In Australia, Grace Tame built a national reputation on one simple, powerful principle: believe survivors. It was that clarity that made her Australian of the Year in 2021, cementing her as the voice of victims of sexual abuse. Her platform was moral, her advocacy unassailable, until recently.

In an ABC interview with Hamish Macdonald, Tame dismissed allegations that Israeli women were raped during the October 7 attacks as “propaganda” and “debunked.” Investigations linked to the United Nations suggest that sexual violence did occur. These are not abstract claims. Attacks were filmed by the perpetrators themselves, including videos of killings and sexual assaults, and a 47-minute compilation shows atrocities in horrifying detail. Some attackers even called their families to boast of murders committed with their own hands. Yet the ABC interview barely interrogated Tame, allowing her assertion to pass largely unchallenged.

Hamish Macdonald could have challenged Tame deeper by asking some basic questions, including but not limited to; who is the source of her claim that the sexual assault allegations are “propaganda”? What framework does she use to decide which groups are oppressed and which are not? In a room full of Israeli survivors who are alleging sexual assault, how would she respond to their claims be treated differently based on nationality or political context?

If documented sexual assaults and filmed horrors can be waved away as “propaganda,” one has to ask: who is feeding her these claims, and on what authority?

Tame frequently presents herself as someone who stands with “the oppressed.” A noble claim until one asks: which oppressed people? Welcome to Critical Race Theory! Let’s divide victims into how Grace defines the oppressed versus the oppressor. Rape is apparently defined differently now, so forget ‘believe survivors.’

Where is the same passion for Iranian women risking imprisonment and death protesting the authoritarian regime of the IRGC? Where is the outcry for the tens of thousands of brave Iranians protesting against oppression and demanding freedom in January? Where is the outcry for Palestinians living under the authoritarian rule of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, where dissent can be brutally punished? Where is the outcry for the oppression of LGBTQ+ people under Islamic regimes?

And yet, Israeli women allegedly raped during the October 7 attacks are dismissed as “propaganda.” Critics argue this is selective empathy on display, the very principle that earned Tame her credibility now appears conditional.

“I advocate for the safety of all human beings, regardless of their background, whether they are Jewish, Muslim, Christian, or anything else

It is a simple, noble claim but not from Grace. Interesting how she said this right after her October 7 denials.

The test of universal human rights, however, is not how it applies to people we instinctively sympathize with. It is how it applies to those whose suffering challenges our assumptions, ideology, or political leanings.

The controversy is amplified by the rhetoric surrounding recent protests. Chants of “globalise the intifada” have become common at demonstrations. Just weeks ago, Grace Tame herself lead those chants with “From Gadigal to Gaza, globalise the Intifada”. To emphasize it as if once was not enough, Tame repeated it a second time. Supporters frame it as resistance; critics note it evokes violent uprisings targeting Israeli civilians.

Look at what has happened in just the past ten days:

In Belgium, an explosion outside a historic synagogue in Liège caused significant damage.

In Canada, three synagogues were targeted in separate shootings in the space of a week.

In Michigan, a man rammed his truck into a synagogue and preschool before being shot dead by police.

In Rotterdam, authorities are investigating an arson attack on a synagogue.

In Amsterdam, an explosion damaged a Jewish school in what the mayor described as a deliberate attack against the Jewish community.

In Norway, individuals were arrested attempting to carry out attacks against synagogues in Oslo and Trondheim.

Is this the “globalise the intifada” you were calling for, Grace? Or do you need a few Bondis to understand what happened in Israel during the actual intifadas where over 1,000 Israelis were killed during numerous suicide bombings on busses, cafes, shopping malls, night clubs and hotels? You claimed to have learned history in you ABC interview, sure you did. Perhaps go and learn history rather than the rewritten one your new friends are feeding you!

Words are not neutral. For a nationally prominent activist, amplifying slogans associated with violence while dismissing documented claims of sexual assault sends a message that selective outrage is acceptable. To many Jewish Australians, it reads less like solidarity and more like hostility.

Tame is part of a broader trend: high-profile activists such as Lydia Thorpe and Mary Kostakidis among many others, whose influence comes not from institutional authority but from moral posturing and, at times, an unhinged public persona. Fearless critics of the establishment, they attract attention and followers through uncompromising, and often erratic moral claims.

But moral authority is fragile. When principles appear to apply only to some victims, credibility collapses. In Tame’s case, that collapse has tangible consequences: she has lost multiple speaking engagements this year because her advocacy has become inconsistent and her moral platform untenable. Her principle has literally collapsed.

The ABC bears responsibility. A national broadcaster giving a platform to a prominent activist has a duty not merely to air controversial statements but to interrogate them rigorously. The casual treatment of Tame’s claim that sexual violence allegations had been “debunked” was a missed opportunity for public accountability.

Journalism is not about amplifying celebrity; it is about challenging claims with real-world consequences. And in this case, those claims involve verified war crimes, sexual assaults, and footage filmed by the perpetrators themselves. But then, the ABC has a reputation for a reason.

Human rights either apply to everyone or they apply to no one.

If the principle of believing survivors is conditional, if empathy is selective, then the moral clarity that gave Tame her authority disappears. That is why critics are right to question both her advocacy and the platforms that continue to amplify her.

And it is why she has lost her speaking events. When principles collapse, credibility collapses with them. Activism built on selective outrage is activism without a foundation.

Grace Tame may still speak for some, but the moment she decides whose suffering counts and whose does not, dismissing documented atrocities as “propaganda” the mantle of universal human rights slips from her grasp.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)