Chapter 4The threat posed by extremist movements
4.1This chapter assesses the threat posed by extremist movements, including right wing extremism, in Australia.
4.2Dr McSwiney, Dr Richards, Dr Sengul, Callum Jones, and Cam Smith listed the threat that right wing extremism poses:
…to the safety and wellbeing of marginalised communities, including First Nations peoples, women, migrant communities, asylum seekers, and LGBTQIA+ people. The ideologies that underpin right-wing extremism are "hierarchical and exclusionary. They establish clear lines of superiority and inferiority according to race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, religion, and sexuality". The far right is hostile to the principles underpinning liberal democracies, such as protections for minorities, free and fair elections, independent democratic institutions, systems of checks and balances, and freedom of the press, religion, and speech. Extreme right movements take this further, and are hostile to democracy itself, engaging in a range of violent and nonviolent activities to undermine the democratic order.
4.3The committee received evidence that right wing extremists (RWEs) divide members of society into binary 'positive in-groups and negative out-groups'. While this categorisation of people is most common in ethnonationalist movements, it is practiced by most RWE movements. The division of people in this way contributes to the violent intent of extremists, as the Threats to Australian Domestic Security Research Group, Charles Sturt University (ADS Research Group) highlighted:
…ethnocentric groups in the extreme right have been noted to have engaged in firearms offences, violent assault, arson, shootings, rape, weapons offences, murder, and terrorism offences, including the possession of extremist materials and explosives.
Violence
4.4The Centre for Resilient and Inclusive Societies (CRIS) recognised that while there have been no successful RWE-motivated acts of violence in Australia, political violence and terrorism is '[t]he most obvious threat that far-right extremism poses in Australia'.
4.5The committee received evidence that there is often a thin boundary 'between hate crime and organised terrorism' in political violence perpetrated by RWEs:
Because a lot of right wing extremist violence manifests as hate crimes in addition to rarer instances of mass casualty attacks targeting the general population, its scope can often be underappreciated and may not be captured in the actions of identified movements. RWE groups also engage in what they call 'defensive' violence by taking part in rallies and protests where confrontation is likely with law enforcement and counter protesters.
4.6The committee received evidence that members of Australia’s multicultural communities have reported that their greatest concern about right wing extremism is the threat of violence. Democracy in Colour said that for people of colour, the presence of written RWE material in their neighbourhoods:
…creates the feeling that there are right‑wing extremists present in the community. This is frequently described to us and while the impact is more at the individual level, the experiences described are often shared by many in the community. When discussing the impact of this tactic, one aspect is frequently referred to. That is, the threat of violence or physical harm being the concern that is most front of mind, particularly the possible threat of lone actors, emboldened by the rhetoric and causes of these groups.
4.7A respondent to Democracy in Colour's survey said that seeing this kind of material:
…makes me feel that being unguarded and at ease in my own home city of Melbourne is not a luxury item I am ever allowed to purchase. It also makes me feel like I have to justify my existence and worthiness, over-extending myself by playing the role of a model minority, so that I am worthy of being seen, heard, or helped. I worry that by not being an exemplary—by being a perfectly jolly neighbour on my street or an industrious worker in the office—that somebody will eventually find a way to justify their own racist views, pick me as their target, and then penetrate the mental, emotional, and physical barricades I've put up for my own safety. Being the target of racial abuse and hate hurts, and I will go out of my way to never experience it again.
4.8Another respondent to the survey recounted their experience of racist abuse:
It really hurts on many levels politically, personally and emotionally. I have experienced people threatening me and verbally abusing me on trains in the street and other public spaces for having dark skin. Threats to harm me and my son and told to go back to where I came from so I could be blown up.
4.9The Australian Federal Police (AFP) maintained that ideological extremism does not always involve violence:
…however, where conduct escalates, the AFP will seek to intervene. Violent action from [ideologically motivated violent extremist (IMVE)] groups is often targeted towards perceived ideological opponents, and may extend to political or public figures.
4.10The Living Safe Together program defines violent extremists as 'a person or group who is willing to use violence; or advocates the use of violence by others, to achieve a political, ideological or religious goal'.
4.11That definition 'suggests that far-right extremist violence encompasses more than physical acts of violence and includes speech and behaviours that indicate willingness to use violence or advocate for it'.
4.12The Addressing Violent Extremism and Radicalisation to Terrorism Network (AVERT Research Network) raised the idea of 'stochastic terrorism' which it defined as 'the public demonisation of a particular group which then incites violence towards that group by other, typically lone actors'. The lone actors who perpetrate an act of violence 'may not be affiliated with a particular group, but are inspired by key actors, movements, narratives and literature and seek to further RWE ideology through carrying out violent attacks'. The AVERT Research Network referred to an academic overview of the concept which clarified that the perpetrator of the violent action is not the stochastic terrorist. The stochastic terrorist 'is the communicator who inspires the perpetrator to act'.
4.13The types of communications that may inspire lone actors to perpetrate acts of violence includes books or essays.
4.14The CRIS highlighted that 'violent talk' can motivate individuals and groups to commit violent acts. It explained:
Violent talk helps enculturate individuals through socialization processes by communicating values and norms. In turn, these values and norms are part of a process where in-group and out-group boundaries are established, potential targets for violence are identified and dehumanized, violent tactics are shared, and violent individuals and groups are designated as sacred…In short, violent talk clearly plays an important role in terms of fomenting actual violence.
4.15Ms Lydia Khalil also stated that mass casualty events against the general populace are rare and that RWE violence more often 'manifests as hate crimes'. While there have not been any violent acts conducted by RWEs in Australia that have 'been legally considered an act of terrorism, there have been a number of disrupted plots'.
4.16Academics from Victoria University highlighted that by 2018 Victorian RWEs displayed:
…a greater interest in violence. Several groups retreated from the strategy of building a broad social movement and turned increasingly towards more action-orientated activities in smaller groups. These activities included media stunts such as disrupting local council meetings and publicly harassing political opponents, while clashes against political opponents were often violent.
