations have flowed through an Australian charity, including direct to IDF soldiers. Stephanie Tran reports.
United Israel Appeal (UIA) Australia has remitted $376m to Israel since 2013 via its global partner Keren Hayesod, according to ACNC financial disclosures.
In 2024 alone, UIA Australia received $50.9m in tax-deductible donations and sponsorships.
Financial statements from Keren Hayesod, the Israel-based body that receives and distributes UIA funds, show it received AU$323m in global donations in 2024, with 98.5% originating overseas.
On that basis, Australian fundraising accounted for roughly 13% of Keren Hayesod’s worldwide donation base last year.
UIA Australia first received tax deductible status in January 1998. However, ACNC financial disclosures only go back to 2013. The amount of tax deductible donations made to UIA over its lifetime is likely significantly higher than the figure calculated in this article.
In a press release announcing the decision, then-treasurer Peter Costello stated that “in recognition of the valuable humanitarian service undertaken by [United Israel Appeal], the Government has decided to specifically list it as an international affairs recipient. Legislation to give effect to the Government’s decision will be introduced as soon as practicable.”
“Every dollar aligned with Israel’s national priorities”
At the UIA Victoria AGM in November 2025, UIA leadership were explicit about the organisation’s role in Israel. David Slade, president of UIA Victoria, told members:
“We are the only organisation in Australia raising funds for Israel that holds a seat at every table of decision-making authority mandated to rebuild the country from the north to the south.”
“We are proud that every dollar we distribute is aligned with Israel’s national priorities.”
Julian Black, outgoing federal treasurer of UIA, reported that $39.2m had been sent to Israel nationally, including $14.4m from Victoria, in the 2025 campaign period to mid-November.
UIA Australia describes its central mission as supporting aliyah, “ascent”, referring to Jewish immigration to Israel, and strengthening Israeli society. They state that they “raise funds within Australia and transfer them directly to Keren Hayesod-UIA.”
Keren Hayesod, founded in 1920, describes itself as the “preeminent worldwide fundraising arm for the people of Israel,” operating in dozens of countries. UIA Australia functions as its Australian partner, channelling hundreds of millions of dollars in tax-deductible donations to the fund.
At the 2025 AGM, Slade said:
“This is not theory. It’s delivery. It’s national in scale, national in scope. It aligns with Israel’s priorities and is executed by our global partners.”
1×1515
0:10 / 8:09
1×1515
0:10 / 8:09
Since 2013, more than $400 million in tax-deductible donations have flowed through an Australian charity, including direct to IDF soldiers. Stephanie Tran reports.
United Israel Appeal (UIA) Australia has remitted $376m to Israel since 2013 via its global partner Keren Hayesod, according to ACNC financial disclosures.
In 2024 alone, UIA Australia received $50.9m in tax-deductible donations and sponsorships.
Financial statements from Keren Hayesod, the Israel-based body that receives and distributes UIA funds, show it received AU$323m in global donations in 2024, with 98.5% originating overseas.
On that basis, Australian fundraising accounted for roughly 13% of Keren Hayesod’s worldwide donation base last year.
Source: ACNC
UIA Australia first received tax deductible status in January 1998. However, ACNC financial disclosures only go back to 2013. The amount of tax deductible donations made to UIA over its lifetime is likely significantly higher than the figure calculated in this article.
In a press release announcing the decision, then-treasurer Peter Costello stated that “in recognition of the valuable humanitarian service undertaken by [United Israel Appeal], the Government has decided to specifically list it as an international affairs recipient. Legislation to give effect to the Government’s decision will be introduced as soon as practicable.”
“Every dollar aligned with Israel’s national priorities”
At the UIA Victoria AGM in November 2025, UIA leadership were explicit about the organisation’s role in Israel. David Slade, president of UIA Victoria, told members:
“We are the only organisation in Australia raising funds for Israel that holds a seat at every table of decision-making authority mandated to rebuild the country from the north to the south.”
We are proud that every dollar we distribute is aligned with Israel’s national priorities.
