Secret antisemitism research. Envoy Jillian Segal hides evidence?

Jillian Segal, a special ambassador of Antisemitism appointed by the government, refused to answer questions about the plan from the NSW Parliament. Emma Thomas Reports.

The special ambassador’s plan to fight anti -Semitism has been highly criticized since its release last month. The plan proposes a series of interventions between the government and civil society, including allowing the private ambassador to focus on immigration issues and to ‘monitor’ of public media.

Your plan is more controversial (and impractical) Recommendations are an offer to stop government financing from universities and art bodies that cannot meet the criteria of the private ambassador.

Since the publication of the plan on July 10, the critics condemned this. “authoritarian“,”insulting“,”forcing ideological conformity“While taking the risk of“ deepening community sections.Prejudiced argument ”,“ weak evidence ”and silence in Gaza And “Very thin as simultaneously [on facts…] And overly inflated in his suggestions”, Commentators say.worst Public Policy Documents produced in recent years ”.

Antisemitism: Trinity of Envoy Clouds Competition for Social Adaptation

Jillian Segal, the architect of the plan, withdrew from the public. This follows him Apparently badly prepared On July 10, ABC appearance (corresponds to the publication of the plan) and July 12 report The family details Trust’s donation of $ 50,000 for the progress of the right -wing lobby group, known to encourage racism and campaign against a indigenous voice.

But last week, a private ambassador A series of questions About the plan put forward by the Parliamentary Committee that questiones antisemitism in NSW.

Non -evidence policy offers

The lack of resources, statistics or quotes of the plan – that is, any evidence that can support and support the proposed policies – has been widely noted and criticized.

Still inside him reply For the NSW parliamentary investigation, Segal claimed that it was a “wide research base ile with özgüm assigned surveys, consultations with community organizations, and international comparisons”. “It is a policy frame based on both evidence and expert practice.”

However, he refused to provide evidence or explain any research carried out by his office, which was financed by the taxpayer by referring to the “safety and privacy causes”.

In particular, when it was asked which data or evidence supports the claim of systemic anti -Semitism in the Australian public sector, Segal simply re -revealed the claim that “there is evidence of antisemitic discrimination in some parts of the public sector”. Although it does not provide any of them, it proposes the committee to “review public data”. Again, such a data was not provided.

When the evidence of “external financing” supporting “clusters of anti -Semitism ında in Australian universities is requested, Segal pointed to“ reliable concerns ”that it could be only this“ ”. It was suppressed for certain universities that could not act against anti -Semitism or media organizations offering “false or distorted narratives ında, and did not provide any of them. Instead, he described this plan as “proactive” and “prudence ..

Neither in the plan nor in the NSW query, Segal does not specify a single part of the evidence or expert assessment from a national or international context to support the effectiveness of the anti -Semitism plan plan. It is possible to have none.

USA Iran’s bombed Israel, genocide revenues, Australian anti -Semitism is discussing

No evidence for the effectiveness of IHRA

Segal’s plan, the widespread adoption and implementation of Australia International Holocaust Commemoration Alliance (IHRA) Study Definition of Antisemitism – Including Examples of Explanatory Examples ”.

11 The explanatory example is quite controversial, because seven of them are about the criticism of the Israeli State of Israel, who now wants the prime minister. International Criminal Court For war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The examples are so contentious that Ihra’s decision -making body, the general manager itself did not approve them as part of the definition. IHRA defines examples only as “drawings çocan that can guide the organization’s own work. Segal’s definition of the definition of the definition of all the government, public institutions and regulatory organs with examples is that it is “required”

It goes far beyond IHRA’s own frame.

Firstly in 2005, the definition published by the European Union Agency, European Racism and Ysenhobi Monitoring Center, data collectionNot politics. In 2013, the definition was abandoned. In 2016, he was re -packed as the “non -binding work definition of IHRA’s antisemitism”.

In the nine years since the adoption of the definition by IHRA, no evidence has been provided that it was effective in the fight against anti -Semitism – not in Segal’s plan or external studies

Nor on Ihra’s own website.

However, there is a wealth academic And legal He shows that the definition encourages censorship and punishes the Israel’s speaking on international law violations and Palestinian rights advocacy. The efficacy of the definition – like Segal’s proposed plan – lies in the application of “proactive” and “precautionary”. And as a historian Avi shlaim statesCT

It has little to do with anti -Semitism.

David Gonski and Jillian Segal, Israel Lobby Heavies at the Gold Coast Antisemitism Summit