Australian Supreme Court Judge rejects IHRA “definition” of antisemitism
JVL Introduction
We have written countless articles about the IHRA so called working definition of antisemitism that many, especially Jewish Establishment organisations and far too many governments choose to regard as the internationally recognised definition of antisemitism. It is not and concerns over its (mis)use have been made even by the original author, Kenneth Stern as we reported in 2018.
We are publishing this because the IHRA non definition is still taken seriously and many want this seen as some sore of gold standard and so we cannot ignore it. It is rare to hear a practising Judge making the case so clearly. Among many helpful (if obvious to us) remarks cited below he said that the IHRA is detached from reality and that “its tendency, and the apparent purpose of promoting it, is to graft onto the community’s abhorrence of antisemitism, understood as hostility to Jews for their Jewishness, a parasitic rejection of protest against Israel”.
He said it is wrong to act as though Jews monolithic and all support Israel. While it is absolutely right that the Australian government should seek to address antisemitism seriously, especially after the horrific attack on a Jewish event on Bondi Beach last December, the push for the adoption of the IHRA is the wrong response and, according to Justice Fagan, would have no legal standing even if it is government policy to adopt it.
Above all the IHRA “definition” is used to silence the voices of those standing for justice for Palestinians, for sanctions and accountability for Israel at a time when their crimes against the Palestinian people are worse than ever and the overwhelming majority of people in the world are opposed to what Israel is doing.
This article was originally published by Deepcut News on Tue 18 Aug 2026. Read the original here.
NSW Supreme Court criticises IHRA definition as 'detached from reality'
Justice Fagan says Zionism ‘open to criticism’ in decision on graffiti case
Loading article text…
Wonderful read.
A judge who has arguably stated the obvious. I’m sure it won’t go down well…and what normally follows is some event to prove the law wrong.
There is a momentum to push the IHRA.
Australia in its ignorance is pushing it so it becomes nation brainwashing.
In fact the goal is nation brainwashing and those who oppose it are labelled terrorists and a threat to the state.
Hurrah.. at long l, long ast!
Hoping the Australian government will listen to Fagan, as the UK failed to do when Sedley and Bindman raised their voices
In an interview with David Frost many years ago, the late Oswald Mosley, the leader of the BUF (British Union of Fascists) before WW2 claimed that he was not an antisemite because an antisemite is one who hates the Jews as Jews.
An interesting commentary on Mr Justice Fagan’s own justification for his rejection of the IHRA definition. He and Mosley would appear to be ad idem