Australian Government Considers Appeal Over Controversial Judge's Ruling on Antisemitism Case
The New South Wales government in Australia is considering appealing a controversial Supreme Court decision that rejected its request to impose a terrorism control order on a Sydney resident convicted of antisemitic vandalism and arson in late 2024. The case involves 22-year-old Mohammed Farahat, who was sentenced to one year and eight months in prison for a 41-minute spree of graffiti and vehicle arson in eastern Sydney, causing over AUD 100,000 in damages. Among the graffiti were slogans such as "Fuck Israel" and "PKK coming," referencing the Kurdistan Workers' Party, designated a terrorist organization in Australia.
Justice Desmond Fegan of the New South Wales Supreme Court sparked controversy last week by sharply criticizing the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which Australia has officially adopted. Fegan described the IHRA definition as "too detailed and inaccurate" and "detached from the reality" of how antisemitism is understood and used in Australia. His ruling dismissed the government's request for an extended supervision order on Farahat after his expected release in October.
The decision has drawn strong criticism from the Australian Jewish community. Alex Ryvchin, CEO of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, called Fegan's approach "judicial activism" and expressed concern that the ruling ignores the facts and impact of the antisemitic attack on the Jewish neighborhood. Ryvchin emphasized that the IHRA definition is widely accepted by the Jewish community, major political parties, universities, and sports organizations in Australia. He urged for an appeal, warning of the dangers if the ruling stands.
A government spokesperson stated that Attorney General Michael Daley is urgently seeking advice on the prospects of an appeal. The spokesperson also reaffirmed the government's commitment to combating antisemitism and hatred, while respecting the judiciary's independence. The controversy highlights ongoing tensions in Australia over defining and addressing antisemitism in law and society.
