Tuesday 30th of June 2026
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

exposing the genocide in palestine isn't antisemitism....

Former SBS journalist Mary Kostakidis was back in court on Monday, defending herself against racial discrimination claims by the Zionist Federation of Australia. Stephanie Tran with the update.

As the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion began its third hearing block, two of Australia’s highest-profile legal disputes arising from criticism of Israel returned to the Federal Court on Monday.

 

WhatsApp battle. Zionist action v Mary Kostakidis drags through discovery

by Stephanie Tran

 

In separate hearings, the court dealt with interlocutory disputes in proceedings brought by Zionist complainants against veteran journalist and former SBS news presenter Mary Kostakidis and University of Sydney academics Nick Riemer and John Keane.

Battle over WhatsApp messages

Kostakidis is seeking access to communications within a WhatsApp group known as “Lawyers for Israel”, including:

“All documents recording communications sent and received by members of the WhatsApp group called ‘Lawyers for Israel’, in the period 6 December 2023 to 14 July 2024 inclusive, referring or relating to the respondent.”

Her legal team argue that the messages are relevant to the motivations behind Zionist Federation of Australia chief executive Alon Cassuto’s decision to commence racial discrimination proceedings against Kostakidis.

The Zionist Federation opposed the request, arguing the communications were not relevant to the proceedings. The ZFA also broadly opposed Kostakidis’s proposed discovery categories, arguing that compliance would require “approximately 200 hours of work” and impose a substantial burden on the organisation.

In an affidavit filed by its solicitor, the ZFA said it is a “small organisation with limited financial resources”, employing approximately “20 employees and volunteers in Australia and two staff overseas”. It said approximately 90% of its staff had changed since 2024.

Doxxing concerns

At the same time, Cassuto is seeking discovery of Kostakidis’s own communications concerning the case, including:

“All documents recording any communications to or from the Applicant in the period 4 January 2024 to 14 July 2024 inclusive, referring or relating to the respondent (including communications referring or relating to posts by her on the social media platform X).”

Counsel for Kostakidis, Sheryn Omeri KC, argued that the identities of third parties contained in the documents should be redacted.

“It’s a matter for Mr Cassuto to justify. Why does he need the names of third parties?” Omeri told the court, adding any confidentiality arrangements should operate reciprocally.

“The confidentiality protocol would apply both ways. So, for example, if an order were made for discovery of the Lawyers for Israel WhatsApp chat messages referring to Ms Kostakidis, in the first instance, the names and mobile phone numbers … we would expect them to come to us redacted.”

Omeri told the court that disclosure of names could expose third parties to adverse consequences.

An affidavit filed by Kostakidis’s solicitor, Jack Vaughan, states:

“The respondent is concerned about the exposure to the applicant (and thus to the Zionist Federation of Australia (ZFA) and potentially to other Zionist organisations) of the personal information of persons who have corresponded or been involved with her. She is also concerned that such persons may be at risk from the ZFA or other Zionists or Zionist organisations of ‘lawfare’ (such as she perceives the present claim against her to be) or other harassing behaviour.”

Counsel for Cassuto and the ZFA, Colette Mintz, rejected suggestions that there was a risk of misuse of the material.

“Nobody has engaged in doxing on our side, so we don’t really understand what the complaint is,” Mintz told the court. She said legal practitioners were bound by the Harman undertaking, which restricts the use of documents obtained through litigation.

Public campaign

Omeri argued the proceedings should be understood in the broader context of the Zionist Federation’s public campaign surrounding its complaint against Kostakidis.

She referred to the ZFA’s 2024 announcement and press conference concerning its complaint against Kostakidis before the complaint had been lodged with the Australian Human Rights Commission. The press conference was conducted by both Cassuto and ZFA President Jeremy Leibler.

“The point is that it took place before the complaint had been filed, and we say that the objective of the press conference was to contribute to creating a chilling effect against prominent Australians like Ms Kostakidis, who are critical of the conduct of the State of Israel,” she submitted.

Omeri pointed to the close relationship between Cassuto’s solicitors Arnold Bloch Leibler and the ZFA.

