Queensland's controversial ban on two protest slogans is facing its first enforcement test, with one protester set to be prosecuted while another avoided charges despite displaying the identical words.
The phrases have been classified by the Queensland state government as "proscribed phrases", which, if spoken in a manner that is "threatening, menacing or offensive" could see a person receive a prison sentence of up to two years.
According to the Sydney Morning Herald, a man will appear in court next month accused of uttering one of the banned phrases, while a woman who wore a T-shirt displaying the same slogan was not prosecuted. The asymmetrical enforcement raises immediate questions about how the legislation will function in practice and whether authorities are applying it consistently.
The legislation targets "from the river to the sea" and "globalise the intifada," slogans that have featured prominently in pro-Palestinian demonstrations. The Queensland government introduced the laws partly in response to the December attack at Sydney's Bondi Beach. However, critics argue the legislation criminalises political expression rather than addressing antisemitism.
The Queensland Government has unfairly conflated peaceful expression with antisemitism, and undermining freedom of expression is not the solution to addressing antisemitism. This perspective comes from civil liberties advocates who question whether banning phrases can effectively combat hatred or whether it instead stifles legitimate political speech.
Supporters of the law counter that the slogans cause genuine distress to Jewish Australians and represent incitement that warrants legal action. Yet the first prosecution already illustrates a complication: the law's requirement to prove speech was "menacing, harassing or offensive" introduces subjective judgment that may vary based on context, audience, and intent.
The outcome of the man's court case will likely clarify how Queensland judges interpret the offence and what evidence prosecutors must present to secure a conviction. Criminalising political expression that does not amount to incitement to violence is incompatible with international human rights standards and Australia's implied Constitutional freedom of political communication. This tension between protecting communities from vilification and preserving democratic speech rights sits at the heart of the legal dispute.
The cases also come as multiple Australian states and the federal government have introduced or expanded restrictions on protest and political expression. Whether courts will uphold Queensland's ban, narrow its application, or strike it down as unconstitutional remains to be seen.