Julian Black, outgoing federal treasurer of UIA, reported that $39.2m had been sent to Israel nationally, including $14.4m from Victoria, in the 2025 campaign period to mid-November.
UIA Australia describes its central mission as supporting aliyah, “ascent”, referring to Jewish immigration to Israel, and strengthening Israeli society. They state that they “raise funds within Australia and transfer them directly to Keren Hayesod-UIA.”
Keren Hayesod, founded in 1920, describes itself as the “preeminent worldwide fundraising arm for the people of Israel,” operating in dozens of countries. UIA Australia functions as its Australian partner, channelling hundreds of millions of dollars in tax-deductible donations to the fund.
At the 2025 AGM, Slade said:
“This is not theory. It’s delivery. It’s national in scale, national in scope. It aligns with Israel’s priorities and is executed by our global partners.”
Support for “lone immigrant soldiers”
Among the programs UIA promotes in Australia is assistance for “lone immigrant soldiers”, individuals who migrate to Israel and serve in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) without immediate family support in the country.
Through the “Wings Program”, UIA partners with the Jewish Agency for Israel to provide grants and assistance to immigrant IDF soldiers. UIA states that they supported 2,200 lone immigrant soldiers in 2024.
According to a report compiled by the Knesset, in August 2024, there were 6,731 lone soldiers serving in the IDF.
Overseas funding networks and settlement links
In 2022, Pastor Larry Huch raised $8 million for Keren Hayesod through his ministry to help “settlements take over produce farms in the West Bank”.
“One of the main Bible prophecies is helping Jews return to the nation of Israel, so we started working with Keren Hayesod with projects such as making aliyah. We help settlements take over produce farms in the West Bank, which is Judea and Samaria,” Hutch said.
According to an analysis by Canadian human rights organisation Just Peace Advocates, public filings by UIA Canada show that funds linked to the broader Keren Hayesod network have supported organisations assisting IDF veterans and institutions located in Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.
At the same AGM, Slade disclosed that his own son is currently serving in the IDF as a lone soldier, describing himself as “a lifelong Zionist”.
UIA also funds the Net@ program, which provides technology education for youth. Promotional materials for the program state that graduates are “strong candidates for elite IDF units”.
[excellent charts here on original]
Comparable program-level detail is not disclosed in Australian ACNC filings, which aggregate remittances to Keren Hayesod. UIA Australia did not respond to questions regarding whether they have oversight of which initiatives are supported by the funds they provide to Keren Kayesod and whether they engage in due diligence practices to ensure that these programs comply with ACNC External Conduct Standards and DGR conditions.
A charity operating in a genocide
UIA’s fundraising expansion has occurred during the Gaza genocide and escalating violence across the occupied Palestinian territories.
A January 2026 report by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights found that Israeli laws, policies and practices have created “asphyxiating” conditions for Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
The report stated that there has been an “unprecedented deterioration of the human rights situation” since October 2023, as Israeli government “further expanded the use of unlawful force, arbitrary detention and torture, repression of civil society and undue restrictions on media freedoms, severe movement restrictions, settlement expansion and related violations in the occupied West Bank”.
In his National Press Club address, Chris Sidoti, a commissioner on the UN Commission of Inquiry on Palestine and Israel, stated that in light of the Commission’s finding that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza,
“anyone who has served in any arm of the Israeli military in Gaza should be treated as a suspect.“
UIA CEO Yair Miller previously told MWM that “the United Israel Appeal is fully compliant with Australian law”. They did not respond to a follow-up request for comment regarding the matters discussed in this article.
UK to deploy nuclear-powered submarine to Australia
27 January 2026 | By Andrew McLaughlin, https://psnews.com.au/uk-to-deploy-nuclear-powered-submarine-to-australia/172179/
The UK’s Royal Navy will soon deploy a nuclear-powered attack submarine (SSN) to Australia for six months as part of its commitment to the AUKUS construct and to its presence in the wider Indo-Pacific region.
The Astute-class submarine HMS Anson arrived in Gibraltar earlier this month after it departed its home base of Faslane in Scotland on 10 January.
