A prominent Jewish group has condemned a “disgusting” attempt to intimidate an exiled pro-democracy campaigner who fled to Adelaide from Hong Kong, with the federal opposition accusing a foreign actor of weaponising antisemitism.
Human Rights Watch said a separate attempt that encouraged people to inform on another dissident, Kevin Yam in Melbourne, was designed to make critics of the Hong Kong government feel “unsafe and hunted, no matter where they are in the world”.
On Monday, Guardian Australia revealed Ted Hui and Yam were both subjects of anonymous letters and pamphlets that were mailed from Chinese-controlled territories. It is not clear who created and posted the material, which the Australian government has condemned.
Hui and Yam are wanted by Hong Kong authorities for allegedly breaching a controversial national security law that grants authorities sweeping extraterritorial powers to prosecute acts or comments made anywhere in the world that it deems criminal.
Hui said an Australian government official had told him a pamphlet falsely accusing him of being a pro-Israel lawyer willing to “wage war” against Islamic terrorism was allegedly sent to “a few mosques” in Adelaide, where he resides. Hui said it was an attempt to intimidate him and undermine social cohesion.
The pamphlet, mailed from Macau, falsely quotes Hui as saying: “I am a pro-Jewish man and siding with Israel to wage war against those Islamic terrorism [sic]”. It also states Hui can “provide assistance to local Jews”.
Alex Ryvchin, the co-chief executive of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, said “referring to one’s enemy or opponent as a Jew is an ugly feature of antisemitic discourse”.
“The fact that whoever produced this material thought that referring to someone as pro-Jewish would serve to discredit them speaks to the antisemitism of the authors,” Ryvchin said.
“There is much work to be done to rebuild empathy between communities and these disgusting stunts only seek to deepen suspicion and animosity.”
Guardian Australia earlier revealed a small number of Melbourne residents received anonymous letters purporting to offer a police bounty of $203,000 if they informed on Yam, linking Yam to two nearby locations. The letter was mailed from Hong Kong.
The Human Rights Watch associate China director, Maya Wang, urged the Australian government to investigate who sent the letters and to “hold those responsible accountable”.
“The intent of these letters is clear – it is to make the activists feel like ‘rats crossing the streets’, which is a phrase the Hong Kong and Chinese security authorities have said since 2019, regarding those who publicly promote democracy,” Wang said.
“It is to make them feel ashamed, unsafe, hunted, no matter where they are in the world. It’s to make them feel watched, to put psychological pressure on them on top of everything they must deal with in exile.”
When similar letters were sent in the UK, the Chinese government denied any involvement but said it was reasonable to pursue “fugitives”. The Chinese embassy in Australia has been contacted for comment.
The Hong Kong government said it would not send anonymous letters but stressed it would “take every measure” to pursue anyone accused of breaching its national security laws.
Australian government sources have confirmed the material targeting Yam and Hui has been raised with Chinese and Hong Kong government officials.
Wang said that while it was not clear who sent the letters, the senders appeared to use tactics allegedly used by the Chinese and Hong Kong governments “to paint a target on the backs of those they don’t like, and thus basically let everyone know that they can harass and intimidate those whom the government perceives as enemies”.
Australia’s foreign minister, Penny Wong, said the government would “not accept any one of our citizens or on our shores [to be] bullied or harassed or threatened by a foreign power”.
The shadow home affairs minister, James Paterson, said the pamphlet appeared to be “a crude attempt to weaponise antisemitism for the purposes of foreign interference”.
