Queensland Enacts First Australian Ban on Political Slogans
The Queensland government has made history by becoming the first parliament in Australia to outlaw the use of two specific political slogans: 'from the river to the sea' and 'globalise the intifada'. This move follows protests, such as a pro-Palestinian march in Brisbane last August, where demonstrators waved flags and held signs bearing these phrases. However, the law's passage has been tumultuous, with last-minute amendments significantly increasing its susceptibility to a constitutional challenge.
Constitutional Vulnerabilities Exposed
Originally, the bill was crafted with sophisticated legal safeguards to withstand attacks based on the constitutionally implied freedom of political communication. This freedom, recognised by the High Court, limits parliamentary powers to restrict political discourse unless laws serve a legitimate purpose, like protecting public safety, and do so with minimal impact on communication. Laws that target specific ideas or content, rather than regulating the manner or timing of speech, face heightened scrutiny and require a 'compelling justification' to be upheld.
In a notable case, when Candace Owens Farmer was denied a visa to Australia, High Court justices emphasised that the exclusion law was more defensible because it was 'content neutral', focusing on preventing discord rather than targeting political messages. Queensland's initial bill attempted a similar approach by allowing regulations to ban slogans if the minister deemed them representative of an ideology of extreme prejudice, thus maintaining content neutrality and making constitutional challenges more difficult.
Last-Minute Changes Weaken Legal Defences
In a surprising reversal, the Queensland government, which holds complete parliamentary control, discarded these protective measures on the day the law was passed. Instead of a content-neutral framework, the revised legislation imposes an outright statutory ban, defining 'prohibited expressions' explicitly as the two slogans. This change removes requirements that the minister assess the slogans as inciting discrimination or violence, which previously linked the prohibition to preventing harm.
Under the amended Queensland Criminal Code, it is now an offence to publicly recite, distribute, publish, or display these expressions in a way that might reasonably cause someone to feel menaced, harassed, or offended, with penalties of up to two years' imprisonment. Intent or actual public reception is irrelevant, though reasonable excuses include uses for artistic, religious, educational, or opposing purposes.
Political Motivations and Public Backlash
The shift appears driven by public pressure, with Queenslanders expressing concerns that broader powers could infringe on future freedom of speech. While this represents a victory for grassroots activism, it has left the law exposed to legal challenges. From a political standpoint, this outcome may be strategic: the government can claim it acted decisively and shift blame to the High Court if the ban is invalidated, potentially strengthening protections for political communication in the long run.
Constitutional law expert Anne Twomey, a professor emerita at the University of Sydney, highlights that by focusing solely on these two slogans, the government has increased the risk of the law being struck down as invalid, underscoring the delicate balance between regulation and free expression in democratic societies.