4.17Extremists are often strategic in their use of violence as they recognise that it may not be the most effective way to achieve their political aims. For example, the AFP observed nationalist and racist violent extremist (NRVE):
…groups tend to adopt a pragmatic view of violence, believing it to be a legitimate tactic where it is likely to further their cause. However, most consider proactive violence to be counter-productive at the current time, due to the limited likelihood of achieving political change. Furthermore,most nationalist and racist extremists anticipate that the inevitable legal and governmental response to an act of onshore terrorism would likely severely undermine their ability to organise and operate, and potentially threaten the existence of their movements entirely.
Undermine Australian values and identity
4.18Some inquiry participants discussed the threat that RWE movements pose to Australian democracy, equality, social cohesion and multiculturalism.
4.19Ms Khalil argued that '[a] focus on violence obscures broader challenges to social cohesion and democracy as well as the cumulative ill effects that engaging with extremist content can have on interpersonal relationships'.
4.20Academics from Victoria University drew attention to the Living Safe Together program, which considers that extremism can threaten 'Australia's core values and principles, including human rights, the rule of law, democracy, equal opportunity and freedom'.
4.21Living Safe Together has defined violent extremism as including threats to 'Australia's core values and principles, including human rights, the rule of law, democracy, equal opportunity and freedom'.
Threat to Australian liberal democracy
4.22Academics from Victoria University submitted that RWE movements are opposed:
…to basic liberal-democratic principles. The explicit rejection of the basic principle of equal human dignity and egalitarianism illustrates this assessment. Many RWE groups seek to, directly or indirectly, undermine and ultimately overthrow the democratic system to usher in an authoritarian ethno-nationalist regime.
4.23Dr McSwiney et al drew the committee's attention to anti-democratic activities perpetrated by RWEs overseas. While they assured the committee that Australian RWEs have not engaged in similar activities in Australia to the same degree as their North American and European counterparts, there is a concerning increase in imported 'election mis-and-disinformation by far-right groups'.
4.24Dr McSwiney et al submitted that RWEs are still able to harm Australian values through non-violent acts. The spread of mis- and dis-information, hate speech, and the delegitimisation of democratic institutions, including elections:
…undermine social cohesion and the democratic process, fomenting animosity towards minoritised faith, cultural, or political communities. Such acts may also contribute to a societal context that is more conducive to radicalisation and the propensity for extremist violence.
4.25The CRIS also observed that RWEs have benefited from the decline in trust of information to promote ''post-truth' claims [that] are increasingly difficult to challenge and refute'.
4.26The committee received evidence that the actions of RWE actors can weaken democratic processes and undermine representative liberal democracy. A study conducted by Victoria University found that RWEs 'can intimidate democratically elected representatives in government and thus illegitimately influence democratic decision-making processes'.
4.27The AVERT Research Network submitted that this intimidation may include overt threats of violence against politicians and candidates for political office.
4.28The CRIS pointed out that there are overseas examples of RWE movements intimidating voters and engaging in the 'electoral manipulation of polling'.
4.29Ms Khalil argued that RWEs 'still pose a significant threat to democracies even without direct violent action'. As RWE movements oppose equality they are inherently 'antidemocratic':
Oftentimes it's fascist in nature and, because of the racial supremacism and the making and targeting of outgroups it has as its very ideas and foundation, it poses significant threats to cohesion and multiculturalism that are the hallmarks of the modern Australian national identity.
4.30The Multicultural Youth Advocacy Network (MYAN) agreed that the ideological position of RWEs, which is grounded in racism, threatens 'inclusive democracy and multicultural harmony, and [is] inconsistent with the values shared by the majority of Australians'. Their ideology:
…directly contradicts the values of unity, respect, and equality that form the cornerstone of Australian society. Such ideologies foster an environment of fear and hostility, which we have seen tragically lead to real-world violence, and discrimination against communities based on race, religion, sexuality and gender identity and/or cultural background.
4.31MYAN argued that traditional notions of Australian identity are outdated and exclusionary. In its view, Australian nationhood should be based on:
…shared democratic values, rather than a person's ethnicity or the length of time someone has lived in Australia. Traditional concepts of Australian nationhood that rely on stereotypes that are at odds with contemporary Australia would alienate many in the community including young people from refugee and migrant backgrounds who share a sense of civic duty, and connection to Australia.
4.32Ms Khalil explained that RWEs may co-opt elements of Australian democracy to further their own cause. For example, they might 'use democratic means like protests, running candidates and engaging in public discourse to promote antidemocratic values and agendas'. Those 'ideas stand in opposition to Australia's core values and principles, including human rights, the rule of law, democracy, equal opportunity and freedom'.
4.33The committee received evidence that some other RWE actors may seek to operate within, or infiltrate, the democratic system. The AVERT Research Network, for example, indicated that there are examples of RWE actors attempting 'to infiltrate mainstream political parties'.
4.34Ms Khalil maintained that it is important to recognise the attempts of RWE actors 'to shift politics and culture away from our shared commitment to liberal multicultural democracy and to counteract that is as important as ensuring that their efforts to undertake terrorist violence or other violence are disrupted'.
4.35In addressing extremism, however, care must be taken to ensure that the democratic process is not harmed. One submitter explained:
True democracy necessitates the consideration of all viewpoints, even those deemed inconvenient or uncomfortable. Attempting to silence opposing voices not only stifles freedom of expression but also diminishes the diversity of thought essential for a vibrant democratic society.
…
In a democracy, the government should serve as a facilitator of dialogue, not as the arbiter of acceptable opinions. It has a responsibility to represent the diverse array of opinions held by its citizens. This includes views that may challenge or oppose the prevailing ideology.
4.36On 8 December 2022, the Hon Clare O'Neil MP, then Minister for Home Affairs, announced the establishment of a Strengthening Democracy Taskforce. That taskforce would 'identify concrete initiatives to bolster Australia's democratic resilience and enhance trust among citizens, and between citizens and governments'.
