In the last day, we have seen mourning ceremonies and rallies linked to the Islamic Republic of Iran following the death of Ali Khamenei, a ruler whose regime has been condemned globally for repression, executions, the suppression of women, and the sponsorship of militant proxies. Australians are free to hold views about foreign leaders. But when sympathy for an autocratic theocracy is expressed without moral scrutiny, we should ask: what exactly is being defended?

Even more troubling is what is happening at the cultural margins and sometimes in plain sight.

At Lakemba Night Market over the weekend, footage circulated of a mother encouraging her young child to stomp on a photograph of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. One may fiercely oppose Netanyahu’s policies. Many do. But teaching a child to enact ritualized hatred is not political education. It is conditioning. It is indoctrination.

Children are not born with geopolitical grievances or hate. They inherit them. Children in Gaza have been taught to hate and aspire to jihad and martyrdom, and then we imported approximately 3,000 of them without proper vetting processes.

When inflammatory rhetoric from certain clerics goes unchecked, rhetoric that frames global conflicts in religious absolutes or casts entire populations as enemies, the cultural damage compounds. Figures such as Wissam Haddad and Sheikh Ibrahim Dadoun have previously drawn scrutiny over controversial sermons and statements. Whether their speech crosses legal thresholds is for authorities to determine, and sadly we have seen a lack of enforcement. But the broader issue is this: are we failing to confront radicalization early, or are we waiting for its consequences? The evidence suggests the latter. It took the murder of 15 innocent Australians on Bondi Beach for the Prime Minister to act. He still appears to tolerate the intolerable, though some steps have been taken. How many more Bondi’s will occur before Australia finally draws the line, as countries such as Singapore and the United Arab Emirates have done?

Just last week, activist Hasheam Tayeh lost a court case after challenging legal findings related to his conduct at a protest. During that controversy, he was widely reported as declaring that “all Zionists are terrorists.” That kind of blanket denunciation is not political critique; it is collective condemnation. It assigns criminality to an entire category of people based on ideology, which is not in tune with Australian values. Rather, it is more in tune with the rhetoric of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

It also raises an obvious question: how many Zionists in Australia have attacked mosques, Muslim worshippers, or Islamic institutions? How many have overtaken university campuses or city streets with chants calibrated to sit just below the legal threshold while targeting Muslims or ideological opponents? None, and the full force of the law would be applied if they had. Collective labels rarely reflect individual conduct. Guilt in a democracy is personal, not ideological.

The principle cuts both ways. Antisemitism is intolerable. Anti Muslim hatred is intolerable. Political violence is intolerable. Selective outrage erodes credibility.

Australia should be equally clear about this: we should not allow or tolerate the celebration of organizations formally designated as terrorist groups under Australian law. Protest is protected. Advocacy for violence is not. Praising entities responsible for civilian bloodshed is not courageous dissent; it is a repudiation of the democratic framework that protects dissent.

When prominent public figures such as Mary Kostakidis, Craig Foster, Julian Assange, Ed Husic, Tony Sheldon, Clover Moore, Bob Carr, Mehreen Faruqi, David Shoebridge, and Larissa Waters, among many others, here and overseas appear at rallies where portraits of authoritarian leaders or flags associated with militant proxies are visible, the optics matter. Even if their stated intention is to advocate for peace or political change, standing in front of such imagery sends a signal. Public figures do not always control every banner in a crowd, but neither are they absolved from the symbolism surrounding events they choose to headline or legitimize.

In a democracy, symbolism is substance. If recognized terrorist organizations are being celebrated in the background, the question is not merely about free speech; it is about moral clarity.

The irony is stark. The theocratic state established by Ruhollah Khomeini and later led by Ali Khamenei has been widely accused of crushing dissent and violently suppressing protest. Thousands of Iranians have faced imprisonment or worse for demanding freedoms Australians exercise daily. Yet here, in a liberal democracy, some activists enjoy the full protection of those freedoms while appearing to romanticize systems that deny them.

Recent reports and social media footage show mosques in Australia mourning the death of Ruhollah Khomeini. Participants paid homage to a clerical leader whose regime executed political opponents, suppressed women’s rights, and exported violent ideology abroad. These gatherings are not just symbolic, they signal  endorsement of authoritarianism and theocracy, even if framed as cultural mourning. In some cases, these events included sermons glorifying martyrdom and jihad, raising serious questions about radicalization in religious spaces that should be promoting spiritual, not political, obedience.

Many socialists and left-wing activists in the West and in Iran initially welcomed the 1979 Iranian Revolution because it appeared to promise liberation from the rule of the Shah. Once the clerical leadership solidified its control, many of the leftist organizations that had been part of the revolutionary coalition were sidelined, suppressed, or executed. You cannot make this up. The celebration and jubilation yesterday by Iranians across cities in Australia and around the world demonstrated the relief that their country and their families back in Iran may finally be on a path toward the freedoms they lost 47 years ago. I was there at the Iran rally myself, handing out hamantashen for Purim with the Australian Jewish Association, sweets that celebrate the failure of Haman, the advisor to King Ahasuerus of Persia in the 5th century BCE, to eradicate the Jews. This year though, we like to call them Khameini-tashen, though I digress.

The discretion over visa decisions and national security settings ultimately rests with the Minister for Home Affairs, Tony Burke. With that authority comes responsibility: decisions must be consistent, transparent, and demonstrably grounded in genuine security concerns. If Australians perceive that standards are applied unevenly, tolerant toward some forms of extremism while restrictive toward others, trust erodes.

Tony Burke has defended canceling visas for visiting Israeli speakers on the basis that Australia will not accept people who come to spread hatred or division and has said that “people who come here to hate, we just don’t need them.” If Burke attended a Jewish community event, he would learn that hate is not what is being spread. He appears to have no issue canceling visas for Israeli speakers or even ministers of the Knesset yet accepts visa applications from those who do not appear to support Australian values.

Multiculturalism was never meant to mean moral relativism. It was meant to mean integration under shared democratic rules.

Australia does not need imported autocracy whether political or theological. It needs consistent standards enforced without fear or favor.

Freedom of speech, yes. Debate, yes. Religious freedom, yes.

Collective blame, no. Incitement, no. Glorification of terrorism, no. Authoritarian apologism, no.

If we fail to defend that distinction clearly, and we seem to be doing a good job of failing, we risk eroding the very freedoms we claim to cherish: one selective silence, one excused sermon, one calibrated chant at a time, and one terrorist attack at a time.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)