Shunned for competing, Moscow 1980 Olympians welcomed home at last
The world was deep in the Cold War when the Soviet Union, due to host the Olympics in some seven months, invaded Afghanistan. US president Jimmy Carter announced America would boycott the Games, sending shockwaves around the world and prompting other nations to follow suit. In all, more than 45 countries withdrew in protest.
Then Australian prime minister Malcolm Fraser called on the Australian Olympic Federation to join the boycott, despite continuing to trade with Soviet government. Although the AOF (now the Australian Olympic Committee) voted 6-5 to reject such a move, the Fraser government pressed on with a campaign that pressured athletes to make the decision themselves, offering individuals $6000 payments to stay home.
'How many lives is a medal worth?' Fraser asked at the time. 'How many people have to be killed by Soviet armies before we will have total unity in this country on whether or not to compete in Moscow?'
Some did stay home, finding the pressure all too much, while the entire hockey and equestrian teams withdrew. The 121 athletes remaining from the original team of 273 were effectively smuggled out of the country. 'We were like thieves trying to get away, not [even] allowed to tell our parents,' says Ford. 'We became political pawns in this game, and I think that weighed heavily because we didn't know what the game was.'
Ron McKeon, the swimmer and father of Australia's most decorated Olympian Emma McKeon, was 19 and contesting his first Olympics. 'A lot of us were kids, and trying to fathom and navigate our way through that was certainly difficult,' he recalls. 'People started to take sides politically. There were protests … it was confusing. But I think back and it was like, well, it would be un-Australian not to fight to go.'
Emma says her dad's Olympic experience was 'extremely different' from her own, and that she and siblings David and Kaitlin never heard the in-depth story about what happened – a deliberate move by Ron to keep his children's view of the Olympic movement positive.
'[I'm] very proud,' Emma said. 'We've always been inspired by the fact that he went to the Olympics and we wanted to do the same thing. It's something that's so special.'
The Australians returned home from Moscow with nine medals and Max Metzker, the team's flagbearer, likened the experience of being ostracised to that of returning Vietnam veterans.
Loading
Ford joined fellow athletes Metzker and Peter Hadfield in lobbying for Wednesday's recognition in Canberra, which was attended by 50 Moscow Olympians, their families, team officials and coaches. For some, the past remained too painful even to go.
'The returning athletes were met at a nearby cold silence or cruel comments,' Albanese acknowledged. 'Today we fix that. Today, on the 45th anniversary, we recognise all that you have achieved and acknowledge all that you have overcome.
'Take pride in both. You are Olympians. You are Australians and you have earned your place in the history of the game and our nation. Welcome to parliament and welcome home.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
Is Australia becoming a more violent country?
Almost every day, it seems we read or hear reports another family is grieving the murder of a loved one in a street brawl, another business owner is hospitalised after trying to fend off armed robbers, or shoppers simply going about their business are confronted by knife-wielding thugs. The way media and politicians talk, it seems as if we are in the middle of an unprecedented violent crime crisis. But are we? The short answer is: no. Although the numbers fluctuate from year to year, Australia is less violent today than in previous years. It is difficult to make direct comparisons over decades, because the way crimes are defined and recorded changes (especially for assault). For crimes like domestic violence, the statistics are extremely hard to compare over time but even so, prevalence appears to have declined (although only about half of all women who experience physical and/or sexual violence from their partners seek advice or support). However, if we consider homicide and robbery (which have been categorised much the same way over time), the numbers have been falling for decades. Yes, knives and bladed weapons have been in the news recently, but this does not mean they are being used more often. Reliable, long-term statistics are not always available but the ones we have show the use of weapons has declined over time. Interestingly, this seems to have nothing to do with the weapons themselves. For instance, armed robbery and unarmed robbery both rise and fall in about the same way, at about the same time. Homicide follows a similar pattern. Not all crimes are reported to police but self-reported statistics show the same trends. Relative to ten years ago, Australians now are less likely to say they have experienced physical or threatened face-to-face assault in the previous 12 months. Places with greater socioeconomic disadvantage typically experience more violence. In Queensland, for instance, Mt Isa has higher violent crime rates than affluent areas of Brisbane. Despite differences between places, there is generally less violence than there used to be. Nobody knows quite why violence is decreasing. This is not just happening in Australia but across many developed nations. Suggestions include better social welfare, strong economies, improved education, low unemployment, women's rights and stable governance. Also, new avenues have opened up that carry less risk than violent crime - such as cyberfraud instead of robbing a bank. There is no clear, compelling explanation. Yet when we consider Australia's responses when violence does occur, measures such as bans (for example, on machetes), more police powers and more (or longer) prison sentences have become the fallback. Evidence shows these types of reactions achieve little, but in an environment of endless "crisis" it is almost