“Both ABL and the Liebler family – which we understand comprises at least three lawyers, Mark Liebler, Jeremy Liebler the president [of the ZFA], and Rafael Liebler – is a platinum sponsor of the Zionist Federation of Australia”

“It looks as though the applicant has not brought these proceedings in his personal capacity, but rather at the behest of a legal practitioner, perhaps his law firm or one or more lawyers of that firm.”

Omeri cited Leibler’s response to a journalist at the press conference asking what outcome was being sought from the AHRC complaint as evidence that the proceedings were not brought by Cassuto in his personal capacity.

“Mr. Liebler replied in a way that was telling of this case not being brought by Mr. Casuto in his personal capacity. Mr. Liebler replied, ‘this is really about sending a message’, and he goes on to say, ‘I would hope that this would send a message to all Australians’.”

She argued that the proceedings formed part of a broader campaign intended to deter criticism of Israel, telling the court:

The aim of this proceeding is a campaigning one to cause a chilling effect.

Justice McDonald reserved his decision on the discovery applications. The matter is listed for a three-week hearing beginning on 30 November.

Earlier this month, Mary Kostakidis won the Consortium News’ 2026 Gary Webb Freedom of the Press Award for challenging mainstream narratives on foreign policy and war reporting. The award is named in honour of US journalist Gary Webb, whose reporting on the CIA and the Contra cocaine scandal was later vindicated in part by an internal CIA investigation.

Riemer and Keane cases strung out

In a separate hearing on Monday, Justice Kennett allowed applicants in the Federal Court proceedings against University of Sydney academics Nick Riemer and John Keane to file the fourth version of their statement of claim.

In a statement, Riemer said he was concerned about the delays in the case.

“It is now coming up to 14 months since this case began in the Federal Court, and we still haven’t been able to file our defence,” he said.

“During the course of today’s hearing, the judge made it clear that he expected this next attempt by the applicants to change their case to be the last, and expressed the hope that the case will be able to come to trial without further delays. We share this hope fully.”

The applicants have until Friday to file their amended pleadings, while Riemer’s legal team has until 24 July to respond.

“As our case becomes a legal saga, we are mindful that lawfare attacks against Palestine supporters in the developed world do not compare in any way with the nightmare being endured by Palestinians in Gaza and, increasingly, the West Bank. Our opponents’ delay tactics and slanders only strengthen our determination to campaign for justice for Palestine,” Riemer said.

https://michaelwest.com.au/mary-kostakidis/

 

PLEASE VISIT:

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

         RABID ATHEIST.

         WELCOME TO THIS INSANE WORLD….

 

 

bad health....

 

Sue Wareham, Paul Komesaroff

Health regulator should reverse decision on IHRA definition of antisemitism

 

It is unclear why the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency has chosen now to adopt the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism as a ‘reference tool’.

The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra) has taken a deeply divisive, politically charged decision that goes beyond its social and statutory roles. It should be reversed.

Since the beginning of Israel’s assault on Gaza two and a half years ago health professionals around the world have spoken out against the repeated attacks on hospitals and health personnel, the mass killings of civilians, including children, their forced starvation, and restrictions on access to medications and humanitarian relief. Criticisms have also been expressed by governments and international agencies, including those of the United Nations. The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants against several Israeli government ministers, including the Prime Minister, and the International Court of Justice is deliberating in a case accusing the government of genocide.

In Australia, grave concerns about the actions of the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) have been widely expressed in the health professions, the universities, the arts and elsewhere, despite many attempts to suppress them as being antisemitic. For journalists and parliamentarians also, it has been made abundantly clear that they criticise Israeli actions at their peril.

This is the context of the announcement on 17 June 2026 by the Ahpra CEO, Justin Untersteiner, together with the Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, Jillian Segal, that Ahpra has decided to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism as a ‘reference tool’. This raises extremely important questions about the potential implications and the proper role of the statutory health regulator.

The IHRA definition of antisemitism has been widely and repeatedly criticised by multiple individuals and organisations, including leading global human rights bodies, Israeli groups, historians and other scholarly commentators, and many others. The key issues relate to its vague and illogical wording and its repeated use to silence legitimate criticism of the actions of the Israeli government and the IDF.

