Australia's national broadcaster, ABC, has announced it will apply its own established hate speech guidelines rather than adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism. This move marks a departure from the approach taken by the ongoing Bondi royal commission, which has incorporated the IHRA definition in its proceedings.
The IHRA definition, widely recognised internationally, states: "Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities." It also includes eleven illustrative examples, some of which critics argue conflate legitimate criticism of the State of Israel with antisemitism.
The debate surrounding the IHRA definition is not unique to Australia. In the United Kingdom, the Government formally adopted the IHRA definition in 2016, a decision that has been supported by various Jewish community organisations. However, some academics, legal experts, and civil liberties groups in the UK have expressed concerns, mirroring those in Australia, that its application could stifle free speech, particularly regarding discussions about Israeli government policies and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Organisations like Liberty have argued that while the intention behind the IHRA definition is to combat antisemitism, its broad interpretation, especially concerning the illustrative examples, risks hindering legitimate political discourse. Conversely, proponents argue that the definition provides a crucial framework for identifying and challenging antisemitic behaviour, which has seen a concerning rise globally.
The ABC's decision underscores the complex balance broadcasters and public institutions must strike between upholding free speech principles and combating hate speech. It suggests a preference for internally developed policies tailored to their specific operational context and editorial independence, rather than a universally applied external definition that remains contentious.