AAI Submission to the Royal Commission: A People-Centred Framework for Hate, Extremism and Social Cohesion
-
by
AAI
- No Comments on AAI Submission to the Royal Commission: A People-Centred Framework for Hate, Extremism and Social Cohesion
The Alliance Against Islamophobia calls for a dehumanisation framework that recognises harm early, protects communities consistently, and strengthens Australia’s response to hate, extremism and social cohesion.
The Alliance Against Islamophobia (Australia) has made a formal submission to the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion, calling for a clear, fair and people-centred framework for identifying and responding to hate, extremism and threats to social cohesion.
AAI supports robust action to identify, prevent and respond to antisemitism in Australia. Our submission also argues that this work will be strongest when guided by a consistent standard that protects people from dehumanisation, vilification and exclusion, while preserving democratic freedoms and lawful public debate.
At the centre of AAI’s submission is a simple proposition: Australia needs a framework that recognises harm before it escalates.
That framework should be grounded in dehumanisation.
Why AAI made this submission
The Royal Commission has been asked to consider antisemitism, religious and ideologically motivated extremism, radicalisation, de-radicalisation, government responses and the strengthening of social cohesion.
AAI’s submission speaks directly to these issues.
It draws on AAI’s work addressing anti-Muslim hate speech, dehumanising narratives, far-right extremist mobilisation, institutional accountability and community safety. It also reflects AAI’s broader advocacy for fair, evidence-based and constitutionally compatible responses to hate.
AAI’s submission makes four key points.
First, the Royal Commission should support a dehumanisation-based framework for identifying and addressing antisemitism.
Second, that same framework can strengthen fairness and consistency in responses to other forms of group-based hatred, including Islamophobia, anti-Palestinian racism, anti-Sikh hatred, caste-based degradation and other forms of identity-based harm.
Third, public-policy tools used to address antisemitism should be applied with care, particularly where they may blur the distinction between hatred toward Jewish people and lawful criticism of states, governments, military conduct or political doctrines.
Fourth, any serious approach to social cohesion must recognise religious and ideologically motivated extremism in its multiple forms, including forms of far-right extremist mobilisation that operate through dehumanisation, threat construction, exclusionary narratives, youth exposure, network amplification and institutional legitimacy.
A people-centred framework for hate
Hate is not only expressed through direct threats.
It often begins with repeated narratives that portray a community as dangerous, contaminating, criminal, inferior, disloyal, uncivilised or undeserving of equal dignity and belonging.
This is why AAI’s submission calls for dehumanisation to be recognised as an early-warning indicator.
A dehumanisation framework asks practical questions:
Does the communication portray a protected group as less than human?
Does it present a community as inherently dangerous, criminal, contaminating or threatening?
Does it attribute collective guilt, collective danger or collective suspicion to people because of who they are?
Is the message being circulated in a context likely to normalise hostility, exclusion or intimidation?
Where those indicators are present, institutions should be able to respond early and proportionately.
That may include complaint handling, correction, education, sanctions, safeguarding measures, improved guidance, public accountability or other remedies appropriate to the harm.
The key point is prevention.
A society committed to social cohesion should not wait until hatred becomes violence before recognising the damage already being done
Addressing antisemitism clearly and robustly
AAI’s submission is clear that antisemitism must be taken seriously.
Some of the clearest and most dangerous forms of antisemitism are dehumanising in character. These include conspiracy myths, portrayals of Jewish people as collectively dangerous, collective blame directed at Jews as Jews, Holocaust denial or trivialisation, and rhetoric that strips Jewish people of equal humanity.
A people-centred dehumanisation framework strengthens the response to antisemitism because it focuses on the core harm: hatred directed at Jewish people because they are Jewish.
It also helps preserve an important democratic distinction.
Hatred toward Jewish people is antisemitism and must be addressed.
Lawful criticism of states, governments, military conduct or political doctrines should not be treated as racism simply because it is politically contested.
Public institutions need a framework capable of making that distinction carefully and consistently. A dehumanisation framework does this by focusing on whether human beings are being denied equal dignity, protection or belonging because of a protected attribute.
A people-centred framework for extremism
AAI’s submission also asks the Royal Commission to consider extremism through the lens of dehumanisation, threat construction and cumulative harm.
Extremism does not always begin with overt violence. It may develop through repeated messaging that casts minorities as threats, enemies, contaminants, invaders, demographic dangers or disloyal outsiders.
Over time, these narratives can reduce empathy, normalise exclusion, justify intimidation and create social permission for harm.
This is why AAI has argued for a network-aware approach to extremist risk. Institutions should not only ask whether one isolated statement crosses a legal threshold. They should also ask whether repeated narratives, affiliated platforms, community networks, funding pathways or youth-facing programs are contributing to patterns of dehumanisation and exclusion.
