Queensland’s “From the River to the Sea” and “Globalise the Intifada” ban: Free speech vs Antisemitism debate

Queensland is the latest state to pass Jewish hate speech laws, and 2 people have already been arrested and one of those, Liam Parry, has been charged with the new laws.

This is an important issue for 2 key reasons. Firstly, because a foreign country, Israel, is rapidly trying to increase its influence over Australia and secondly, because Israel’s and the United States attack on Iran is having an impact on Australia and the public should be able to openly discuss the issue without the fear of being jailed.

The new laws are clearly designed to restrict criticism of Israel and the 2 phrases that have been banned blatantly infringe on the implied freedom of political communication in the Australian constitution as per the 1997 High Court of Australia precedent Lange v ABC.

And because the new laws infringe on the implied freedom of political communication they will be deemed null and void by the High Court of Australia if they aren’t by a lower court first.

Background to the new Queensland hate speech laws

The ABC reported on the 5/3/26:

The phrases “from the river to the sea” and “globalise the intifada” have been outlawed in Queensland when used to menace or offend someone, under legislation passed in state parliament on Thursday.

Under the changes, it will be considered an offence to use the expressions in a way that makes a member of the public feel menaced, harassed or offended.

The new laws include both written and spoken use of phrases, such as chants or placards at a protest, with penalties of up to two years in prison.

The banned phrases had been deemed antisemitic by the state government. (Click here to read more)

There are defences to the new laws CRIMINAL CODE 1899 – SECT 52DA:

“the person engaged in the conduct that is alleged to constitute the offence for a genuine artistic, religious, educational, historical, legal or law enforcement purpose”

and “the person engaged in the conduct that is alleged to constitute the offence for a purpose that is in the public interest”

Example: “publication of a fair and accurate report of an event or matter of public interest” which would include the media reporting what happened.

Liam Parry’s charges and his defence

Liam Parry was arrested on Wednesday (11/3/26) for saying “from the river to the sea” outside the Queensland parliament house as per the below video.

https://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Liam-Parry-arrest-11-3-26.mp4

The below video is excerpts from the speech Liam Parry gave which led to his was arrest as published on the Students for Palestine Instagram page.

https://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Excerpts-from-the-speech-Liam-Parry-was-arrested-over-in-QLD-in-the-biggest-attack-on-free-speech.mp4

The ABC reported (12/3/26):

Liam Parry is reportedly going to defend the charges “on the grounds the speech was educational and in the public interest”

and:

Jewish Board of Deputies president Jason Steinberg said it was “heartening” to see police enforcing the new hate speech laws, and that he disagreed with the explanation of the phrase in Mr Parry’s speech.

He said the phrase “From the river to the sea” had been used to “intimidate kids and intimidate Jewish people in workplaces and on the streets”.

“The Jews will be exterminated. That is what that statement means,” he said. (Click here to read more)

I wonder what Queensland Jewish Board of Deputies president Jason Steinberg thinks about Israel currently trying to “exterminate” the people in Iran, Jordan, and as confirmed by the United Nations, committing Genocide and war crimes in Gaza?

What will the High Court of Australia say?

While Liam Parry is going to defend the charges using 2 defences outlined in the new laws, that what he said was educational and in the public interest, if he wins the new laws will still be in force.

So, it would be good if Liam Parry also used the “Lange v ABC” defence that the new laws are invalid because they infringe on the implied freedom of political communication in the Australian constitution. If Liam Parry wins his case using that argument, then the new laws are no longer valid.

You would think that what is happening overseas has nothing to do with political communication in Australia so it would not be protected by the implied freedom of political communication in the Australian constitution.

But the High Court of Australia in Lange v ABC effectively found that discussion of the conduct of politicians, even foreign ones like New Zealand’s David Lange, can fall within the scope of matters protected by the implied freedom of political communication, at least to the extent that such discussion qualifies as “government or political matters” relevant to Australia.

Israel and Australian Zionist Jews, with the help of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, have shot themselves in the foot by forcing Albanese to invite Israeli President Isaac Herzog to Australia to comfort Australian Jews after the Bondi shootings.

Apparently Australian politicians were not good enough to comfort Australian Jews and they needed the leader of Israel to comfort them.

Not only that, Australia was the first country in the world to publicly support Israel’s and the USA’s attack on Iran.

That says the relationship and political connection between Australia and Israel is very strong, close and therefore discussing the relationship between Australia and Israel, and their politicians, is political communication relevant to informing electors.

A key issue on social media at the moment is whether or not Israel has too much influence over Australian politicians and so political terms such as “from the river to the sea” and “globalise the intifada” should be protected so voters can discuss all issues openly without fear of being jailed.

One last point, the full saying is: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” yet the new law only makes it illegal to say the first part, “From the river to the sea”.

Why? Because the end part, “Palestine will be free” makes it very clear it is a political slogan, not an antisemitic slogan.

With the Iran war, almost every country in the world is re-evaluating their relationships with Israel and the USA and we should be having open discussions about all matters relevant to those relationships.

Queensland is the only Australian state to have banned “from the river to the sea” and “globalise the intifada” which is very telling.

Other states were obviously lobbied by Israel and Australian Zionist Jews to ban the same phrases, but they chose not to which is likely because of legal advice they didn’t have the power to do it.

Spending time and money trying to jail innocent people to keep Israel happy is not in Australia’s interest.

Admin: Sixteen weeks ago, I launched a campaign with a simple goal: find 200 new monthly supporters so I can keep doing this work as a fully independent journalist, running this website and the YouTube channel without corporate backing or paywalls.

Since then, 146 wonderful people have stepped up and become monthly supporters. That’s huge, thank you!

We’re now at 54 to go.

If you’ve been enjoying the work and aren’t yet supporting monthly, I’d be incredibly grateful if you’d consider joining them. Here’s the situation:

Like most independent journalists, I’m basically a one-person small business. Right now, a lot of us are feeling the squeeze, just like many small businesses and households are. To stay afloat and keep bringing you the reporting I do, I need roughly 200 more people chipping in whatever they can comfortably afford each month.

Anything from $3 to $100 (or whatever works for your budget) makes a real difference. There’s no lock-in, you can cancel or adjust anytime.

If that feels doable for you right now, you can see all the options on the donations page by clicking here.

Your support, whether it’s a monthly donation, a one-time donation, or just sharing the work, is what keeps independent voices like this one alive.