The boat is expected to patrol the Indian and western Pacific oceans during its deployment, and will be the UK’s first commitment to the Submarine Rotational Force–West (SRF-West) that was established under Pillar 1 of AUKUS in 2022.
The respected independent online news site Navy Lookout says, of the five Astute-class SSNs to enter RN service to date, HMS Anson is currently the only boat capable of being deployed. The class has suffered from build delays and poor availability since the lead boat, HMS Astute was commissioned in August 2010, and the remaining four boats are laid up at Faslane undergoing various stages of maintenance.
Two more Astute-class SSN boats are planned, with one currently undergoing sea trials, and the seventh boat scheduled to enter service in late 2028. After this, development of the planned SSN-AUKUS class boats – for which Australia will be a partner – is expected to gain pace.
The UK’s Defence Minister Luke Pollard told the British Parliament in December that an Astute-class boat would join SRF-West as “a core planning assumption for the RN under AUKUS”. Despite very low availability of the Astute-class in recent months, Mr Pollard said the government judges the commitment to be “both realistic and manageable within existing force planning”.
SRF-West is based at HMAS Stirling south of Fremantle in WA, and the Australian Government has committed billions of dollars to upgrade the base and the adjacent Henderson shipyard to support not only UK and US nuclear-powered submarine deployments, but also those of Australia from the mid-2030s, and to boost Australia’s shipbuilding capabilities.
SRF-West has taken its first few tentative steps forward, with a US Navy Virginia class SSN USS Vermont having completed a Submarine Maintenance Period at Stirling in November using a mixed US Navy and Australian maintenance workforce.
Other US Navy SSNs have conducted port visits to Stirling in recent years and these visits are expected to increase as the base and its infrastructure become more capable of supporting these vessels.
‘From day one, an absolute pleasure’: Nuclear science expert receives Australia Day honour
26 January 2026
Sky News host Chris Kenny sits down with former ANSTO CEO Dr Adi Paterson to go over how the Australia Day honours and how he was honoured for his work in nuclear technology. ………………………………………………………………………………. https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/chris-kenny/from-day-one-an-absolute-pleasure-nuclear-science-expert-receives-australia-day-honour/video/2a31513901d504547fb3d25ee0ad7af9
Falling Upwards: Labor’s Quiet Reward for Failure
25 January 2026 David Tyler, Australian Independent Media
Greg Moriarty’s plum job posting sends a clear message about how Canberra looks after its own.
Washington isn’t a demotion; it’s the prize. Greg Moriarty’s nomination as Australia’s next ambassador to the US isn’t the act of a government cleaning house; it’s the system congratulating itself on resilience. In Canberra, failure rarely disqualifies. It just moves you sideways until the heat cools, or upward, if the optics align.
In a bureaucracy obsessed with process, protection is paramount; the process to protect: protect the insiders first, accountability second; if accountability, (in Canberra, always a slow train coming), arrives at all.
The Canberra reflex
No-one is fussed about Moriarty’s credentials. He is eminently qualified; the boffin’s boffin. He was Australia’s Ambassador to Indonesia (2010–2014) and Ambassador to Iran (2005–2008), giving him “on-the-ground” experience with political Islam, even if Mossad and CIA hit squads mean his speed-dial will need updating.
Moriarty spent his first decade (1986–1995) as a regional analyst in the Defence Intelligence Organisation. DIO. This is the agency responsible for providing intelligence to the Australian Defence Force.
During the first Gulf War, as the 1991 United States’ oil war with Saddam Hussein has become known, Moriarty served as a uniformed Captain in Saudi Arabia, providing intelligence briefings directly to General Norman Schwarzkopf at US Central Command. The “liberation of Kuwait” was a hollow slogan used to mask a war fought to ensure the US remained the sole “policeman” of the world’s energy supply.
Clandestine Diplomacy? Also Greg’s bag. He was Australia’s Ambassador to Iran (2005–2008) at a time when the US had no diplomatic presence there. He was one of the few Westerners with a deep, “inside” view of Tehran, eventually briefing President George W. Bush in the Oval Office, a rare gig, for an Australian diplomat.