4.37On 15 July 2024, the Taskforce's Strengthening Australian democracy: A practical agenda for democratic resilience report was released. It found that 'Australia's democracy is not immune to a range of anti‑democratising influences—acute and chronic, emerging locally and abroad—which our existing policies, practices and capabilities are ill-equipped to meet'.
4.38The report noted that these influences threaten to undermine the three factors that have historically strengthened Australian democracy:
Trusted institutions: the security, integrity, legitimacy, responsiveness, and performance of democratic institutions.
Credible information: the accuracy, relevance, accessibility, transparency and civility of information flows within a deliberative public sphere.
Social inclusion: a society that is connected, cohesive, participatory, engaged and respectful, reinforcing and reflecting a sense of common purpose and shared identity.
4.39The Strengthening Democracy Taskforce stated that differences of opinion are vital to the democratic process:
Divisions across society on different issues are natural, and even required for democracy to truly flourish. But when social divisions turn into more entrenched and extreme polarisation, groups can become so hostile and so fixed in dislike and distrust for those with whom they disagree that democratic deliberation, tolerance and compromise become impossible.
4.40Australia has programs in place to safeguard the electoral process and respond to threats that could undermine the integrity of its democracy. Those programs include the Electoral Integrity Assurance Taskforce and the Defending Democracy Unit within the Australian Electoral Commission.
4.41The Department of Home Affairs (Home Affairs) observed that IMVE, and its subset NRVE, are:
…hostile to democracy in Australia, with leading researchers describing it as a 'radically anti-democratic movement'. In addition to actual or threatened violence, NRVE ideologies undermine trust in democratic institutions, erode social cohesion, stoke anti-multicultural sentiment, and reject equality—all enduring strengths of Australia's democracy. NRVEgroups encourage intolerance, xenophobia and racism which places our social fabric under strain.
Social cohesion
4.42The Diversity Council Australia (DCA) considered that social cohesion and its link to extremism is an important element of the inquiry. It offered two definitions of social cohesion:
The Australian Human Rights Commission defines it as a society that "works towards the wellbeing of all its members, fights exclusion and marginalisation, creates a sense of belonging, promotes trust and offers its members the opportunity of upward mobility". The Scanlon Foundation defines it as: the willingness of members of society to cooperate with each other in order to survive and prosper.
4.43MYAN was concerned that the racist ideologies of RWEs 'presents a critical risk to Australia's community cohesion'.
4.44Ms Rana Ebrahimi, National Manager, MYAN, argued that multiculturalism has significant benefits for Australia and must be defended:
Multiculturalism is a central tenet of Australian national identity and an asset to the country in an era of globalisation. Any right-wing groups whose ideologies are rooted in anti-immigration, and racism presents a direct threat to Australia's social fabric. It's imperative that we work together to counter these movements.
4.45The Strengthening Democracy Taskforce reported:
Prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, religion and migrant status remains common in Australia. The Mapping Social Cohesion 2023 report found that while Australians have an overwhelmingly positive view of multiculturalism overall, 63% of respondents held negative attitudes towards one or more migrants [sic] groups, or one of the non-Christian religions. The 2019 Inclusive Australia Social Inclusion Index also found nearly one in four Australians experience some form of discrimination on a weekly or more frequent basis, particularly young people, LGBTQI people, racial minorities, First Nations peoples and people with disabilities.
4.46The Australian Multicultural Council 'provides advice to government on multicultural affairs, social cohesion and integration'. Its priorities include:
strengthening public understanding of a shared ‘Australian identity’ as a unifying characteristic of Australia;
harnessing the economic and social benefits of our diverse population;
advancing programs and policies aimed at building harmonious and socially cohesive communities;
promoting the importance of mutual respect and responsibility, which foster our shared Australian values, identity, and citizenship;
building stronger and more cohesive communities and addressing barriers to participation, including racism and discrimination; and
promoting greater intercultural and interfaith understanding and dialogue.
Community safety
4.47Several submitters commented on the threat that RWEs pose to community safety. Professor Spaaij et al indicated that this threat 'is difficult to quantify and seems to not have received a lot of attention in the public and political debate'.
4.48Based on the submissions received by the committee, the groups that were most commonly seen to be at risk from RWEs by inquiry participants are:
culturally diverse communities;
religious communities;
women;
the LGBTIQ+ community;
First Nations people; and
young people.
Culturally diverse communities
4.49Australia is a successful multicultural society and, on the basis of evidence received by the committee, there is a high level of support for cultural diversity among Australians. Ideological extremism poses a threat to that success and could contribute to violence against culturally diverse members of the Australian community. A rise in hostility towards culturally distinct groups within Australia risks undermining social cohesion.
4.50Ms Ebrahimi, MYAN, explained that '[a] culture of hate breeds when cultures of violence are not addressed'. Failing to address violence and hostility towards marginalised groups endangers physical safety and 'creates a pervasive sense of fear and isolation'. Those 'experiences can hinder their ability to integrate into Australian society, affecting their mental health and overall wellbeing'
4.51The CRIS elaborated on the sense of fear and isolation that can be experienced by marginalised groups. It explained that even non-violent activities of RWEs can instil feelings of fear and intimidation in certain communities:
Public stunts, protests and other actions taken by far-right extremist groups have created significant concerns and perceived threats to public and community safety for those who feel intimidated and/or threatened by such actions, including the public display of far-right, neo-Nazi or other white supremacy ideologies, agendas and symbols. This applies to majority or mainstream community members, but also particularly to those who identify with communities that are specifically targeted by far-right extremist narratives and propaganda such as LGBTQIA+, Jewish and Muslim communities and other ethnoculturally diverse groups for whom far-right extremist actions are often experienced as a concrete and immediate threat to their physical safety.
4.52Democracy in Colour indicated that most members of the Australian multicultural community had reported a direct experience with right wing extremism. The results of a 2023 survey of its supporter base showed 'that almost all respondents had encountered right-wing extremism in some form. The most common encounter was via written material distributed in their community'.