impossible to make good decisions. This is made even harder in circumstances where victims and activists push politicians to implement "feel-good" policies, regardless of how ultimately fruitless those will be. One thing remains the same: violent crime is primarily committed by younger men (who are also likely to be victims). Ethnicity and migration are also recurrent themes. Just as young Italians with switchblades were the focus of moral panic in the 1950s and 60s, migrants from places such as Africa and the Middle East are now held up as a danger. Ethnicity/migration history data is not always recorded in crime statistics, but the information we do have suggests a more complex picture. Factors such as exposure to warfare and civil strife can certainly play a role in people's use of violence. However, unemployment, poverty, poor education and involvement with drugs and/or gangs tend to play a much larger part. If society is less violent, why are public reactions to violence seemingly becoming more intense? Incidents that would have received little attention a decade ago now dominate public debate and single incidents - no matter how rare or isolated - are enough to provoke sweeping legislative and policy changes. Violence is political currency. The more the spectre of violence is emphasised and exaggerated, the more power people are willing to give to authorities to do something to fix it. This is also about psychology: the better things get, the more sensitive people tend to be to whatever ills remain and resilience can crumble when something bad does happen. READ MORE: Pandering to this by rushing to make people feel safer - while politically irresistible - has unintended consequences. When another incident occurs, as it always does, people feel even more vulnerable because they were led to believe the problem had been "fixed". This creates a never-ending cycle of superficial responses while underlying issues are ignored. We cannot legislate or politicise our way out of violence. The best responses are ones that identify and address actual root causes and look at the circumstances that surround violence - rather than fixating on the violence itself. This means moving away from emotional reactions and taking a clear look at why violence occurs in the first place. Until this happens, any further reductions in violence are more likely to be good luck than good management. Almost every day, it seems we read or hear reports another family is grieving the murder of a loved one in a street brawl, another business owner is hospitalised after trying to fend off armed robbers, or shoppers simply going about their business are confronted by knife-wielding thugs. The way media and politicians talk, it seems as if we are in the middle of an unprecedented violent crime crisis. But are we? The short answer is: no. Although the numbers fluctuate from year to year, Australia is less violent today than in previous years. It is difficult to make direct comparisons over decades, because the way crimes are defined and recorded changes (especially for assault). For crimes like domestic violence, the statistics are extremely hard to compare over time but even so, prevalence appears to have declined (although only about half of all women who experience physical and/or sexual violence from their partners seek advice or support). However, if we consider homicide and robbery (which have been categorised much the same way over time), the numbers have been falling for decades. Yes, knives and bladed weapons have been in the news recently, but this does not mean they are being used more often. Reliable, long-term statistics are not always available but the ones we have show the use of weapons has declined over time. Interestingly, this seems to have nothing to do with the weapons themselves. For instance, armed robbery and unarmed robbery both rise and fall in about the same way, at about the same time. Homicide follows a similar pattern. Not all crimes are reported to police but self-reported statistics show the same trends. Relative to ten years ago, Australians now are less likely to say they have experienced physical or threatened face-to-face assault in the previous 12 months. Places with greater socioeconomic disadvantage typically experience more violence. In Queensland, for instance, Mt Isa has higher violent crime rates than affluent areas of Brisbane. Despite differences between places, there is generally less violence than there used to be. Nobody knows quite why violence is decreasing. This is not just happening in Australia but across many developed nations. Suggestions include better social welfare, strong economies, improved education, low unemployment, women's rights and stable governance. Also, new avenues have opened up that carry less risk than violent crime - such as cyberfraud instead of robbing a bank. There is no clear, compelling explanation. Yet when we consider Australia's responses when violence does occur, measures such as bans (for example, on machetes), more police powers and more (or longer) prison sentences have become the fallback. Evidence shows these types of reactions achieve little, but in an environment of endless "crisis" it is almost impossible to make good decisions. This is made even harder in circumstances where victims and activists push politicians to implement "feel-good" policies, regardless of how ultimately fruitless those will be. One thing remains the same: violent crime is primarily committed by younger men (who are also likely to be victims). Ethnicity and migration are also recurrent themes. Just as young Italians with switchblades were the focus of moral panic in the 1950s and 60s, migrants from places such as Africa and the Middle East are now held up as a danger. Ethnicity/migration history data is not always recorded in crime statistics, but the information we do have suggests a more complex picture. Factors such as exposure to warfare and civil strife can certainly play a role in people's use of