Why the IHRA Definition Was Never Meant To Stop Antisemitic Violence
After a deadly attack at Bondi Beach, debate in Australia turned to familiar but unresolved questions about antisemitism, speech, and violence. Not whether a definition can stop an attack, but whether societies are even speaking the same language when they talk about antisemitism at all. That tension sits at the center of my article on Australia’s adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism and what it was designed to do.
Australia formally adopted IHRA in 2021 as a reference point, not as a criminal standard. The definition is explicitly nonbinding, and the country did not write it into legislation or use it to expand police or prosecutorial powers. Criminal law, intelligence work, and counterterrorism tools remained unchanged. The article makes clear that expecting a policy definition to prevent violence misunderstands its purpose.
Give the gift of hope
We practice what we preach:
accurate, fearless journalism. But we can't do it alone.
- On the ground in Gaza, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and more
- Our program trained more than 100 journalists
- Calling out fake news and reporting real facts
- On the ground in Gaza, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and more
- Our program trained more than 100 journalists
- Calling out fake news and reporting real facts
Join us.
Support The Media Line. Save democracy.
Much of the public controversy has focused on free speech. Australia’s core race-hatred provisions, Sections 18C and 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, were untouched by IHRA adoption. Speech that was lawful before 2021 remains lawful today, and courts apply the same legal tests. IHRA does not function as a charging standard or a shortcut to prosecution.
What the definition does offer is clarity in a space where consensus is often lacking. Antisemitism is not always recognized as such, particularly when it appears in political or ideological forms. IHRA provides a shared vocabulary for institutions, educators, and policymakers to identify patterns that might otherwise be dismissed or misunderstood.
The article also separates antisemitism from extremism and violence. Hatred can fuel extremist movements, but not all antisemitism leads to violence, and violence is addressed through criminal law, not definitions. Australia’s approach mirrors that of other democracies, including the UK, Germany, Canada, the US, and Israel, which treat IHRA as guidance rather than law. The full article explores why that distinction matters.
