A Landmark Australian Ruling on Antizionist Incitement – and Its Relevance to Canadian Law
- Rochelle Direnfeld
- 6 days ago
- 7 min read
Updated: 5 days ago
Recently, the Victoria Civil and Administrative Tribunal in Melbourne, Australia decided that the chant, “ALL ZIONISTS ARE TERRORISTS” incites hatred against the Jewish people. The Tribunal plays a role similar to human rights tribunals in Canada. However, its findings have relevance to analogous criminal legislation in Canada.
The Facts
On March 23, 2025, Hasheam Tayeh participated in a “pro-Palestinian” demonstration in Melbourne. Using a microphone connected to a portable speaker, he chanted:
AS LOUD AS YOU CAN!
ALL ZIONISTS ARE TERRORISTS!
ALL ZIONISTS ARE TERRORISTS!
Before doing so, he had derided the suggestion that those who call Zionists terrorists should be charged. Demonstrators surrounding him began to dance, clap, and sing as he continued his chant. The chant intensified and protestors continued to march.
Menachem Vorchheimer, a Jewish resident of Melbourne, applied to the Victoria Civil and Administrative Tribunal to have Tayeh sanctioned for racially and religiously vilifying Jewish people in breach of Victoria’s Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 (the Act). Although the Act is not criminal legislation, it is designed to “promote racial and religious tolerance by prohibiting certain conduct involving the vilification of persons on the ground of race or religious belief or activity” and to provide redress for the victims of such vilification.
More specifically, the legislation prohibits persons from inciting hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of other persons or a class of persons on the grounds of race or religious belief or activity.
A person has a defence against an accusation of religious vilification if they establish that they are engaged reasonably and in good faith in conduct for any genuine academic, artistic, religious or scientific purpose, or any purpose that is in the public interest. There are significant similarities between this language and Canadian hate propaganda offences, including public incitement and wilful promotion of hatred through vilification based on race or religion.
Tayeh’s Position
Tayeh argued that his chant of “All Zionists are terrorists” was NOT directed at Jews and that “Zionist” did not equate with “Jew”. He said (in language strikingly similar to the arguments made in Canada) that the chant was only directed at the current government of Israel and its actions after October 7, 2023, and those who supported it. Accordingly, initiating a chant of “All Zionists are terrorists”, is not racial or religious vilification of Jewish people.
Alternatively, he argued, even if his conduct ostensibly breached the Act, he was exempt from liability based on the available defences.
The Decision of the Tribunal
In determining whether Tayeh’s conduct was likely to incite hatred against Jewish people on the grounds of race or religious belief, Judge My Ahn Tran, writing for the tribunal, carefully reviewed Tayeh’s use of the words “Zionists”, “all”, and “terrorists” in the context of the demonstration.
She found that the word “terrorist” is a word prone to evoke an emotional response. It is one of the most negative labels possible to attach to a person. A terrorist is a person who seeks to further ideological goals through violent action which instils terror in a civilian population, an extremist who does not consider themselves bound by the rules which govern ordinary members of civil society, and a person against whom violent action is justified.
The term terrorist is more commonly associated with designated groups such as Hamas. To accuse all Zionists of being terrorists implies that it is not Hamas that ought to be labelled the terrorists (and overcome by force if necessary), but “All Zionists.”
As for the word, “Zionist,” Judge Tran relied on the evidence of community members as well as an expert in antisemitism who cited survey data as to whether Jewish Australians regard themselves as Zionist, (similar to the research conducted in Canada by Dr. Robert Brym). She declared:
“Zionists” is a word which is capable of a range of meanings. The term Zionist may be used to describe a person who is a member of a recognised Zionist group, such as Zionist Federation of Australia. It may be used to describe someone who actively advocates and supports the continuation of Israel as a Jewish state. It may be used to describe someone who self-identifies as Zionist. However, at its essential core, a Zionist is a person who supports the continued existence of Israel as a Jewish state.
Zionist does not mean Jew. Not all Jewish people are Zionists, in any sense of the word. Humans by their nature are complicated and diverse and entitled to forge their own beliefs and sense of identity. However, this case does not turn on the identity or beliefs of Jewish people, but on the emotional responses of ordinary rally participants.
“Zionist” is a term which carries with it a deep connection with Jewish people, in an etymological sense (drawn from the word “Zion” which can be used to mean Jewish people); in a semantic sense (it is concerned with the provision of a homeland to Jewish people); in a historical sense (particularly in its use in antisemitic propaganda, but also in its origins as a response to persistent antisemitic violence) and in a statistical sense (the evidence suggests that a large majority of Jewish people self-identify as Zionists, particularly when the term is defined broadly).
There is likely to have been a very strong association between Zionists and Jewish people in the minds of ordinary rally participants.¹
As for the word “all” in “All Zionists” Judge Tran found it means that everyone who could be described as a Zionist, without distinction, is also labelled with the extremely negative moniker “terrorist.” It carries with it the spectre of de-individuation.
