Latest news with #PalestineActionGroup
The Advertiser
5 hours ago
- Politics
- The Advertiser
Protester confident in fight against new police powers
A state's solicitor-general has defended controversial laws that grant police the power to move protesters on from places of worship if they are deemed to be disruptive. Michael Sexton SC faced the NSW Supreme Court on Thursday on behalf of the state government amid a challenge to the validity of anti-protest laws implemented in February. Josh Lees, on behalf of the Palestine Action Group, launched legal action over the new laws which he claims are very broad, undefined, and threaten the right to protest in NSW. Mr Sexton said the powers were confined to protecting people who were being targeted by disruptive protesters when entering or leaving a place of worship. He told the court it was "difficult" to imagine a situation in which the laws would be enacted without the provocation of protesters causing harassment, intimidation or fear. The police powers had an "obvious and legitimate purpose" after being introduced in response to threats and attacks at places of worship around Australia, Mr Sexton said. Rather than standing alone, he told the court the laws were meant to be read in conjunction with other legislation which would lend context and application tests. Mr Lees' barrister Craig Lenehan SC accused the state government of attempting to have the judge perform "judicial surgery" because of their unclear construction of the law. He said the law had not been tailored for purpose and didn't provide any clarity to either police or protesters about the reach of the powers or the definition of nearness. Mr Lenehan took aim at the "legislative blunderbuss" which he said was "blasting away at an ill-defined mischief" and would likely have a chilling effect on protesting in NSW. "Because of those vagaries, the upshot is that a person might just stay home," he told the court. Mr Lees' legal team argued the laws allow police to direct protesters to desist, even in instances where there was no evidence a worshipper had been obstructed, harassed or was in fear. That meant the laws had stretched police powers beyond their legitimate constitutional bounds, the court was told. Mr Lenehan contended the laws were discriminatory because they expressly target certain types of political speech in a way that inevitably favoured some viewpoints over others. Mr Sexton argued the validity of the laws wasn't affected by the fact there were exemptions for union rallies or for people in charge of places of worship to permit protests. After the hearing, Mr Lees said he was "very confident" in securing a positive court outcome. "These laws are unconstitutional because of how vaguely and broadly they're worded which threatens the right to protest," he said outside court. "I think we can say very fairly that the government's legal representatives had no answer to that today." Justice Anna Mitchelmore has reserved her decision. The contested 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. But a rabbi and other progressive faith leaders at the time warned the extra restrictions would lead to the over-policing of peaceful protests, including those by faith communities. A state's solicitor-general has defended controversial laws that grant police the power to move protesters on from places of worship if they are deemed to be disruptive. Michael Sexton SC faced the NSW Supreme Court on Thursday on behalf of the state government amid a challenge to the validity of anti-protest laws implemented in February. Josh Lees, on behalf of the Palestine Action Group, launched legal action over the new laws which he claims are very broad, undefined, and threaten the right to protest in NSW. Mr Sexton said the powers were confined to protecting people who were being targeted by disruptive protesters when entering or leaving a place of worship. He told the court it was "difficult" to imagine a situation in which the laws would be enacted without the provocation of protesters causing harassment, intimidation or fear. The police powers had an "obvious and legitimate purpose" after being introduced in response to threats and attacks at places of worship around Australia, Mr Sexton said. Rather than standing alone, he told the court the laws were meant to be read in conjunction with other legislation which would lend context and application tests. Mr Lees' barrister Craig Lenehan SC accused the state government of attempting to have the judge perform "judicial surgery" because of their unclear construction of the law. He said the law had not been tailored for purpose and didn't provide any clarity to either police or protesters about the reach of the powers or the definition of nearness. Mr Lenehan took aim at the "legislative blunderbuss" which he said was "blasting away at an ill-defined mischief" and would likely have a chilling effect on protesting in NSW. "Because of those vagaries, the upshot is that a person might just stay home," he told the court. Mr Lees' legal team argued the laws allow police to direct protesters to desist, even in instances where there was no evidence a worshipper had been obstructed, harassed or was in fear. That meant the laws had stretched police powers beyond their legitimate constitutional bounds, the court was told. Mr Lenehan contended the laws were discriminatory because they expressly target certain types of political speech in a way that