The Supreme Court of New South Wales has ruled unanimously that “quelling one particular form of political communication in the interests of protecting another part of the community from a sense of unease … is not a constitutionally legitimate purpose” when it ruled that NSW laws to restrict demonstrations were invalid and unconstitutional.
Of course, the ruling of NSW Supreme Court doesn’t apply directly to us in Queensland, as we became a separate colony long ago.
But it is interesting that the ruling on the validity of the laws, which were approved by both major parties in the NSW parliament, did not even need to reach the High Court before the laws were ruled out
The Crisafulli government, with the support of the Labor opposition, followed NSW in moving to even outlaw some phrases that caused unease amongst some Jewish Australians – “Globalize the intifada” and “From the river to the sea”.
(Note: I am really sorry if the repetition of those phrases causes unease to fellow Australians, but I can’t properly argue against the banning without repeating them.)
Now there is no doubt that the Queensland law banning the phrases will be struck down by the courts.
Probably the Supreme Court of Queensland will do it, but if it doesn’t, the High Court of Australia certainly will. The Queensland law is more direct in attacking political communication than the NSW law.
Over the last weekend the Queensland police used a lot of police time arresting and charging people who said or exhibited the phrases.
Now court time is going to be wasted on the hearing of the charges which will be eventually thrown out.
There is also the probability of Queensland paying damages to those charged – eventually.
This reversal of laws by the court was expected by any person who has done any study of constitutional law.
Not only that, but it was ridiculous. Could I say, “ Support the intifada” or “From the river to the Mediterranean”, or many other possible permutations?
Or do the proponents of this restriction on free speech want to ban the punch phrase “Palestine should be free”?
Why?
Why did the House of Assembly in Queensland support a law that is clearly unconstitutional and completely ineffective?
The foundation of law, that we all rely on, is brought into disrepute and resources wasted for no benefit to anyone.
The reality is that both major parties and the politicians buckled to the Jewish lobby.
After the Bondi massacre nobody was going to accused of antisemitism.
The natural response to the Bondi disaster was to “Do something” It really didn’t matter what!
So all the MLA’s did something.
They passed a law which will be struck down and is ineffective.
It will cost the community but they will still say, “We tried”
I believe that the parliament of Queensland should pass laws that are constitutional and that work.
Anything else is an abrogation of their responsibility as they seek to avoid blame.
Reg Lawler,
Dagun
