Mediawatch
In the wake of the Bondi massacre, the boundary between hate speech and civil discourse has come to the fore, inevitably, because the issue of incitement is at the heart of what motivated the killers. But it also raises the question of what is anti-Semitic and whether everything that can be labelled that way should be banned.
Cathy Wilcox’s cartoon has been labelled antisemitic – for example, by fellow cartoonist Paul Zanetti who describes it as “This pathetic, visual nastiness makes a case for a Royal Commission into hate speech and anti-Semitism.
“It is Exhibit A.”
Arsen Ostrovsky, a lobbyist and lawyer shot in the head at Bondi on December 14, describes it as Jew hatred.
Zionist Federation of Australia posted on X
Let’s look at these serious questions.
The grounds for saying the cartoon is anti-Semitic
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism, which is supported by the Israeli government and mainstream Jewish groups, has a clause that captures the case against the Wilcox drawing.
Anti-Semitism includes “Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.”
This explains the inclusion of what are sometimes called “anti-Semitic” tropes: words and images that reference myths about Jewish power.
The cartoon certainly asserts some form of social power by Jews, embodied in the caricature of Israeli PM Bibi Netanyahu beating a drum, and a team of conservatives (the lower level), including Opposition Sussan Ley, Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, former PM John Howard, Rupert Murdoch, Jillian Segal the anti-Semitism envoy and David Littleproud leader of the Nationals, being resposible for the petitions by Sportspeople, Lawyers, Business leaders and “Labor hasbeens” calling for a Royal Commission into the Bondi massacre.
Here’s an example that shows the Jewish community in general has read the cartoon this way, reported in the Jewish Chronicle.
“Alex Ryvchin, the CEO of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, wrote: ‘The Olympic athletes, the captains of industry, our top jurists, the families of the dead and the majority of ordinary Australians who favour a royal commission into a terrorist slaughter of Jews at a family fair at a beach are all just mindless drones too stupid to realise they’re doing the bidding of the Libs and the Murdoch press.
“‘But the enlightened cartoonist alone sees the truth. We were slaughtered because of Israel, and any deviation from this belief makes you a stooge of the Zionists.'”
I take the view that the figure of Netanyahu was symbolic, that Cathy Wilcox was not implying that there was an actual directive from Jerusalem, via the Shin Bet or Mossad, to Australian Jewry. What she was asserting was that the Jewish mainstream (Jews like other Australians have factions, including very left and very right) acted in concert with conservative leaders to bring into being the petitions from Sportspeople, lawyers and others that dominated discourse before bushfires and the Adelaide Writers Week, seized the headlines.
Wilcox could be right or totally wrong about who organised those petitions, but is she entitled to express her opinion?
Are allegations of the Jewish community spread their point of view always anti-Semitic? They can be, and often are, as the IHRA definition suggests. But not always. That is part of what makes the IHRA definition problematic.
The aftermath of the Antoinette Lattouf case – the freelancer who sued the ABC after her contract for a week’s work on air was torn up – demonstrated the existence of organised lobbying.
The justified complaints of the doxxing of several hundred people involved in a WhatsApp group called ‘J.E.W.I.S.H creatives and academics’ have been described as anti-Semitic.
The Nine papers reported “Executive Council of Australian Jewry president Daniel Aghion, KC, said that since Israel’s war against Hamas began, Jewish people living in Australia have felt unprecedented levels of fear and anxiety about their physical safety and livelihoods. ‘In the last few days this has been caused by the publication of lists containing the names, faces and other personal information of hundreds of individuals, whose only common trait is that they are Jewish,’ Aghion said.”
One of the campaigners involved in responding to the Bondi massacre describes what happened as “organic”
“I was one of the organisers of BondiResponse.com, a grassroots initiative that began quietly and then moved with a speed and force that surprised even those of us closest to it,” Danny Berkovic wrote in the Australian Financial Review. “It started with a small group of four Australians – Jews and non-Jews – who, until then, had only loose and informal business connections. We were not a political group, an advocacy organisation, or a coordinated lobby. We simply agreed on one thing: the federal government should establish a royal commission into the antisemitic terrorist attack at Bondi.”
Berkovic may sound more credible to many than Wilcox. The point is that we have the freedom to choose what we think happened, and perhaps the truth lies between.
What has Nine apologised for?
A few days after the cartoon was published, the Nine papers editorialised about it. “After days of silence, Nine finally apologises for ‘Jew-hating’ cartoon,” is how The Australian headlined it.
The Nine papers editorial read: “Many of our readers found the cartoon thought-provoking. It is undeniable, however, that many others in the community, particularly Jews, were deeply hurt and offended by it. We have heard their distress, and for this pain, we sincerely apologise.”
They did not apologise for the cartoon itself.
Instead, they wrote. “This masthead stands in support of free speech, but it acknowledges the harm it is capable of causing. There is no place in this country for hate speech. There must, however, be room for people to express their views on politics and world events. Wilcox and other cartoonists must be allowed to continue to draw the world as they see it.”
Offence and free speech
It is clear – certainly from the quotes in this piece – that the Jewish community were offended by the cartoon. That is informed by their historically based sensitivity to anti-Semitic tropes concerning alleged Jewish power and conspiracies. And there is plenty of room to doubt that Cathy Wilcox has read the circumstances of those petitions correctly.
Perhaps, as in the Lattouf case, we will find out someday. Hopefully without doxxing.
The Wilcox case and the Adelaide Writers Week imbroglio point to the same thing: what are the limits of free speech?
In the case of Randa Abdel-Fattah, whose banning from Writers Week, by the Adelaide Festival Board, has led to chaos, she has expressed a view that Israel should not exist, and that Zionists should not have cultural safety.
Very upsetting to many Jews, offensive to many, but not a call to violence in Australia.
To advocate for free speech for Wilcox and Abdel-Fattah is not to agree with, approve of or attach credibility to their views.
A cartoonist or a writer at a writers’ festival have similar roles, where the right to free speech is stretched the widest. To ban a cartoonist or strike a writer off the writers’ festival needs extremely strong grounds. Whether Wilcox or Abdel-Fattah is correct is beside the point – instead, we need to ask whether they have reached the high bar of hate speech.
In Wircox’s case, she has made a community uncomfortable, but has not incited hate in my view. Being less familiar with Abdel-Fattah’s work, I reserve judgment.
We can expect the Bondi Royal Commission to discuss the bounds of free speech and maybe draw some lines. That won’t be a quick or easy process.