On July 28, 2026 at Speakers Corner outside Queensland Parliament, a crowd of media, plaintiffs, supporters and school children witnessed the media launch of JFP’s High Court challenge to annul Queensland’s law criminalising certain phrases related to Palestine. These laws infringe freedom of speech. The legislation is badly worded: Fighting Antisemitism and Keeping Guns Out of the Hands of Terrorists and Criminals Amendment Act 2026.
Worse than that, the Queensland government has turned around and attacked the people who built a mass movement against Israel’s genocide in Gaza while that same government has remained silent. The government is threatening to incarcerate them and to hit them with enormous legal costs while they defend their democratic right to protest crimes against humanity.
Silencing Palestine is not the Answer
At its highest, the aim of the legislation is to put people in jail and take their houses for accusing the government of complicity in genocide.
A Palestinian woman, Remah Naji, outlining the reason for the second largest demonstration in Queensland history (50,000 people) said people oppose Israel’s genocide in Gaza and the Queensland government’s silence in the face of crimes against humanity. Instead, the Justice for Palestine spokesperson said that the Queensland government chose to attack the grieving communities by passing laws that outlaw their protests against the genocide:
“From going to a genocidal country as it bombs hospitals and schools and kills men, women, and children, this government decided to punish people upholding human rights. More than 50,000 people in this city marched the streets against genocide and against the complicity of our own government, the second largest protest this city has ever seen. Polls tell us the research, the recent Pew Research poll shows that 87% of Australians aged between 18 and 34 have an unfavorable view of Israel. This is an entire generation, and this is where the public stands. But this government refuses to acknowledge that people in this country reject genocide. It is not our fault that the Zionist entity that is Israel is perpetrating genocide, an occupation, an apartheid, and violates international law in the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Protesting these crimes is our right, and I want to be able to say from the river to the sea without fearing of getting arrested. (Applause).” – Remah Naji JFP.
At this point, the cops stationed near Speakers Corner looked mildly interested and called in a police van but must have made a decision to hold off … for the time being. Michael Bradley from Marque Lawyers representing Justice for Palestine Magan-djin, highlighted the law’s overreach, noting it’s the first of its kind in Australia. Seven plaintiffs, including Remah Naji and Edward Carroll, argued the law targets political speech and violates constitutional rights.
“I’m representing Justice Palestine and the plaintiffs in this action. We have filed proceedings in the High Court of Australia against the State of Queensland, and we’re asking the High Court to declare Queensland’s prohibited expressions law, the law that criminalizes those two specific phrases, to declare them invalid on the basis that they infringe the constitution. Australia’s constitution guarantees freedom to everyone to communicate with each other on government and political matters. And while governments can pass laws which limit or restrict that freedom, they have to do so in a way that is compatible with our democracy, our representative system of government. We say that this law is a massive overrun.”
“It’s the first time that an Australian government has made a law that criminalizes specific words. So we will be in the High Court, asking the High Court to consider whether this law is valid or not, we say it is not. And there are seven plaintiffs. Remah is the lead plaintiff of six others from various backgrounds. They all have one thing in common: they’ve either said one of the phrases and been arrested for it, or they’re too scared to say the phrases because I don’t want to be arrested. And just to underline how stupid this law is, as a lawyer acting in this case, I have the perfect reasonable excuse as a defence for saying these words, either of those phrases. But I’m constrained; I won’t say them because I cannot actually afford to get arrested, and I don’t know what the Queensland police would think of me saying them. But that’s that’s where we’re at, and this law needs to go.“- Michael Bradley.
Omar Ashour is a Palestinian spokesperson from Justice for Palestine, Magandjin. JFP is led by Palestinians and their supporters. It is the only organisation of its type in Australia . This is what Omar had to say:
“As an Australian, I was surprised when these laws occurred because they are clearly an overreach on the democratic rights of citizens, as a Palestinian, I was not, because I’m also used to the the Israeli attempts to silence the Palestinian freedom movement everywhere in the world, this attack is not specific to Queensland. It is happening all over the world in in in various shapes and capacities, and the whole point behind it is to try and silence a movement that has been led by the conscience of people who believe in freedom and equality of human rights.
On our rallies and in our marches, we had people from all walks of life support us. Hundreds of 1000s here in. Queensland, millions across the world, and we should not fail to see what this is. It is an attempt to silence people who simply call for freedom, for justice, and for equality of the Palestinians in Palestine who are subject to a genocide that has taken at least 100,000 people so far in Gaza, displaced 2 million people, 95% of houses in Gaza have been destroyed.
The case aims to overturn the law, with significant support from the Australian community. A number of other speakers who are also plaintiffs in the action spoke out against these draconian laws. They included Sam Watson an Aboriginal man who recently was captive of the IDF for participating in the 2026 Sumud flotilla attempting to take aid to starving Gazan children.
There was a large contingent of media present and they asked the following questions:
Andrew Messenger from the Guardian: You say that the pleading says that this legislature discriminates against you and discriminates on the basis of political speech.
