Sweeping move-on police powers blasted by protesters
Controversial new laws grant police an unconstitutional level of power and could have a chilling effect on protests, critics have claimed in a court challenge.
Josh Lees, on behalf of the Palestinian Action Group, has taken the NSW government to the NSW Supreme Court over the anti-protest laws implemented in February.
The activist is challenging the constitutional validity of police powers to move people on during protests deemed to be near places of worship.
His lawyers argue the laws allow police to direct protesters to desist, even in instances where there is no evidence a worshipper has been obstructed, harassed or is in fear.
That meant the laws have stretched police powers beyond their legitimate constitutional bounds, the court was told.
The lawyers claim neither police nor protesters can determine the reach of those powers or the definition of nearness to a place of worship to take into consideration.
"Because of those vagaries, the upshot is that a person might just stay home," Craig Lenehan SC told the court.
He took aim at the "legislative blunderbuss" which he said was "blasting away at an ill-defined mischief" and could have a chilling effect on protesting in NSW.
The laws were discriminatory because they expressly targeted certain types of political speech in a way that inevitably favoured some viewpoints over others, Mr Lenehan contended.
When deciding to move on protesters, police needed to make a subjective determination of whether someone feels obstructed or fearful near a place of worship.
That could be extended beyond worshippers to the protection of passers-by and people unconnected to the holy place, Mr Lenehan said.
"(It) is a very broad police power conferred by very ill-defined application," he said.
"It has nothing to do with the exercise of religious freedom."
NSW Solicitor General Michael Sexton SC will address the court about the validity of the new legislation on behalf of the state government on Thursday afternoon.
The laws were introduced by the state Labor government after a spate of anti-Semitic attacks across the nation and amid concerns about rallies going past the Great Synagogue in the Sydney CBD.
Before their passage, Attorney-General Michael Daley said stronger penalties and boosted police powers would ensure people could practise their faith in safety.
"We believe these proposed reforms strike the right balance between protecting people of faith and the community's right to protest," he said.
Premier Chris Minns underscored his determination to protect the Jewish community in his first speech to parliament in 2025.
"We will not be a state where someone feels like they have to remove their yarmulke (skullcap) just to walk down the street, where people are made to hide their heritage because of the ignorance, the bigotry, the racism of other people," he said.
Mr Lees said the challenge against the expanded police powers was urgent because they presented a threat to the right to protest in NSW.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump administration, drop the case against FL reporter who exposed Kanye's hate
Tim Burke did what any good journalist would do. He found the truth, and he exposed it. In 2022, Burke, a Tampa-based freelance investigative reporter, uncovered and shared unaired footage of rapper Kanye West — also known as Ye — making vile antisemitic remarks during an interview with Tucker Carlson on Fox News. The network had cut the worst of it before airing, giving viewers a sanitized version. Burke accessed online a version of the entire interview, revealing what they didn't want the public to see: Ye voicing hate and promoting conspiracy theories that echoed some of the worst antisemitic tropes in history. In one of the dropped segments: Ye detailed his belief in an unfounded antisemitic conspiracy theory that Planned Parenthood was founded 'to control the Jew population' which he said really meant Black Americans. In another, he said he preferred that his children knew about Hanukah more than Kwanza because 'at least it will come with some financial engineering.' For his efforts to expose this bigotry and a network's efforts to hide it, Burke is facing prosecution. During the Biden administration, the U.S. Department of Justice indicted him on 14 felony counts in the Middle District of Florida, accusing him of hacking, computer fraud, and wiretapping. If convicted, he could spend the rest of his life behind bars. All for exposing dangerous speech that others tried to keep hidden. This isn't just a story about a reporter being punished for exercising his First Amendment right to tell the truth. It's also a test of whether our leaders mean what they say about fighting antisemitism. Editorial: Now is not the time to give up on DEI Let's be clear: Tim Burke didn't doctor anything. He didn't falsify a report. He didn't smear an innocent person. He exposed the ugly truth that was publicly accessible about a famous figure's hateful views and the media machinery that tried to hide them. That's not a crime. That's journalism. Opinion: When extremes take over, Palm Beach County loses the fight against antisemitism And yet, the Biden Administration's DOJ pursued this case anyway, framing it as a high-tech crime rather than what it was: public interest journalism. It's no wonder the ACLU and press freedom groups are outraged. Prosecuting Burke sends a chilling message — not just to him, but to any journalist or whistleblower who might consider revealing uncomfortable truths in the public interest. But the absurdity of the case has reached new heights under political leaders who now frame themselves as champions of the fight against antisemitism — including President Donald Trump. The president and his inner circle — including U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi — have made fighting antisemitism a core part of their public identity. Trump issued sweeping executive orders citing the need to protect Jewish students and root out institutional bias at universities. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has gone even further, framing the fight against antisemitism as a national and foreign policy imperative, even calling for the deportation of those who spread antisemitic hate on U.S. soil. So why is a journalist who exposed real antisemitism — words straight from the mouth of an influential American entertainer — the one being targeted by prosecutors? Why are Trump's allies silent as Burke faces 60+ years for revealing the very kind of hate they claim to oppose? Why aren't they jumping at the opportunity to drop their predecessor's misguided prosecution, pardon Burke or both? The truth is, you can't claim to be the enemy of antisemitism and then prosecute the person who exposed it. There is no need to test out novel and dubious legal theories that the government appears to be doing on someone who performed a public service. You can't rail against cancel culture and then try to cancel a journalist through the courts. If the goal is to root out hate and protect vulnerable communities, then you must accept that sometimes, doing so will ruffle powerful feathers. That's the price of integrity — and a consequence of the First Amendment. Jewish groups and advocates of press freedom need to step up and demand that the administration drop this case. And if Trump and Bondi are serious about their intentions, they need to listen and abandon Burke's prosecution. Stop punishing the person who held a mirror to the system and showed us something ugly. Show us that your principles aren't just political props. Because the fight against antisemitism must be consistent, not convenient — or it's not really a fight at all. Bobby Block is the Executive Director of the First Amendment Foundation. Seth Stern is the Advocacy Director at the Freedom of the Press Foundation. They wrote this for the USA Today Network-Florida. This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: Kanye's Carlson interview was antisemitic. Coverage is fair | Opinion
