The ideologues search for a free pass

After public commentary by South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas, Abdel-Fattah’s legal team issued two concerns notices for defamation — the latest reported by ABC News today.

Festival organisers initially removed Abdel-Fattah, citing ‘cultural sensitivities’.” More than 180 writers withdrew, board members resigned, and the festival was ultimately cancelled. Premier Malinauskas then made public comments justifying his position on Abdel-Fattah’s participation, including a hypothetical involving ‘far-right Zionist’ violence. Subsequent comments were made on radio (FIVEAA) that Abdel-Fattah claims misrepresented her views and crossed legal lines. A first concerns notice was served; now a second concerns notice under the Defamation Act has been issued following further radio commentary. Abdel-Fattah said she felt she had “no choice” after the Premier “doubled down” rather than acknowledged harm.

Amid the flurry of statements, resignations, withdrawals and reporting, one important principle has been largely obscured. That principle is the claim that an ideology deserves protection from criticism because a group asserts that criticism of it constitutes an insult to their identity or culture. It is easy to lampoon exaggerated examples of this logic. Should it be illegitimate to suggest that clericalism in the Catholic Church made child abuse easier? Should a Catholic be able to take legal action against me if I made that suggestion publicly?

I am confident the overwhelming majority of people would prioritise analysing the dangers certain church structures pose to children over the offence taken by some clergy. The priority is obvious. People come before institutional positions; institutional positions come before abstract precepts. No idea deserves special treatment. People who hold ideas as part of their identity or moral framework should be protected—but not coddled.

Abdel-Fattah has acknowledged writing that Zionists ‘have no claim or right to cultural safety’ and that those who oppose racism must ‘ensure that every space Zionists enter is culturally unsafe for them.’ In a publicly reported post from December 2024, she wrote: ‘May 2025 be the end of Israel … May we see the abolishment of the death cult of Zionism. Taken at face value, these statements sound incendiary, until her framing is understood.

As she has explained publicly, "It is not my job as a Palestinian to predicate my freedom on the rehabilitation of an intrinsically violent and racist ideology. It is not my job to dilute our liberation project and manage my words because Zionists have deliberately branded their ideology as Jewish identity. It is not my job as a Palestinian to reconcile the consequences of Zionist strategic refusal to decouple Jewishness and the Abrahamic religion of Judaism from a racist political ideology."

The principle being asserted is that when supporters of an ideology associated with violence, racism, militarism, or abuse are criticised, their offence should carry no weight because that offence arises from a "strategic refusal to decouple" ideology from personal identity. The lived experience of a member of the Catholic clergy who was troubled by child abuse within the Church yet failed to act because it was difficult or inconvenient, should not be insulated from criticism. If someone challenges a Christian nationalist at a rally for claiming that God ordains patriarchal family structures and female subordination, should that criticism be silenced? Does describing an ideology that drives a genocide as a ‘death cult’ become illegitimate simply because it implicates those who fervently believe in it?

This is the core of the current struggle in Australia. While those who wish to defend the indefensible choose to conflate for political purposes, we must continue to assert this principle.