4.53A respondent to a survey conducted by Democracy in Colour expressed how seeing this kind of material in their neighbourhood makes them feel a sense of exclusion from their community:
I fear that the simmering hate and ignorance regarding the atrocities of the Holocaust and against immigrants in my community is bubbling away, alive and well. Regardless of whether the displays of slurs and symbols is the work of bored delinquents or an organised act of aggression, the hostility in these images and seeing them in innocuous street corners of my neighbourhood means that somebody out there wants certain people—immigrants and Jewish communities—to know that even if they feel safe and even despite their hard work to establish a home for themselves, that we are never truly welcome here.
4.54Another respondent to the survey stated that they:
…think about the rising prevalence of hate group's public demonstrations a lot. The fact that these public demonstrations have occurred means that there are sufficient numbers of people sharing the values of hate and intolerance. For every person holding a swastika placard in front of Parliament house, I wonder how many of their friends and community members share their views at home or in anonymous Reddit or 4Chan forums.
4.55The public actions of RWEs can heighten concerns about 'public and community safety as many people feel intimidated and/or threatened by such actions and the public display of far-right, neo-Nazi or white supremacy ideologies, agendas and symbols'. Those fears are most deeply felt by members of communities that are often targeted by RWEs:
…such as the LBGTIQ+, Jewish and Muslim communities, and other people of colour, where RWE threats are often perceived as a much more immediate threat to their physical safety than among those from an Anglo, white background.
4.56The Australian Muslim Women's Centre for Human Rights (AMWCHR) similarly identified a range of communities that are particularly targeted by RWEs:
The threat of extremism is not felt evenly across the population; migrant and refugee communities, Muslims, First Nations communities, Jewish communities, racial and ethnic minorities, the LGBTQIA+ community, disabled Australians, and women, among others, are overt targets of far‑right violence, abuse, and disenfranchisement.
4.57The AHRC found ‘there is a reluctance on the part of government to use the term ‘racism’’. Government prefers to use the term ‘social cohesion’, which in the view of the AHRC ‘has weakened approaches to anti-racism work. There is a current lack of systemic government-led strengths-based, inter-sectional and coordinated approach to addressing racism in Australian society’.
4.58Stakeholders who were interviewed by the AHRC indicated that a reluctance to clearly talk about racism is a challenge. It suggested:
…the inability of the nation to have a mature discussion about racism, discrimination and inequality undermines the often very good work undertaken or supported by government. At a minimum, this creates confusion and can stymie progress.
4.59One stakeholder who was interviewed by the AHRC explained how this perceived reluctance to talk about racism undermines efforts to address it:
Because racism is a dirty word. We can’t actually say it. We can’t say it because people get offended. Okay, because, you know, if we start talking about racism, again, my experience has been that they go oh, no, no, no baby, we should say discrimination, but I’m sorry. Racism and discrimination are two separate things. Like you can be discriminated against based on your race. Okay, but discrimination and discrimination laws are really quite different to out and out racism. Okay. And then let’s not have a conversation about systemic racism, because then people get oh my god, please, like me, I’m not racist.
4.60Some participants in the inquiry drew attention to a general reluctance to call out racism. Mrs Mariam Veiszadeh, Founder and Chair, Islamophobia Register Australia, expressed her disappointment at Australian society's hesitation to directly address racism:
We certainly see that in corporate Australia as well. But with government it's particularly disappointing. In order to tackle the issue, you need to be able to name it. There is quite a lot of fragility around this issue. People are more offended by the calling out of racism than the existence of racism itself.
4.61The Victorian Government drew attention to the communities that are most likely to be targeted by individuals with NRVE views:
In the event of violence being perpetrated by an individual with NRVE sympathies, it is likely they will target crowded or public places associated with or frequented by Jewish people, Muslims, People of Colour, members of the LGBTIQA+ community, and other perceived ideological opponents. These locations are easily accessible and fulfil multiple targeting objectives including the capacity to produce mass casualties, generate media attention, and instil fear in the community.
4.62The Attorney-General's Department reported that following 'the terrorist attacks in Israel on 7 October 2023, there has been a significant rise in anti‑Semitism and Islamophobia'. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks:
Public discourse is being weaponised with hateful rhetoric that dehumanises groups and members of groups in the Australian community. Such conduct undermines social cohesion, erodes shared values and can lay the foundation for violence and extremism, which threatens Australia's multicultural and democratic society. The harm caused by this conduct can be profound—it is an attack on human dignity which affects the physical and psychological wellbeing not only of those targeted, but of the whole community.
Religious communities
4.63The committee received evidence that members of religious communities view extremist groups as a threat to their safety. Members of those communities are also deeply affected by traumatic events perpetrated by extremists.
4.64For example, the AMWCHR emphasised that right wing extremism is 'an ongoing threat for Muslim communities in Australia'. It explained that traumatic events, such as the Christchurch terrorist attack, have 'severe and ongoing' effects on Australian Muslims. Many members of their community hold 'legitimate fears that a similar event could occur in Australia'.
4.65The CRIS referred to a 2019 survey of 1034 Muslims living in Australia which demonstrated the depth of concern that community has towards extremism in this country. That 'survey asked respondents about their level of concern in regard to 15 global, national, and social issues'. Of those 1034 respondents, 93.1% indicated that they were 'very concerned' or 'concerned' about 'terrorism by right-wing extremists'.
4.66Mrs Veiszadeh indicated that international events have a direct bearing upon the level of Islamophobia in Australia. Since Hamas attacked Israel on 7October2023, there has been a 581 per cent increase in documented Islamophobic incidents in Australia. She indicated that over that period there has also been a significant increase in antisemitism.
4.67The AMWCHR argued that Muslim women experience unique threats from, and concerns about, right wing extremism. It explained that 'White Replacement conspiracies politicise and degrade Muslim women's roles as mothers, while violent Islamophobic attacks are most often experienced by Muslim women who wear a hijab'.
4.68Muslim women are perceived as a sociopolitical threat by RWEs who subscribe to the Great Replacement conspiracy as a social and political threat to the West. Muslim men are also 'characterised as inherently violent and as sexual predators, playing into the common far-right trope that Black and brown men are a threat to white women'.