Remah: So these phrases, especially though from the river to the sea, this is part of our history. This is part of our advocacy for Palestinians, so it specifically targets the Palestinian community who are subject to genocide and occupation of heart perpetrated by the Israeli government. So that’s directly attacking Palestinians and the Solidarity movement for Palestinian people.
Journalist: Can you describe the reaction of the government? How have they treated you?
Journalist: Can you describe the reaction of the government? How have they treated you?
Remah: The reason I’m standing here, is because there’s a genocide being perpetrated against the Palestinian people. This is the main reason I’m standing here, and the other thing is that the Queensland government is materially supporting this genocide through the offence (weapons) shipments that go directly to the government of Israel to keep bombing the Palestinian people. So this is the action of the government: (it) is to actually continue supporting materially and politically the Israeli government while it continues its genocide against the Palestinian people.
Michael Bradley: It is a complex area of rule, but part of our part of the case is the Queensland government, in defending this law, says that these phrases have very specific solitary meanings. They only mean one thing, and it’s a racist, anti-Semitic meaning. Part of what we are saying is these are phrases with contested meanings. They mean different things to different people, and they mean different things in different contexts depending on who is saying them and in what circumstances, you know, if John Farnham was saying it, it would have a different name. So, the question of whether these are inherently anti-Semitic phrases will, yes, certainly be an issue that comes up in the case.
The High Court will review the constitutional validity of the law, potentially setting a precedent against government censorship of political speech.
Ian Curr
29 July 2026
Protesters head to the border to chant River to Sea in freedom.
Earlier today, Palestine solidarity activists marched from the Queensland sea to the New South Wales Tweed River, to highlight the absurdity of the repressive Crisafulli anti-freedom of speech laws.
https://workersbushtelegraph.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/wp-1785587587337745196962990761599.jpg
The Queensland contingent arrived aboard a Freedom Bus following in the footsteps of past civil rights freedom buses in Australia and the USA.
They met with Northern Rivers activists at the Coolangatta Tweed Heads border and crossed into New South Wales, where 200 protestors could freely chant the popular phrase used to call for the freedom of the Palestinian people from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. The six-word phrase has been outlawed for six months now in Queensland, with the threat of a fine of $25,000 and up to two years in prison.
Justice for Palestine have launched their High Court challenge, and are calling for the laws to be repealed, arguing that these laws are unconstitutional, and impinge on human rights.
This protest occurred after another week of watching children and families being slaughtered in Gaza, in what the United Nations has now declared Genocide.
Among the activists was 84 year old Khalil Hamdan a 1948 Al Nakba survivor who was expelled from his childhood home at the age of 6 years. He explained that, “I believe the people of Australia should know more about Palestine. Israel was established on a lie, that it was a land without people.”
On the way down to the border Khalil told me so many stories about Palestine. He spoke to me about his grandfather’s farm, of growing oranges in Al Jamieson, near Jaffa in the 1800s. He said his family were farmers and that they got long with the Ottomans because they were Muslims. He said also that they got along with the Palestinian Jews because they had been there for so long and were their neighbors. They even got along with the Christians when they arrived because so many of the Palestinians were Christians. They did not like the Crusaders or their bloody king Richard. Nor did they like Napoleon when he came rampaging through Jaffa. They hated General Allenby when he brought the British troops and gave them guns to fight the Ottomans. Guns that he said fired backwards. Did Allenby use the jordanians as cannon fodder. I don’t know.
But most important of all he spoke of how he and others like him must be a voice for the people in Gaza so that they will not be forgotten. His heart went out to the refugees in the camps constantly under Fire in the West Bank.
“The reason I am on the bus is as a voice. I believe the people of Australia should be able to speak up for Palestine and against genocide.”
Ian Curr
1 August 2026
We post this exclusive interview of Remah Naji by Deep Cut:
“The Queensland government’s controversial ban on two pro-Palestine phrases will be challenged in the High Court after seven plaintiffs lodged a writ of summons and statement of claim on Tuesday.
The court application – seen by Deepcut – seeks to strike out “s 52DA of the Criminal Code and the amendments to the Police Powers Act” on the grounds they “impermissibly burden the implied freedom of political communication and are thereby invalid”. The plaintiffs are represented by Marque Lawyers and led by Stephen Keim SC.
“The Queensland government is directly attacking the Palestine solidarity movement. Those who have been paying attention know that it is one front in a broader campaign to erase Palestinian voices from public life,” Remah Naji, the first plaintiff, told Deepcut.
Queensland’s ‘Orwellian’ laws
The state government, led by LNP premier and pro-Israel hawk David Crisafulli, banned two phrases on March 5 – ‘from the river to the sea’ and ‘globalise the intifada’ – both commonly chanted at pro-Palestine protests.
The LNP government couched the ban in the Fighting Antisemitism and Keeping Guns Out of the Hands of Terrorists and Criminals Amendment Bill, inserting into s 52DA of the Criminal Code a prohibition of the two phrases.