inevitably favoured some viewpoints over others. Mr Sexton argued the validity of the laws wasn't affected by the fact there were exemptions for union rallies or for people in charge of places of worship to permit protests. After the hearing, Mr Lees said he was "very confident" in securing a positive court outcome. "These laws are unconstitutional because of how vaguely and broadly they're worded which threatens the right to protest," he said outside court. "I think we can say very fairly that the government's legal representatives had no answer to that today." Justice Anna Mitchelmore has reserved her decision. The contested 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. But a rabbi and other progressive faith leaders at the time warned the extra restrictions would lead to the over-policing of peaceful protests, including those by faith communities. A state's solicitor-general has defended controversial laws that grant police the power to move protesters on from places of worship if they are deemed to be disruptive. Michael Sexton SC faced the NSW Supreme Court on Thursday on behalf of the state government amid a challenge to the validity of anti-protest laws implemented in February. Josh Lees, on behalf of the Palestine Action Group, launched legal action over the new laws which he claims are very broad, undefined, and threaten the right to protest in NSW. Mr Sexton said the powers were confined to protecting people who were being targeted by disruptive protesters when entering or leaving a place of worship. He told the court it was "difficult" to imagine a situation in which the laws would be enacted without the provocation of protesters causing harassment, intimidation or fear. The police powers had an "obvious and legitimate purpose" after being introduced in response to threats and attacks at places of worship around Australia, Mr Sexton said. Rather than standing alone, he told the court the laws were meant to be read in conjunction with other legislation which would lend context and application tests. Mr Lees' barrister Craig Lenehan SC accused the state government of attempting to have the judge perform "judicial surgery" because of their unclear construction of the law. He said the law had not been tailored for purpose and didn't provide any clarity to either police or protesters about the reach of the powers or the definition of nearness. Mr Lenehan took aim at the "legislative blunderbuss" which he said was "blasting away at an ill-defined mischief" and would likely have a chilling effect on protesting in NSW. "Because of those vagaries, the upshot is that a person might just stay home," he told the court. Mr Lees' legal team argued the laws allow police to direct protesters to desist, even in instances where there was no evidence a worshipper had been obstructed, harassed or was in fear. That meant the laws had stretched police powers beyond their legitimate constitutional bounds, the court was told. Mr Lenehan contended the laws were discriminatory because they expressly target certain types of political speech in a way that inevitably favoured some viewpoints over others. Mr Sexton argued the validity of the laws wasn't affected by the fact there were exemptions for union rallies or for people in charge of places of worship to permit protests. After the hearing, Mr Lees said he was "very confident" in securing a positive court outcome. "These laws are unconstitutional because of how vaguely and broadly they're worded which threatens the right to protest," he said outside court. "I think we can say very fairly that the government's legal representatives had no answer to that today." Justice Anna Mitchelmore has reserved her decision. The contested 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. But a rabbi and other progressive faith leaders at the time warned the extra restrictions would lead to the over-policing of peaceful protests, including those by faith communities. A state's solicitor-general has defended controversial laws that grant police the power to move protesters on from places of worship if they are deemed to be disruptive. Michael Sexton SC faced the NSW Supreme Court on Thursday on behalf of the state government amid a challenge to the validity of anti-protest laws implemented in February. Josh Lees, on behalf of the Palestine Action Group, launched legal action over the new laws which he claims are very broad, undefined, and threaten the right to protest in NSW. Mr Sexton said the powers were confined to protecting people who were being targeted by disruptive protesters when entering or leaving a place of worship. He told the court it was "difficult" to imagine a situation in which the laws would be enacted without the provocation of protesters causing harassment, intimidation or fear. The police powers had an "obvious and legitimate purpose" after being introduced in response to threats and attacks at places of worship around Australia, Mr Sexton said. Rather than standing alone, he told the court the laws were meant to be read in conjunction with other legislation which would lend context and application tests. Mr Lees' barrister Craig Lenehan SC accused the state government of attempting to have the judge perform "judicial surgery" because of their unclear construction of the law. He said the law had not been tailored for purpose and didn't provide any clarity to either police or protesters about the reach of the powers or the definition of