Two attacks. Two communities. Two radically different responses — and what that reveals about race, power, and selective outrage in an illiberal democracy.
James Macleod || Let’s get something straight from the beginning.
Australia likes to sell itself internationally as a relaxed, egalitarian democracy — a place of a “fair go”, the rule of law, and moral clarity. That image dissolves the moment you look at who gets protected, who gets named, who gets mourned, and who gets quietly managed.
I want to scrutinise two events in the past two months:
Two attacks.
Two communities.
Two radically different responses.
And the difference tells you far more about Australia than either incident alone.
FIRST, THE CONTEXT FOR INTERNATIONAL READERS
What is “Australia Day” — and why many call it “Invasion Day”?
“Australia Day”, as the country officially refers to it, is held on 26 January, marking the arrival of the British First Fleet at Sydney Cove in 1788 and the beginning of permanent British colonisation. Captain James Cook’s earlier landing on the east coast occurred on 29 April 1770, which included initial violent encounters with Indigenous peoples, but it was the First Fleet’s arrival in 1788 that established permanent settlement and began the large-scale dispossession that Australia Day commemorates. That arrival initiated:
- violent land theft
- massacres
- dispossession
- cultural destruction
- and policies that removed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families well into the 20th century.
Hence: Invasion Day.
Every year, large rallies are held across Australia by Indigenous people and their allies. They are not fringe protests. They are among the largest political gatherings in the country, calling for recognition, justice, and an honest reckoning with history.
That context matters. A lot.
INCIDENT ONE: BONDI BEACH, DECEMBER 2025
What happened
You will almost certainly have heard that, last month, a mass shooting occurred at a Jewish Hanukkah celebration at Bondi Beach — one of Australia’s most iconic public spaces.
- At least 15 people were killed (primarily Jewish)
- Many more were injured
- The attack was immediately framed as antisemitic terrorism
The response
Within hours:
- Politicians used the word terrorism
- Media centred the Jewish community as the target
- The nation was told this was an attack on “Australian values”
Within weeks:
- Hate crime laws were rushed through parliament
- Protest laws and police powers were expanded
- Gun laws were amended
- Civil liberties concerns were brushed aside as inconvenient timing
All of this happened before court proceedings concluded. Evidence was still being tested. Motive was still being litigated.
The message was unmistakable:
This matters. We see you. We will move heaven and earth.
INCIDENT TWO: PERTH, INVASION DAY, JANUARY 2026
What happened
This one — particularly if you’re an international reader — you almost certainly haven’t heard.
At an Invasion Day rally in Perth, attended primarily by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, a man allegedly threw an improvised explosive device into the crowd.
The device contained:
- explosive liquid
- screws
- ball bearings
In other words: shrapnel.
It was designed to kill.
It failed to detonate. Pure luck prevented mass casualties.
It’s worth stating clearly that, unlike in Bondi, no one was killed in Perth — not because of restraint, intervention, or a lack of intent, but because the device failed. That distinction matters for the coronial record, but it is morally irrelevant to the question at hand. An improvised explosive device packed with nails and ball bearings, thrown into a crowd, is not a warning, a protest, or a scare; it is an attempt at mass-casualty violence. The difference between murder and attempted murder is not ethical — in this case, it is mechanical luck.
The response
Oh, and here’s where the mask slips.
- Early media reports called it a “bomb scare”
- Headlines focused on a “device” or an “object”
- The word terrorism was delayed, qualified, softened
- The community targeted was barely centred at all
Politicians urged “calm”. Police spoke about “process”. Courts suppressed the accused’s name for safety reasons.
There were:
- no emergency parliamentary sessions
- no fast-tracked hate crime reforms
- no national address naming anti-Indigenous violence
- no urgent soul-searching
The message this time: Let’s not get carried away.
Same country. Same law. Same supposed values.
Different people.
THIS IS WHERE THE HYPOCRISY LIVES
Terrorism is apparently about outcomes, not intent — but only sometimes.
In Bondi, terrorism was declared immediately, recognising motive and targeting.
In Perth, an IED thrown into a crowd was treated as a procedural incident until forced otherwise.
Intent didn’t change.
Only the audience did.
One community is named. The other is background noise.
In Bondi:
- “The Jewish community was targeted” — or possibly an organisation. That has still not been made particularly clear at the time of writing.
- Victims were named, mourned, and humanised
In Perth:
- “Protest disrupted”
- Indigenous people framed as participants in an event, not victims of an attack
One is a hate crime against people.
The other is treated as an issue at a protest.
That framing choice is not neutral.
It’s political.
Law Moves Fast When It’s Politically Comfortable
After Bondi:
- Laws were rushed through
- Critics were told urgency justified everything
After Perth:
- Suddenly, process matters
- Suddenly, we must wait
- Suddenly, restraint is virtuous
For Indigenous Australians — who have spent centuries being told to “wait” — this is not abstract hypocrisy. It is lived experience.
For me, as a neutral observer, it’s a fucking hypocrisy.
Media Courage Has Limits — and Those Limits Are Racial
The Australian media knows:
- Calling out antisemitism is morally clear and institutionally safe
- Naming anti-Indigenous violence invites culture-war backlash
So the language softens.
The context disappears.
The urgency evaporates.
This isn’t conspiracy.
It’s risk management.
WHY THIS MATTERS INTERNATIONALLY
Australia is not unique. But it is illustrative.
It shows how liberal democracies:
- universalise grief selectively
- apply moral language unevenly
- confuse “neutrality” with justice
The same country that lectures others on human rights cannot bring itself to say plainly:
An attempt to bomb Indigenous people at a political rally is terrorism.
This is not an accidental failure.
It is structural.
THE UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTH
Australia wants reconciliation without discomfort.
It wants truth without consequences.
History without accountability.
And when violence exposes that contradiction, the response depends on who is standing in the blast radius.
This isn’t about diminishing the horror of Bondi.
It’s about asking why only some horrors force a nation to look in the mirror.
Because until Australia can name its own double standards — loudly, honestly, without euphemism — it will keep mistaking silence for stability.
And calling that fairness.
Discover more from SE Qld IWW
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
