Key Takeaways:
- The New South Wales government is considering banning the phrase "globalise the intifada" due to its association with violence and terrorism in the Jewish community.
- The UK has already introduced laws to combat the use of such slogans, including arresting protesters who chant or display the phrase.
- Experts warn that importing UK practices to Australia could be incompatible with the country’s constitution and inflame social tensions.
- The use of existing hate speech laws and public order offenses may be a more effective approach than an outright ban on a phrase.
- The inquiry into "measures to prohibit slogans that incite hatred" has received submissions from various groups, including the Jewish Council of Australia and the Sydney Palestine Action Group.
Introduction to the Debate
The Australian federal government is preparing to debate a bill on hate speech following the Bondi attack, while a New South Wales inquiry is investigating banning a specific phrase: "globalise the intifada". The inquiry, which closed to public submissions on Monday, will not hold any public hearings before handing its report to the Minns government at the end of the month. Although it has been asked to review hate speech laws in general, the Labor-controlled committee has been specifically asked to consider a ban on the controversial phrase.
The UK’s Approach to Hate Speech
In the UK, police have announced they will arrest protesters who call for intifada. The Metropolitan and Greater Manchester police have stated that the country’s Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had "consistently" advised them that phrases causing fear in Jewish communities didn’t meet prosecution thresholds, but following the Manchester synagogue and Bondi attacks, police had decided "the context has changed". Protesters have been arrested under the country’s existing Public Order Act, including five people for "racially aggravated public order offences" at a pro-Palestine protest in London last month.
The Implications of a UK-Style Ban in NSW
Experts warn that introducing UK practices to NSW could be incompatible with Australia’s constitution and inflame social tensions. Anne Twomey, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Sydney, said that unlike Australia, the UK did not have a constitutionally entrenched implied freedom of political communication, and bans could be more open to constitutional challenge in NSW. Luke McNamara, a professor at the University of NSW law school, said using existing public order offenses might be more successful than an outright ban on a phrase, which he said was more open to constitutional challenge.
The Use of Existing Hate Speech Laws
The use of existing hate speech laws has been supported by the NSW opposition. The shadow attorney general, Damien Tudehope, described the parliamentary inquiry as "very rushed" and said he had "grave doubts" about the Minns government’s ability to outlaw "reams and reams of phrases or potential slogans" without a constitutional challenge. The inquiry’s chair, Labor MP Edmond Atalla, told Guardian Australia it was his personal position that the phrase should be banned. However, experts argue that the use of existing laws, such as the newly created offense for inciting racial hatred (93ZAA in the NSW Crimes Act), might be a more effective approach.
Response from Groups and Experts
Submissions to the inquiry have explicitly condemned the idea of introducing UK practices to NSW. The Jewish Council of Australia (JCA) said the UK approach had not enhanced community safety, but showed how "the broad application of counter-terrorism frameworks to civil advocacy can lead to systemic legal overreach that damages democracy". The Sydney Palestine Action Group (PAG) condemned the designation of the UK’s Palestine Action as a terrorist group, saying "the trajectory of civil liberties repression in the United Kingdom is of serious concern". Dr. Vince Hurley, a lecturer in criminology at Macquarie University and a former NSW police officer, said British police had a history of responding to protests with "exceptional force" and that bans on specific slogans could lead to scenes similar to the mass arrests seen in the UK.
Conclusion
The debate surrounding the ban on the phrase "globalise the intifada" highlights the complexities of balancing freedom of speech with the need to protect communities from hate speech. While some argue that a ban is necessary to prevent harm, others warn that it could have unintended consequences and infringe on constitutional rights. As the inquiry continues, it is essential to consider the implications of introducing UK practices to NSW and to explore alternative approaches that balance the need to protect communities with the need to protect freedom of speech.
