ANALYSIS: By Andrew Brown

Australia is being told it faces an unprecedented wave of antisemitism — a crisis requiring extraordinary measures, including a Royal Commission. But police data, court findings, and parliamentary evidence tell a very different story.

This is not a story about denying antisemitism. It is about how inflated claims are being used to silence criticism of Israel, criminalise protest, and narrow democratic space.

Australia is being told it faces a moral emergency so grave it justifies extraordinary measures.

A sweeping wave of antisemitism, unprecedented in scale, is said to be engulfing the country, demanding heightened policing, vast public funding, and now a Commonwealth Royal Commission.

A manufactured narrative?

The claim has been repeated so often it has hardened into common sense. But when examined against evidence rather than repetition, the crisis begins to dissolve. What remains is not a surge in antisemitic violence, but the manufacture of a narrative

and its rapid elevation into state doctrine.

This is not denial of antisemitism. Antisemitism is real, dangerous, and must always be confronted where it occurs.

What is being challenged here is the scale, the framing, and the political use of the claim. When slogans replace evidence, the alleged crisis collapses.

Start with the numbers. Australians are repeatedly told there were around 1200 antisemitic incidents in New South Wales and more than 2000 nationally. These figures are treated as settled fact by politicians and the media.

They are nothing of the sort.

They are not police statistics. They are not court outcomes.

They are self-reported incident logs compiled by advocacy organisations using expansive definitions that collapse political speech into racial hatred. Protest slogans, Palestinian flags, stickers, online criticism of Israel, opposition to Zionism, and support for Boycott Divestment and Sanctions are all counted alongside genuinely hateful conduct.

Dissent counted as hate
Once dissent is counted as hate, the number grows and its meaning evaporates.

When these claims were tested against formal state processes, the picture changed radically. Evidence to the New South Wales Upper House antisemitism inquiry showed that only around 13 to 14 incidents met the threshold for potential criminal prosecution.

New South Wales Police did not dispute this.

From 1200 incidents to low double digit chargeable cases is not a rounding error. It is a categorical difference. If Australia were facing a genuine wave of antisemitic violence, police data and court proceedings would reflect it. They do not.

“Australia is told [of] an unprecedented wave of antisemitism, a crisis requiring extraordinary measures, including a Royal Commission. But police data, court findings, and parliamentary evidence tell a very different story”#auspol https://t.co/ooKp2MqJz0

— 💧Michael West (@MichaelWestBiz) January 10, 2026

Fake terror plots
The panic has been sustained by a series of high profile incidents that do not survive scrutiny.

In Sydney, the so called caravan plot and multiple graffiti and vehicle fire cases were initially framed as antisemitic attacks. Later reporting revealed hoaxes, staged events, or criminal activity unrelated to antisemitism as a social phenomenon.

Corrections arrived quietly, long after the alarm had done its work.

The Melbourne Synagogue fire was, we are told, the work of Iran, so it too cannot be seen as a result of local antisemitism.

More damning still was evidence from police inquiries that hundreds of antisemitic incident reports were generated by a single individual, identified as a Jewish teenager who made more than 500 calls alleging threats and attacks. These reports were logged, counted, and publicly relied upon as indicators of a statewide and national surge before being identified as false or self-generated.

This is not a footnote. It exposes a systemic failure.

A reporting framework that allows one person to materially inflate incident figures is not measuring social harm. It is manufacturing it. When that data is amplified by media and cited by politicians as “proof” of crisis, the error ceases to be technical. It becomes political.

Political amplification has been decisive. Senior leaders talked up early claims before facts were settled. Media followed. Initial allegations raced into headlines. Clarifications barely whispered.

Public memory retained the fear, not the correction.

What is unfolding follows a pattern of “manufacturing consent” described decades ago by Noam Chomsky who observed that modern democracies rarely suppress dissent through force. Instead, they manage perception by narrowing the range of acceptable opinion while preserving the appearance of open debate.

