When ‘balance’ becomes an excuse for exclusion

The ABC and SBS’s decision to reject the IHRA definition of antisemitism, specifically endorsed by the federal government and adopted by the Royal Commission, comes as no surprise. But it is the latest evidence that public and cultural institutions are resisting the recommendations of antisemitism envoy Jillian Segal, who has called for greater measures of accountability in the sector.

Both broadcasters cited editorial independence in their decision to reject the widely accepted definition: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.”

Since October 7, we have seen many forms of this expression in action. How does adopting this definition stifle free speech or legitimate debate, as the ABC claims? It’s some comfort that an ABC spokeswoman said that the broadcaster does not disagree with the “underlying concept of antisemitism”.

The ABC and SBS are vital components of the Australian cultural landscape, and their commitment to telling Australian stories is admirable. It is also true that neither broadcaster has ever funded a scripted series set in the Australian Jewish community, and that we are past the point where this lack of representation can be justified. Having sat with employees of the ABC and SBS over recent months, I noted a lack of genuine interest in addressing this issue.

An SBS spokesperson this week referred to their focus on “social cohesion” and pointed out their “great care” with “language and terminology”. In February, SBS rejected a film I produced about antisemitism in Bondi on the basis that “its content could be received as inflammatory across some communities”, referring to “sensitivities” around the subject matter, “particularly in the context of rising antisemitism and community concerns”, and their need to navigate “negative feedback”.

Managing director Jane Palfreyman offered an apology, which did not explain how the language presented was consistent with their acquisition processes.

Despite multiple projects exploring Jewish themes applying for ABC and SBS funding over the years, and despite the requirement of SBS’s charter to “promote understanding and acceptance of the cultural, linguistic and ethnic diversity of the Australian people”, Jewish stories keep coming up short. If the existence of antisemitism becomes a reason to avoid Jewish narratives, the practical effect is to exclude Jewish Australians from the representation SBS is required to uphold – at the exact moment it is most warranted.

ABC executives speak of needing to program documentaries about Islamophobia for “balance” in order to consider anything about antisemitism, while ABC series producers decline further coverage of the Bondi terrorist attack at the same time their email signatures promote the program Surviving Gaza, Speaking Truth. At least SBS has now finally commissioned Bondi, albeit with a non-Jewish director.

Perhaps the real reason that the ABC and SBS have rejected the IHRA definition is because Segal recommends that funding should be withheld if they are found to have promoted division or spread false or distorted narratives – which they have. None of Segal’s recommendations for the sector have been implemented. Public funding should not go to institutions, artists or individuals who support or implicitly endorse antisemitic themes or narratives. Arts festivals, galleries and public broadcasters must uphold anti-discrimination values and be accountable for the narratives they promote. Agreements should be drafted to ensure that funding can be terminated where organisations or individuals engage in or facilitate antisemitism. Why is this a step too far?

It is time to acknowledge that Australia’s cultural institutions are failing the Jewish community. For years now, this has been an uncomfortable conversation for many to have, but the practical effect of being cancelled, doxxed, excluded and silenced means that the cultural sector has failed to live up to its own image of offering a tolerant and inclusive space. The reality is, it’s free speech as long as you agree with it.

Over the last year, I have hosted conversations with more than 70 members of the Australian Jewish film community, and facilitated roundtables with Screen Australia CEO Deirdre Brennan so that senior leadership can directly listen to our lived experiences. Other industry bodies have been invited to join these conversations, but have offered silence. The situation has been so dire that a new generation of filmmakers are asking if it’s safe to identify as Jewish on a funding application, if it’s safe to stay with their agent who is signing various boycott pledges, or if they should even write from a Jewish perspective. The upcoming Sydney Film Festival was offered two documentaries on the contemporary Australian Jewish experience, both rejected along with (apparently) any other film exploring Jewish themes. The institutional resistance to acknowledge what is happening is frightening.

An industry-wide commitment is required to tackle this, but without a national understanding of antisemitism, nothing can change. The IHRA definition should be adopted by all levels of government, public institutions and regulatory bodies, and the federal government must urgently accept Segal’s recommendations.

Jamie Bialkower is the director and founder of Jump Street Films and the director of the Jewish Australian Screen Fund (JASF).