Reply to Queensland government ban on ‘from the river to the sea’

On Tuesday 3 March 2026, the Queensland government will pass a bill that seeks to ban ‘from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free‘ and other expressions to be nominated by the Attorney General Deb Frecklington. On Tuesday, 24 February 2026, Minister for Police and Emergency Services Dan Purdie said: “The parliament of the day will have, will determine in the future if any other slogans or phrases will be included.”

So the government will ban ‘from the river to the sea‘ and ‘globalize the intifada‘, what will be next? ‘Always was, always will be’?

The full title of the Bill is the Fighting Antisemitism and Keeping Guns out of the Hands of Terrorists and Criminals Amendment Bill 2026.

Government Claim 1 : In response to the Bondi Beach terrorist attack, Federal and State governments have introduced a range of measures to fight antisemitism and other hate speech. These proposed amendments are intended to limit the risks posed by individuals with extremist ideologies and complement the existing Commonwealth and Queensland legal frameworks protecting against hate speech. The Bill expands the Attorney-General’s power to prescribe symbols to include graphic representations, written descriptions, or a combination, to enable flexibility.

Reply: Australia is one of the least antisemitic countries globally as measured in population surveys. The parliament seeks to ban anti-semitic speech by regulation, meaning the Attorney General decides what phrases are anti-semitic. Laws that effectively enact criminal offences by regulation are anti-democratic and constitute bad law. This approach erodes parliamentary sovereignty by allowing the executive, rather than elected representatives, to create crimes, thereby undermining representative government. oppose the Bill insofar as it creates an offence punishable by a fine of $25,000 or two years imprisonment for reciting, distributing, publishing, or displaying a prohibited expression in public.

Government Claim 2: The objectives of the Bill are said to be to:

• strengthen the prohibition of the public use of hate symbols, ensuring it effectively
• combats their promotion and protects community safety and social cohesion;
• prohibit the use of expressions that incite discrimination, hostility, or violence towards certain groups;
• protect faith communities by ensuring people are not intimidated while accessing places of worship

Reply: The effect of the legislation, however, is to permit the creation of a criminal offence by regulation. The elements of that offence are:

• reciting, distributing, publishing, or displaying in public;
• a prohibited expression;
• that might reasonably be expected to cause a member of the public to feel menaced, harassed, or offended.

Only the first element is within the control of the accused person. The second element, which fixes the criminality, is determined by regulation, and the third element is a matter of judgment.

Government Claim 3: This claim is from Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Dan Purdie claims:

“In practice, the court must be satisfied that a reasonable person in the same circumstances as the accused would have recognised the symbol’s association with the prescribed terrorist organisation. In other words, individuals will be held accountable if it is clear they should have known better. For those rare occasions where display of these symbols is warranted, the existing non-exhaustive list of reasonable excuses that applies in respect of the display of prohibited symbols will also apply in the case of prohibited symbols of prescribed terrorist organisations.”

Reply: No evidence is required that anyone actually heard or saw the prohibited expression, or was offended by it. In legislation the purpose of which is to defend social cohesion by criminalizing expression that may “cause a member of the public to feel menaced, harassed or offended“, it is a gross offence to logic to include a provision that renders irrelevant the fact of whether a member of the public has actually heard or seen the prohibited expression.

Government Claim 4: To justify its support for the bill, the Justice, Integrity, and Community Safety Committee quotes Rabbi Rubin:

“We as a society should understand that anti-semitism is the canary in the coalmine. This is the beginning, but it does not end with the Jews. Anti-semitism is an Australian problem. It is a problem that, if left unchallenged, is going to affect everybody. It is going to affect regular Australians. Nobody is going to be safe if we continue to allow racism, anti-semitism and such to
fester. “

Reply: Anti-zionism is a criticism of Israel. It is not anti-semitism. There is a widespread belief in the Australian community that the actions of the Israeli government in Gaza are genocidal. Although contested, this belief is supported by substantial evidence such as to render criticism of the Israeli government, and its U.S. government supporter, a valid political position for which to advocate.

The supine position of Australian governments in the face of the genocide is a valid target for advocacy and protest. Supporters of the Israeli government’s action in Gaza falsely conflate criticism of that action with antisemitism in order to silence the rising tide of concern in Australia about the genocide.

Government Claim 5: Searching for support, the Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee quotes the Public Health Association Australia (PHAA) that say that the anti-semitism amendments were: “… entirely warranted and represent critical protections for vulnerable communities experiencing unprecedented levels of threat, intimidation and fear. We commend the government for its swift legislative response to protect Queenslanders’ right to practise their faith, celebrate their culture, and live their lives free from fear, hatred, and violence.

Reply: It is beyond denial that the proposed law is targeted at advocates for justice for Palestine. The name of the Bill and the expressions to be prohibited declare it. One may question a phrase such as “Israel has the right to defend itself” because it is frequently used as justification for the deaths of over 70,000 people in Gaza, most of them civilians and a large proportion of them children. Why is it not a phrase to be prohibited? It is because the legislation is designed to silence protest and advocacy for Palestine.

Politics
Section 18C of the Australian Racial Discrimination Act 1975 makes it unlawful to publicly offend, insult, humiliate, or intimidate another person or group based on their race, colour, or national or ethnic origin. Section 18C does not create a criminal offence, but merely gives rise to the possibility of a declaration that the conduct is unlawful and, possibly, a compensation order.

The LNP, Liberal, and National parties have criticised and sought the repeal of section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 for many years. In 2015, the State Council of the LNP passed a resolution calling on the government to repeal section 18C. The Constitution of the Liberal Party (National) is cited in support of the proposition that section 18C is at odds with the party’s belief in “freedom of thought, worship, speech and association”.

The proposed amendment to add section 52DA to the Criminal Code, elevating conduct that was merely unlawful to a criminal offence, is a complete abnegation of the principle of freedom of speech and expression by the government, and an extreme volte-face from its stated and long-held principles.

Not sense the Vlad* laws has a Queensland Government introduced a more deranged set of laws that deny the reality of their complicity in mass genocide.

* Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act

[We are indebted to John Curr for his excellent analysis of the bill that we post below in full. See below,

Ian Curr
26 February 2026

REFERENCES

Parliamentary committee tables recommendation to pass Fighting Antisemitism and Keeping Guns Out of the Hands of Terrorists and Criminals Amendment Bill 2026. Labor opposes bill (weakly)… See full report @  https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/Work-of-the-Assembly/Tabled-Papers/docs/5826t0200/5826t200.pdf

Anti-semitic incidents in Australia