Proposals to legislate new antisemitism definitions raise hard questions about identity, equality before the law, and why Australia continues to avoid confronting its most entrenched forms of racism.

The NSW parliamentary coalition, yes, this one seems intact, is wishing to introduce to the NSW parliament another definition of antisemitism in addition to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition and make it a requirement that universities in the state sign up to it, enshrining it in law.

Apart from obvious political grandstanding, an own goal that brought the federal coalition undone following the Bondi massacre, there are a huge number of difficulties, double standards and hypocrisies associated with this proposition. What competency does a political movement have to legislate what is essential an ethical/religious proposition/standard?

If such legislation were to be ever taken seriously it would need to clearly reflect the pillars upon which Australian civil society is based. But what are those pillars? That is the difficulty. We can’t rely upon ‘mateship’ to be the sole definer of Australian life.

As Noel Pearson has wonderfully articulated, the pillars that existed following British settlement, including the White Australia Policy and Imperial Benevolence no longer apply. What has taken their place?

Again, as Pearson has frequently articulated, it is necessary to acknowledge Australians embrace three stories: First Nation’s History and Culture, British Institutions of law and governance, and Multiculturalism. Within and across these three stories, none of us has a single identity other than the important one, we are all Australian citizens. Some of us share the same religion but different ethnicity, and vice versa. We have geographical identities, sporting allegiances, and different levels of........

© Pearls and Irritations