The end of VOA

It seems Voice of America is finally close to being completely dismantled. Two days ago, a federal court in Washington, D.C., declared it would not intervene with presidential decisions. This means the court case that the Voice of America filed is no longer relevant. It is sad to see that VOA is going entirely, but it is probably good if the network is reshuffled and rebuilt, say, if it happens to return in four or so years from now. 

The Afghanistan section was a total propaganda, the network did not have a good reputation in the past either, but in the aftermath of the US troop withdrawal and subsequent takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban, VOA both Dari and Pashto sections shifted their narratives and ways of covering the news to cater the Taliban's ideology. In other words, VOA was sliding towards becoming the mouthpiece of the extreme ideology of the Taliban from afar with the US taxpayers' money. During my fieldwork, I talked to two employees, both females, and both complained about the way they were forced to censor themselves. "It is stifling," one of them told me when complaining about the ways in which she was forced to write the news bulletin.

But it may be good for humanity. Whatever the outcome, the future will be different. Whatever and whoever, in whatever form and organization, VOA re-emerges, it will not be the same as it was in the hands of ethnonationalists. 

Arezo Zoe Safi, Identity Misuse, and the Defamatory Submission Targeting Hazaras

Recently, I became aware that some individuals whose names appeared as authors of a notorious submission, one laden with falsehoods, accusations, and hatred against the Hazara community in Australia, have expressed remorse. Some even claim they were unaware that their names had been used at all.

Assuming, for the sake of speculation, that some individuals were indeed unaware of their names being used, there are legal venues resolving the issue. I looked online and realized that if a person's name is used in a document (any) without knowing or giving consent, serious concerns might be raised regarding misrepresentation and harm. 

Let's approach this issue with a few questions: What can a person do when their name is used in a document, online or offline, without their knowledge or consent? What legal options are available, and who might be held accountable?

In this case, Arezo Zoe Safi, a registered solicitor, and her cousin Atal Zahid Safi appear to be central figures in this matter. Both of them are family members of Mohammad Masoom Stanekzai, a prominent Afghan politician who formerly led the National Directorate of Security (NDS) and later served as the acting Minister of Defense and who is accused of persecution of Hazara non-violent demonstrations. Given her professional standing, Ms. Safi is legally authorized to provide advice and represent clients. It is troubling, then, if she and her firm, Safi Legal, are implicated in a document that misuses individuals’ identities.

I looked up online to find out what a person could do if his or her name is used without context. I found out that using someone’s name without consent is not, in itself, a criminal offense under Australian law. But if that use results in privacy violations, defamation, or identity misuse, there may be grounds for legal action. This is where the Privacy Act 1988 becomes relevant: 

1) Breach of Privacy—If someone promotes hate or misinformation by using someone's name, it may constitute a breach of privacy, especially if it causes personal or reputational harm.

2) Defamation - If someone's name is used for promoting falsehoods or harmful narratives. This is particularly relevant to those who did not consent or were unaware of their names being used. 

So, what can be done?

If I were the individuals whose names were misused by Arezo Zoe Safi, I would pursue a formal complaint under the Privacy Act of 1998.

When a Lawyer Spreads Harm: Arezo Zoe Safi’s hostile rhetoric against the Hazara community

In my earlier post, I forgot to mention an important point: Arezo Zoe Safi is actively spreading hatred and hostility toward the Hazara community in Australia. Arezo, who was born and raised in Australia and has likely only visited Afghanistan briefly, has no direct lived experience of the country’s ethnic tensions, yet she chooses to vilify Hazara advocates speaking out against systemic violence. She is the niece of Mohammad Masoom Stanekzai, a prominent Afghan politician who formerly led the National Directorate of Security (NDS) and later served as the acting Minister of Defense. 

On her Facebook page in 2023, she, while unemotionally controlled, launched a disturbing attack against Sitarah Mohammadi, a respected Hazara lawyer and activist, questioning why Sitarah should be allowed to speak about the ongoing genocidal violence targeting the Hazara people. Arezo appears particularly outraged at any suggestion that Pashtun groups, among others, bear responsibility for these atrocities. In her post, she dismissively refers to Sitarah as “an amateur advocate,” despite Sitarah’s impressive credentials: a provost scholar at the University of Oxford (2019), a BA in International Relations and Human Rights from Monash University, and a Juris Doctor from Monash Law School. Sitarah has also published several academic articles. Also, read the comments below her post and see how she engages with commentators by spreading lies and hatred.

A screenshot from Arezo Zoe Safi's Facebook page

A quick search of Arezo Zoe Safi reveals not much about professional achievement, only a pattern of inflammatory and divisive rhetoric. So, where does her virulent attitude and false confidence come from? It appears rooted in a sense of ethnic privilege. Arezo, as a member of the Pashtun ethnic group, seems to leverage her identity to perpetuate a dangerous sense of ethnic superiority, even from within Australia. This privilege emboldens her to attack Hazara individuals and silence their voices.

