Key Takeaways
- A prominent Australian lawyer, Robert Richter, is opposing calls for a royal commission into antisemitism despite a growing consensus among senior legal figures that it is necessary.
- Richter argues that a royal commission would be premature until the government’s intelligence and security review, led by Dennis Richardson, has reported its findings.
- He also disputes the idea of defining antisemitism, particularly the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition, which he believes restricts political speech and criticism of Israel.
- A broad coalition of senior legal figures, including former chief justices and judges, is calling for a federal royal commission with statutory powers and public transparency to address antisemitism.
- The issue has gained significant attention following a terrorist attack on a Chanukah event that left 15 dead and widespread fear among Jewish students and communities.
Introduction to the Debate
The question of whether a royal commission should be established to investigate antisemitism in Australia has sparked a heated debate among senior legal figures. Robert Richter, a prominent lawyer with a long history of defending high-profile clients, has found himself at odds with a broad coalition of former chief justices, judges, and senior silks who are advocating for a federal royal commission with statutory powers and public transparency. Despite the growing consensus that antisemitism has reached a point that demands a royal commission, Richter remains unmoved, arguing that such a move would be premature until the government’s intelligence and security review, led by Dennis Richardson, has reported its findings.
The Case for a Royal Commission
The coalition of senior legal figures, which includes former chief justices, judges, and the inaugural Commonwealth director of public prosecutions, Ian Temby, KC, argues that antisemitism has reached a crisis point in Australia. They cite examples of arson attacks on synagogues and Jewish businesses, vandalism of Jewish MPs’ offices, and widespread fear among Jewish students. In their letter, they argue that a departmental review lacks the independence and authority required to address the issue and that a royal commission is necessary to provide a comprehensive and transparent investigation. The letter also highlights the need for a federal royal commission to have statutory powers, which would enable it to subpoena witnesses and gather evidence.
Richter’s Opposition
Richter, who has a long history of defending clients against serious charges, including Cardinal George Pell and Melbourne underworld figure Mick Gatto, does not dispute the facts cited by the coalition of senior legal figures. However, he disagrees with their remedy, arguing that a royal commission would be premature until the Richardson review has reported its findings. Richter also expresses concerns about the definition of antisemitism, particularly the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition, which he believes restricts political speech and criticism of Israel. He argues that any inquiry should examine hate speech and discrimination holistically, across race, religion, sex, and ethnicity, rather than isolating antisemitism as a standalone category.
Richter’s Background and Perspective
Richter’s perspective on the issue is informed by his personal background and experiences. Born in 1946 in the Kyrgyz Republic of the former Soviet Union, Richter’s family was displaced during World War II, and he spent time in a refugee camp in Germany before moving to Israel. He describes himself as a "post-Zionist" and has been critical of identity-based politics, including when it enters the legal domain. Richter’s experiences have shaped his skepticism of authority and his commitment to defending clients against serious charges. His opposition to a royal commission into antisemitism reflects his broader concerns about the restriction of political speech and the need for a holistic approach to addressing hate speech and discrimination.
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Definition
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism has been endorsed by the Albanese government and 34 other countries. However, Richter argues that the definition is "polluted" and restricts political speech and criticism of Israel. Many dispute this, pointing out that the definition explicitly states that criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. The debate surrounding the IHRA definition reflects the complexity and sensitivity of the issue, with different perspectives on what constitutes antisemitism and how it should be addressed.
Conclusion
The debate surrounding a royal commission into antisemitism in Australia reflects the complexity and sensitivity of the issue. While a broad coalition of senior legal figures is advocating for a federal royal commission with statutory powers and public transparency, Robert Richter remains opposed, arguing that such a move would be premature until the Richardson review has reported its findings. The issue highlights the need for a nuanced and informed discussion about antisemitism, hate speech, and discrimination, and the importance of finding effective ways to address these issues in a holistic and transparent manner.