A pair of Sydney University academics being accused of antisemitism over comments made following the October 7, 2023 attacks on Israel have asked a human rights watchdog to terminate complaints against them.
Scholars Nick Riemer and John Keane said in a statement that they had written to the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) to say the allegations against them were “baseless” and that the complainants had not engaged with the commission in good faith.
“The complainants and their lawyers have from the outset treated the AHRC’s process as nothing more than a necessary procedural hurdle before they can fast-track the matter to the court,” the statement said. “This explains why they have been fundraising for a class action in the Federal Court since at least June 2024, a move which they described from the start as ‘imminent’.”
The complainants, a group of Jewish staff and students at the University of Sydney, allege the two academics engaged in unlawful discrimination against Jewish people under section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act (RDA).
Plans for a class action suit
According to a November article in The Australian, the complaint mentions multiple public statements and social media posts by Riemer, including an X post on the day after the October 7 attacks, reading: “No progressive should feel the need to publicly condemn any choices by the Palestinian resistance … doing so just adds to the perception that their cause is unjust.”
Keane, the article said, had shared on social media “a picture depicting the Hamas flag”. Keane reportedly said that allegation was “absurd” and that the image he shared was simply of “green flags”.
The complaint also referenced a “social media post for which [Keane] was accused of doxxing Jewish academics by publishing an internal email”.
Keane’s social media post, published on X, included a screen grab of an “open letter” on freedom of speech that he had addressed to University of Sydney vice-chancellor Mark Scott and sent to about 40 Sydney University addresses, many of which were shared inboxes used by various faculties.
Another image in the post was of an email responding to the open letter, which copied in all of the addresses, and which contained a list of names of 17 people who had signed off on a retort to Keane.
Crikey understands the complaint against John Keane was brought by three staff and one student, and the one against Riemer by three staff and two students. The complaint against Keane was brought as a representative complaint on behalf of multiple other named individuals.
A 2024 information sheet that describes the complainants’ plans to launch a class action says the “lead applicants” named in the AHRC complaints are representative of a wider group of Jewish students and academics at the university who have experienced antisemitism and who could become part of the class action. The total cost for such a suit was estimated at $971,850.
The information sheet states:
Contributing to the proposed class action is not just a donation — it is an investment; an investment in the future of Australia’s Jewish community: a statement that we, as a people, will always stand with Israel, through thick and thin, and that Israel is not alone in the world. It will always have us, in the diaspora, behind it. We owe it to the people of Israel, and we owe it to ourselves, to take this action.
In their statement, Riemer and Keane said none of the complainants had tried to contact them before engaging in a “defamatory mainstream and social media campaign against us, well before the complaint had even been lodged with the AHRC”.
“The allegations against us — that we have breached section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act — are baseless. The complainants’ actions replicate the familiar ‘lawfare’ tactics employed by pro-Israel lobbyists internationally to suppress opposition to Israel’s regime of apartheid, military expansion, ethnic cleansing, planned genocide and the documented deaths of more than 45,000 Palestinians in Gaza alone,” the statement said.
The pair also said the complaint had been shared with the media “in disregard of the confidentiality of the AHRC’s process, as a cynical abuse of the AHRC”.
“The complainants simply have no case. Our doors are nevertheless always open to them for discussion, and we assure them that we remain committed to publicly explaining that our opposition to the genocide in Gaza is founded on the same principles of justice and equality that lead us to oppose all expressions of racism, antisemitism included.”
‘It’s just nonsense’
Solicitor Stewart Levitt, of the complainants’ legal team, told The Australian in November a Federal Court judgment on the allegations could “provide a litmus test” for identifying antisemitism, saying: “We think it’s important that the court rules that antisemitism cannot be camouflaged by using the term ‘Zionist’ as a code-word for ‘Jew’.”
“I think it would provide a benchmark for courts and for people who wanted to attack Jews, to consider their position, whether they can’t just say dreadful things about Jews by substituting the pronoun ‘Zionists’,” he told the newspaper.
Reached by Crikey on Wednesday, Levitt rejected the suggestion his clients were not prepared to engage in conciliation.
“It’s just nonsense … conciliation is an inherent part of the process of making a complaint to the AHRC,” he said. “We think the AHRC process should be followed, that conciliation should be undertaken, and there is no unwillingness on the part of our client to engage in conciliation.”
He also rejected the notion that fundraising for a legal bid was an indication his clients weren’t prepared to engage with the AHRC in good faith.
“Obviously no-one embarks upon a process that could lead to litigation without being prepared to embark on litigation … there is absolutely no substance in the claim that merely raising funds for a class action means you’re determined to embark on a class action, anymore than [claiming] someone who has a defence budget is determined to go to war,” Levitt said.
University eyes new anti-protest rules
Crikey understands the two complaints also allege the University of Sydney was “vicariously liable” for the alleged breach of the Racial Discrimination Act.
A spokesperson said the university was “cooperating with the Australian Human Rights Commission as they consider the complaints”, and added: “[We] are aware of the statement made by two of our staff in their personal capacity”.
“In the meantime, we’re continuing our work to balance our community’s right to both freedom of speech and to safety and wellbeing during these deeply challenging times — and to ensure our university is free from any form of discrimination,” the spokesperson said.
The university is currently examining its policies and processes following a review it commissioned, led by Bruce Hodgkinson, a senior silk specialising in work health and safety.
Students split over protest camp
The university asked for the review after a group of students set up a protest encampment on the main campus. Hodgkinson’s recommendations, all of which the university accepted in principle, included a ban on future protest camps and protests inside campus buildings.
It also suggested a “new civility rule”, which would “make clear that each person utilising a word or phrase is responsible at the time the word or phrase is used to identify to the audience the context in which it is used”. That suggested rule has led to claims Sydney University’s “proud history of rebellion”, which has included student protests involving the future prime minister Anthony Albanese, would come to an end.
Some Jewish students at the university told a parliamentary inquiry they had felt unsafe and unwelcome as a result of the protest encampment, and that they felt unsupported by the university.
Zac Morris, vice president of the Australasian Union of Jewish Students NSW, told Guardian Australia last year the encampment had made Jewish students afraid of attending campus.
“There’s this feeling of having to kind of hide. Things have progressed and are well past the point of what should be acceptable,” he said.
The protest organisers have maintained they are not antisemitic.
“Some protesters are Jewish themselves and say that their own struggles are very much linked up to the struggle for a free Palestine,” one of the protesters, Shovan Bhattarai, told Crikey last year.
Have something to say about this article? Write to us at letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication in Crikey’s Your Say. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.