violence. However, unemployment, poverty, poor education and involvement with drugs and/or gangs tend to play a much larger part. If society is less violent, why are public reactions to violence seemingly becoming more intense? Incidents that would have received little attention a decade ago now dominate public debate and single incidents - no matter how rare or isolated - are enough to provoke sweeping legislative and policy changes. Violence is political currency. The more the spectre of violence is emphasised and exaggerated, the more power people are willing to give to authorities to do something to fix it. This is also about psychology: the better things get, the more sensitive people tend to be to whatever ills remain and resilience can crumble when something bad does happen. READ MORE: Pandering to this by rushing to make people feel safer - while politically irresistible - has unintended consequences. When another incident occurs, as it always does, people feel even more vulnerable because they were led to believe the problem had been "fixed". This creates a never-ending cycle of superficial responses while underlying issues are ignored. We cannot legislate or politicise our way out of violence. The best responses are ones that identify and address actual root causes and look at the circumstances that surround violence - rather than fixating on the violence itself. This means moving away from emotional reactions and taking a clear look at why violence occurs in the first place. Until this happens, any further reductions in violence are more likely to be good luck than good management. Almost every day, it seems we read or hear reports another family is grieving the murder of a loved one in a street brawl, another business owner is hospitalised after trying to fend off armed robbers, or shoppers simply going about their business are confronted by knife-wielding thugs. The way media and politicians talk, it seems as if we are in the middle of an unprecedented violent crime crisis. But are we? The short answer is: no. Although the numbers fluctuate from year to year, Australia is less violent today than in previous years. It is difficult to make direct comparisons over decades, because the way crimes are defined and recorded changes (especially for assault). For crimes like domestic violence, the statistics are extremely hard to compare over time but even so, prevalence appears to have declined (although only about half of all women who experience physical and/or sexual violence from their partners seek advice or support). However, if we consider homicide and robbery (which have been categorised much the same way over time), the numbers have been falling for decades. Yes, knives and bladed weapons have been in the news recently, but this does not mean they are being used more often. Reliable, long-term statistics are not always available but the ones we have show the use of weapons has declined over time. Interestingly, this seems to have nothing to do with the weapons themselves. For instance, armed robbery and unarmed robbery both rise and fall in about the same way, at about the same time. Homicide follows a similar pattern. Not all crimes are reported to police but self-reported statistics show the same trends. Relative to ten years ago, Australians now are less likely to say they have experienced physical or threatened face-to-face assault in the previous 12 months. Places with greater socioeconomic disadvantage typically experience more violence. In Queensland, for instance, Mt Isa has higher violent crime rates than affluent areas of Brisbane. Despite differences between places, there is generally less violence than there used to be. Nobody knows quite why violence is decreasing. This is not just happening in Australia but across many developed nations. Suggestions include better social welfare, strong economies, improved education, low unemployment, women's rights and stable governance. Also, new avenues have opened up that carry less risk than violent crime - such as cyberfraud instead of robbing a bank. There is no clear, compelling explanation. Yet when we consider Australia's responses when violence does occur, measures such as bans (for example, on machetes), more police powers and more (or longer) prison sentences have become the fallback. Evidence shows these types of reactions achieve little, but in an environment of endless "crisis" it is almost impossible to make good decisions. This is made even harder in circumstances where victims and activists push politicians to implement "feel-good" policies, regardless of how ultimately fruitless those will be. One thing remains the same: violent crime is primarily committed by younger men (who are also likely to be victims). Ethnicity and migration are also recurrent themes. Just as young Italians with switchblades were the focus of moral panic in the 1950s and 60s, migrants from places such as Africa and the Middle East are now held up as a danger. Ethnicity/migration history data is not always recorded in crime statistics, but the information we do have suggests a more complex picture. Factors such as exposure to warfare and civil strife can certainly play a role in people's use of violence. However, unemployment, poverty, poor education and involvement with drugs and/or gangs tend to play a much larger part. If society is less violent, why are public reactions to violence seemingly becoming more intense? Incidents that would have received little attention a decade ago now dominate public debate and single incidents - no matter how rare or isolated - are enough to provoke sweeping legislative and policy changes. Violence is political currency. The more the spectre of violence is emphasised and exaggerated, the more power people are willing to give to authorities to do something to fix it. This is also about psychology: the better things get, the more sensitive people tend to be to whatever ills remain and resilience can crumble when something bad does happen. READ MORE: Pandering