This article was originally published by the NT News on Saturday 3 January 2026. 

Over the past two weeks, in the aftermath of horrific violence, we have seen facts strained, simplified, and at times actively misused - including here in the Northern Territory. In moments of shock and grief, the urge to reach for certainty is understandable. But when tragedy is pressed into service of pre-existing political narratives, the result is not clarity, but distortion.

At times like this, democracy depends on our capacity to listen to competing views, to test claims against evidence, and to resist collapsing complex realities into simplistic explanations. Public debate should widen in moments of crisis, not narrow.

Australia is not “sleepwalking into extremism” because people care about justice, human rights or accountability. What truly threatens our democracy is the deliberate misuse of tragedy to advance a singular ideological narrative - one that simplifies complex violence into a convenient political weapon.

And yes -  I have skin in the game.

I grew up in Bondi. My family and friends still live there. I am a Jewish woman. I have lived with antisemitism, not as a theory, but as a reality. And I am a member of the NT Parliament who has spoken about Palestine in our Chamber. I do not approach this debate abstractly, and I do not speak without understanding the weight of what is being claimed.

The horrific violence at Bondi cannot be reduced to slogans, protest movements, universities, journalists or parliamentary debate. That does not mean antisemitism is not real, rising, or dangerous. Nor does it deny that dehumanising language, conspiracy and hate can corrode social norms over time. But recognising those truths is not the same as asserting a direct, linear cause between political activism and an act of violence. To collapse that distinction is to replace careful anaylsis with conjecture, and grief with blame. We do not honour victims, or confront antisemitism effectively, by constructing sweeping theories that assign collective responsibility to political opponents or civic institutions instead of engaging in serious, evidence-based analysis.

Violence deserves serious, careful analysis grounded in facts, not fear. That analysis must include mental health, warning signs, prevention, community safety, policing capacity, and yes, access to weapons. Pretending that one factor can be ruled out because it is politically inconvenient is not leadership; it is ideology masquerading as certainty.

Dissent, protest or moral disagreement are signs of democratic strength, not decay. Liberal democracy is not fragile because people argue passionately  - it is fragile when debate is narrowed, when disagreement is recast as threat, and when entire movements are smeared as inherently dangerous.

Australians are capable of moral agency. Caring about people overseas, about racism at home, or scrutinising government conduct does not make someone an extremist - it makes them a participant in civic life. Describing compassion as naïveté and activism as manipulation does a disservice to all of us.

Conflating support for Palestinian human rights with support for terrorism is both inaccurate and corrosive. We must be capable of condemning antisemitism, Islamophobia and terrorism unequivocally, while still defending free expression, democratic protest and the right to disagree.

State-funded media and education must be scrutinised, but critique must be grounded in evidence, not broad claims of “narrative capture” designed to delegitimise institutions when they challenge a particular worldview.  Democracies survive through pluralism, not enforced conformity.

Our own government in the NT recently weakened hate speech laws – which I opposed. This is not a question of free speech alone ; it is about balancing rights with the protection of vulnerable communities. Defending liberal democracy means safeguarding both freedom of expression and freedom from hate fuelled harm – ensuring our society remains strong, just and inclusive.

And despite the accusation that Parliament is not the place for specific issues, members of the Government frequently present themselves as champions of free speech. One member said :

“Humans have a nature. Socialists always want to rule by control and punishment. They are not happy until they can enforce thought crime. We see that around the world where speech and language are being controlled. That is the natural end point of those on the other side. That is their natural tendency. The liberals in the world seek to let people be free and have the marketplace of ideas flourish. They are not afraid of free speech and people speaking their mind.”

In response, I said :

“I want to thank you for your political analysis, but I feel the need to correct it for the record. I speak not as a member of any political party but as a student of history. The claim that socialists uniquely threaten free speech while free markets protect it ignores substantial evidence to the contrary. Major corporations routinely suppress speech that threatens their profits whether it is through blacklisting workers who organise unions, pressuring platforms to remove criticism or using legal threats to silence journalists. We see that over and again and I can give you myriad examples.

Trump has repeatedly called for the revocation of broadcast licences for news networks that have criticised him, suggested opening libel laws to sue unfavourable press and praised authoritarian crackdowns on protesters. The marketplace of ideas does not function when a handful of billionaires own the megaphones.

Historically it was socialists and labour movements that fought for the free speech protections that we have today. The real threat to free expression comes not from any economic system but concentrated power itself, whether it is held by states or corporations. When a few tech CEOs can unilaterally ban a sitting president or algorithmically suppress entire viewpoints, that is not the free market protecting speech; it is unaccountable power shaping public discourse for private interests.

Let us not forget that in the champions of free speech in your own CLP your Chief Minister routinely tells people that she does not want to listen to them if she does not like what they have to say. She says that if they do not like what this government is doing they should leave. Where is the freedom of speech in that?"

The most dangerous trend in our politics is not activism, but absolutism: the insistence that there is only one permissible explanation, one acceptable politics, one authorised moral position, reinforced by the quiet concentration of control over information. When debate is narrowed by who owns platforms, and who determines visibility trust erodes and democracy weakens.

I want to end where I began - personally.

I know this story – of violence in my home community, of antisemitism, not as an abstraction or a theory, but as reality. And I stand in the Northern Territory Parliament as someone who has spoken about Palestine, about human rights, and about the responsibilities of governments - knowing exactly how those words will be received, and sometimes distorted.

I reject the false choice that says I must abandon one part of that identity to legitimise another. Speaking against antisemitism does not require silence on Palestinian suffering, and caring about Palestinian civilians does not imply tolerance for terrorism. Nor is democratic debate itself a danger.

If liberal democracy cannot accommodate someone like me - my history, my identity, my willingness to condemn violence while defending dissent - then the problem is not activism. It is the shrinking of democratic space.

Leadership demands that we hold grief without weaponising it, confront violence without collapsing into fear, and defend pluralism even when it is uncomfortable. That is the work this moment requires.

If we are serious about protecting liberal democracy and social cohesion, we must resist the temptation to turn tragedy into proof of our preferred ideology, and instead do the harder work of confronting violence with evidence, compassion and integrity.