• Ian Robinson wrote about the flawed definition of ‘antisemitism’ at the heart of Special Envoy Jillian Segal’s proposal to combat antisemitism.
• John Wright examined the legitimacy of political power in democracies.
• Clare Heath-McIvor wrote about how a Victorian parliamentary inquiry into cults had sparked collaboration among cult survivors.

At the heart of the Special Envoy’s Plan to Combat Antisemitism recently released by Jillian Segal, Australia’s Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, is a flawed definition of ‘antisemitism’ published in 2016 by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). Unfortunately, it has since been unthinkingly adopted by many other organisations, including the Australian government in 2021.

Imagine that one day your neighbour knocks on your door and proceeds to tell you what to do. They might tell you how you can, or cannot, renovate your house. They might tell you how fast you are to drive your car. Or they might inform you that, from now on, you must pay them a certain amount of your income. If our neighbour were to do this, I think we would tell them: “Go jump in the lake.” Yet, the government tells us to do these types of things. But most of us, at least, do not tell the government to go jump in the lake. Why is this so? Why are we willing to do what the government says when we are outraged if anyone else tries to do it?

Of all the difficult issues parliamentary inquiries have sought to gain insight into, the Victorian Parliament’s examination of recruitment methods and the damage caused by cults and fringe groups may go down in history as one of the most complex. Cults and fringe groups not only frequently hide behind the opaque veil of ‘religious freedom’ but also are often nebulous organisations with no registrations, lines of accountability, policy, procedure or other means for victims to gain recourse.

For some years, I have been committed to seeing an end to the government funding of faith workers. I take this position as a minister in good standing in the Uniting Church. The principle of a secular society demands the non-preferencing of any religion and of religion generally. And I cannot see how any Christian mission or ministry, other than social services, can be authentic if it relies on public funding.