to this by rushing to make people feel safer - while politically irresistible - has unintended consequences. When another incident occurs, as it always does, people feel even more vulnerable because they were led to believe the problem had been "fixed". This creates a never-ending cycle of superficial responses while underlying issues are ignored. We cannot legislate or politicise our way out of violence. The best responses are ones that identify and address actual root causes and look at the circumstances that surround violence - rather than fixating on the violence itself. This means moving away from emotional reactions and taking a clear look at why violence occurs in the first place. Until this happens, any further reductions in violence are more likely to be good luck than good management. Almost every day, it seems we read or hear reports another family is grieving the murder of a loved one in a street brawl, another business owner is hospitalised after trying to fend off armed robbers, or shoppers simply going about their business are confronted by knife-wielding thugs. The way media and politicians talk, it seems as if we are in the middle of an unprecedented violent crime crisis. But are we? The short answer is: no. Although the numbers fluctuate from year to year, Australia is less violent today than in previous years. It is difficult to make direct comparisons over decades, because the way crimes are defined and recorded changes (especially for assault). For crimes like domestic violence, the statistics are extremely hard to compare over time but even so, prevalence appears to have declined (although only about half of all women who experience physical and/or sexual violence from their partners seek advice or support). However, if we consider homicide and robbery (which have been categorised much the same way over time), the numbers have been falling for decades. Yes, knives and bladed weapons have been in the news recently, but this does not mean they are being used more often. Reliable, long-term statistics are not always available but the ones we have show the use of weapons has declined over time. Interestingly, this seems to have nothing to do with the weapons themselves. For instance, armed robbery and unarmed robbery both rise and fall in about the same way, at about the same time. Homicide follows a similar pattern. Not all crimes are reported to police but self-reported statistics show the same trends. Relative to ten years ago, Australians now are less likely to say they have experienced physical or threatened face-to-face assault in the previous 12 months. Places with greater socioeconomic disadvantage typically experience more violence. In Queensland, for instance, Mt Isa has higher violent crime rates than affluent areas of Brisbane. Despite differences between places, there is generally less violence than there used to be. Nobody knows quite why violence is decreasing. This is not just happening in Australia but across many developed nations. Suggestions include better social welfare, strong economies, improved education, low unemployment, women's rights and stable governance. Also, new avenues have opened up that carry less risk than violent crime - such as cyberfraud instead of robbing a bank. There is no clear, compelling explanation. Yet when we consider Australia's responses when violence does occur, measures such as bans (for example, on machetes), more police powers and more (or longer) prison sentences have become the fallback. Evidence shows these types of reactions achieve little, but in an environment of endless "crisis" it is almost impossible to make good decisions. This is made even harder in circumstances where victims and activists push politicians to implement "feel-good" policies, regardless of how ultimately fruitless those will be. One thing remains the same: violent crime is primarily committed by younger men (who are also likely to be victims). Ethnicity and migration are also recurrent themes. Just as young Italians with switchblades were the focus of moral panic in the 1950s and 60s, migrants from places such as Africa and the Middle East are now held up as a danger. Ethnicity/migration history data is not always recorded in crime statistics, but the information we do have suggests a more complex picture. Factors such as exposure to warfare and civil strife can certainly play a role in people's use of violence. However, unemployment, poverty, poor education and involvement with drugs and/or gangs tend to play a much larger part. If society is less violent, why are public reactions to violence seemingly becoming more intense? Incidents that would have received little attention a decade ago now dominate public debate and single incidents - no matter how rare or isolated - are enough to provoke sweeping legislative and policy changes. Violence is political currency. The more the spectre of violence is emphasised and exaggerated, the more power people are willing to give to authorities to do something to fix it. This is also about psychology: the better things get, the more sensitive people tend to be to whatever ills remain and resilience can crumble when something bad does happen. READ MORE: Pandering to this by rushing to make people feel safer - while politically irresistible - has unintended consequences. When another incident occurs, as it always does, people feel even more vulnerable because they were led to believe the problem had been "fixed". This creates a never-ending cycle of superficial responses while underlying issues are ignored. We cannot legislate or politicise our way out of violence. The best responses are ones that identify and address actual root causes and look at the circumstances that surround violence - rather than fixating on the violence itself. This means moving away from emotional reactions and taking a clear look at why violence occurs in the first place. Until this happens, any further reductions in violence are more likely to be good luck than good management.