Counter-Terrorism Coordinator? If the cap fits. Moriarty was the inaugural “czar” of Australia’s counter-terrorism efforts, whose brief was to bridge the gap between ASIO (domestic spies) and ASIS (foreign spies).
But there’s more. Not only is he a veteran of very complex and challenging foreign postings, but Moriarty served as the International and National Security Adviser and Chief of Staff to Prime Minister Malcolm (Fizza) Turnbull, an all-leather jacket-no-naff-elbow-patches-man. A man of means, Turnbull’s million dollar punt on his own campaign makes him easily the best self-saucing pudding to get into The Lodge.
As a former PM, Turnbull’s become a fearless critic of the Liberal Party, now that he’s free to focus on its internecine wars, its dud policy and its hapless leader, from time to time, as minding his stock portfolio allows. But he’s always put in a good word for Greg. Turnbull often highlights Moriarty’s history with the U.S. (specifically his service with U.S. Central Command). This background helps explain why Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has just appointed Moriarty to succeed Kevin Rudd as Ambassador to the United States.
Turnbull’s trust in Moriarty helped pave the way for Greg to become one of the architects of AUKUS and the primary point of contact for the Trump circus. Scott Morrison may quibble but, success has many fathers.
Above all, Moriarty was the key figure responsible for coordinating Australia’s counter-terrorism arrangements in 2015. He is a primary architect of the controversial strategy that views groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir, as “ideological threats” to national security, even if they fall short of the violence threshold.
So it isn’t about experience or qualifications. It’s about reflex. Canberra’s muscle memory. When faced with scandal or exposure, Canberra’s instinct is to pull the shutters down, shield its own; tidy paperwork later.
Consider Kathryn Campbell. During Senate estimates, Jacqui Lambie pressed Moriarty about his role in placing Campbell; already publicly associated with the Robodebt debacle, in a senior AUKUS‑related Defence post reportedly worth close to $1 million. It wasn’t a technical error; it was a deliberate continuity move.
As Moriarty told estimates, on 14 June 2022 PM&C Secretary Glyn Davis called to see whether there might be a new role for Campbell, who was likely to be moved from DFAT. Moriarty said yes; a spot was waiting in Defence’s nuclear submarine taskforce.
He later argued the appointment pre‑dated the Royal Commission, but that defence misses the point. By mid‑2022, Robodebt’s unlawfulness was already public, and Labor had pledged a Royal Commission in its campaign. To claim no one foresaw reputational risk is bureaucratic fantasy.
When the Commission handed down its findings on 7 July 2023, its condemnation of Campbell was withering. She was suspended without pay three days later and later resigned……………………………………………………………………………..
The politics of timing
And then, there’s the timing.
Moriarty’s appointment, like so many immaculate Canberra announcements, coincides with turbulence elsewhere, this time, the government’s controversial Hate Speech bill. The bill risks criminalising intent: targeting individuals or groups perceived as being about to breach the law, rather than those who actually do.
For activist networks and civil‑liberties advocates, this language turns dissent into pre‑crime; policing inclination rather than action. It marks a profound step away from Labor’s democratic heritage, recasting expression and dissent as potential threats……………………………….
Accountability, inverted
Canberra will insist that promoting Moriarty is pragmatism: the steady hand, the safe pair. But Australians watching from below see something else; a governing circle where the guilty always escape justice.
Accountability in Canberra remains a one‑way mirror: the public gets watched; the powerful get reassigned.
If Labor truly wants to rebuild faith in government, it must break its habit of rewarding failure and punishing conscience. Responsibility must cost something again. Until then, power will keep protecting itself; and the “fair go” will remain a slogan embalmed in Labor’s history, rather than a principle alive in its governance.
Two Canberras
This isn’t just a job swap; it’s a parable of the Two Canberras.
In one Canberra, the “Safe Pair of Hands” is rewarded for a career spent managing the optics of illegal wars, secret submarine deals, and the protection of disgraced colleagues. In this Canberra, accountability is a one-way mirror: the public is watched, but the powerful are merely reassigned.