The definition states that: ‘Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews’. Many commentators have pointed out that this statement can be applied to find antisemitism in almost any context. However, the main concerns relate to the eleven illustrative examples that follow it, which include references to criticisms of the State of Israel, denying Jewish self-determination and holding Jews collectively responsible for Israeli government actions.

Scholars, including Kenneth Stern, one of the principal drafters of the original working definition, have pointed out that it was never intended to be more than an educational and data-collection tool and so should not be used as a device to regulate discourse. Philosophers and historians have expressed concern that the examples blur the distinction between hostility towards Jews and legitimate criticism of the policies of the government of Israel.

The Jewish Council of Australia summarised the problem well in its submission to the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion:

Definitions that conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism are harmful and counterproductive. They suppress political speech and debate, deepen division between communities, and risk intensifying the very antisemitism they purport to address. The IHRA working definition, as currently applied, and the Universities Australia definition, are the most significant examples of this problem.

No reasonable person contests that antisemitism is a real and deeply destructive form of prejudice that should be condemned and addressed wherever it occurs. The question, however, is why Ahpra has chosen to adopt a politically biased and intellectually flawed device that threatens fundamental Australian values.

Ahpra is not a political organisation. It is a statutory regulator established under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law. Its paramount responsibility is to protect the public by ensuring that health practitioners are suitably qualified and practise safely and professionally. It must exercise its powers consistently with the National Law, administrative law principles, procedural fairness and the professional standards governing Australia’s registered health professions. These standards emphasise respect, non-discrimination, cultural safety, fairness, diversity and evidence-based decision-making.

Against this background, a number of questions naturally arise. Why is Ahpra departing from its long-established obligation to maintain institutional neutrality regarding contentious public issues? Most importantly, how does it intend to use this ‘reference tool’? Will it play any role in disciplinary proceedings? Will it be applied in the assessment of complaints against practitioners?

These are not hypothetical concerns. Numerous complaints arising from public commentary on the war in Gaza – many of them recognised even by Ahpra as vexatious – have already been made against Australian health professionals. If the boundary between criticism of a government and hostility towards Jewish people becomes blurred, uncertainty may be introduced into regulatory processes that require clarity, consistency and procedural fairness. Far from reducing the impacts of vexatious notifications, a definition of antisemitism that further weaponises the notifications process is likely to increase them.

Not only do health workers have a right to engage in advocacy for the protection of healthcare wherever it is under attack; there is a collective professional responsibility to do so. The IHRA definition arbitrarily introduces an element of risk for health workers who attempt to fulfill this responsibility by speaking out in relation to Israel’s destruction of health care in Gaza, despite the widespread condemnation globally of this destruction. Ahpra’s decision is contrary to the core values of both medicine and Australian society generally.

There is yet another matter of concern. The Ahpra announcement also commits to the establishment of an advisory panel of practitioners, ‘including those with lived experience of notifications underpinned by antisemitism’. No similar commitment has been made to those who have experienced other forms of discrimination, such as Islamophobia. This is in spite of an Australian government Ministerial Policy Direction in 2025 requiring Ahpra to improve health practitioner responses to racism and discrimination broadly, including, but not limited to, antisemitism.

Finally, it is unclear why Ahpra has taken this step, and why now, when pre-existing mechanisms already provide ample scope to manage instances of racism, including antisemitism.

Any perception that some forms of racism will be tolerated more than others potentially undermines trust in the regulator itself as a nonpartisan agency. The only acceptable course of action now is for Ahpra immediately to retract this decision and to undertake a broader public consultation.

Our health regulator must be politically impartial, conceptually rigorous and firmly focused on its statutory purpose: protecting the public through fair and evidence-based regulation.

https://johnmenadue.com/post/2026/06/health-regulator-should-reverse-decision-on-ihra-definition-of-antisemitism/

 

READ FROM TOP.

PLEASE VISIT:

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT — SINCE 2005.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

         RABID ATHEIST.

         WELCOME TO THIS INSANE WORLD….