After Bondi, New South Wales politicians want to ban words and slogans. But rushed laws could punish political speech, not protect the public.

After the Bondi Beach massacre, our New South Wales (NSW) parliamentarians are rushing to examine which slogans to criminalise and what words to ban. They say they are doing this to ensure our safety and protect our social cohesion. But many of us are alarmed and fearful.

We are alarmed at the appalling attempts to link the horrific Bondi attack and the pro-Palestine movement. And we are fearful that the NSW Inquiry into prohibiting slogans that incite hatred will rush to implement measures that will erode our democratic freedoms and will result in the exact opposite of the stated objectives of those measures.

In his excellent submission to the Inquiry Professor Ben Saul writes: “Legislation, and particularly criminal law, alone cannot prevent incitement and hatred or manufacture social cohesion. After terrorist attacks, legislators in many countries are tempted to rush through new laws that overreach, are unjustified, violate human rights, and even have counter-productive security effects.”

We, who have learnt to decode political pronouncements when it comes to Arab Australians, are suspicious of the need for additional laws. We believe that our existing laws already address incitements to violence and hatred. And we suspect that the real purpose of new laws is to criminalise political expression. The words and slogans that politicians are examining neither promote hate nor incite violence against Jews. They simply call for resistance against Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land and Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians. I do not see how criminalising these would make Australians safe or Australian society more cohesive. On the contrary, Arab and Moslem Australians, together with anti-Zionist Jewish Australians and the many others who are horrified by Israel’s actions, will hear the message “Keep quiet and accept the Genocide.” And when will this end? When wearing a watermelon earring is banned? When the word “Palestine” is banned? It is already Orwellian that a word which means uprising may be criminalised. It begs the question, will its English equivalent also be criminalised?

If we march, chanting in English “Uprising Now” will this be illegal? Yes, if accompanied by Palestinian flags? What about if accompanied by Iranian flags?

I had never heard the expression “Globalise the Intifada” at the pro-Palestine rallies. When our political leaders started to speak about it as a hateful expression that should be banned I was genuinely perplexed. Sadly, it seems that when it comes to repressive measures, our political leaders are always ‘on message’ with their US and UK counterparts. So much for our touted sovereignty.

Professor Ben Saul writes: “‘Globalise the intifada’ is commonly understood as a call for (peaceful) global solidarity and action to resist Israel’s systemic violations of international law in Palestine, including through political and legal campaigns, protest, “boycott,divestment, sanctions” (BDS – previously adjudged by the European Court of Human Rights to constitute protected freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights) and the like. It is clearly directed against Israel. There is little evidence that it is understood as a call to unlawful violence or hatred against Jews, whether generally or in Australia in particular. The UK’s blanket prohibition on“globalise the intifada”, far from representing best practice, is likely to lead to systemic violations of the human right to freedom of expression, in violation of the UK’s international obligations."

At the moment, it is clear to a large number of Australians that there is a move to silence pro-Palestine speech and shut down pro-Palestine rallies. I have regularly attended those rallies and I can report that, despite the propaganda and lies surrounding them, they are peaceful solidarity events, held to highlight the plight of Palestinians and call on our Government to take action against Israel and fulfil its international obligations. Australian Jews attend and speak at these rallies. These rallies have absolutely nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the occupation. Arab Australians are horrified at Israel’s slaughter of their kith and kin and anti-Zionist Jewish Australians are horrified at Israel’s claim that it is doing this in their name. And both groups were shocked and horrified by the Bondi Beach massacre. Antisemitism is not the same as criticising a government’s policies. Criticising the Israeli government is not antisemitic, just as criticising Saudi Arabia’s human rights abuses is not Islamophobic. Rejecting antisemitism does not require silence on the genocide in Gaza.

Professor Robert Manne writes in Don't Mention The War: “We already know what kinds of discussions the Israel/Jewish lobbies want to forbid. Since October 7 one part of the lobby successfully removed the Lebanese-Australian, Antoinette Lattouf, from ABC local radio in Sydney because of an accurate re-tweet about Israel’s weaponisation of starvation in Gaza. Another part of the lobby caused the author of Disciplined, an outstanding novel concerning Muslim political intellectuals in Australia, the Palestinian-Australian, Randa Abdel-Fattah, a fierce critic of Israel’s war in Gaza, to leave the Bendigo Writers’ Festival. The festival then collapsed with the walkout of some fifty performers in sympathy. Yet another group was responsible for the decision of the administration at the Fiona Stanley Hospital in Fremantle to cancel a forum where the wonderful ex-Gaza doctor, Mohammed Mustafa, “Dr Mo”, was to speak while seeking funds for a children’s hospital in Gaza. Professor Stanley, who has no role in the running of the hospital, was infuriated. There are many additional examples of this kind, the strangest of which, perhaps, was the several weeks’ suspension from St Vincent’s Hospital in Sydney of the eminent heart surgeon, Professor Peter MacDonald, merely because of a cynical question about Mossad he asked at a pro-Palestinian forum.”

Beyond the issue of Palestine, I fear the implications of rushed laws to curb our rights to speak and protest, in all areas. It’s a slippery slope to policing academic research, jailing climate activists, censoring artistic expression… and ultimately burning books. Importing the current US and UK draconian approaches to the rights of their citizens will not achieve greater security and social cohesion. The disastrous results are on full display in both countries.

I abhor racism in all its forms and believe that we all must work to stamp it out. I also believe that this is best done through education not repression. Any response that does not uphold our democratic rights, that conflates political expression with antisemitism, or targets one section of the community, is doomed to fail.

I urge our political representatives to represent all of us. And I urge them to implement real solutions to community safety and social cohesion problems, not quick fixes that erode our freedoms and exacerbate the problems they are meant to solve.