In the other Canberra, those who actually serve the public interest – the Witness Ks, the David McBrides, and the Bernard Collaerys – are crushed. Their “fidelity” earned them prosecution, not a promotion. Their “integrity” earned them a criminal record, not a diplomatic passport.
Moriarty’s flight to Washington reveals the grim reality of modern Labor governance. By rewarding the managers of wrongdoing while punishing the whistleblowers who expose it, the “Fair Go” has been embalmed and put on display as a museum piece. In today’s Canberra, the stream does not rise higher than its source; and the source is a closed loop where power exists only to protect itself.
Responsibility has no cost for the inner circle; it is a tax paid only by the principled. Moriarity’s pragmatic promotion demotes, depletes and pointedly disregards the notion of Australia as the land of the fair go. https://theaimn.net/falling-upwards-labors-quiet-reward-for-failure/
Australia’s Lack Of Speech Protections Means We Should Be MORE Hostile To Speech Regulation
Caitlin Johnstone, Jan 25, 2026, https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/australias-lack-of-speech-protections?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=185687870&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
A normal, healthy person would look at Australia’s lack of free speech protections and say “Hmm, Australian leaders should be extremely resistant to new laws and policies which restrict speech then, because it would be very easy for those restrictions to become abusive.”
Australian leaders look at our lack of free speech protections and say “See? This means we get to take away your right to protest genocide!”
Nowhere is this more clearly exemplified than the repeated statements from New South Wales premier Chris Minns saying it’s fine to silence Australians because we don’t have free speech rights.
Over and over again Minns has defended his promotion of authoritarian speech crackdowns in his state by claiming it’s okay to stomp out dissident speech of Australians because Australians don’t have the same speech protections as Americans, saying “we don’t have the same free speech rules that they have in the United States and I make no apologies for that” and similar statements in recent weeks.
To be clear, Minns is being repulsively tyrannical when he says this, but factually speaking he isn’t wrong.
As Joe Lauria wrote for Consortium News following the passage of Australia’s frightening new “hate speech” bill:
“Unlike the United States, Australia has no Bill of Rights in its Constitution protecting freedom of speech, assembly and other rights. Much as Israel would want it, a law such as this adopted in Australia would still be difficult to pass in the U.S. on paper, despite the Israel Lobby’s hold over the U.S. Congress.”
If Australians had the same speech protections that they have in the United States, we could appeal tyrannical new laws on First Amendment grounds. Because we have no such protections, it is much harder to oppose authoritarian speech restrictions once they are in place.
As I often remind readers, Australia is the only so-called democracy in the world which has no national charter or bill of rights of any kind. A tremendous amount of faith has been placed in state and federal legislators to simply do the right thing, which has proved foolish and ineffective. Professor George Williams wrote for the Melbourne University Law Review in 2006:
“Australia is now the only democratic nation in the world without a national bill of rights. Some comprehensive form of legal protection for basic rights is otherwise seen as an essential check and balance in democratic governance around the world. Indeed, I can find no example of a democratic nation that has gained a new Constitution or legal system in recent decades that has not included some form of a bill of rights, nor am I aware of any such nation that has done away with a bill of rights once it has been put in place.”
It has been clearly and conclusively established that this system does not work. State and federal governments are working frenetically to shred the right of Australians to oppose the actions of the state of Israel, with their assault on our civil rights disguised as an effort to fight “antisemitism” in our country and help Jewish Australians feel more safe. The fact that this happens to advance the information interests of the western power alliance, we are told, is purely coincidental.
The evidence is in and the case is closed. The Australian system does not work. We need a national bill of rights, and we need free speech to be enshrined in our constitution.
In the meantime, we need to be aggressively opposed to laws and policies which assault our freedom of speech. We need to be more aggressive in our opposition than Americans would be, because we have fewer safeguards against tyrannical abuses.
It’s so disgusting how these freaks are telling us right to our faces “Yeah well you guys don’t have any rights, so I’m going to silence you and oppress you and I make no apologies about that.”
That kind of arrogant, abusive authoritarianism deserves nothing but ferocious defiance.
1 This month
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
– go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com/
Antinuclear 