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
Thousands bridge-bound for Gaza as police deployed
The iconic Sydney Harbour Bridge is expected to turn into a teeming mass of people spotlighting the suffering in Gaza with thousands expected to join the protest, as police flag concerns of crowd crush. Rally organiser Palestine Action Group intends to draw attention to what the United Nations has described as worsening famine conditions in Gaza. Organisers expect tens of thousands of people to march from the Sydney CBD across the bridge to North Sydney despite rainy conditions. Police sought an order to prohibit the protest but Supreme Court Justice Belinda Rigg rejected the application on Saturday. The bridge will be closed to motorists for most of Sunday and the metro is out of commission with scheduled repairs. The original starting point of Lang Park in the city's CBD has been moved slightly north in negotiation with organisers to accommodate swelling numbers, and the march will end in Bradfield Park. "I'm not sure the amount of numbers that are coming ... we couldn't really gauge the support (for the rally) so we have to deal with that as it progresses today," Acting Police Assistant Commissioner Adam Johnson told reporters hours before the march. He warned police would take swift action against anyone who seeks to hijack the peaceful protest. "That's our message all the time, whether it's a public assembly or not. "I'm talking about anyone, I'm not talking about the actual protesters specifically, but anyone, that people are expected to obey the law." Mr Johnson also raised safety concerns, citing the rainy conditions and the number of demonstrators. "Crowd crush is a real thing ... but in this case, the risk is the numbers are unknown," he said. "I've asked the police to be reasonable and tempered and measured as we always are but please listen to their instructions, and we will assist in a safe assembly." Several Labor MPs will defy Premier Chris Minns and join the march alongside multiple Greens and independent colleagues. The premier previously warned the city would "descend into chaos" if the protest went ahead. Federal Opposition leader Sussan Ley questioned the shutting down of a "critical piece of infrastructure" in Sydney. Formerly a pro-Palestinian MP in parliament before shifting her position, Ms Ley took aim at the protest organisers and suggested the rally be moved to another location. "The language of the people running this protest doesn't sound peaceful to me," she told Sky News on Sunday. "I respect the right of free speech and protest, but this is taking it to another level ... the protest could happen elsewhere." Labor backbencher Ed Husic, who has been more outspoken on ending the war on Gaza, emphasised unity. "What we are seeing is that Australians are deeply affected by the images they are seeing out of Gaza," he told ABC TV. "They want to send a strong message through peaceful protests to governments, both here and abroad, that the killing has got to stop, the starvation has got to end." Similar demonstrations are planned on Sunday in Melbourne and Adelaide. More than 60,000 Palestinians have been killed in the war in Gaza, according to local health authorities, while the United Nations says dozens of people have died in recent weeks due to starvation. Israel's military campaign began after militant group Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, killing 1200 people and taking more than 251 hostages. The iconic Sydney Harbour Bridge is expected to turn into a teeming mass of people spotlighting the suffering in Gaza with thousands expected to join the protest, as police flag concerns of crowd crush. Rally organiser Palestine Action Group intends to draw attention to what the United Nations has described as worsening famine conditions in Gaza. Organisers expect tens of thousands of people to march from the Sydney CBD across the bridge to North Sydney despite rainy conditions. Police sought an order to prohibit the protest but Supreme Court Justice Belinda Rigg rejected the application on Saturday. The bridge will be closed to motorists for most of Sunday and the metro is out of commission with scheduled repairs. The original starting point of Lang Park in the city's CBD has been moved slightly north in negotiation with organisers to accommodate swelling numbers, and the march will end in Bradfield Park. "I'm not sure the amount of numbers that are coming ... we couldn't really gauge the support (for the rally) so we have to deal with that as it progresses today," Acting Police Assistant Commissioner Adam Johnson told reporters hours before the march. He warned police would take swift action against anyone who seeks to hijack the peaceful protest. "That's our message all the time, whether