Victim impact statements are a much abused procedure if the Kouri Rischins case in Utah (USA) — she was convicted of poisoning her husband Eric — and Australian Royal Commission on Antisemitism hearings are indications.

In the Kouri Richins sentencing hearing on 13 May statements by her young children were read out by social workers that claimed Kouri was a terrible mother. These claims were so extreme that that it was clear that the children had been manipulated by Eric’s relatives (with whom they had now lived for two years) and/or the social workers were well-meaning fools.

Because Kouri was — rightly, in my view — convicted of poisoning Eric the consensus (both in court and the media) has been to basically accept all that was supposedly said by her children was real.

I have watched and read only a portion of the Australian Royal Commission Antisemitism hearings that have been shown online and lasted several days, but it has clearly been seen by many as an opportunity to use real cases of antisemitism to make exaggerated and emotional claims that antisemitism is rampart in Australia — and that there must be some legal abolition of it!

While killing someone — as in the Richins case — is an identifiable and specific act, ideas and feelings such as antisemitism are harder to specify and identify. But this is no problem for Australia’s “Israel lobby” which want a definition of antisemitism which they define and can use to limit criticism of Israeli actions in Gaza and other places.