4.69Islamophobia is also a gendered issue. Mrs Veiszadeh stated that 78 per cent of victims are women and 70 per cent of perpetrators are men.
4.70Ultimately, extremists with anti-Muslim views aim 'to spread fear among Muslim communities, disrupt social cohesion, and strip Muslim and migrant communities from their enjoyment of public life'.
4.71Ms Ebrahimi explained:
Extremists often propagate negative stereotypes and misinformation about Muslims, portraying them as a threat to national security and cultural identity. This can lead to harassment, hate speech and discriminatory policies aimed to marginalise Muslim communities.
4.72The outcome of these views among Muslim communities is 'heightened fear, diminished sense of belonging, and a trigger for further demeaning and dehumanising public discussion related to Islam's ''compatibility' with the west'. At an individual level, the public airing of these views diminishes 'individuals' sense of self, ethnic and religious identity, and mental health for those who are visible and non-visible Muslims'.
4.73The AMWCHR argued that Islamophobic attacks and violence promoted by extremists can 'have long‑term and even intergenerational impacts on families and communities'. As these impacts 'are strongly felt even in cases where no physical violence has occurred. The social, psychological, and structural impacts of these dehumanising ideologies are equally as important to highlight and address'.
4.74Dr Colin Rubenstein, Executive Director, Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council, opined that various strands of extremism tend to coalesce around antisemitism. He observed that 'the entire spectrum of ideological and nationalist groups often intersect around antisemitism, and this is true of another subsection here—religiously-motivated violent extremism'.
4.75Mr Peter Wertheim, Co-Chief Executive Officer, Executive Council of Australian Jewry, agreed about the convergence of different strands of extremism and that it often defied categorisation into specific types:
There is a convergence—there's no doubt about it—and a sharing of themes and tropes and so on between different kinds of extremist groups, some of them ostensibly Neo-Nazi, some of them ostensibly Islamist. It's not always a clear and precise exercise to try to differentiate the two, which is why the whole concept of extremism needs to be dealt with as a whole and in a holistic way.
4.76Following the Hamas attack on Israel on 7 October 2023, the committee received evidence that there has been an increase in antisemitism and Islamophobia in Australia.
4.77On 9 November 2023, the 85th anniversary of Kristallnacht (The Night of Broken Glass), Australian Holocaust survivors published an open letter drawing attention to a rise in antisemitism across the world:
Never have we, the survivors of the Holocaust felt the need to make a collective statement such as this until now. Never did we think that we would witness a re-enactment of the senseless and virulent hatred of Jews that we faced in Europe. The actions of Hamas are so familiar, so barbaric, yet instead of condemning this, the response across the globe is a shameful spike in antisemitism.
…
We cannot allow history to repeat itself.
In the face of adversity, we have learned the importance of resilience, unity, and hope. We believe in the power of education and remembrance to prevent the atrocities of the past from occurring again. Together, we can strive for a world where every individual, regardless of their faith, regardless of their cultural background, can live in peace and security.
4.78Mrs Nina Basset, a signatory to that letter, explained that antisemitism does not only pose a threat to Jewish people:
It's not a Jewish issue. I wish people would understand that anti-Semitism starts with Jewish people. But the hate then translates to any group that is perceived as being the other; in the Holocaust that was the Romani, homosexuals, people with disabilities.
Any group that you feel doesn't measure up to your requirements then becomes the victim.
4.79Emeritus Professor Konrad Kwiet, Resident Historian, Sydney Jewish Museum (SJM), suggested that if the lessons of the Holocaust are forgotten or abandoned:
Then we will see repetitions of history. I can give you the findings of what will happen when hate ideologies become doctrines of the state and when, step by step, unwanted people, minorities, are being defamed, discriminated against, expelled and murdered.
4.80Dr Max Kaiser, Executive Officer, Jewish Council of Australia (JCA), argued that antisemitism cannot be addressed in isolation:
The only way to effectively fight anti-Semitism is by committing to work in partnership with other groups facing bigotry and discrimination and to fight all forms of racism. We see the rise in anti-Semitism as linked to the rise of Islamophobia, and the normalisation of a language of dehumanisation. As such, we've been building coalitions with Palestinians and Muslim groups in particular.
4.81His colleague, Ms Sarah Schwartz, Executive Officer, JCA, submitted 'that anti-Semitism, like other forms of racism, should be tackled together in relation to focusing on this dehumanisation framework'.
4.82She argued that there is 'a real need to create coalitions across different community groups that are facing this dehumanising material, and for those groups as well to be involved in fighting disinformation online'.
4.83Mrs Sandy Hollis, Community and Professional Education Officer, SJM, agreed that antiracism education programs should be designed holistically:
Teaching the Holocaust in conjunction with teaching Islamophobia, homophobia, misogyny, racism of all kinds, is the way that we have to move forward. We use the example of the Holocaust to show the students, the participants that they have a role to play in creating civil society, empowering people to move forward to combat hate ideology.
4.84Research conducted by the University of Melbourne indicates that racist views are 'a very strong and significant predictor of all forms of violent extremism in Australia'.
4.85The Victorian Government explained that 'NRVE groups present significant risks to social cohesion and, in turn, the wellbeing of multicultural and multifaith communities'. It is not just physical violence that can cause this harm as '[h]ate speech can normalise negative sentiment towards certain cultural and faith groups, undermine the safety of those groups, and impact the overall physical and mental health of those groups'.
4.86To address those risks, 'the Victorian Government has committed to developing an Anti-Racism Strategy which will provide a five-year plan for preventing and addressing race and faith-based discrimination in Victoria'. It also operates the Local Anti-Racism Initiatives Grants Program, which:
…has also supported community-led initiatives to tackle racism at a local level. Grants of up to $500,000 were provided to community organisations to deliver activities and initiatives that empower local communities to tackle racism.
4.87The Australian Human Rights Commission argued that 'a united approach to anti-racism was essential if our society is to better address and ultimately dismantle systemic racial discrimination in all its forms'.