Australians are still permitted to speak. They are encouraged to condemn antisemitism in the abstract.

But questioning the scale of the alleged crisis, interrogating the numbers, or insisting on a distinction between hatred of Jews and criticism of Israel is treated as suspect. This is not censorship. It is calibration.

‘Fake protesters’ narrative

The consequences have been most visible in the treatment of protest. Australia has seen one of the largest sustained protest movements in its modern history, with weekly demonstrations in support of Palestine drawing tens of thousands.

Jewish Australians march openly.

Jewish speakers address crowds. Jewish banners appear alongside Palestinian ones. The focus is ceasefire and accountability.

Yet these protests are relentlessly framed as incubators of antisemitism.

The misrepresentation following the October 8 gathering near the Sydney Opera House was emblematic. Claims of genocidal chanting were broadcast nationally and internationally. Those present publicly disputed the account.

The disputed version was amplified. The disavowals were marginalised. A contested moment was frozen at its most inflammatory interpretation and reused as an origin myth.

Sydney Harbour Bridge propaganda
The fracture became impossible to ignore after the Harbour Bridge march, one of the largest demonstrations in Australian history. No violence. No arrests. Jewish Australians marching openly.

Yet the event was branded a hate march by the government’s antisemitism envoy.

If a peaceful protest of that scale can be declared hate without evidence, antisemitism is no longer being identified. It is being declared. And once it can be declared, it can be weaponised.

That weaponisation has a clear objective: to shut down criticism of Israel.

As Israel’s war in Gaza has intensified and the occupation of the West Bank has deepened, the international conversation has shifted toward allegations of genocide, apartheid, and war crimes.

Rather than answer those charges, Israel’s defenders have sought to redefine the debate itself. The problem is no longer what Israel is doing. The problem is those who are talking about it.

Criticism of Israel is reframed as antisemitism. Opposition to Zionism is reframed as racial hatred. Support for Palestinian rights is reframed as extremism. Pro-Palestinian protest is recast as a domestic security problem rather than a human rights movement responding to mass civilian harm.

The endgame
This brings us to the endgame. The government’s mandate for a Commonwealth Royal Commission into antisemitism has now been released. It does not ask whether a nationwide antisemitism wave exists. It assumes one.

From its opening premises, the mandate proceeds on the basis that antisemitism is prevalent across Australian society and institutions and that protest, education, and political expression warrant scrutiny. These are not hypotheses to be tested. They are conclusions already reached.

This is not a fact-finding exercise. It is an implementation exercise.

Many Jewish Australians reject this strategy and stand openly with Palestinians. The issue is not Jewish identity. It is the instrumentalisation of antisemitism claims to silence dissent, suppress protest, and shield a foreign state from accountability.

Antisemitism must always be confronted where it exists.

But evidence must precede power.

Anything less is theatre.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

We call for a world in which technology is built in service of humanity and where our global public square protects human rights above profits.

Right now, the huge potential of technology to advance our societies has been undermined by the business model and design of the dominant online platforms.

But we remind all those in power that true human progress comes from harnessing technology to advance rights and freedoms for all, not sacrificing them for the wealth and power of a few.

We urge rights-respecting democracies to wake up to the existential threat of information ecosystems being distorted by a Big Tech business model fixated on harvesting people’s data and attention, even as it undermines serious journalism and polarises debate in society and political life.

When facts become optional and trust disappears, we will no longer be able to hold power to account. We need a public sphere where fostering trust with a healthy exchange of ideas is valued more highly than corporate profits and where rigorous journalism can cut through the noise.

Many governments around the world have exploited these platforms’ greed to grab and consolidate power. That is why they also attack and muzzle the free press.

Clearly, these governments cannot be trusted to address this crisis. But nor should we put our rights in the hands of technology companies’ intent on sustaining a broken business model that actively promotes disinformation, hate speech and abuse.

