An approach that will extend to other phrases one day.
Photo: SJO

What is this country becoming?

QLD’S ‘HATE SPEECH’ PUSH

The Queensland government has proposed laws to ban the phrase “from the river to the sea”, igniting a multifaceted debate about ‘hate speech’, free speech, and political expression in Australia’s third-largest state.

The legislation, to be introduced following the ‘terror attack’ at Bondi, would make the public use of certain slogans a criminal offence – in a move supporters hail as ‘necessary to fight antisemitism’, while critics warn it risks suppressing legitimate protest.

Premier David Crisafulli and Attorney-General Deb Frecklington unveiled the reforms as part of a broader package aimed at ‘combating hate speech’ and ‘protecting minorities’.

The proposed laws would prohibit the publication, display, distribution, or chanting of “prescribed phrases” – notably “from the river to the sea” – where the words are used to “…cause menace, harassment or offence”.

Offenders could face up to two years’ imprisonment, while related offences involving harassment at places of worship or displaying extremist symbols could attract higher penalties of up to seven years.

In a statement, Premier Crisafulli said the reforms were “a strong and considered response” to rising concerns about ‘antisemitic language and actions’.

He described the proposed crackdown as “…drawing a clear line, and stamping out the embers of hatred that were allowed to burn unchecked for too long”.

Boy, oh boy.

Supporters of the laws, including the Queensland Jewish Board of Deputies, welcomed the legislation as a ‘vital step’ in ensuring that Jewish residents can live without fear.

The phrase, “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”, refers geographically to the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. It has been widely used at pro-Palestinian rallies across the world, including recent protests in Brisbane and Sydney.

Some Jewish and other community leaders argue that the slogan can be interpreted as denying Israel’s right to exist and promoting the exclusion of Jewish people from the region.

This is precisely the kind of ‘rhetoric’ the laws are designed to address, says the Premier.

However, the move has drawn substantial criticism from a diverse array of voices.

Civil liberties advocates and free speech campaigners argue the legislation is overly broad and threatens fundamental democratic freedoms by criminalising political expression.

Opponents contend that terms like this are deployed by many as a call for human rights and an end to occupation, rather than an incitement to violence or hatred, and that the law would unfairly target pro-Palestinian advocacy.

Groups such as Justice for Palestine Magan-djin have indicated they are considering a legal challenge to the ban, arguing that it mischaracterises the meaning of the slogan and could result in politically motivated prosecutions.

The Queensland Council for Civil Liberties has also criticised the reforms, saying they were developed without adequate consultation and risk infringing free speech principles that are core to democratic society.

The legislation will be introduced to the Queensland Parliament in the coming week.

If passed, Queensland would be the first Australian state to specifically outlaw the phrase “from the river to the sea” under ‘hate speech’ laws.

Any freedom loving Australian should be concerned with this, even if you don’t agree with the message itself or the pro-Palestinian movement.

This type of attack on speech goes much deeper than the false left/right paradigm.

We are living through an increasing shift to a world where any form of political dissent is targeted and attacked – and soon, one day, it could be applied to something you believe.

FREEDOMS SLIPPING

We all shouldn’t just sit back and accept this kind of speech policing, because – even if you can’t stand the leftists – this type of thing creates precedents that can be expanded.

In recent years, our fundamental right to say and think what we feel has been attacked constantly, with more restrictions for anyone who questions the government or system.

Federal and state governments have both passed successive legislative amendments in recent years that threaten our right to protest, and our implied freedom of speech.

Fall of Democracy: Australia’s Growing Anti-Protest Regulations
RELATED ARTICLE

Let’s do a little case study.

For instance, according to changes of the Crown Land Management Regulation 2018, low-ranking bureaucrats were given broad powers to disperse or ban protests, meetings, rallies, and gatherings on any state-owned land in Victoria.

The legislation continued on from contentious laws initially introduced in 2014, which gave police the ability to be able to move against protesters who are blocking access to buildings, obstructing people or traffic, or who are ‘expected to turn violent’.

This was all pre-COVID, mind you.

‘Get those climate change scum!’, cried the ‘awake’ in celebration.

Until the ‘pandemic’ came along. Then, the new rules were turned on them.

Victoria, the state that endured the longest lockdown in the entire world, made international headlines for the way police treated everyday citizens over a ‘virus’.

Many of these officers were hired militia grounds, private forces, and offshore units – all brought in to enforce protest laws that first targeted ‘woke’ groups.

Who is Policing Australia’s Lockdowns? | Investigation
RELATED FEATURE

So, as you see, it doesn’t matter who these anti-democratic rules are based on at the time – it will always come back to you in the end.

Today, it is pro-Palestinian groups, and tomorrow it is the so-called ‘far-right’.

This is why any form of protest suppression should be rejected at all costs.

At this rate, Queensland will soon return to the ‘glory days’ of Sir Joh.

Don’t forget that a two-year ban on protesting was introduced under the Bjelke-Peterson era government of the 1970s, that saw 1,972 people arrested.

In September 1977, Bjelke-Petersen announced that police, not magistrates, would handle march applications, and instructed that no permits would be granted.

On 22 October 1977, about 5,000 people marched to protest the new law, resulting in 418 arrests – one of the largest mass arrests in Australian history.

During the time, activists used various tactics to defy the ban, including “phantom” or “no-marches” where protesters assembled on university campuses or footpaths to avoid being immediately charged with marching on the street.

The protests were not just by activists, but also by mums, dads, and various community members, significantly impacting public opinion and creating a “right to march” movement.

The bans were eventually rendered difficult to enforce and were largely abandoned following intense pressure, although they highlighted a period of severe restrictions on civil liberties in Queensland – according to the Australian Human Rights Commission.

Is QLD en route to return to this type of environment once again?

Things are certainly not heading in the right direction.

Be sure to leave your thoughts in the comment section below!