A parliamentary inquiry in New South Wales is examining whether to follow the United Kingdom's lead and ban the controversial protest slogan 'globalise the intifada'. The inquiry, which closed to public submissions this week, is set to deliver its report to the Minns government by the end of January.
What is the UK model and why is NSW looking at it?
In December, two major UK police forces—the Metropolitan Police and Greater Manchester Police—announced they would arrest anyone chanting 'globalise the intifada' or displaying it on a placard. This decision was made under existing public order laws, with police chiefs stating the context had changed following attacks in Manchester and Sydney's Bondi Junction.
The NSW inquiry's terms of reference specifically require it to consider 'international best practice', with a particular focus on the UK's approach. However, this move has drawn criticism from legal experts and community groups who warn against importing what they label 'repressive models' from overseas.
Legal hurdles and constitutional concerns
Constitutional law experts have highlighted a significant obstacle for any NSW ban. Professor Anne Twomey of the University of Sydney noted that, unlike the UK, Australia has an implied freedom of political communication in its constitution, making outright bans more vulnerable to legal challenge.
Professor Luke McNamara from UNSW Law School suggested that using existing offences, such as inciting racial hatred under section 93ZAA of the NSW Crimes Act, might be a more constitutionally sound approach than legislating against a specific phrase. He pointed out that the slogan 'means different things to different people'.
This view found support from the NSW opposition. Shadow Attorney General Damien Tudehope described the inquiry as 'very rushed' and expressed 'grave doubts' about the government's ability to outlaw phrases without a constitutional challenge.
The UK's broader crackdown on protest
The UK's measures extend beyond the 'intifada' slogan. In July, the new Labour government proscribed the direct action group Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation. This made showing support for the group a criminal offence, leading to the arrest of over 2,100 people by October, many for carrying placards stating their support.
Human rights organisations, including Amnesty International, have condemned this move, arguing it breaches freedom of expression and relies on 'excessively broad' terrorism laws. Several individuals linked to Palestine Action are currently on hunger strike in UK prisons.
Associate Professor Keiran Hardy, a counter-terrorism law expert, noted that while Australia has equivalent proscription powers, its legal definition of terrorism includes an exemption for political protest absent in the UK, making similar bans less likely here.
Community and expert responses to the NSW inquiry
Submissions to the inquiry have largely criticised the proposed ban. The Jewish Council of Australia (JCA) warned that the UK's approach shows how 'counter-terrorism frameworks can lead to systemic legal overreach'. It argued that while 'intifada' has been associated with violence, this is not its only meaning.
Conversely, other Jewish community organisations, including the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, support a ban, strongly associating the word with terrorism.
Dr Vince Hurley, a former NSW police officer and criminology lecturer, warned that banning specific slogans could lead to the mass arrest scenes witnessed in the UK, calling it a 'nightmare' for policing. He cautioned that such measures could inflame, rather than ease, social tensions.
The inquiry's chair, Labor MP Edmond Atalla, has stated his personal support for a ban, insisting the government will act when parliament reconvenes in February. The outcome will test the balance between community safety, free speech, and constitutional law in Australia.