it's a public assembly or not. "I'm talking about anyone, I'm not talking about the actual protesters specifically, but anyone, that people are expected to obey the law." Mr Johnson also raised safety concerns, citing the rainy conditions and the number of demonstrators. "Crowd crush is a real thing ... but in this case, the risk is the numbers are unknown," he said. "I've asked the police to be reasonable and tempered and measured as we always are but please listen to their instructions, and we will assist in a safe assembly." Several Labor MPs will defy Premier Chris Minns and join the march alongside multiple Greens and independent colleagues. The premier previously warned the city would "descend into chaos" if the protest went ahead. Federal Opposition leader Sussan Ley questioned the shutting down of a "critical piece of infrastructure" in Sydney. Formerly a pro-Palestinian MP in parliament before shifting her position, Ms Ley took aim at the protest organisers and suggested the rally be moved to another location. "The language of the people running this protest doesn't sound peaceful to me," she told Sky News on Sunday. "I respect the right of free speech and protest, but this is taking it to another level ... the protest could happen elsewhere." Labor backbencher Ed Husic, who has been more outspoken on ending the war on Gaza, emphasised unity. "What we are seeing is that Australians are deeply affected by the images they are seeing out of Gaza," he told ABC TV. "They want to send a strong message through peaceful protests to governments, both here and abroad, that the killing has got to stop, the starvation has got to end." Similar demonstrations are planned on Sunday in Melbourne and Adelaide. More than 60,000 Palestinians have been killed in the war in Gaza, according to local health authorities, while the United Nations says dozens of people have died in recent weeks due to starvation. Israel's military campaign began after militant group Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, killing 1200 people and taking more than 251 hostages. The iconic Sydney Harbour Bridge is expected to turn into a teeming mass of people spotlighting the suffering in Gaza with thousands expected to join the protest, as police flag concerns of crowd crush. Rally organiser Palestine Action Group intends to draw attention to what the United Nations has described as worsening famine conditions in Gaza. Organisers expect tens of thousands of people to march from the Sydney CBD across the bridge to North Sydney despite rainy conditions. Police sought an order to prohibit the protest but Supreme Court Justice Belinda Rigg rejected the application on Saturday. The bridge will be closed to motorists for most of Sunday and the metro is out of commission with scheduled repairs. The original starting point of Lang Park in the city's CBD has been moved slightly north in negotiation with organisers to accommodate swelling numbers, and the march will end in Bradfield Park. "I'm not sure the amount of numbers that are coming ... we couldn't really gauge the support (for the rally) so we have to deal with that as it progresses today," Acting Police Assistant Commissioner Adam Johnson told reporters hours before the march. He warned police would take swift action against anyone who seeks to hijack the peaceful protest. "That's our message all the time, whether it's a public assembly or not. "I'm talking about anyone, I'm not talking about the actual protesters specifically, but anyone, that people are expected to obey the law." Mr Johnson also raised safety concerns, citing the rainy conditions and the number of demonstrators. "Crowd crush is a real thing ... but in this case, the risk is the numbers are unknown," he said. "I've asked the police to be reasonable and tempered and measured as we always are but please listen to their instructions, and we will assist in a safe assembly." Several Labor MPs will defy Premier Chris Minns and join the march alongside multiple Greens and independent colleagues. The premier previously warned the city would "descend into chaos" if the protest went ahead. Federal Opposition leader Sussan Ley questioned the shutting down of a "critical piece of infrastructure" in Sydney. Formerly a pro-Palestinian MP in parliament before shifting her position, Ms Ley took aim at the protest organisers and suggested the rally be moved to another location. "The language of the people running this protest doesn't sound peaceful to me," she told Sky News on Sunday. "I respect the right of free speech and protest, but this is taking it to another level ... the protest could happen elsewhere." Labor backbencher Ed Husic, who has been more outspoken on ending the war on Gaza, emphasised unity. "What we are seeing is that Australians are