4.88The government has appointed a Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism in Australia and a Special Envoy to Combat Islamophobia in Australia.
Women
4.89Several inquiry participants drew attention to the gendered threat posed by RWEs.
4.90For example, the AVERT Research Network viewed misogyny as a central element of IMVE. It argued that it:
…provides a 'linking thread, a kind of fuse, along which violence runs' and connects male supremacy, alt-right, far-right, fascist and white supremacist ideologies…Deeply held beliefs of male entitlement and a perceived right to pursue 'justice' through violence has been linked to individuals' participation in extremist communities—notably the far right. There are feelings of 'aggrieved entitlement' amongst some men who feel that the privileges once attached to manhood no longer exist. These feelings can be used as justification for acts of violence, as individuals attempt to reclaim lost masculinity and its perceived benefits.
4.91Research conducted by the University of Melbourne indicates that there is a correlation between misogynistic views and most forms of violent extremism.
4.92Of the 1020 survey respondents, the largest number expressed anti-feminist views:
Nearly 14 per cent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the use of violence to resist feminism, compared to only 4.3 per cent supportive of religious violent extremism and four per cent supportive of white supremacist violent extremism.
4.93The survey indicated that young people were also most likely to support anti-feminist violent extremism with 19per cent of 18–29-year-old respondents supporting 'violence to resist feminism'. The same proportion of male respondents also 'agreed that feminism is damaging to our society and should be resisted by force if necessary'.
4.94The ADS Research Group submitted that the gendered aspect of the threat posed by some RWEs has been 'underreported'. Those extremists aim to exploit gender to achieve three outcomes:
First, to construct gender ideologies that encourage extreme and violent action against those deemed to be part of the out-group in the name of a greater cause. Second, to legitimate and call for gender-based and sexual violence as a means of performing and enforcing certain behaviours deemed to be 'correct' and essential for the survival of the in-group. Third, to mobilise women as active participants who can guarantee the survival of the white race while weakening enemies.
4.95The ADS Research Group further submitted that movements that co-opt gender to inform their extreme ideology often focus on a perceived:
…breakdown of historical tradition by the out-group [which] has resulted in a corrupted gender order. This corrupt gender order is characterised by 'gender dissidents' who jeopardise the in-group's survival. For instance, progressive policies such as access to abortion, 'sexual promiscuity', contraceptives, women in the military, sexual harms and harassment policies, feminism, and interracial relationships are portrayed by the extreme right as characterising Western liberal democracies' corrupt gender order.
4.96The ADS Research Group submitted that extremists hew to a particular notion of what gender relationships should be. That gender-based order is broadly misogynistic and 'influenced by a patriarchal conjugal order that privileges heterosexuality, assumes marital sex is consensual, and enforces female reproductive and domesticity roles within the nuclear family'. Anyone who does not adhere to that notion could become a target of violence.
4.97Similarly, the CRIS indicated that some RWEs see feminism as a cause of declining fertility rates in some sections of society. That decline in fertility feeds into the notion of immigration and the 'great replacement' conspiracy theory.
4.98The ADS Research Group submitted that women can be active participants in gender-based extremism. For example, some RWE women can share the ideological views of male extremists:
One manifestation is aligning with the extreme right 'tradwife' ideal. Short for 'traditional wife', extreme right tradwives view modern society as corrupt due to a decline in heteronormative relationships and an increase in sexual depravity, consumerism, feminism, and "unnatural" ways of being. Tradwives believe their roles as mothers and wives are important because they guarantee the survival of the 'white' race, while actively weakening non-white enemies and minorities who cause harm to the in-group.
4.99Some commentators have referred to evidence that suggests some Australian men believe they are disadvantaged by the reorganisation of social structures to recognise 'women's rights: in work, in protection from discrimination, and in wages and life choices'.
4.100The AVERT Research Network highlighted the changes that have taken place in the labour market over the past two decades. During that time, there has been an increase in 'precarious and insecure work and declines in traditional blue‑ and white-collar work that typically benefited men'.
4.101The AVERT Research Network submitted that these changes in the labour market partly explain 'far-right preoccupations with the role of women and the push for the domestication of women and a hatred of feminism'. The AVERT Research Network further submitted:
Misogynists view women's efforts for equal rights as a threat to men's status. They believe that feminism has gone 'too far' and has begun to discriminate against men. This aligns with far-right and RWE ideologies which identify women and minority efforts at equality as threats to 'traditional values' and the cause of a perceived loss of male prestige.
4.102The committee received evidence that men who believe that they have lost their social status due to feminism and progress on gender equality often join the online 'Manosphere'. The Centre for Culture and Technology (CCAT), Gender Research Network (GRN) and Perth Extremism Research Network (PERN) defined the Manosphere as:
…a conglomeration of belief systems, identities and social media sites that focus on 'men's issues'. Crucially, however, these groups are highly right-wing and conservative, lamenting the rise of feminism and gender equality progress.
4.103CCAT, GRN and PERN submitted that members of the Manosphere generally:
…"share a central belief that feminine values dominate society, that this fact is suppressed by feminists and 'political correctness", and that men must fight back against an overreaching, misandrist culture to protect their very existence". Manosphere groups are opposed to feminism and want to uphold gender structures they perceive as "traditional".
4.104In contrast, the AVERT Research Network referred to men who do not feel a sense of entitlement, or a loss of social status linked to their gender. These men who are on:
…stagnating or downward trajectories are increasingly unlikely to attract partners, resulting in higher levels of singledom and, as in the case of 'involuntary celibates' or 'incels', sexual frustration driven by anger and resentment. These individuals within incel communities also very often share the misogynistic and racist views with the far right.
4.105The CCAT, GRN and PERN identified incels as a 'subgroup of the Manosphere' who:
…are self-critical, and often lament their unattractiveness, insecurities, depression, and anxiety. However, a key theme of the incel's discourse is not to take personal responsibility for their condition but rather project the cause of their unhappiness to 'others', be it women, ethnic minorities or anyone who does not fit their heteronormative idealisation.
