Back

Racial discrimination proceedings against University of Sydney academics over anti-zionist statements

Disciplinary Sanction / Pressure, Media Smear / Delegitimization CampaignLegal procedures: Yes, ongoing

DATE

October 1, 2025

LOCATION

Sydney (Australia)

TARGETED PERSON/INSTITUTION

Dr. Nick Riemer and professor John Keane

DOMAIN/FIELD

Research, Higher Education, University

RESPONSIBLE FOR BAN

Four plaintiffs from the à University of Sydney, including Joseph Toltz and Suzanne Rutland

In 2024, four applicants affiliated with the University of Sydney, including academics Joseph Toltz and Suzanne Rutland, initiated proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia against academics Dr Nick Riemer and Professor John Keane, as well as the University of Sydney, alleging breaches of Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. The applicants argued that a series of public statements, social media posts, and publications criticizing Zionism and Israel constituted racial hate speech against Jewish people and Israelis.

The proceedings targeted comments made by Riemer following the 7 October 2023 attacks, including speeches at pro-Palestinian rallies, posts on X, and an article published in Overland, as well as posts by Keane on X relating to Hamas and the publication of a letter signed by Jewish colleagues. The applicants sought injunctions, public apologies, and argued that the University was vicariously liable for the academics' statements.

Riemer and Keane denied that their statements constituted racial discrimination, arguing that they were expressions of political criticism directed at Zionism and the State of Israel rather than Jewish people as an ethnic or religious group. During preliminary hearings in October 2025, their legal representatives challenged the claim that criticism of Zionism should be treated as criticism of Jews for the purposes of Australia's racial discrimination legislation.

In May 2026, the judge rejected amendments that suggested Dr Riemer and Prof Keane had continued to offend by not taking down the social media posts. However he stated that the number of views, which reached the thousands, remains relevant. The case will return to court at a later date.

Related cases