In the wake of a terror attack in Bondi, the New South Wales parliamentary inquiry is poised to recommend a ban on the phrase “globalise the intifada” when used to incite violence. However, the inquiry will not advocate for an outright prohibition of the phrase or others like “from the river to the sea.” This decision has sparked debate among political factions and community groups, raising questions about its implications for free speech and public safety.
Inquiry Findings and Political Reactions
Edmond Atalla, the Labour MP and chair of the inquiry, has confirmed that the draft recommendations will be presented to the state government following a closed meeting set for Thursday. The inquiry received over 500 public submissions in just three weeks, but many of these will not be published, prompting criticism from the opposition.
Shadow Attorney General Damien Tudehope expressed discontent with the inquiry’s findings, calling the recommendations “confusing” and claiming they would criminalise behaviour already covered under existing laws. “If conduct is already unlawful under current provisions, this recommendation adds nothing except confusion and risks giving the false impression that other uses are acceptable,” he stated.
Community Perspectives on the Phrase
The phrase “globalise the intifada” has become a touchpoint in discussions surrounding pro-Palestinian activism since its origins in the late 20th century. Some members of the Jewish community argue that it serves as a call to violence against them. In contrast, groups such as the Palestine Action Group and the Australian National Imams Council contend that the phrase does not inherently promote hatred or antisemitism, asserting that a ban would infringe upon constitutional freedoms.
The NSW Jewish Board of Deputies and the Executive Council of Australian Jewry have actively called for the inquiry to create a new offence for what they label “hateful slogans.” Yet, the inquiry has stopped short of recommending any additional phrases for prohibition, leading to further disappointment among these groups.
Legal and Constitutional Implications
Concerns regarding the legality of banning specific political expressions have also been raised. Constitutional law expert Professor Anne Twomey commented that such proposals could introduce complex legal challenges that remain under-explored. She suggested that targeting “globalise the intifada” specifically for incitement could be a more constitutionally sound approach than an outright ban.
Currently, New South Wales law includes provisions against inciting violence and hatred, but Deputy Chair Hugh McDermott argues that explicitly naming “globalise the intifada” could facilitate more effective prosecutions. Although defences for artistic, academic, and educational uses of the phrase are expected to be included, the criteria for determining incitement remain ambiguous.
Premier’s Position and Next Steps
Premier Chris Minns has shown consistent support for a ban on the phrase following the Bondi attack. He stressed that the inquiry was independent and noted that he would wait for the final report before making further comments. “It’s a parliamentary inquiry. They’ll present their report. I’ll have more to say when it’s given to us,” he stated.
The inquiry’s committee has faced scrutiny over its hurried timeline and the decision to hold meetings during the holiday season, with some members participating remotely from abroad. Despite the challenges, McDermott defended the approach as necessary in light of the recent attack.
Why it Matters
The inquiry’s recommendations will likely influence not only local discourse on freedom of speech and community relations but also set a precedent for how politically charged language is treated in legal contexts. As tensions surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict continue to escalate globally, the NSW government’s approach could resonate well beyond its borders, potentially shaping similar debates in other jurisdictions. The delicate balance between protecting public safety and preserving constitutional rights remains a focal point of this ongoing discussion.