4.106Dr John Coyne, Mr Henry Campbell, Ms Angela Suriyasenee, and Mr Justin Bassi, Australian Security Policy Institute (ASPI), raised concerns about the threat 'of physical violence or the use of force against women' expressed on incel forums. Some of those discussions advocated the adoption of policies that would 'control women or strip them of their rights'. Some forum participants suggested that the state adopt policies 'including forced sexual redistribution, state-mandated girlfriends, and legalising rape'.
4.107Dr Coyne et al, ASPI, submitted that while most incels posting on online forums are unlikely to be violent extremists:
…there is clear evidence that some incels advocate for the legalisation of violent actions against women and therefore some incel individuals and groups should be monitored and countered by our law enforcement and security agencies.
4.108The AMWCHR opined that RWE 'movements undermine progress towards gender equality and the National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children'.
4.109The Victorian Government recognised that 'misogyny and hostility towards gender equality…[are] a uniting ideology of many NRVE groups'. It drew a distinction between incels, who do not necessarily condone violence, and misogynist incels. Misogynist incels 'dehumanise women, glorify violence, and adhere to a male supremacist ideology'. They 'believe that the current social system must be overthrown through violence'.
4.110According to the Victorian Government there is evidence that misogynistic ideology contributed to at least 15 attacks in Western countries between 2009and 2022. Those 'attacks 'may have led to, or been associated with, a total of 58 deaths'. To date, there have been no confirmed acts of violent extremism inspired by incel ideology in Victoria or wider Australia'.
LGBTIQA+ community
4.111The LGBTIQA+ community was identified as a particular group that is targeted by RWE groups. The Victorian Government observed that 'NRVE group activities tend to converge with, and amplify, anti-LGBTIQA+ and transphobic sentiments'. The LGBTIQA+ community has historically been targeted by extremist groups as they are seen as inimical to their goal 'of furthering humanity by cleansing it of supposed degeneracy'.
4.112The CRIS submitted that the LGBTIQA+ community is seen by some RWE groups 'as undermining family values and the principles that bind a society together on the basis of traditionalist gender roles'. Extremists threaten to use violence 'against LGBTIQA+ groups and events, creating a climate of fear and persecution for those within these communities'.
4.113For example, Mr Alastair Lawrie, who described himself as 'a privileged cisgender gay man, who has been out for more than 25 years and who has been advocating on LGBTIQ rights for almost as long', submitted that he 'has felt less safe in public over the past year than at any point this century'. He submitted the community's 'feeling of vulnerability has been compounded by the sense the Commonwealth Government has effectively left us on our own in the face of these attacks'.
4.114Dr McSwiney et al reported there has been 'a rise in the visible street presence of neo-Nazi groups'. The increased presence of these groups in society has had a chilling effect in some minority communities, including the LGBTIQA+ community. For example, '[s]everal drag queen story-time events have been cancelled across Australia due to threats of violence made against local councils, families, and performers by right-wing extremists'.
4.115The Victorian Government reported that during:
…2023, at least 13 LGBTIQA+ events across several Victorian councils were cancelled due to persistent threats and disruptions from various individuals and groups, some of which included NRVE groups. Most of these events were targeted at LGBTIQA+ youth and rainbow families.
4.116According to intelligence provided to the Victorian Government by Victoria Police, 'NRVE groups are using LGBTIQA+ events for media publicity and recruitment purposes'. Members of the LGBTIQA+ community experience fear and anxiety as a result of these threats. The cost of organising and managing these events has also increased as a result of these threats 'further depleting limited resources that should be directed toward activating and building the resilience and visibility of these communities'.
4.117Home Affairs reported NRVE groups have targeted some civic institutions due to their public support of the LGBTIQA+ community:
In a high profile example, groups targeted at least 15 Victorian councils over their support for the LGBTQIA+ community. NRVE groups have sought to disrupt democratic council processes through intimidating behaviour, false and misleading information and threats of violence. In one case, involving the Monash City Council, protestors besieged the chambers, disrupting council proceedings.
First Nations people
4.118The Victorian Government referred to an incident that took place on 26January2023 involving First Nations people and individuals who held NRVE views. On that day, 'NRVE individuals disrupted a mourning ceremony at Merri-Bek Council in Melbourne's inner northern suburbs.
4.119The committee received evidence of members of NRVE groups seeking to infiltrate rallies that were organised to support the 'no' vote in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice to Parliament referendum. The Victorian Government argued that 'there is no evidence to suggest that the 'no' vote rally organisers supported or requested…[their] presence at the rally'. In its view, their attendance 'appears to be opportunistic and motivated by publicity and recruitment purposes'.
4.120The committee received evidence that in the lead up to the referendum, First Nations people experienced an increase in abuse and racism. The Victorian Government indicated that 13YARN, a national helpline for First Nations people, had received:
…a record number of calls in the lead up to the referendum. In the six weeks to September 2023, 13YARN received 3,500 calls relating to First Peoples experiencing abuse and racism relating to the referendum.
4.121Intelligence gathered by Victoria Police did 'not indicate any links between NRVE groups and calls from the 13YARN helpline'.
Young people
4.122MYAN submitted that the exclusionary and racist ideologies espoused by RWEs affects the young people that MYAN advocate for 'as it impacts their sense of belonging and safety, and hampers their opportunities for full participation in Australian life'.
4.123Ms Ebrahimi, National Manager, MYAN, explained that RWE groups are 'often driven by ideologies of hate and exclusion'. They pose a particular threat to 'marginalised communities, including those of different ethnic, religious and cultural backgrounds'. She indicated that young people from those communities 'face increased risk of discrimination, violence and social isolation, which can have long-lasting effects on their mental health, sense of belonging, and opportunities for future success'.
4.124In Ms Ebrahimi's view, young migrants and refugees are at particular risk due to the emphasis that RWE movements place on 'nationalism and xenophobia, which manifest[s] in racial, religious and cultural intolerance'. That intolerance can result in the perpetration of hate crimes and discrimination against young migrants and refugees, 'which can manifest in verbal abuse, physical violence and cyberbullying'.
