Published: 30 January 2025
Last updated: 30 January 2025
Most people who’ve been to therapy know the rule about the word “should”. It always needs to be unpacked. Who says you “should” do something? Why “should” you?
As a woman, I don’t feel safe walking on the street late at night on my own. This lack of safety isn’t predicated on nothing. It’s based on years of being harassed on the basis of my gender, friends who’ve been attacked on the basis of their gender and story after story in the media about women being harassed or attacked on the streets all over the world, including in Australia.
I’ve had men argue that I “shouldn’t” feel unsafe, that there’s no reason for me to feel unsafe, it’s an irrational fear and unfounded. Does this make me feel safe or safer? Of course not. It makes me feel unseen and dismissed. Because this lack of safety is based on my own trauma and my own experience. It’s something a man might try to understand but will never fully understand in the same way that I do. Just like I will never understand what it’s like to use a urinal. But I digress.
In October last year, I went to a book launch for my dear friend, Josh Bornstein. It was just a few days short of the anniversary of the October 7 attacks and he was asked a question by the audience about the safety of Australian Jews and whether there was basis for that fear - whether we "should" feel fearful. The answer he gave resonated with me and has most days since.
He observed that it’s not for anyone else to say whether those fears are founded or unfounded. If someone feels unsafe taking part in public discourse because of their ethnicity or culture, in going to their place of work or study or venturing into public places with their families, that is a problem for us all.
It should go without saying but I will state it anyway: whether Jewish, Aboriginal, Muslim or from any other minority or marginalised group, everyone in this country has a right to feel safe engaging in public life.
Comments7
Hannah Fink25 February at 08:49 am
Thank you Isabelle. I felt every word.
Jack16 February at 03:07 am
Sarah Schwartz recently wrote “To address antisemitism on campus, we must also address the racism faced by other racialised groups, including First Nations, Palestinian, Muslim, Arab, and Asian staff and students.”
There is an obvious flaw in prioritising the lived-experience, personalised perspective of affront or insult or injury. Antisemitism is a community issue, but I question whether is should be a special carve-out of the overall societal challenge of racism in general?
Unless the individual who had the lived-experience posesses extraordinary compassion and detachment, an understandable human trauma response can be to loose perspective. Personal pain masks out the pain of others. When an individual is hurt, a natural response is to idenify as a victim and to lash out. We all know what that leads to.
In the case of anti-jewish incidents, the Jewish community should stand together with all the other communities who are victims of racism to collectively challenge the issue.
Simon4 February at 11:08 pm
Thank you, Isabelle, for this informative and edifying article.
I largely share the opinions you have expressed but I feel like an important part of debate is missing. The meaning of ‘racist’ varies a lot and the definition makes a critical difference. On the one hand ‘racism’ is something abhorrent and abnormal and ‘racists’ are to be condemned and sanctioned; on the other hand, racism is based on our lack of understanding and knowledge about other cultures and we’re all inevitably racist. These two concepts often get blurred. The blurring then complicates discussions of racism.*
This distinction is relevant to your excellent point: that only a marginalised person can tell you when they are unsafe and that they must be listened to. It does not follow that that person may then dictate the behaviour of all, and that society should be beholden to the subjective opinions of every individual. There is a balance that needs to be found.
* Is a little like the intertwining of criticism of Israel and antisemitism that you highlight?
Hilary A3 February at 01:02 am
Dear Isabelle
Thank you for thinking through our current experience.
Re your comment: “It’s no different to the way Australians from all walks of life criticise the Australian government, both current and historic.”
There is a significant difference, which is that we live here and vote here and pay taxes here. It’s common to criticise governments of other countries. However you must be conscious of how Israel is singled out, while any number of other governments where human rights abuses are systemic and appalling get a free pass. I also note that most of those who criticise Israel most loudly do not feel inclined to say a word against Hamas, Hezbollah etc.
Naomi2 February at 08:20 am
Brilliant piece. Thank you.
Who is to blame?31 January at 12:49 am
The “half anti-racist” is more than half antisemitic
Philip Mendes30 January at 10:42 am
Congrats Isabelle. This is an incredibly valuable telling of truth. I just hope that it is read by those who need to listen and educate themselves, not those who are already informed.