The resulting toxic information ecosystem is not inevitable. Those in power must do their part to build a world that puts human rights, dignity, and security first, including by safeguarding scientific and journalistic methods and tested knowledge. To build that world, we must:

Bring an end to the surveillance-for-profit business model

The invisible “editors” of today’s information ecosystem are the opaque algorithms and recommender systems built by tech companies that track and target us. They amplify misogyny, racism, hate, junk science and disinformation — weaponising every societal fault line with relentless surveillance to maximise “engagement”.

This surveillance-for-profit business model is built on the con of our supposed consent. But forcing us to choose between allowing platforms and data brokers to feast on our personal data or being shut out from the benefits of the modern world is simply no choice at all.

The vast machinery of corporate surveillance not only abuses our right to privacy, but allows our data to be used against us, undermining our freedoms and enabling discrimination.

This unethical business model must be reined in globally, including by bringing an end to surveillance advertising that people never asked for and of which they are often unaware.

Europe has made a start, with the Digital Services and Digital Markets Acts. Now these must be enforced in ways that compel platforms to de-risk their design, detox their algorithms and give users real control.

Privacy and data rights, to date largely notional, must also be properly enforced. And advertisers must use their money and influence to protect their customers against a tech industry that is actively harming people.

What an incredible, hopeful time in Oslo! Thank you for the dreams and the laughter, dear friends! #CourageON @NobelPeaceOslo https://t.co/zfvuHwWFxp

— Maria Ressa (@mariaressa) September 4, 2022

End tech discrimination and treat people everywhere equally
Global tech companies afford people unequal rights and protection depending on their status, power, nationality, and language. We have seen the painful and destructive consequences of tech companies’ failure to prioritise the safety of all people everywhere equally.

Companies must be legally required to rigorously assess human rights risks in every country they seek to expand in, ensuring proportionate language and cultural competency. They must also be forced to bring their closed-door decisions on content moderation and algorithm changes into the light and end all special exemptions for those with the most power and reach.

These safety, design, and product choices that affect billions of people cannot be left to corporations to decide. Transparency and accountability rules are an essential first step to reclaiming the internet for the public good.

Rebuild independent journalism as the antidote to tyranny
Big tech platforms have unleashed forces that are devastating independent media by swallowing up online advertising while simultaneously enabling a tech-fueled tsunami of lies and hate that drown out facts.

For facts to stand a chance, we must end the amplification of disinformation by tech platforms. But this alone is not enough. Just 13 percent of the world’s population can currently access a free press.

If we are to hold power to account and protect journalists, we need unparalleled investment in a truly independent media persevering in situ or working in exile that ensures its sustainability while incentivising compliance with ethical norms in journalism.

21st century newsrooms must also forge a new, distinct path, recognising that to advance justice and rights, they must represent the diversity of the communities they serve. Governments must ensure the safety and independence of journalists who are increasingly being attacked, imprisoned, or killed on the frontlines of this war on facts.

We, as Nobel Laureates, from across the world, send a united message: together we can end this corporate and technological assault on our lives and liberties, but we must act now.

It is time to implement the solutions we already have to rebuild journalism and reclaim the technological architecture of global conversation for all humanity.

We call on all rights-respecting democratic governments to:

1. Require tech companies to carry out independent human rights impact assessments that must be made public as well as demand transparency on all aspects of their business — from content moderation to algorithm impacts to data processing to integrity policies.

2. Protect citizens’ right to privacy with robust data protection laws.

3. Publicly condemn abuses against the free press and journalists globally and commit funding and assistance to independent media and journalists under attack.

We call on the EU to:

4. Be ambitious in enforcing the Digital Services and Digital Markets Acts so these laws amount to more than just “new paperwork” for the companies and instead force them to make changes to their business model, such as ending algorithmic amplification that threatens fundamental rights and spreads disinformation and hate, including in cases where the risks originate outside EU borders.

5. Urgently propose legislation to ban surveillance advertising, recognizing this practice is fundamentally incompatible with human rights.

