It matters not how poor the legislation is, how ill-thought its words are: something must be seen to be done. Historical and cultural context, inconveniences for expedient legislators and magistrates, is also absent: ISIS has never bothered itself with the cause of Palestinian sovereignty, aspiring, instead, to the creation of a murderous caliphate.
The need to be seen to be doing something has manifested in a range of measures from tighter gun controls to the outlawing of protests and the intended prohibition of various words. Farmers are furious that they were not consulted regarding the first matter, reminding lawmakers that food security also requires vigilance against agricultural vermin. Activists, civil libertarian advocates and human rights groups are worried about the last two.
The NSW Premier Chris Minns has decided on a blanketing approach, seeing all protests associated with pro-Palestinian marches as part of a common, insidious condition. On December 17, he told gathered members of the press “that protest right now in Sydney would be incredibly terrible for our community. In fact, they would rip apart our community, particularly protests about international events”.
This shoddy reasoning was expanded in remarks made on December 23, showing a tenuous grasp, not only of international events but the currents of history. “How,” he wondered, “can it be that a protest can take place in the state and there’s a swastika tattooed on the Star of David on a poster in the middle of the city? Or photos of the Ayatollah, the leader of Iran … Shirts saying, ‘Death to the IDF’. A sign that says: ‘All Zionists are neo-Nazis’”.
If he dared consult the history books on such nasty practices as ethnic cleansing and genocide, both applied with frightening effectiveness by the homicidal machinery of Nazi Germany, this might supply a clue to some of that symbolism. A sad state for humanity’s standing is that eliminating and displacing races, tribes and national groups is common fare for empires and civilisations. It is normally axiomatic that settlement implies conquest and subjugation and elimination. But Minns is simple, bemoaning that protests with such “signs” must have a “bearing on either the culture, the temperature or even extreme actions within our community”. By taking to the streets with chants, placards and the décor of demonstrations, “the organisers of these protests are unleashing forces they can’t control.”
Minns, it would seem, is on a mission against the language and conduct of undesirable protest. He has already shown this in implementing anti-protest laws with a drunk’s enlivened enthusiasm. Under respective Coalition and Labor governments, the state has become known for laws that have targeted climate change activism and, increasingly since 2023, those associated with the Palestinian cause. He now seeks to give the NSW police commissioner powers to refuse applications for protests where a terrorism designation has been made under the Terrorism (Police Powers) Act 2002 (NSW).
The Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 (NSW) grants police powers to impose public assembly restrictions via a “public assembly restriction declaration” within 14 days of a terrorist incident, prohibiting protests for up to three months. It also criminalises the display of “prohibited terrorist organisation symbols” without reasonable excuse.
Inevitably, the changes will imperil the welfare of the very people it seeks to protect while demonising those who genuinely seek change in policies through peaceful assembly. It also undermines the very thing Minns and his colleagues fetishise: societal harmony. Timothy Roberts, president of the NSW Council for Liberties, makes the self-evident point that, “Connecting the horrific events of the Bondi attack in any way with recent protests continues the harmful trend of conflating criticism of the actions of the government of Israel with antisemitism.” In so doing, the Premier was undermining “the community harmony […] he is worried about.”
The legislative actions also mark Jews out as either objects of exceptional charity, or useful alibis for policymakers seeking an ever more repressive state. “It places us Jews in the crosshairs,” reasons Michelle Berkon from Jews Against the Occupation. “These laws are not about protecting Jews … they’re not even about protecting Israel.” The notion of “Jewish safety” had been used to scapegoat “the millions of anti-racist Australians protesting genocide” while “using Jewish people as your human shields.”
The changes were passed by the Upper House in the early morning of Christmas Eve and are set to be approved by the Lower House without fuss. The fuss will come in the form of a constitutional challenge from the Palestine Action Group, Jews Against the Occupation and the First Nations-led Blak Caucus in the new year. The addition of the last group shows that cumbrous indiscriminate laws can have telling results. Representative Lizzie Jarrett summed up the sentiment: “It would really be a kick in the face to this conversation that the government keeps having with us about reconciliation, closing the gap, and putting the realities of First Nations people on the table.” Minns would do well to learn a thing or two about that particular history of settlement, one replete with ethnic cleansing, dispossession and genocide.
Comments