�鶹��ý

Two University of Sydney academics accused of antisemitism have had the first phase of their case terminated by the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC).��

Nick Riemer and John Keane wrote to the AHRC in January asking it to terminate its conciliation process on the grounds that the Zionist complainants never intended to engage in genuine conciliation. Instead, they planned from day one to take them to court.

In early April, Riemer and Keane received word that the AHRC had terminated the complaint as they had asked.��They will know by mid-June whether the complainants are willing to escalate the case to the Federal Court.

“We invited the Australian Human Rights Commission to terminate the Zionist “lawfare” complaint of “racial hatred” against us. We are pleased that this has now happened,” Riemer and Keane said on April 14.

The complainants, a group of Jewish staff and students at the University of Sydney, alleged the two academics had engaged in unlawful discrimination against Jewish people under section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.��

According to Crikey, the complaint against Keane was brought by three staff and one student; and 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.

The complainants intended to launch a class action on behalf of Jewish students and academics at the university who claimed to have been at the receiving end of antisemitic attacks. Crikey estimates the cost of such a suit to be close to $1 million.

Riemer and Keane said none of the complainants had tried to contact them before launching a “defamatory mainstream and social media campaign against us, well before the complaint had even been lodged with the AHRC”.

They 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”.

A representative from the complainants’ legal team told the Australian last November that a Federal Court judgment on the allegations could “provide a litmus test” for identifying antisemitism.

Riemer and Keane said the complainants and their lawyers had treated the AHRC’s process as “nothing more than a necessary procedural hurdle before they can fast-track the matter to the court”.

“It 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’.”

Keane and Riemer said that following the AHRC’s decision to terminate the complaint, the complainants must now decide “whether they are prepared to risk testing their foolish allegations before the Federal Court”.

“The basis of our successful request was clear and compelling evidence showing that the complainants, through the lawyers who no longer represent them, has been fundraising for a class action in the Federal Court since at least June 2024, well before they lodged their complaint with the AHRC.

“We noted that this demonstrated their intention from the very beginning, to misuse the AHRC by treating it cynically as a mere means of proceeding to litigation.

“We stand firm in our commitment to Palestinian rights and, indeed to the rights of everyone living between the Mediterranean and the Jordan, regardless of their background, ethnicity or faith.

“That is why we oppose the genocide currently underway.”   

Riemer has been an outspoken pro-Palestine supporter on campus and beyond, including addressing several of the city-wide protests.

“The war criminals responsible for this depravity rely on lawfare campaigns like the one against us to censor and suppress opposition in the West to their genocidal actions,” Riemer and Keane said.

“Our opposition to genocide and our vocal criticism of Zionism and Israel’s apartheid system have nothing to do with antisemitism or racial hatred. If the complainants are determined to continue their harassment of us in the Federal Court, we remain confident of victory through freedom of speech protections and the due process of the law.”