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
Former Australian PM says Welsh roots shaped her
Former Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard has said her strong sense of Welsh heritage helped shaped her view of politics. Gillard was born in Barry, Vale of Glamorgan, and was only four years old when her family emigrated to Australia. The 63-year-old, who was the Australian Labor Party prime minister from 2010-2013 said figures such as Anuerin Bevan were "idolised" in her home and her parents instilled in her the idea that politics can affect real change. Ms Gillard recently sat down with Wales' First Minister Eluned Morgan who, like her, was the first female leader of her country. Neither of her parents spoke Welsh "apart from the occasional swear word", but had a "very strong sense of their Welsh identity," Gillard said. ''We always had this sense that our lives were formed in Australia, but we knew we had this heritage," she added. Gillard recalled that her father was particularly interested in politics and news from his hometown and he had a great impact on her career. ''He gave me the sense that politics really mattered and that it could change people's lives," she added. She remembered understanding even as a child the impact a "transformative figure" like Aneurin Bevan could have on people. He could "make people's lives better" and "I was obviously attracted by that", she said. ''But it was a long time before the penny dropped that I was the kind of person that could go into politics," she added. She recently reflected on this in an interview for her podcast with Morgan, Wales' first minister. ''We got to talk about life, the universe and everything, including being from Barry,'' she told BBC Walescast. She said that during her time in office she experienced many incidents of sexism and misogyny. ''I had expected a wave [of sexism] around me being the first female leader. ''I assumed, though, that that wave would break, that it would become normalised... and it would go back to politics as usual. ''So, I was taken aback by the fact that it never broke. If anything, the amplitude of the wave just got higher and higher.'' It was not until a speech she made in October 2012, that she felt able to lay out her experiences of sexism as a female politician. The speech, which called out the leader of the opposition for sexist comments about the prime minister, was shared around the world and seen by millions of people. But Gillard said she regretted not speaking out sooner and would advise any female leader today to "call it out" immediately. She believes it is important for people in a position of power to share their own experiences of prejudice. "Unless we call things out, unless we shine a light on them, human behaviour doesn't change," she said. Gillard said things have changed for a better in a lot of ways when it comes to gender equality, but social media has created a "toxic sewer for women". ''I think we have been having a far more robust and open debate about gender equality, particularly about sexual harassment," she said. She backed social media regulation as one way of helping to deal with this problem. Australia is set to ban children under 16 from using social media this year after its parliament approved the world's strictest laws. Gillard said social media could also have "huge benefits" but she was "extremely pro-regulation". "In the face of something that is mixed, good and bad, we regulate to try and get the bad out of the system." Welsh roots key to ex-PM's politics 'Grey suits are out' - The story of Wales' new first minister
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
Sweeping move-on police powers blasted by protesters
Controversial new laws grant police an unconstitutional level of power and could have a chilling effect on protests, critics have claimed in a court challenge. Josh Lees, on behalf of the Palestinian Action Group, has taken the NSW government to the NSW Supreme Court over the anti-protest laws implemented in February. The activist is challenging the constitutional validity of police powers to move people on during protests deemed to be near places of worship. His lawyers argue the laws allow police to direct protesters to desist, even in instances where there is no evidence a worshipper has been obstructed, harassed or is in fear. That meant the laws have stretched police powers beyond their legitimate constitutional bounds, the court was told. The lawyers claim neither police nor protesters can determine the reach of those powers or the definition of nearness to a place of worship to take into consideration. "Because of those vagaries, the upshot is that a person might just stay home," Craig Lenehan SC told the court. He took aim at the "legislative blunderbuss" which he said was "blasting away at an ill-defined mischief" and could have a chilling effect on protesting in NSW. The laws were discriminatory because they expressly targeted certain types of political speech in a way that inevitably favoured some viewpoints over others, Mr Lenehan contended. When deciding to move on protesters, police needed to make a subjective determination of whether someone feels obstructed or fearful near a place of worship. That could be extended beyond worshippers to the protection of passers-by and people unconnected to the holy place, Mr Lenehan said. "(It) is a very broad police power conferred by very ill-defined application," he said. "It has nothing to do with the exercise of religious freedom." NSW Solicitor General Michael Sexton SC will address the court about the validity of the new legislation on behalf of the state government on Thursday afternoon. The laws were introduced by the state Labor government after a spate of anti-Semitic attacks across the nation and amid concerns about rallies going past the Great Synagogue in the Sydney CBD. Before their passage, Attorney-General Michael Daley said stronger penalties and boosted police powers would ensure people could practise their faith in safety. "We believe these proposed reforms strike the right balance between protecting people of faith and the community's right to protest," he said. Premier Chris Minns underscored his determination to protect the Jewish community in his first speech to parliament in 2025. "We will not be a state where someone feels like they have to remove their yarmulke (skullcap) just to walk down the street, where people are made to hide their heritage because of the ignorance, the bigotry, the racism of other people," he said. Mr Lees said the challenge against the expanded police powers was urgent because they presented a threat to the right to protest in NSW.
