The Zionist lawsuit against Sydney Uni academics John Keane and Nick Riemer is – as is the suit against Mary Kostakidis – a mighty test case for free speech in Australia. Michael West reports.
Criticising Zionism and the state of Israel is *not* antisemitic. That is the guts of the defence in the case brought against two Sydney University academics in the Federal Court which kicks off tomorrow.
This is a significant case for free speech in Australia. Critical even. The lawsuits, brought under Australia’s Racial Discrimination Act against academics Professor John Keane and Nick Riemer are, in the opinion of this observer, lawfare; an attempt – as is the messy action against journalist Mary Kostakidis – to muzzle criticism of Israel and its atrocities against the Palestinians.
A mountain of costs
The interlocutory judgement in the Kostakidis trial foreshadows a long and difficult trial whose sheer costs may make it more of a contest of money than justice. More on this later.
The claim against Keane and Riemer is a similar story. It seeks to litigate the events and the myths of the Hamas attacks on Israel of October 7, 2023. And if the Judge rules that the examination of the events of October 7 are admissible, the case would have global impact.
Statement of Claim J Toltz v J Keane, Federal Court
Clause 26 is unlikely to be true for a start.
Israel has never held an inquiry into October 7, and apparently for good reason. Wild Israeli claims of “40 babies beheaded” and “mass rapes” have been discredited – there is no forensic evidence of Israeli rape victims – and it is not known how many of the alleged “1,200 Israelis” mentioned in the claim were killed by the IDF.
Will this be tested in Court? If so, we are in for a long and expensive case.
It has been established in Israeli media and elsewhere that the Hannibal Directive was invoked that day. Under the Hannibal Directive, the IDF was ordered to prevent “at all costs” the abduction of Israeli civilians or soldiers, possibly leading to the death of a large number of Israeli civilians and IDF personnel in the area at the time.
October 7 damage unlikely inflicted by Hamas small arms fire
Pictures of the carnage from that day prove the point that small arms fire from Hamas operatives could not have possibly caused so much destruction. Instead, by Apache helicopter gunships.
This is merely one disputed clause in the statement of claim and would prove costly for an Australian court to hear.
The “affected or aggrieved persons” making the Keane claim (it is not known who is funding it) – Zionist academics from Sydney University – assert they have been hurt by pro-Palestinian posts on social media; “offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated by the posting”.
MWM does not doubt that their feelings have been hurt. Feelings have been hurt daily on both sides since the events of October 7 and during the ensuing American/Israeli genocide in Gaza. Yet, the question should be asked … is an expensive court case testing the infamous clause 18c clause in the Racial Discrimination Act in the public interest?
Should the aggrieved persons win the case it will have a chilling effect on free speech in Australia. And in the Kostakidis case the stakes are arguably higher.
Mary Kostakidis
This week Justice MacDonald struck out parts of the statement of claim against Kostakidis while providing another opportunity for the applicants’ amended SOC to be amended again.
Taking to X, Mary Kostakidis tweeted that 18c was a “bad law, a lengthy and costly legal case can be brought against you by anyone who claims you are motivated by racism and are responsible for their feelings. And fair comment on a matter of public interest, and journalism, may be exceptions that can be pleaded, but that has to be proven at trial. Anyone involved in public discourse, including any journalist, must prove they are not motivated by racism.”
Proving that you are not a racists, proving intent, is a tough one. “It is not logically impossible that a particular news reporter, even when acting as a news reporter, might engage in particular acts because of people’s race or ethnic or national origin,” the Judge found. “Whether there is a basis to draw that conclusion in a particular case will depend on an assessment of the evidence in that particular case”.
Attempt to shut down genocide critics
Said Kostakidis, “The attempt to shut down criticism of a genocide is morally reprehensible and dangerous. Those trying to control the narrative will not prevail”. Her case is even more tricky than those engulfing Keane and Riemer as the Zionist Federation of Australia has cherry-picked a lot of her social media activity for its claim including tweets about Mossad and dead pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
It’s a test case for social media too, as the claim against her includes retweets, posts by other people, which may or may not be deemed to be endorsing a particular view. As she told MWM, “If I retweet Smotrich (Israel’s extremist finance minister Bezalel Smotrich) does that amount to an endorsement?”
The opening round of hearings in the Keane and Riemer cases will take place before Justice Kennett in the Federal Court of Australia in Sydney on Monday and Tuesday.
A large number of Jewish colleagues have defended Keane and Riemer’s statements. They have said the complainants ‘do not speak for us as Jewish people’, and demanded that the complaint, which they describe as vexatious, be dropped.
The University of Sydney too is in the crosshairs, also being sued because the plaintiffs claim the Uni has ‘vicarious liability’ for the statements of the defendants Keane and Riemer who claim that if Palestine supporters can’t say what they have said, then criticism of Israel will be outlawed under the law.
Free speech and journalism suffer poor legislation. What’s the scam with 18C?
Michael West established Michael West Media in 2016 to focus on journalism of high public interest, particularly the rising power of corporations over democracy. West was formerly a journalist and editor with Fairfax newspapers, a columnist for News Corp and even, once, a stockbroker.