By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The New South Wales premier is seeking “extraordinary powers” to ban protests for up to three months, citing a link between pro-Palestine rallies and the Bondi terror attack. These new measures would grant the government the authority to restrict public assemblies in designated areas, with the judiciary stripped of oversight. The proposed legislation, described as unprecedented, follows the premier’s expressions of concern over the potential impact of large-scale demonstrations, particularly those involving “violent bloody images.” Critics, including the Palestine Action Group, have condemned the move as an attempt to stifle dissent and unfairly blame the pro-Palestine movement for the horrific Bondi attack.
Read the original article here
NSW to effectively ban protests for up to three months is a concerning development, especially when linked to a tragic event like the Bondi Beach terror attack. It immediately raises questions about the balance between public safety and the fundamental right to peaceful assembly. If we’re being honest, shutting down all protests because of the actions of a few individuals is a knee-jerk reaction. It’s like saying, “Since a crime happened, we’ll just remove a whole segment of our society’s ability to express themselves.” It feels as though they’d prefer to avoid the real and complex issue of tackling radical ideology and, as some people pointed out, they’re avoiding the true root causes of the problem.
The authorities’ response feels like an overreach, doesn’t it? If someone is crossing the line and engaging in illegal behavior during a protest, then you deal with *that* specifically. You don’t punish everyone else who is simply exercising their right to protest. Some even compared it to a schoolyard scenario where the “bully” (in this case, the perpetrators of the terror attack) is somehow allowed to dictate the actions of everyone else while the authorities just shut down the “peaceful kids” (the protestors). It’s a pretty frustrating situation when you think about it.
The premise seems to be a convenient way to silence dissent, especially when there’s a link to a terror attack with little or no evidence. “Public safety” becomes a catch-all phrase that can be used to justify all sorts of restrictions, right? It’s not just about stopping the protests; it’s about potentially quashing any criticism or disagreement with the government’s decisions. But, as someone said, Australia has a tendency to overreact in crisis situations. Banning all protests is a significant step, and it’s understandable why people are questioning it.
When governments try to ban protests, people can’t help but feel a little uneasy, and understandably so. Some people who’ve lived in other places where protests have been banned say they’ve seen how this can escalate into something even worse. Others, familiar with the political dynamics, suggest that the motivation here is to avoid confronting the core problem. It is easy to see how people feel as though this is a way of saying, “Let’s not address the actual issues. Instead, let’s just make it harder for people to speak out.”
The thing is, if you are going to ban protests, you need a substantial law enforcement presence to enforce it. And that’s a whole other can of worms, because then you’re talking about potential clashes and the potential for excessive force. On top of that, it undermines the very foundations of democracy. Someone mentioned that a lot of people believe things are fixed just because something is legislated, but the reality is that the problem, even if we were to take the most extreme position here, would persist. As another commenter put it, you would think this is a move that you would expect from China, not from Australia.
The situation is like a perfect storm of concerns. You have a tragic event, a government seemingly more focused on controlling public expression than on addressing the underlying causes of the issues, and a risk of eroding fundamental freedoms. The question is how to balance public safety with the need to protect the rights of citizens to protest peacefully.
Laws already exist that are supposed to keep Australians safe from all kinds of threats, but, some seem to believe, those laws don’t seem to be as effective against radical Islamism. Making things even more complicated, some people believe this is a slippery slope. Some even went as far as to point out the government is willing to give up the most basic rights to expression. If you’re a member of the Australian public, you could be thinking, “What’s next? Will it happen here?”
And the details of the ban itself? The police, with the minister’s agreement, can declare specific areas off-limits for public assemblies. This can last for a while. There’s also a provision for issuing move-on directions for “certain types” of conduct, with a small exception for industrial disputes. So this means the government and the police have a lot of power here, and that’s precisely what some people are afraid of.
What’s really concerning is that, in a situation like this, the government might be making things worse. It’s a lose-lose situation. It’s an overreaction. And, ultimately, it’s a victory for those who want to undermine democracy.