enjoy the day off
This might make jewish Australians uncomfortable
this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2026
264 points (95.8% liked)
Australia
4764 readers
240 users here now
A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.
Before you post:
If you're posting anything related to:
- The Environment, post it to Aussie Environment
- Politics, post it to Australian Politics
- World News/Events, post it to World News
- A question to Australians (from outside) post it to Ask an Australian
If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News
Rules
This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:
- When posting news articles use the source headline and place your commentary in a separate comment
Banner Photo
Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition
Recommended and Related Communities
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
- Australian News
- World News (from an Australian Perspective)
- Australian Politics
- Aussie Environment
- Ask an Australian
- AusFinance
- Pictures
- AusLegal
- Aussie Frugal Living
- Cars (Australia)
- Coffee
- Chat
- Aussie Zone Meta
- bapcsalesaustralia
- Food Australia
- Aussie Memes
Plus other communities for sport and major cities.
https://aussie.zone/communities
Moderation
Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.
Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
How long before someone cries "antisemitism"
Why?
Government made it illegal to say Israel is engaged in genocide as it might be offensive to the Jewish faith.
It’s a joke comment because this mentions genocide as well.
That is 100% misinformation. It is in no way illegal to criticise Israel in Australia. The courts have in fact already ruled that criticism of Israel is not a breach of our racial discrimination act.
I'm so tired of idiots claiming criticism of Israel is now illegal without a single clue about what's in the current laws, and without giving any source/evidence for their claims.
Michelle Rowland has confirmed that groups will be banned for saying it, how is that not making it illegal?
She did no such thing. She didn't make that determination in the interview.
She said she couldn't say, and it would depend on the nature of the offence, because the new laws are about racism. Not national politics.
Oh please.
SPEERS: Ok, so this comes back to the question I was asking. If they are saying that Israel is engaged in genocide or condemning Israel, saying it shouldn't exist and Jewish Australians feel harassed or intimidated, they can be banned for that reason?
ROWLAND: If those criteria are satisfied, then that is the case. I would point out though, David, it would have been a set of criteria that would have been easier based on all the facts to have satisfied if we did have the serious racial vilification provisions in this bill. However, we understand that we deal with the Parliament as it is and as the Australian people elected it last year, which is why it is not there.
It could easily be claimed that calling for the removal of the state of Israel is a hate crime (ex. River to the Sea) , and that doing so has "has advocated hate crimes relating to race, national or ethnic origin" meeting said criteria.
You might have missed the new authoritarian dictator hate laws passed last week.
What is this meant to mean?
Today marks the start of the genocide of Aboriginal peoples and colonisation of Australia began. That today is a day of mourning not celebration.
And that Captain Cook is a piece of shit.
Oh, I wasn't aware that he was that guy. But for sure, all colonisers are awful people who destroyed cultures irreplaceably
Umm cook was an explorer and cartographer, just like Abel Tasman. Yet no one is carrying pitchforks to his memorial.
The hate against Cook is just people looking for a person to blame even without reason. He mapped Australia for the british he didn't colonise it. There was no way he could've 'colonised' with is crew of less than a hundred on the Endevour.
If you want to blame someone blame George the third, or Townshend who made the decision to colonise. Without them Australia would have been left behind (/colonised by someone else).
You can blame Gov. Phillip who lead the colonisation and was responsible for many of the decisions made.
But no, that would require people to Wikipedia for 3 minutes before founding an opinion. So we'll just jump on the uninformed bandwagon and scream "blame Cook!"
And to be clear, my opinion is that a lot that was done at the time was atrocious, and carried on far to long into far, far, far too recent history.
Just Cook wasn't the one that colonised Australia, he just drew it on paper and told the king. If you want to blame the colonisation, blame Townshend who made the decision yet many don't know him. If you want to blame the decisions when they got here, Phillip was in charge.
Blame the people who made the decisions not whomever is easiest/closest.
The thing about Cook is it’s regarded as first contact and everything that followed was after his landing and reports of what he saw and from this was the understanding that the land was terra nullius rather than occupied.
Captain Cook had nothing to do with the colony. He died in 1779 - years before the settlers arrived. While agreeing with the sentiment that the arrival of Europeans is not cause for celebration, Cook had always been a dumb target for protesting Jan 26.
He was directly responsible for locating the site and reporting it back to Britain. It was literally his mission to find land to steal and place the natives under British rule.
It was literally his mission to find land to steal and place the natives under British rule
Actually, it ends up looking even worse for Cook. His instructions specifically said:
You are also with the Consent of the Natives to take Possession of Convenient Situations in the Country in the Name of the King of Great Britain: Or: if you find the Country uninhabited take Possession for his Majesty by setting up Proper Marks and Inscriptions, as first discoverers and possessors.
So either he ignored the Crown's instructions to get "consent", or he (and not later colonists) is the original source of claims of terra nullius.
His mission was to observe the transit of Venus. The expedition was scientific in nature first and foremost.
You're speaking of the secret instructions issued to him by the Admiralty to locate the fabled southern continent and hopefully claim it for England. Tasman by this stage had found NZ and I think Van Diemans Land. Yes he found the east coast of Australia and "claimed" it for England. It was all in vain though, the distances were way too far for anything to come of it. To Cook at the time, it was a side trip.
There were two parliamentary inquiries submitted to the British parliament in 1779 and 1785 recommending colonisation of New Holland, but even then: well after Cook's death, such an expedition was seen as too expensive.
Then the English learned that the French were preparing to colonise and it was suddenly a British priority to get to Australia.
I don't see how anything to do with the colonisation had anything to do with Captain Cook. You could swap Cook out for any other ship's captain who was taking the scientists to see Venus and the rest of the expedition plays out much the same. Cook didn't colonise Australia. He encountered the Guugu Yimithirr people in Northern Queensland and tried to treat with the peacefully - mostly succeeding. He certainly didn't set about killing them all.
Arthur Philip should be the person people direct their ire at. But he doesn't have a statue in Melbourne. King George III would be another candidate that made sense. Only George III also doesn't have a statue in Melbourne.