nearness. Mr Lenehan took aim at the "legislative blunderbuss" which he said was "blasting away at an ill-defined mischief" and would likely have a chilling effect on protesting in NSW. "Because of those vagaries, the upshot is that a person might just stay home," he told the court. Mr Lees' legal team argued the laws allow police to direct protesters to desist, even in instances where there was no evidence a worshipper had been obstructed, harassed or was in fear. That meant the laws had stretched police powers beyond their legitimate constitutional bounds, the court was told. Mr Lenehan contended the laws were discriminatory because they expressly target certain types of political speech in a way that inevitably favoured some viewpoints over others. Mr Sexton argued the validity of the laws wasn't affected by the fact there were exemptions for union rallies or for people in charge of places of worship to permit protests. After the hearing, Mr Lees said he was "very confident" in securing a positive court outcome. "These laws are unconstitutional because of how vaguely and broadly they're worded which threatens the right to protest," he said outside court. "I think we can say very fairly that the government's legal representatives had no answer to that today." Justice Anna Mitchelmore has reserved her decision. The contested 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. But a rabbi and other progressive faith leaders at the time warned the extra restrictions would lead to the over-policing of peaceful protests, including those by faith communities.
The Guardian
9 hours ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
NSW Labor's anti-protest laws protecting places of worship have ‘chilling effect' on democracy, court told
Anti-protest legislation introduced by the New South Wales government in a bid to curb antisemitism is so 'vague' that protesters won't know if they've broken the law, a court has been told during a constitutional challenge. A barrister for the Palestine Action Group made the argument before the NSW supreme court on Thursday when challenging the Minns Labor government's controversial laws giving police broad powers to restrict protests. The laws make it an offence to hinder someone from entering or leaving a place of worship and restrict protests near places of worship. The laws were part of a suite of reforms passed in February after a wave of antisemitic attacks over the summer, which included a caravan being found laden with explosives on the outskirts of Sydney. Two weeks after the legislation was passed, the Australian federal police revealed the caravan and antisemitic attacks were a 'con job' by organised crime to divert police resources and influence prosecutions. Josh Lees filed the challenge on behalf of the Palestine Action Group in the wake of the revelations. The group argues the law is invalid because it 'impermissibly burdens the implied [commonwealth] constitutional freedom of communication on government or political matters'. Craig Lenehan SC, acting for the plaintiff, told the court on Thursday that the 'vagueness' of the legislation's wording meant it had a 'chilling effect' – because neither protesters nor police officers could determine the reach of the powers. 'People who would wish to make these communications are placed in an insidious position where they are potentially exposed to prosecution in a highly indeterminate way,' Lenehan told the court. The law does not apply to protests that have been approved by police via a form 1 application – which can take several days to process. Where protests haven't been approved, the court was told the laws expanded police powers to issue a move-on order for 'obstruction' that is 'in or near' places of worship. The court heard other laws governing protests recognised that, by their very nature and size, rallies could obstruct people and, therefore, move-on powers were restricted to when an obstruction caused a safety risk. 'Here … the Act refers to obstructing,' Felicity Graham, another lawyer for the plaintiff, told the court. Sign up to Morning Mail Our Australian morning briefing breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion The court was told that the police would also have discretion over what 'in or near' meant, given it was not defined in the legislation. That could expand police powers at a number of major protest sites in Sydney, including Town Hall and Hyde Park. 'There's a stark contrast between the word 'near' and the terms 'occurring at or outside',' said Graham. 'Near is a broad and elastic term.' Graham said the defendant was arguing that police powers only extended to 'circumstances where a worshiper is so affected by obstruction, harassment, intimidation or fear'. But she told the court that this 'should be rejected as it doesn't emerge from the text, context or purpose of the legislation'. Graham told the court that the 'catalyst' for the laws – a protest outside Sydney's Great Synagogue in December 2024 – 'was not a religious event'. '[It] was a political event being held at the Synagogue, a Technion event … at which an Israel Defense Forces member was speaking,' she told the court. Graham referred to comments made by one of NSW Labor's own MPs, Stephen Lawrence, during a debate over the bill in parliament, where he said the synagogue protest being the catalyst showed the 'clear intention of the bill' was not what the government claimed. The hearing continues.
