Image: AAP/Steven Markham
The Palestine Action Group has launched a legal challenge against the controversial anti-protest laws passed by the New South Wales government.
The laws, said to be aiming to curb antisemitism, have given police broad powers to restrict protests near places of worship.
The Palestine Action Group filed the challenge in the NSW Supreme Court on Monday. The change “impermissibly burdens the implied [commonwealth] constitutional freedom of communication on government or political matters,” their claim argues.
Anti-protest laws passed after Dural caravan terrorist threat, now known to be a hoax
This legal challenge comes on the heels of the controversy that erupted last week after NSW police revealed that the caravan that was found filled with explosives — along with the wave of anti-semitic attacks — were a “con job” by organised crime to influence prosecutions and distract the police.
As a result of the attacks ,the NSW Premier Chris Minns, who had labelled the caravan plot “terrorism,” passed a series of controversial bills regarding hate speech and protests near places of worship.
Both Minns and NSW Minister for Police and Counter-terrorism Yasmin Catley have not confirmed when they knew that the plot was a hoax, and whether or not it was before the passing of the recent bills.
Government face accusations that the hoax was known to them when anti-protest laws passed
The NSW opposition has implied that it would support a parliamentary inquiry into the controversy and “get to the bottom” of when exactly the government knew that the caravan plot was a “con job.”
Meanwhile, the Greens and other members of the cross-bench have accused Minns and Catley of purposely misleading the public and the rest of parliament in an effort to pass the bills with little pushback.
Josh Lees, a spokesperson for the Palestine Action Group, also accused the Minns government of misleading the public to get the laws passed.
“There are very few places left in Sydney where anyone could protest if these laws are allowed to stand. Hyde Park, Town Hall, right here outside the supreme court – all are near places of worship, are near churches, and therefore the police could have powers to ban protests that happen in those locations,” Lees said.
“We say these laws are unconstitutional. They’re undemocratic,” Lees said.
Bill being introduced to repeal religious worship bill
Kobi Shetty, the Greens MP for Balmain and spokesperson on democracy is going to separately introduce a bill on Tuesday to repeal the religious worship bill.
“These laws were rushed, reactionary and fundamentally flawed,” Shetty said.
On Monday, Minns said to reporters that the government believed the laws were “constitutionally sound,” and that he wasn’t going to “second-guess the courts.”
“There’s also the freedom in a big city like Sydney and a state like NSW, where people should have the freedom to practise their religion free from intimidation or hate … and that’s the reason we moved the laws in the first place.”
The laws are among a suite passed by the government in February with the intention of limiting antisemitism. Some of the measures covered include displaying a Nazi symbol on or near a synagogue and creating an aggravated offence for graffiti on a place of worship.
However, the most contested changes have been the government’s attempt to criminalise people making racist and other discriminatory remarks in public, and restricting protests near places of worship. Both offences carry a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment.
The Palestine Action Group is specifically challenging the offence that criminalises hindering someone from leaving or entering a place of worship. The laws also allow police to use their move-on powers “in or near” places of worship, regardless of the purpose of the protest or whether it is aimed at a place of worship. This implies that police have the authority to issue an order if someone is obstructing someone “in or near” a place of worship, but up to the police to decide how “near” someone must be to a place of worship before they can issue an order.
When the laws were passed in February, the NSW Bar Association agreed with the government that the laws struck the right balance between the right to freedom of religion and the right to freedom of expression.
However, the laws were called “undemocratic” by the NSW Council for Civil Liberties.
The legal challenge against the laws has been listed for mention in the Supreme Court on 8 April.