The most disturbing aspect of Arezo's conduct is her misuse of legal language to legitimize her claims. She notably uses the hashtags #hatespeech and #racialdiscrimination, terms that, under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (RDA) in Australia, are associated with serious legal implications. Ironically, the very rhetoric she employs against the Hazara community appears to violate the principles outlined in the RDA. In the 2021 submission, Arezo is listed as a solicitor, and it is evident that much of the inflammatory language can be attributed to her and it appears that she is the primary person responsible for the submission. 

This makes her actions not only deeply offensive but also potentially unlawful. The Hazara community in Australia has grounds to pursue legal recourse under the RDA, potentially holding Arezo and her collaborators accountable for hate speech and racial discrimination.

At its core, Arezo's message is clear: Hazara people should stay silent about the historical and ongoing pain they have endured under Pashtun-dominated rule. Rather than offering empathy or seeking understanding, she chooses to attack the victims. This is not only cruel, it is dangerous.

Ignored warnings, predictable fallout: Lessons for the Liberal Party

The guy got trounced. I’m talking about Zahid Safi, the same man who attempted to enter the Australian Parliament under false pretenses. He allegedly faked his MA degree, misled people about his business record, and has a troubling history of hostility toward the Hazara community. Most recently, he tried to win support from Bruce through fear and intimidation. But the residents saw through the facade and rejected him, sending a clear message: he is dangerous and unfit for public office.

Earlier, I unintentionally predicted the outcome of the election in the Division of Bruce in one of my blog posts titled “Fake it to break it,” referring to a candidate whose credibility was questionable due to a pattern of deception.

The Liberal Party's decision to endorse him was flawed from the beginning. Now, some within the party are calling for a “serious review” of what went wrong. But the core issue is already clear: you didn’t listen to the people.

Members of the Hazara community in Bruce raised serious concerns about Zahid Safi’s candidacy, concerns that were brought directly to party leadership. Those warnings were ignored.

So what went wrong? The answer is obvious: a failure to hear and respect the voices of those most affected.

Reflecting on missteps isn’t dwelling on the past, it’s a necessary step toward doing better. Both the Liberal and Labor parties should take note.

Here’s how you move forward and do better in the future:

1) Conduct thorough background checks on candidates. That includes verifying academic credentials, investigating business dealings, and uncovering any history of illegal or unethical behavior.
2) Understand a candidate’s ties to the community. Know their ethnic background and how they relate to the broader diaspora in the area. 
3) Consult with community leaders and organizers. Learn what other ethnic or immigrant communities live in the division, and ask for their perspective on the candidate. Their input is essential to making informed decisions.

If parties want to represent multicultural Australia with integrity and responsibility, they must start by listening, especially when communities speak out in good faith and with genuine concern.

The echoes of Hazara persecution in Australia

In my previous post, when I wrote that Afghans brought the persecution of the Hazaras to Australia, there was a reason. Clear signs of this persecution have emerged. Just yesterday, The Guardian Australia reported that Zahid Safi's campaign team has escalated their tactics. According to journalist Henry Belot, the team is now pressuring members of the Hazara diaspora, claiming that voting for anyone other than the Liberal Party constitutes a betrayal of Abdur Rahman Khan, often referred to as "Afghanistan's Hitler." Zahid campaign volunteers, mostly made up of Pashtuns, have told the Hazaras that we have to resurrect Abdur Rahman Khan. 

Labor alleges the volunteer told people that a vote for anyone other than the Liberals would betray Khan, and called for him to be “brought back”. Khan is linked to the Hazara genocide in the late 1800s.

“I am concerned that the reason Liberal volunteers are invoking Abdur Rahman Khan’s name is to harass and intimidate members of the local Hazara community,” said the letter to the commission from Jett Fogarty, an Australian Labor party official.

This is deeply concerning. For members of the Hazara community in Australia, such rhetoric must be profoundly distressing and potentially retraumatizing. It raises serious questions about what protective mechanisms are in place to support targeted communities in situations like this. The political parties and representatives have a responsibility to address and counteract this kind of vicious rhetoric and to ensure Hazaras feel safe. 

You can’t fake your way into parliament

Afghans, and more precisely, in this case, a small number of Pashtuns residents of Bruce, are now rallying to support Zahid Safi. His campaign has already taken a hit: the manager has stepped down following backlash over offensive online remarks, and notably, there’s no Australian presence within Safi's team. In Bruce, the Safi clan, a large network of families sharing the same last names, has stepped in. Wearing matching blue, round-necked T-shirts and covering their paunches with bold “SAFI” lettering, they pose with forced smiles for the cameras.

It may look like a campaign gaining momentum, but beyond appearances, what’s missing is substance, brain power, integrity, and a genuine understanding of basic responsibilities, such as not lying, not discriminating against people based on their ethnicity or race. Someone should tell this guy to go to the community and apologize for your blatant racism and take down the submission. Learn some decency. Someone needs to say it plainly: dude, you can't fake your way into parliament. This isn't Afghanistan. Your fakery for all sorts of glorification is obsolete here.