NSW Premier Links Ban on 'Globalise the Intifada' to Queensland Legal Challenge
The New South Wales premier, Chris Minns, who was firm in his stance following the Bondi terror attack, has now connected the future of his state’s laws with the outcome of a legal challenge in Queensland.
Following the Bondi terror attack in December, Minns expressed a clear intention to ban the slogan “globalise the intifada,” which he described as “hateful, violent rhetoric.” However, he referred the matter to a parliamentary inquiry, stating that this process would facilitate the introduction of legislation when parliament reconvened in February.
Although the inquiry recommended banning the phrase when linked to “incitement of hatred, or harassment, intimidation or violence,” no legislation has yet been enacted. Meanwhile, Queensland has implemented its own ban, which also includes the phrase “from the river to the sea.” This ban has led to dozens of arrests and prompted pro-Palestine groups to announce plans for a legal challenge.
In a Tuesday interview with 2GB, Premier Minns explicitly tied the fate of NSW legislation to the outcome of Queensland’s legal proceedings.
If [the ban] is upheld in Queensland, I’ll do it in NSW, I won’t muck around.
It looks fantastic for me, perhaps, if I move a piece of legislation in the initial instance, but in three months’ time, if it’s knocked over in the courts, I’ve looked through this via bitter experience and realised we’re in a worse position than where we were.
This statement marked a shift from Minns’ earlier position. In March, he had said at a press conference that while he was “grateful” another jurisdiction had proceeded, a ban was “coming in soon” regardless of Queensland’s outcome, and he intended to contest any constitutional challenge in NSW.
However, after a successful April challenge to another part of his post-Bondi legislative agenda—the controversial anti-protest laws—Minns appeared to be reconsidering his approach, looking instead to Queensland’s experience.
His comments on Tuesday suggest an even further retreat. The NSW Court of Appeal recently ruled that the anti-protest laws impermissibly burdened the right to political communication. This was the second legal defeat for Minns after the court struck down laws prohibiting protests outside places of worship in October.
Inquiry and Controversy Surrounding the Ban
The inquiry into banning “globalise the intifada” was only open for submissions for three weeks and did not hold public hearings due to the “urgent need” to introduce legislation. This approach led to accusations that the process was rushed and lacked transparency.
Submissions from Jewish groups, including the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies and the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, advocated for banning phrases containing “intifada,” which is Arabic for uprising or “shaking off,” and refers to two Palestinian uprisings against Israel in 1987 and 2000.
Conversely, other groups such as the Australian National Imams Council and the Jewish Council of Australia argued that the phrase is contested and that a ban would disproportionately impact Palestinian and Middle Eastern communities.
The inquiry’s final recommendation sought to limit constitutional challenges by linking any ban to incitement of hatred or violence. However, critics argued this covered conduct already addressed by existing laws.
University of Sydney constitutional law expert Anne Twomey, who submitted a warning against banning individual political slogans, told Australia that Minns’ decision to await Queensland’s legal challenge was “wise.”
Apart from any legal challenge, [the government] might also consider whether the ban on those slogans in Queensland has been counterproductive, resulting in greater use of them in defiance of the government and as a protest against restrictions on speech.
Criticism and Political Reactions
Minns’ comments on Tuesday prompted criticism regarding the rationale behind his commitment.
Nick Hanna, legal representative for the protest groups that successfully challenged the anti-protest laws and who is also representing protesters charged under Queensland’s ban, described it as “extraordinary that Minns is basing his decision as to whether or not to introduce laws in this state on the outcome of proposed court proceedings to challenge a different law in a different jurisdiction.”
As a result, Minns cannot possibly know what the legal arguments the challenge there will entail and what, if any, bearing they will have on the ability of a similar ban to withstand a challenge here.
NSW Greens MLC and justice spokesperson Sue Higginson said it was “reassuring that it seems the premier has actually recognised the risks and dangers to his own credibility and reputation through pursuing draconian and invalid laws.”
On Tuesday, Minns told 2GB there was a greater need for “civic leadership” to maintain social harmony.
It can’t all just be legislative change and outright banning of things.