deeply affected by the images they are seeing out of Gaza," he told ABC TV. "They want to send a strong message through peaceful protests to governments, both here and abroad, that the killing has got to stop, the starvation has got to end." Similar demonstrations are planned on Sunday in Melbourne and Adelaide. More than 60,000 Palestinians have been killed in the war in Gaza, according to local health authorities, while the United Nations says dozens of people have died in recent weeks due to starvation. Israel's military campaign began after militant group Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, killing 1200 people and taking more than 251 hostages. The iconic Sydney Harbour Bridge is expected to turn into a teeming mass of people spotlighting the suffering in Gaza with thousands expected to join the protest, as police flag concerns of crowd crush. Rally organiser Palestine Action Group intends to draw attention to what the United Nations has described as worsening famine conditions in Gaza. Organisers expect tens of thousands of people to march from the Sydney CBD across the bridge to North Sydney despite rainy conditions. Police sought an order to prohibit the protest but Supreme Court Justice Belinda Rigg rejected the application on Saturday. The bridge will be closed to motorists for most of Sunday and the metro is out of commission with scheduled repairs. The original starting point of Lang Park in the city's CBD has been moved slightly north in negotiation with organisers to accommodate swelling numbers, and the march will end in Bradfield Park. "I'm not sure the amount of numbers that are coming ... we couldn't really gauge the support (for the rally) so we have to deal with that as it progresses today," Acting Police Assistant Commissioner Adam Johnson told reporters hours before the march. He warned police would take swift action against anyone who seeks to hijack the peaceful protest. "That's our message all the time, whether it's a public assembly or not. "I'm talking about anyone, I'm not talking about the actual protesters specifically, but anyone, that people are expected to obey the law." Mr Johnson also raised safety concerns, citing the rainy conditions and the number of demonstrators. "Crowd crush is a real thing ... but in this case, the risk is the numbers are unknown," he said. "I've asked the police to be reasonable and tempered and measured as we always are but please listen to their instructions, and we will assist in a safe assembly." Several Labor MPs will defy Premier Chris Minns and join the march alongside multiple Greens and independent colleagues. The premier previously warned the city would "descend into chaos" if the protest went ahead. Federal Opposition leader Sussan Ley questioned the shutting down of a "critical piece of infrastructure" in Sydney. Formerly a pro-Palestinian MP in parliament before shifting her position, Ms Ley took aim at the protest organisers and suggested the rally be moved to another location. "The language of the people running this protest doesn't sound peaceful to me," she told Sky News on Sunday. "I respect the right of free speech and protest, but this is taking it to another level ... the protest could happen elsewhere." Labor backbencher Ed Husic, who has been more outspoken on ending the war on Gaza, emphasised unity. "What we are seeing is that Australians are deeply affected by the images they are seeing out of Gaza," he told ABC TV. "They want to send a strong message through peaceful protests to governments, both here and abroad, that the killing has got to stop, the starvation has got to end." Similar demonstrations are planned on Sunday in Melbourne and Adelaide. More than 60,000 Palestinians have been killed in the war in Gaza, according to local health authorities, while the United Nations says dozens of people have died in recent weeks due to starvation. Israel's military campaign began after militant group Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, killing 1200 people and taking more than 251 hostages.
Sky News AU
4 hours ago
- Sky News AU
‘An absolute disgrace': NSW turbine proposal sends Australians ‘up in arms'
Sky News host James Morrow discusses a proposal to build turbines in New South Wales which has Australians 'up in arms'. 'This just goes to prove, guys, that the environmental movement is really not about the environment anymore; it is vandalism in the name of making money,' he said. 'There is now a proposal – and it has got everybody up in arms ... some European wind farm builders want to throw up 250 wind towers, some of them as high as 300 metres. 'Totally destroying the environment, the ambience, the amenity of this beautiful, beautiful region ... it's just an absolute disgrace – it's vandalism. This stuff has to stop.'
