PERFORMATIVE HOO-HA
In a move that has sent shivers down the spines of civil liberties advocates across Australia, the snivelling cowards of the Queensland government have announced their intention to ban the phrases “from the river to the sea” and “globalise the intifada,” threatening a penalty of up to 2 years in prison. While framed as a necessary measure against antisemitism and a response to escalating security concerns, this ban is not only deeply misguided but is also a performative act of politics that veers dangerously close to institutional racism.
Let’s be clear: genuine antisemitism is abhorrent and must be confronted. There is no place for hatred, violence, or discrimination against any community in Australia. However, the solution to rising hatred is not to criminalise political speech, particularly when that speech is open to multiple, often deeply held, interpretations.
The phrase “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is, for many, a rallying cry for equality, self-determination, and human rights for Palestinians living between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. It evokes a desire for a future in which all people in that land, regardless of ethnicity or religion, live in freedom and dignity, free from occupation and oppression. It speaks to a yearning for a unified state where Palestinians can exercise their full rights, which many believe have been systematically denied. To reduce this complex aspiration to a mere call for the destruction of Israel or the expulsion of Jews is a deliberate and harmful mischaracterisation. It strips Palestinians of their legitimate political voice and their narrative of suffering.
By selectively criminalising this phrase, the Queensland government is not fighting hatred; it is stifling dissent and engaging in a deeply prejudiced act. This ban effectively silences a significant portion of pro-Palestinian advocacy, suggesting that their very articulation of liberation is inherently menacing. It creates a chilling effect where individuals fear expressing solidarity with Palestinians, even in peaceful contexts, lest they fall afoul of an ambiguously worded law. This is not about protecting a community; it’s about policing thought and curtailing the freedom of political expression under the guise of public safety.
The performative nature of this ban is striking. Faced with complex societal issues, including genuine rises in antisemitism and Islamophobia, the government has opted for a simplistic, authoritarian solution. Banning slogans is a tactic that offers the illusion of strong action while failing to address the root causes of division and hatred. It’s a political spectacle designed to appease a certain segment of the electorate and project an image of decisiveness, rather than a thoughtful policy aimed at fostering genuine understanding and cohesion.
This ban also carries a distinct whiff of institutional racism. Why is the political slogan predominantly associated with Palestinian liberation movements singled out for such severe penalties, while other forms of potentially hateful or exclusionary speech remain uncensored? Where are the equivalent bans on slogans that could be interpreted as hostile towards other minority groups, or indeed, against Palestinians themselves? This selective targeting suggests a double standard: the grievances and expressions of one particular community are deemed dangerous and criminal, while those of others are tolerated. It reinforces a narrative that delegitimises Palestinian identity and their struggle for justice.
The implementation of such a law raises serious questions about its practical application. Who determines the “intent to cause menace, harassment or offence”? Will a person waving a flag with the slogan at a peaceful protest be deemed a criminal? Will an academic discussing its historical context be at risk? The vagueness of the legislation invites arbitrary enforcement, disproportionately impacting activists, academics, and members of the Palestinian and Arab communities.
Instead of criminalising speech, a truly progressive government would invest in education, foster dialogue, and actively challenge all forms of racism and discrimination, including antisemitism and Islamophobia. It would seek to understand the diverse interpretations of political slogans rather than legislating them out of existence.
The Queensland government’s slogan ban is a dangerous precedent. It is a performative political act that sacrifices fundamental freedoms on the altar of manufactured security. It not only fails to address the complexities of inter-community relations but actively contributes to a climate where legitimate political expression is deemed criminal, and where the voices of a marginalised community are systematically silenced. This is not justice; it is injustice draped in the flag of law and order, and it must be rejected outright.
