Australia’s hate speech laws spark fears of crackdown on Palestine advocacy

A man and a woman were arrested earlier this month for using the phrase “from the river to the sea”, marking the first enforcement of the law.

While the 18-year-old woman was cautioned by police, the 33-year-old man was due to appear in court next month.

The law also outlaws the phrase “globalise the intifada”.

Intifada, the Arabic word for uprising or “shaking off”, is used by Palestinians to refer to rebellions in 1987 and 2000 against Israeli rule. Many Jews, however, claim it is a call to violence against them.

The law prescribes a maximum penalty of two years in prison for any public display, distribution, or recitation of the phrases where they may be deemed to “menace, harass or offend” members of the public.

The legislation was introduced after the Bondi Beach shooting left 15 people dead and 40 wounded.

The attack on a Hanukkah celebration prompted a national response, including a Royal Commission, tighter gun controls and a legislative push to address extremism and antisemitism.

In the aftermath, Queensland became the first state to explicitly ban pro-Palestine slogans, while federal and state legislatures passed measures aimed at combating hate and extremism.

The Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Act, raced through the New South Wales parliament in January, enhanced penalties for existing offences, expanded restrictions on symbols deemed hateful and introduced powers affecting visa cancellations for those linked to proscribed groups.

Criticising the passage of the laws as rushed, Aris Hussein, a senior lawyer at the Human Rights Law Centre in Sydney, told Al Jazeera that they could be deployed to suppress dissent and criticism of Israel’s war on Gaza.

“There are serious concerns the new laws could have a chilling effect on legitimate activism and protest, and unfairly impact peaceful protests and speech regarding Israel’s actions in Palestine. While there’s no place for antisemitism or racism in Australia, everyone has the right to criticise state conduct and hold public officials to account,” he said.

Prime minister Anthony Albanese has defended the laws. “The terrorists at Bondi Beach had hatred in their minds but guns in their hands. This law will deal with both, and we need to deal with both,” he said. “We want to ensure that Australia remains a society where everyone has the right to be proud of who they are.”

Supporters say the measures are necessary to combat antisemitism. Jason Steinberg, president of the Queensland Jewish Board of Deputies, said the laws would help Jewish communities feel safer after “unprecedented levels of hate, intimidation and fear”.

He earlier told ABC News that the phrase "from the river to the sea" had been used to "intimidate kids and intimidate Jewish people in workplaces and on the streets".

He said: "‘The Jews will be exterminated’. That is what that statement means.”

Questions are also being raised about how the new laws will be applied in practice. Anne Twomey, a constitutional law professor, told the Guardian Australian courts would need to determine whether the use of the phrases at protests “might reasonably be expected” to cause harm to a member of the public, especially in the context of a peaceful rally.

Civil liberties groups argue the threshold will be difficult to interpret and enforce. Michael Cope, head of the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties, said the offence could be “difficult and costly to detect, investigate and prosecute” and warned of the risk of complaints arising from “mishearings”.

Opposition to the laws extends beyond activist groups. Senator David Shoebridge said the Albanese government and the Liberals had made the decision to protect just one religion.

“We know that hate touches all marginalised people. The same hateful ideology that led to the appalling Bondi shooting could also be weaponised against women, members of the Muslim community or LGBTQ+ Australians,” he told Al Jazeera.

“This law was deliberately designed to not protect these vulnerable parts of our community, and that seriously undermines its legitimacy and utility.”