- by Paul Gregoire
- The Guardian
- Issue #2178
Boorloo/Perth Friday 16th February. ‘Is this a crime?’
Responding to a complaint about the recently enacted ‘prohibited hate groups’ regime, attorney general Michelle Rowland confirmed to the Australian National Imams Council (ANIC) that the framework and other hate crime measures passed on 20 January 2026 will not impinge upon Muslim religious leaders’ ability to criticise foreign governments or political ideologies.
In the lead up to the passing of the laws, a rising concern was whether the listing of groups assessed to be hate groups, which in turn prohibits them and criminalises their members, might be a means to suppress the diverse pro-Palestinian movement that has risen up locally since October 2023, and stamp out valid criticism of Israel and the genocide it’s committing in Gaza.
The letter was cosigned by home affairs minister Tony Burke and it addressed ANIC president Imam Shadi Alsuleiman, who’d written to the chief lawmaker concerned that the new laws prevented criticism of Israel and the political doctrine underscoring its settler colonial project, which is Zionism.
But the suggestion that Islamic preachers, and more broadly, the general public, can criticise Israel in the letter, counters what Rowland had previously told the ABC’s 7.30.
Despite Rowland’s assurances, the new hate group laws are so broad that they give no guarantee that criticising a political entity is protected if it to be considered by some to be a part of a religious identity.
While federal Labor, Rowland and Burke all remain in power, they might be able to ensure that reading of the law. If politicians with different views take office, this law could easily apply in the manner Alsuleiman is concerned about.
MIXED SIGNALS
Rowland’s letter claims that hate crime measures contained in the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026 won’t “prevent legitimate, nonviolent criticism of the actions of a foreign country or of particular political ideologies.” This suggestion covers hate group laws, the heightening of penalties around hate crimes and tightening of visa rules.
As the title of the bill suggests, these laws are being brought in to primarily “curb antisemitism” in the wake of the 14 December 2025 Bondi Beach mass murder which targeted a Jewish religious event. The news laws have been progressed at the same time as a combating antisemitism plan is being implemented by government.
That plan includes all levels of government and its institutions adopting the IHRA definition of antisemitism, which provides eleven examples of the prejudice. Seven involve Israel. The definition can be weaponised so that criticism of Israel is considered an assault on Jewish identity, and therefore, prejudicial. The Federal Court has recognised that this is a false conflation.
In response to questions from journalist David Speers on the ABC’s 7.30 on 20 January 2026, the day the hate group laws were passed, Rowland said that if someone linked to a group “accuses Israel of genocide or apartheid” and “Jewish Australians do feel intimidated” and the court finds a reasonable person would have this same reaction, then a group can be banned.
THE BROAD NET OF THE HATE GROUP LAWS
A representative from the ANIC has stated that the response from the AG and the home affairs minister has not eased the “heightened anxiety” in the community around what can and can’t be said in respect of such matters, and many fear the laws could be weaponised. The spokesperson noted that the language in the laws is exceedingly broad and lacks precise boundaries.
The hate groups regime is designed to protect the community from “social, economic, psychological and physical harm” by banning groups that engage in or promote hate crimes.
Here’s how it will work. The head of ASIO assesses a group, then tells the Australian Federal Police minister. If they agree and get Attorney General approval, then the governor general lists the group as banned. ASIO can move to have a group listed based on assessing it has “advocated or engaged in politically motivated violence or engaged in the promotion of communal violence” or that there is a risk that it might do so in the future.
Right now, Rowland and Burke have given their word not to progress a suggestion coming from the ASIO boss to list a group over its criticism of Israel and the nation’s policies as a hate group so as to criminalise it, which should provide some brief respite to those fearful of that development. Nothing in the law stops the top spy from trying to criminalise a group.
Yet, if the current attorney general and home affairs minister were replaced there would be nothing to prevent a hate group listing based on the conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism. If a party with a more authoritarian outlook won the next election, there is nothing to stop these laws being turned on pro-Palestinians, or any political opposition for that matter.