Importantly, Judge Tran found that, in a context where there is likely to have been a strong association between Zionists and Jewish people in the minds of ordinary demonstration participants, the use of the word “all” serves to strengthen that association, and its potential for inciting hatred against Jewish people.
She goes on to consider the full context of the demonstration, including:
multiple placards bearing an inverted red triangle, a symbol of Hamas;
a placard with the words “Death to the Zionist regime”;
a man wearing a t-shirt with the words “Bash Zionists”;
two voices adding to the chant “All Zionists are terrorists” a chant of “Zionists rape children, Zionists rape children”;
a placard with the words “There is only one solution end the Zionist”;
two placards with an image of the Israeli prime minister doctored to resemble Adolf Hitler;
a placard with the words “War Pigs”;
a placard comparing the Warsaw ghetto with Gaza;
a placard saying “What would you have done during the holocaust? You’re doing it now”; and
a placard with a Star of David and the words “we will not be silent about genocide”.
She concluded that these repeated Nazi and Holocaust references strengthened the already strong association between “Zionists” and the Jewish people in the minds of ordinary rally participants.
In rejecting Tayeh’s reliance on the defences available under the legislation, she emphasized that they are only available where the conduct in question is engaged in both reasonably and in good faith. While protests about government conduct may be a matter of public interest, she found that:
The chant extended beyond the claimed purpose of protesting the actions of the current Israeli government and instead targeted supporters of the continued existence of Israel as a Jewish state;
The conduct was not reasonable in the circumstances; and
The respondent had not established that his conduct was undertaken in good faith within the meaning of the Act.
Accordingly, the defence was not established. Judge Tran concluded by finding that Tayeh had contravened the Act by initiating the chant “All Zionists are Terrorists”, which was likely to incite “hatred, serious contempt, revulsion or severe ridicule” against Jewish people.
Commentary
This decision is important in several ways:
In its understanding and declaration of what Zionism is, properly understood, and its deep connection to the Jewish people;
In its determination that the use of the term “all” when referring to a group carries significant implications. By applying such a collective label, individual identities within the group are erased, resulting in de-individuation. This process strips away personal characteristics and distinctions, reducing members to a monolith. De-individuation is widely recognized as a hallmark of racism, as it promotes stereotyping and facilitates prejudice by denying the complexity and diversity of individuals within the targeted group;
In its finding that characterizing “Zionists” – a group with a profound connection to Jewish identity – as “terrorists” can constitute unlawful vilification based on race or religion. By equating an entire group, closely linked to a particular faith and ethnicity, with criminality, such language is recognized as likely to incite hatred, contempt, or hostility towards members of that community. The judgment underscores the serious implications of making sweeping generalizations that target the collective identity of a religious or ethnic group, reinforcing that this form of vilification is not protected and is contrary to the principles set out in anti-discrimination law.
In exercising caution to ensure that protected speech (such as criticism of the government of Israel) is not treated as hate speech; and
In emphasizing that speech can only be evaluated in context, and that such context plays a critical role.
On a personal level, it is gratifying that this important decision aligns precisely with the training and education that ALCCA provides for police and prosecutors across the country. We explain the meaning of Zionism, as understood by the mainstream Jewish community, and the critically important distinction between criticism of Israel (protected speech) and speech that demonizes all Zionists and Israelis, “without distinction” – the precise language used by the Australia Tribunal. We also emphasize the importance of evaluating speech in the context of the entirety of the circumstances, as the Tribunal did.
This approach is also supported by the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism and its interpretation and use, as reflected in the Canadian Handbook on IHRA published by the Canadian government.
-30-
Endnotes
1. Vorchheimer v Tayeh [2026] VCAT 134, at paras. 61-63.
About the Author
Rochelle Direnfeld is ALCCA’s Senior Criminal Counsel. She was called to the Ontario bar in 1990 and has served in the Ontario Public Service for over 32 years as an assistant crown attorney, deputy crown attorney, crown counsel, and finally as Deputy Director for Toronto Crown Attorneys in the Criminal Law Division of the Ministry of the Attorney General. Rochelle retired from public service at the end of 2023. During her career, she prosecuted a wide variety of Criminal Code cases in the Ontario Court of Justice, Superior Court of Justice, and the Ontario Court of Appeal.
Rochelle is also the Chair of the Canadian Criminal Law Working Group, a national initiative bringing together leading criminal lawyers to strengthen the legal response to antisemitic hate crimes and support victims across Canada.
She has also been selected to join the Toronto Police Service Board’s Jewish Community Advisory Table, an initiative aimed at strengthening dialogue and collaboration between the Jewish community and the Toronto Police Service on issues of community safety and policing.