This approach is not about criminalising belief.
It is not about banning religious practice.
It is not about targeting communities.
It is about recognising conduct, context and foreseeable impact.
Religious and ideologically motivated extremism must be understood consistently
AAI’s submission asks the Royal Commission to recognise that religious and ideologically motivated extremism in Australia may appear in different forms.
Public discussion often focuses on white supremacist and neo-Nazi movements. Those threats are real and must be addressed. But they are not the only forms of extremist mobilisation that can affect social cohesion in Australia.
AAI has previously raised concerns about far-right Hindu extremist mobilisation where it manifests through cumulative dehumanisation, threat construction, exclusionary narratives, intimidation, youth exposure, caste-based harm, network amplification and institutional legitimacy.
This does not mean Hinduism is extremism.
It is not.
AAI’s concern is not with Hindu belief, Hindu worship, Hindu culture or lawful religious practice. Most Hindu Australians are committed to social cohesion, mutual respect and shared civic life.
AAI works closely with members of Hindu communities, including caste-oppressed Hindu advocates, whose leadership is essential to confronting supremacist movements and protecting communities from harm.
The issue is not religion.
The issue is conduct.
Where any movement — religious, political, racial, ethnic or ideological — promotes supremacy, dehumanises minorities, organises hate, silences dissent or normalises exclusion, public institutions must be able to recognise the risk and respond proportionately.
A people-centred framework for social cohesion
Social cohesion cannot be built on selective recognition of harm.
When Jewish communities report antisemitism, they deserve to be heard and protected.
When Muslim communities report Islamophobia, they deserve to be heard and protected.
When Palestinians are collectively blamed or dehumanised, that harm must be recognised.
When Sikh communities, caste-oppressed Hindus, Christians, dissenting Hindus or other communities describe intimidation, silencing or exclusion, public institutions must be capable of understanding the harm.
A people-centred framework helps governments, regulators, schools, universities, media bodies and civil society respond to hatred without creating hierarchies of protection.
It also helps avoid fragmented standards, where each community is forced to argue for recognition under different definitions, thresholds or political expectations.
AAI’s submission argues for a single, fair and consistent approach: protect people from dehumanisation and cumulative harm.
That approach strengthens trust because it tells every community that their dignity matters.
Why institutional responses matter
Social cohesion is not only damaged by extremist actors. It is also damaged when institutions fail to recognise harm.
When complaints are dismissed as internal “community disagreement”, affected communities can feel abandoned.
When public funding or public recognition is extended without proper due diligence, harmful networks may gain legitimacy.
When youth-facing programs are not properly safeguarded, children and young people may be exposed to exclusionary or grievance-based narratives in high-trust settings.
When public institutions recognise only the loudest or most institutionally connected voices, internal diversity within communities can be erased.
AAI’s submission therefore calls for preventive, governance-focused responses.
These include stronger institutional guidance, improved complaint-handling standards, safeguards in youth and educational settings, and due-diligence mechanisms to reduce the risk of public legitimacy or funding being extended to networks that propagate dehumanising material.
What AAI recommends
AAI recommends that the Royal Commission support a dehumanisation-based framework for identifying and responding to antisemitism in complaint systems, educational guidance, media standards and prevention work.
AAI also recommends that the Commission affirm a single, people-centred standard for hate and dehumanisation across protected communities, so that Jewish, Muslim, Palestinian, Sikh, caste-oppressed and other vulnerable communities are protected through fair and consistent principles.
AAI further recommends that standards for addressing antisemitism protect people, not states, governments or political doctrines, so that hatred toward Jewish people is robustly addressed without conflating lawful criticism of state conduct with racism.
AAI also recommends that the Commission recognise cumulative dehumanisation, threat construction and network amplification as relevant to extremist risk, including in relation to far-right Hindu extremist mobilisation and other ideologically motivated forms of hatred that affect Australian social cohesion.
Finally, AAI recommends preventive and governance-focused measures, including stronger guidance for institutions, improved complaint-handling standards, safeguards in youth and educational settings, and due-diligence mechanisms relating to public funding and institutional legitimacy
A fairer way forward
AAI’s message to the Royal Commission is clear.
Australia needs a people-centred framework for hate, extremism and social cohesion.
That framework should protect human beings from dehumanisation, vilification, intimidation and exclusion.
It should recognise harm early.
It should be fair across communities.
It should support strong action against antisemitism while also strengthening responses to Islamophobia, anti-Palestinian racism, caste-based degradation, anti-Sikh hatred and other forms of group-based harm.
It should preserve democratic freedoms.
And it should help public institutions respond to hate before communities are forced to carry the burden of preventable harm.
The strongest social cohesion framework is one that protects people consistently, recognises harm clearly, and prevents hate before it escalates.