6. Properly enforce the EU General Data Protection Regulation so that people’s data rights are finally made reality.

7. Include strong safeguards for journalists’ safety, media sustainability and democratic guarantees in the digital space in the forthcoming European Media Freedom Act.

8. Protect media freedom by cutting off disinformation upstream. This means there should be no special exemptions or carve-outs for any organisation or individual in any new technology or media legislation. With globalised information flows, this would give a blank check to those governments and non-state actors who produce industrial scale disinformation to harm democracies and polarize societies everywhere.

9. Challenge the extraordinary lobbying machinery, the astroturfing campaigns and recruitment revolving door between big tech companies and European government institutions.

We call on the UN to:

10. Create a special Envoy of the UN Secretary-General focused on the Safety of Journalists (SESJ) who would challenge the current status quo and finally raise the cost of crimes against journalists.

Presented by 2021 Nobel Peace Prize laureates Maria Ressa and Dmitry Muratov at the Freedom of Expression Conference, Nobel Peace Center, Oslo, Norway, on September 2, 2022. Republished from Rappler with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A former president of Kiribati warns the crisis involving the island nation’s government and the courts has left the country with a “dysfunctional judiciary” and put a question mark over its democratic system.

The Kiribati government suspended its chief justice in July and last Thursday immigration and police detained and attempted to deport High Court Judge David Lambourne.

They were unsuccessful after the country’s highest court ordered the Australian-born judge to be released.

The Court of Appeal stopped the government from deporting Lambourne pending a further hearing expected to be held this week, escalating further acrimony between the executive and judicial arms of the state.

Anote Tong, who was president of Kiribati from 2003 to 2016, says the issue of Judge Lambourne has clear “political connotations” because he is married to the leader of the opposition.

But, he said, the actions of President Taneti Maamau’s government bordered on contempt of court.

“The deportation order by the president [Maamau] is really in direct contravention to the decision by the court. So, whether the government is now in contempt of court is the question that really needs to be addressed,” Tong told RNZ Pacific.

“To be in direct conflict with the decision of the court here, I think we know what that means.”

‘Abiding by the laws of Kiribati’
In a statement, the government maintained that Judge Lambourne had breached his visa conditions and national laws and raised concern “by the overreach of the Court of Appeal” to issue an injunction to prevent his deportation.

The government said it “abides by the laws and the Constitution of Kiribati … to protect the interest of the people of Kiribati”.

It blamed “neocolonial forces” for “weaponising the laws enacted to protect” the i-Kiribati people “to pursue their own interest and suppress the will of the people”.

But Tong said the separation of powers is a fundamental principle of a democratic society.

“We have a constitution. We have the laws in place, and we have a court. The question is: are we adhering to these legal provisions?,” he asked.

“It looks like the government is crossing that boundary and delving into the purview of the judiciary.”

Tong said the problem between the government and Judge Lambourne began after the 2020 elections when his wife, Tessie Lambourne, was elected as leader of the opposition.

“There is no question about it,” he said, adding it did not “give an excuse for the government to ignore a court decision”.

He said until Kiribati amended its laws and constitution “to recognise that the separation of powers is fundamental to its democratic system of government, everything else that has been done will become illegal”.

International condemnation
The Commonwealth Magistrates’ and Judges’ Association (CMJA), the Commonwealth Legal Education Association (CLEA), and the Commonwealth Lawyers Association (CLA) have all raised concerns and said they were “alarmed” at the situation.

The associations have urged the Kiribati authorities to respect the rule of law and comply with orders of the courts.

“The associations are alarmed that the tribunals set up to investigate alleged misbehaviour by Judge David Lambourne and the Chief Justice William Hastings have yet to report on any findings,” they said via a joint statement.

“The associations are further alarmed that there has been an attempt to deport Judge Lambourne without due process being followed and he has subsequently now been arbitrarily detained by the authorities in Kiribati.”

CMJA, CLEA and CLA are urging the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) to consider the actions of the Kiribati government as a matter of urgency.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz