Before the baton falls. How power and framing normalised violence

City Hall, he writes, was not an isolated incident but rather the culmination of a longer process of redefining dissent as risk Andrew Brown.

Power does not start with strength.

It starts with getting permission.

When the flag was raised, the people were already ready to accept it.

What happened in Sydney was not an isolated incident. This was the result of a pattern that developed over time on the part of government, law enforcement and much of the media.

Not with a single decision.
Not with a single title.

By accumulation.

Through language, framing and repetition.
Through what is emphasized and what is not emphasized.

A narrative is built over time.

Some protests are volatile.
Some sounds carry risks.
Some forms of dissent require control.

Once this narrative is established, the threshold for power shifts changes.

It starts with allegations.

Opera House claim

8 October 2023. Protest at the Sydney Opera House.

A hymn was reportedly sung. “Give gas to the Jews.”

It leads to coverage. It defines the moment.

Days later, police stated that the chant was not clearly confirmed in existing footage, with alternative interpretations suggested (NSW Police statements reported by ABC News and The Guardian, October 2023). This explanation did not lead. It didn’t get that far.

First impressions are valid.

This is how narratives are formed. Not by what is finally established, but by what is repeated for the first time.

The pattern is repeated.

Sydney Harbor Bridge claim

The allegations emerge in moments of shock. These are reported quickly and widely publicized. Details are then revised or remain disputed. But revision rarely carries the same weight as the initial framework.

Over time the association becomes established.

Large-scale demonstrations, including the Harbor Bridge march, were framed from the perspective of antisemitism or extremism in some publications.

Peaceful protest is being reframed as a potential threat.

Separate acts of violence near protest movements are then discussed. An event here, a rally there. When placed next to each other often enough, they begin to feel connected.

Association replaces evidence.
Correlation starts to feel like cause.

What is shown is also important.

Media framing moves towards policing

On 9 October 2023, the Sydney Opera House was illuminated in the colors of the Israeli flag (a NSW Government directive widely reported in the Australian media). No similar gesture was made because Gaza was under constant bombardment.

Visibility is not neutral.

It shows which events are prioritized and which are not.

Framing does not remain within the media. He’s heading towards the police department.

In some parts of Sydney, people displaying Palestinian symbols, even on their T-shirts, are considered a potential risk; faced with detention, restraint and strict bail conditions (NSW Police operational actions reported in SMH, ABC and court hearings 2024-2025).

The intervention threshold is changing.

The expression turns into doubt.
Asset becomes risk.

A public order problem suddenly arose

From this point on, protest is no longer considered primarily opposition. It is considered a public order problem.

And public order requires control.

Data is used to power this change.

More than a thousand anti-Semitic incidents were reported (Executive Council of Australian Jews annual report, 2024). This figure is presented as evidence of a growing threat.

However, the reported incidents are not criminal findings. Police data indicate far fewer charges. Fourteen in total (NSW Police data reported through media and parliamentary references).

The larger number travels farther.

The number that shapes perception.

The tongue is climbing.

Graffiti as terrorism

Graffiti in Sydney’s east is defined as terrorism, the most serious classification available (NSW Police press releases, 2024).

During the same period, incidents such as machine gun shootings at homes in western Sydney are also being treated as criminal matters (NSW Police incident reports receive extensive media coverage).

Same city. Different framing.

Framing determines fear.
Fear determines response.

Politics follows.

and money

Attack forces were expanded. New crimes emerge. New legislation has been introduced (NSW Parliament legislation on protest restrictions and public order, 2024 – 2025).

An additional $32.5 million in funding has been allocated (budget announcements linked to NSW Government measures to combat antisemitism).

Urgency is emphasized.

Responses to Islamophobia are emerging later, with less importance and less urgency (NSW Government response timelines and funding allocations).

What is considered urgent and what is not urgent becomes part of the model.

The change also extends to law.

Police powers expanded Wider discretion. Lower thresholds for intervention. Measures that were implemented as temporary reactions are starting to take on a more permanent nature.

The consequences of this extend beyond practice, as NSW Labor MLC and barrister Stephen Lawrence warned in parliament (NSW Legislative Council Hansard, 2025).

“In this scenario, we could potentially be at the site of the 1978 Mardi Gras…violence could occur, and protests that were non-threatening and fundamentally incompatible with the right to freedom of expression and freedom of association and assembly could be terminated.”

This was not an external criticism. It was a warning from within.

“It is us, not the police, who will decide to remove the protest pressure valve, to create a pressure cooker, by passing this bill.”

Repression does not disappear when protest is restricted. It’s building.

“If I’ve ever heard of it, it’s a dystopian vision… This could go very wrong.”

editing the conversation

Language itself becomes a field of control.

Expressions are interpreted in their harshest form. Meaning is fixed by authority, not context.

The change is clear.

From regulating behavior
To organize the conversation.

After defining the meaning, the state also defines the boundaries of opposition.

This framework does not remain abstract. He reaches the street.

On the night in question, more than 3,500 police officers were deployed across Sydney to an expected crowd of around five to six thousand people (NSW Police operational deployment figures were reported in the media). A significant number were recruited from rebel units.

The ratio alone raises questions.

This was not a response to the violence that ensued. This was a previously adopted stance.

I was there.

This was planned. And Chris Minns owns it.

A large crowd gathered. It was peaceful. People listened. Many began to leave.

Movement was then restricted.

The exits were narrowed and the crowds were taken under control. Pressure has been built.

power followed

Pepper gas was sprayed on dense groups. Police lines moved forward. Mounted units advanced through the crowd.

I saw elderly people and children exposed to pepper spray. I saw young people being shot while they were on the ground.

There is video footage of a young girl who had a seizure after being initially sprayed and then being sprayed again while convulsing.

I filmed a couple in their seventies whose faces and eyes were burned by pepper spray. As they tried to leave, I helped them wash their eyes.

Video footage shows a young man being repeatedly beaten more than eighteen times while restrained during an arrest.

Muslim men, led by Sheikh Wasem Chakari, requested permission to pray in a designated area away from the main street. While they were praying, they were approached by the police, physically removed and thrown aside.

My 83-year-old mother left the rally early. While trying to reach the ferry, he was pushed into the moving crowd. It fell. He fractured his ankle and suffered a prolapsed disc in his back.

These are not abstractions.

These are physical consequences.

Herzog on the other side of town

At the same time, Israeli President Isaac Herzog was speaking at an official event at the International Convention Center under extensive police protection.

Two meetings close together.

One was secured and guarded by NSW Police.
The other was contained and brutalized by NSW Police.

This contrast is visible.

It raises a simple question.

Whose safety is priority?
And whose opposition is controlled.

Authority depends on consistency. With the belief that the same standards apply.

When this belief is broken, trust comes.

And when trust is eroded, authority weakens.

Not suddenly. Gradually.

normalized

Through repetition. Through framing. By choice.

For a government that talks about social harmony, these elections risk creating the exact opposite.

Because power does not present itself as force.

It is normalized one step at a time.

This brings us to the real question.

Who benefits?

Because patterns like this are not accidental. They reflect alignment.

When protests are reframed as threats, governments gain room to act. Expanded forces face less resistance. Policing thresholds are changing.

When dissent is associated with risk, criticism can be marginalized rather than answered.

When media narratives emphasize fear, complex issues are reduced to threat and response.

But there are also more specific interests at play.

Over the past two years, well-organized advocacy groups aligned with the state of Israel have consistently called for tighter restrictions on protests, broader definitions of unacceptable expression, and stronger sanctions against pro-Palestinian demonstrations.

These calls did not remain aside. These were amplified, reported and engaged with at the highest levels of politics and the media.

In many cases it is reflected in policy environments, policing approaches and public messaging.

Antisemitism crisis. What’s real, what’s not

Is it a good thing?

This is not a claim of central coordination.

Power does not operate through a single actor.

It works through convergence.

Government interest in control.
Media interest in narrative.
Advocacy pressure was applied to both.

Each strengthens the other.

The result is a narrowing of disagreements.

Gradual. Right. It’s normalized.

Until it seems logical.

And then it is necessary.

This leads to one final question.

If force is used in anticipation of violence rather than in response to violence, then the decision has already been made.

Not on the street.

But in the frame before that.

So what exactly is protected?

And whose interests shape this protection?

Because when the boundaries of the opposition are drawn in this way, they do not remain fixed.

They expand.

And history shows that they rarely extend to the advantage of the underdog.

Prosecution or persecution? Bondi ‘F*** charges dropped against man in Israel t-shirt