The NSW Greens and several pro-Palestinian and activist groups have announced they will launch a constitutional challenge against the Minns government, arguing proposed anti-protest laws are “unconstitutional” and undemocratic. After nearly 10 hours of debate, the bill — which includes changes to gun laws and new restrictions on protests — passed the first hurdle in the lower house late last night. It is expected to pass the upper house tonight. The legal challenge will be brought by the Palestinian Action Group, Jews Against the Occupation and the First Nations-led Blak Caucus.
The groups say the proposed laws would have far-reaching consequences for civil liberties, including the potential to restrict protests for up to three months following a declared terrorist incident, regardless of topic or cause.
They have raised particular concerns about the impact the laws could have on Invasion Day rallies in January, which would fall within the three-month window following the Bondi Beach terrorist attack.
‘Unconstitutional’ and ‘anti-democratic’, say challengers
Michelle Berkon from Jews Against the Occupation said she was “deeply concerned about the anti-democratic nature of these proposed laws”. “It places us Jews in the crosshairs,” Berkon said on Tuesday. “These laws are not about protecting Jews … they’re not even about protecting Israel.””By hiding behind ‘Jewish safety’ to impose these repressive laws, you are not only scapegoating the millions of anti-racist Australians protesting genocide, but using Jewish people as your human shields.”
Nick Hanna, the criminal defence lawyer representing the groups, said while they recognised the need for law reform following the Bondi Beach attack, the proposed protest changes were “unconstitutional” and violated the right to freedom of speech.
“There is yet to be any suggestion that the two [alleged] terrorists attended a single protest, or even supported the protests,” Hanna said.”In fact, we know that they are apparently inspired by the Islamic State, which is ideologically opposed to the Palestine protests.
“I think it’s for good reason that large segments of the public will be deeply concerned about the laws being passed today.”
NSW Premier Chris Minns has defended his government’s crackdown on protests, saying there was a “tinderbox” in the community and the new laws were aimed at protecting public safety. Source: AAP / Dominic Lorrimer
Josh Lees from Palestine Action Group Sydney said the antisemitic attack was being conflated with protest movements more broadly, particularly pro-Palestinian demonstrations. “These laws, if passed, won’t just affect the Palestine movement,” Lees said.
“These laws will take away the rights of everyone in NSW to gather together as a community, to express their views, to express their opposition to whatever government policies they oppose, to demand change — all the things that have been so crucial to our democracy.”
He added that attempts to ban the phrase “globalise the intifada” may backfire: “I’ve never chanted this in the last two years. So the fact that Chris Minns wants to ban it might make it popular.”
Greens NSW MLC Sue Higginson said her party would stand with the fundamental right to protest, warning the changes would “feed dissent”.
What would the new laws change?
The proposed legislation covers two key areas following the Bondi Beach terrorist attack: gun laws and protest laws.
Protest laws
These are the provisions the Greens and activist groups plan to challenge.
The changes include restricting the authorisation of public assemblies in designated areas for three months following a terrorist incident — effectively banning them.
The laws would also ban the public display of symbols and flags linked to proscribed terrorist organisations, including the phrase “globalise the intifada”.
Police would be given new powers to demand a person remove their face covering at a public assembly if they believe the person has committed an offence.
Gun laws
The bill would introduce a cap of four firearms for most gun owners, while primary producers and sports shooters could hold up to 10.
It would also impose a complete ban on firearms capable of using belt-fed magazines, restrict access to certain firearms to primary producers only, and strengthen firearms licence checks and accountability.
LISTEN TO
Are Australia’s gun laws tough enough? That’s the question after Bondi terror attack
Under the changes, police would also be able to reject a firearms licence if intelligence agencies believe an individual poses a security risk. The Nationals and the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers party opposed the gun law changes, citing concerns about limits on the number of firearms individuals could own.Labor and the Liberals voted to pass the bill.
Source