News.com.au
10 hours ago
- Politics
- News.com.au
Pro-Palestine activist challenges NSW over ‘ugly' anti-protest laws that could have a ‘chilling' effect
An activist is challenging controversial anti-protest laws in NSW, with lawyers arguing the broad and undefined legislation could have a 'chilling' effect as protesters and police are unable to determine the reach of its powers. Joshua Lees has launched a constitutional challenge action against the state of NSW's anti-protest laws on behalf of the Palestine Action Group (PAG. The new protest laws give police fresh powers regarding protests at or near places of worship and were brought in on February 20 – less than a month after news of the Dural caravan broke. Speaking outside court, Mr Lees said the laws were broad, undefined, and threatened democratic rights as 'almost everywhere' PAG protests was near a place of worship. One of a large legal team representing Mr Lees, Peter O'Brien, from O'Briens Solicitors, claimed outside court that the laws were not about protecting parishioners, and the legislation didn't comment on harassing, menacing or intimidating parishioners. He said it was a 'stretch too far' and undermined the constitutional right to protest that could lead to 'ugly, miserable experiences for democracy'. 'If police are given that … it leads to ugly, ugly results, and that is the real concern that we have,' Mr O'Brien said. 'It is unconstitutional. It is undermining the right freedom of assembly, and that is, I say, axiomatic and foundational to the right that we have in democracy.' A rally erupted outside the Supreme Court on Thursday before proceedings began, with Mr Lees noting this was a good example of the law's ambiguity, given the proximity to nearby churches. 'If the police wanted to, technically right now they could say we are protesting near a place of worship,' Mr Lees said. Minutes later, his supporters filled the courtroom, with Justice Anna Mitchelmore inviting them to be seated at the empty bar tables. Mr Lees' lawyer Felicity Graham told the court the language of a person being near a place of worship left police with a 'broad decisional area', and there would be difficulty in creating precise boundaries. Many critical protest sites were 'very likely' to be vulnerable to the new laws, the court was told, particularly given most protests take place in city centres both for the accessibility of attendees and also to draw attention. Ms Graham argued the imputed provision of the law stretched police powers 'beyond its legitimate bounds when analysed for constitutional validity'. 'At the heart of this case is a simple but critical question,' she said. 'Would the imputed law permit police to direct protesters to move on or desist from their protest action because they are near a place of worship, even if there's no basis to believe that any worshipper is obstructed, harassed, intimidated or caused to feel fear?' Ms Graham said. 'The plaintiff says in certain circumstances the answer is yes.' Craig Lenehan SC, also on behalf of Mr Lees, said the legislation could leave those who wished to protest in 'ambiguous positions'. 'It, we say, amplifies and intensifies the chilling effect of the provisions because in short, as Your Honour would be aware, it means that both protesters and police officers cannot determine the reach of the powers,' Mr Lenehan said. He described the legislation as having a 'cascading series of ill-defined discretions' with very broad police powers that could resign protesters to simply staying home out of fear of criminal sanctions. Mr Lees earlier accused NSW Premier Chris Minns of passing the laws under a cloud of 'lies and conspiracy' while speaking outside court, insinuating he knew the Dural caravan was part of a con job when the laws were rushed through. Rather than a potential anti-Semitic attack, an explosives-laden caravan found at Dural in Sydney's northwest was a fake terrorism plot with ties to organised crime, police later revealed. 'This entire Dural caravan episode, this hoax that was going on at the time – the Minns government knew actually that this was all part of a criminal con job and yet he kept the public and the parliament in the dark about this whole affair while he rushed through laws which take away our right to protest,' he said.