The ban has since provoked the arrest of several peaceful protesters, including four of the plaintiffs.
The laws were widely condemned at the time as “a dangerous threat to fundamental rights” by Amnesty International and “Orwellian” by the Greens.
The Human Rights Law Centre said “the selective prohibition of two Arabic and Palestinian political phrases … undermines the rights to freedom from discrimination, freedom of expression, and equality before the law”.
The laws passed with the support of Bob Katter’s Australian Party. Labor, the Greens and two independents voted against.
Supplied – Remah Naji, first plaintiff in the constitutional challenge
Palestinian, Jews, First Nations among plaintiffs
The plaintiffs, listed below, hail from a diversity of backgrounds, which Naji said was by design.
“It was intentional to demonstrate that people from a broad cross-section of society care about their ability to protest a genocide,” Naji said.
List of plaintiffs:
Remah Naji – Palestinian-Australian and former Greens candidate for the Brisbane seat of Moreton
Stephen Heydt – Jewish-Australian and retired psychologist, arrested for wearing a T-shirt with the prohibited phrase
Edward Carroll – Jewish-Australian, truck driver and manager, arrested for chanting and holding a sign with the prohibited phrase
Kathryn Dennehy – retiree and former journalist, arrested for chanting and wearing a T-shirt with the prohibited phrase
Philip George Monsour – songwriter of Lebanese descent
James Francis Hillier – visual artist, faced a police complaint over artwork containing the prohibited phrase
Samuel Woripa Watson – filmmaker and First Nations man, participated in the Global Sumud Flotilla and was arrested in June for speech containing the prohibited phrase
Pro-Israel lobby push to ‘tackle’ phrases
In submitting the Bill to state parliament in February, the Crisafulli government described the laws as “a suite of changes focused on terrorist symbols and phrases” and a bid “to stamp out antisemitism and terrorist extremism”.
The proscription of the two phrases – framed by the government as targeting ‘antisemitic’ and ‘terrorist’ slogans – falls in line with statements from pro-Israel groups in recent years, and is now being challenged by the plaintiffs.
In November 2023 – a month after Israel’s genocide in Gaza began – a policy analyst for the Australia/Israel Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) called the “river to the sea” chant “genocidal” and “globalise the intifada” an “incitement to genocidal violence”. The analyst also called for federal and state governments to act.
In April 2024, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) – the nation’s most prominent pro-Israel lobby group, of which the antisemitism envoy Jillian Segal was previously president – labelled chants of ‘intifada’ “a terrorist campaign” and ‘from the river to the sea’ a call “to wipe out the modern state of Israel”.
In May 2024, the Zionist Federation of Australia referred to ‘from the river to the sea’ as “violent hate speech”.
In December 2025, following the Bondi shooting and two months before the Queensland government proposed its Bill, Segal put the “intifada language” in her sights, telling ABC radio “we need to tackle that”.
But the plaintiffs argue such framing is incorrect. The writ of summons contains more than two pages of explanation of the phrases, insisting neither has “an inherently antisemitic” or “violent meaning”.
“We are forcing the Queensland government to answer, on the record, why these specific words are considered criminal. We are forcing it to face a community that carries its history with pride, and that will not give up on human rights, including our right to speak out against Israel’s crimes and violations of international law,” Naji said.
See https://www.deepcutnews.com/p/queensland-government-faces-high
We post this report from The Guardian the journalists covering this story Andrew Messenger and Joe Hinchcliffe.
The challenge to the laws has been filed in the high court by Remah Naji – a member of the Justice for Palestine group – joined by six other pro-Palestine protesters.
Four of them – Stephen Heydt, Ed Carroll, Sam Watson and Kathryn Dennehy – have been arrested and charged with breaching the law, at rallies in April and June.
They allege they were also searched by police and detained in a police watch house for up to eight hours.
Watson had previously participated in the Global Samud flotilla and was detained by the Israel Defense Forces in May.
Another applicant, James Hillier, an artist known as Nordacious, alleges he was made to withdraw some of his artworks that contained the proscribed expression from sale after being contacted by police in March.
The group argues that “from the river to the sea” does not have any fixed meaning at all, and is not inherently racist, antisemitic or violent.
In their pleading, they lay out 12 alternative meanings, including “an expression of Palestinian identity”, “to denounce the genocide in Gaza” and “expressing a broad aspiration for Palestinian freedom and realisation of their human rights”.
Under the law, there are defences for using the expressions for genuine artistic, religious, educational or historical purpose, or in the public interest, such as during a “genuine public dispute” and the ban does not apply to people who oppose the ideology represented by the prohibited expression.
But the group argues that these “reasonable excuse provisions” do not make the law constitutional, because the balance of proving them is placed on the individual.
Even if the protesters prove themselves innocent of a breach of the law at trial, they say, their arrest and detention would still represent a burden on them.