Key facts
- Pro-Palestine protesters have launched a high court challenge against Queensland's ban on the slogan "from the river to the sea."
- The law, passed by the state's Liberal National party government, makes displaying the slogan an offense punishable by up to two years in jail.
- The lawsuit alleges the ban is a discriminatory and unconstitutional infringement on free speech and political communication.
- More than 30 people have been arrested and charged under the law since it took effect in March.
- The protesters argue the slogan "from the river to the sea" has multiple meanings and is not inherently racist, antisemitic, or violent.
A group of pro-Palestine protesters has initiated a high court challenge against a Queensland law that prohibits the slogan "from the river to the sea," contending that it constitutes a discriminatory and unconstitutional violation of free speech.
The controversial legislation, which also bans the phrase "globalise the intifada," was enacted by the state's Liberal National party government following a terrorist attack in December. The law makes reciting, distributing, publishing, or displaying either expression an offense punishable by up to two years in jail if it could reasonably be expected to cause a member of the public to feel menaced, harassed, or offended.
Since the laws took effect in March, over 30 individuals have been arrested and charged. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of seven protesters, asserts that the ban is a direct, content-based restriction on speech that specifically targets the pro-Palestine movement. The group alleges that the law imposes a burden on the implied freedom of political communication within the constitution without a legitimate purpose and creates inequality by outlawing certain political viewpoints.
Queensland Premier David Crisafulli has previously defended the ban, stating that the phrases are antisemitic and were used in a way that led to the Bondi attack. He emphasized that the ban does not impede the right to protest or call for freedom.
The applicants, including Remah Naji from the Justice for Palestine group, argue that "from the river to the sea" lacks a fixed meaning and is not inherently racist, antisemitic, or violent, offering twelve alternative interpretations such as an expression of Palestinian identity or a denunciation of the conflict in Gaza.
While the law includes defenses for genuine artistic, religious, educational, or historical purposes, or for use in the public interest, the protesters argue these provisions do not render the law constitutional, particularly as the burden of proof rests on the individual. They also contend that even if found innocent, the arrest and detention itself constitutes a burden.