Antisemitism Bill threatens free speech

Australia’s second-largest state has decided to tackle what it sees as an antisemitic problem through enterprising deception and insidious pressure.

After last December attacks When two shooting attacks were carried out on Hanukkah attendees at Sydney’s Bondi Beach, leaving 15 people dead, it became fashionable to insist that disaster had gripped the continent. Queensland State Premier’s Government on 8 February David Crisafulli announced happened ‘We are taking strong and determined action to fight anti-Semitism’ [and] ‘Solve terrorism-motivated crime to make Queensland safer’.

As in other parts of the country, anti-Semitism is viewed as an exceptional hatred, unique enough to warrant single law and singular treatment. (Others, such as Islamophobia, do not deserve similar attention.) By doing this, lawmakers are betraying a basic principle when legislating: Keep the issue general and avoid the temptation of exceptionalism.

Despite existing federal laws already targeting protests, banned symbols and banned organizations, states have stepped up their legislative chambers to propose laws that further restrict speech and lawful assembly. There is little evidence that the state of Queensland has a severe antisemitic problem, but Crisafulli’s conservative government is more than confident that its measures are reasonable. ‘Making Queensland safer after Labor failed to crack down on antisemitism during a decade of decline’.

These measures come as follows: Combating Antisemitism and Keeping Weapons Out of the Hands of Terrorists and Criminals Amendment Bill 2026 (Qld)The review process is being rushed through with only seven days left for public presentations. Discussion and close scrutiny should be kept to a minimum.

The bans are indicative of a stereotypical, uneducated approach to Middle Eastern politics and religion. No matter how large the vague outlines of an ignorant, Islamic State is enclosed in parentheses with Hamas; Protesters are not allowed to carry the Hamas flag and emblem or the Islamic State flag. Hezbollah and Nazi symbols are likewise prohibited.

However, the legislation itself does not explicitly prohibit these symbols. We only know this from ministry statement By Crisafulli and the Attorney General of Queensland, Deb FrecklingtonHe suggests that executive decision and arbitrary determination will be the norm.

The important thing is banned symbol publicly distributed, published or publicly displayed ‘In a way that could reasonably be expected to cause a member of the public to feel threatened, harassed or offended’. The penalty for displaying these will be imprisonment from six months to two years.

The language itself is targeted for a maximum sentence of two years in prison for using illegal expressions; It’s a capricious measure that would suit any collapsing police state seething with paranoia.

Failure to clearly understand that protests can and should offend the public, as they are often the product of those who are understandably aggrieved and consequently outraged. The legislation also provides The Chief Public Prosecutor’s authority to set targets ‘The public distribution, publication, public display or public reading of a statement intended for the purpose of incitement, threat or harassment. [sic] or the crime may apply to: “globalization of the intifada.” [and] “from river to sea”.’

Again, these two statements are not explicitly included in the draft law, but they are included in the law. joint ministry statement. Future bans can be expected to be based on the vain musings of an indecisive politician. What’s even more absurd is this: There is no requirement in the prohibition of expression regulation that there be an actual victim or the need to cause actual harm.

Fortunately, audio critics have emerged. The state’s foremost advocate of civil liberties, Terry O’GormanHe was horrified.

As Deputy Chairman of the Queensland Civil Liberties Council (QCCL), the eternal warrior against police state stupidity reasonable criticism The government’s effort to ban such expressions:

“The meaning of both of these expressions is highly controversial. For many Jews, these expressions are seen as slogans that can increase tension and fear. For those who use these expressions, especially in anti-Israel public demonstrations, these expressions can be used to oppose Israel’s actions in Gaza and the increasingly violent West Bank settler movement.”

According to O’Gorman, given that the ambiguous meanings of such expressions depend largely on the political stance of the recipient, they should not be banned unless they incite violence:

“In fact, banning any slogans at public protests, especially those that do not involve direct incitement to violence, is an unjustified attack and a restriction on freedom of expression.”

in it surrender To the Committee on Justice, Integrity and Community Safety (Committee), QCCL also argues that:

‘There needs to be a clear distance between words and wounds, especially since words are often presented as an alternative to violence. Only words that encourage violence or are too reminiscent of violence should be illegal.’

views American writer, journalist and activist Jonathan Rauchexpressed under the domination Gentle InquisitorsHe quotes on whether racial epithets are speech or bullets:

“My view is that words are words and bullets are bullets, and it’s important to keep that right.”

O’Gorman and her group of talented volunteers at QCCL are not weeping Cassandras in the wilderness. Right-wing think tank Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) is also disturbed by the bill. IPA research assistant Margaret’s Rooms reproached legislation regarding non-disclosure ‘Basic problem’ related to ‘Sectarian attitudes’ while grappling with the futility of ministerial powers to ban certain speech.

According to Chambers:

‘This will do little to stop people privately subscribing to ideology or adopting alternative expressions to express the same ideas.’

in it surrender In his assessment to the Committee, Chambers also observes the following argument: ‘Important public policy issues may be curtailed if the Minister believes this will incite hostility’. This may include criticism of the Commonwealth’s immigration programme, or ‘state government proposals for ‘agreements’ based on citizens’ racial background’.

In summary, the Bill gave extraordinary powers to a single minister, leading to excessive powers; It allowed the government to criminalize political expression. ‘Unclear and subjective standards for illegal expression’; and it lacked adequate safeguards to limit the ministry’s authority.

So what are the people this bill aims to protect?

Queensland Jewish Board of Deputies president Jason Steinberg expressed He approved the proposed attack on language and symbols:

“This bill goes beyond words and offers real, practical protections for our community and all people who are targets of hate.”

Neither practicality nor reality applies in this exercise; After the bill’s inevitable passage, there will be much mischief and little in the way of fighting the disease. However, the patient who has freedom of expression will be euthanized.