4.125Other submitters suggested that young people are at particular risk of becoming radicalised by RWEs. For example, submitters from ASPI reported that the Office of the eSafety Commissioner has found 'that a third of young Australians have been exposed to online content promoting terrorism'. In their view, young people are at particular risk due to 'the high likelihood they possess a limited understanding of complex ideologies'.
Intersectionality of the threat posed by violent extremists
4.126Several inquiry participants highlighted the intersectional nature of the threat posed by violent extremists in Australia.
4.127As a general proposition, the DCA ‘recommend[ed] an intersectional approach when developing and implementing government policy and legislative reforms’. Intersectionality refers to the compounding of discrimination experienced by some people ‘due to multiple marginalising and interlinked characteristics’.
4.128Dr John Byron, Principal Policy Advisor, Queensland University of Technology, argued there is not enough understanding of intersectionality and the affect it has on people who are members of multiple marginalised communities. Hestated, 'the disadvantage that people who belong to multiple groups experience isn't additive—it's potentiated'. The effect of belonging to a single marginalised group:
…is enough to make it more difficult for them to participate in society in an equal and fair way, let alone the combination of them. They become much more readily isolated…and it's very difficult for them to navigate a world that doesn't have a lot of patience for deviation from the mean.
4.129Democracy in Colour indicated that RWEs target minority groups as ‘a tool to make people feel unwelcome or unsafe’. Their actions can sometimes be very specifically calibrated to target a specific group. Ms Esheshka (Shae) Flanagan, Acting National Director, referred to anecdotal evidence of:
…people seeing symbols painted around their streets and their suburbs and feeling personally targeted by that as someone who appears an outgroup or someone as an other—dark-skinned migrants, for instance.
4.130Researchers from the University of Melbourne found that misogyny and racism together were the greatest indicator of support for violent extremism. For that reason, it recommended that security and policing agencies take those factors into account when countering and preventing violent extremism.
4.131The AMWCHR also drew attention to the intersectional nature of the threat posed by RWEs to those communities:
Among the targets of far-right extremism, there are compounding factors that shape how far-right threats and rhetoric is experienced, especially for those who sit across the intersections of…identity and community groups.
4.132Muslim women who wear a hijab are at heightened risk of violence and abuse from RWEs. The AMWCHR cited data from the latest Islamophobia in Australia Report which found that '78% of victims of Islamophobic incidents were women, and 70% of perpetrators were men'.
4.133Ms Ebrahimi agreed:
There are overlapping effects. It’s the ripple effect of misogyny, and it’s quite intersectional…Based on what we are hearing from young people through the years, visibility is really important in the in-person attacks. We can see that the intersection of religion and race is really strong.
4.134Mrs Veiszadeh also reflected on the intersectional threat posed by extremists against women and especially women of faith:
It very much is intersectional and, as I mentioned, very much gendered as well. There is a lot of discussion and commentary about gendered violence against women, and it's baffling to us at the register as to why this is not viewed using that lens. This is violence against women, violence against Muslim women, and the abuse is very much intersectional. So, to the extent that you are of a culturally diverse background, of a faith background and female, it almost feels like the chances of you being targeted are much higher, and then there is the visibility factor thrown in as well.
4.135The committee received evidence that the policy response to the extremist threat has failed to properly engage with or understand its intersectional nature. In Mrs Veiszadeh's view, that is possibly due to a failure to engage with people with direct lived experience:
We definitely do need to apply more of an intersectional lens and the added complexities and nuances that brings to the issue, whatever the issue might be. The lack of lived experience, perhaps, by those who are engaging in that policymaking certainly plays a role.
4.136She indicated that she has direct personal experience of being targeted by extremists due to her identity:
In terms of my personal experiences…certainly I have experienced it firsthand. I think that has been useful working in this space, if I can frame it in a positive light, because, in order to try and tackle something, you really need to understand it. I think those of us working in this space intimately understand it, and it is very much intersectional.
4.137The AMWCH suggested ‘Muslim and minority women—as well as women in general—are implicitly and explicitly targets of far-right ideologies and movements’. The rise of right wing extremism is likely to undermine ‘progress towards gender equality and the National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children’.
4.138Ms Ebrahimi argued greater attention needs to be paid to the intersectional nature of extremism, particularly as it relates to women and minority groups:
It needs much more foundational work to start from the very beginning on education, and that's why I say it should come into the whole of society—because I think it's not just one department's responsibility; other departments are responsible as well. I sit on an advisory group for respectful behaviour to make sure that the intersectional lens is there, but I also need to have conversations with Home Affairs on the other side of the work. I think that, if I have the opportunity to sit on these advisory groups, they need to work with each other as well and consider these types of connections and relations that they have, because I totally agree—it's getting more and more connected, especially because we have social media, and they can see it and connect to each other.
4.139Ms Jabri Markwell contended that to properly address the intersectional nature of the threat posed by extremism, a broader approach needs to be taken. That approach should focus on the commonalities between people, rather than individual characteristics or traits that divide them into groups:
If we're going to take an intersectional approach we need to start focusing on dehumanisation, because dehumanisation happens to people on the basis of a range of protective characteristics and it can be multiple characteristics at the same time. There is a lack of understanding, still, about what racism means and what it looks like and how it's experienced. It's become a weaponised term and concept.
4.140In her view, a broader approach that focuses on how hate dehumanises people is more appropriate. That approach would focus on the shared experiences common to all people regardless of their individual background:
I'm concerned that every time we try and use anti-racism as a tool we're not making headway, because we're not using concepts that apply to all human groups. The benefit of dehumanisation as a frame is that all humans want to be treated as having independent agency, the ability to think, feel, make their own decisions, have their own political views, have their own story, not be judged as a group, as a collective. If we are able to educate all humans, all people, about that, that will give them tools to really deeply reflect, even in their own community contexts, about where they might be dehumanising others and even dehumanising people within their own community.