The NSW Parliament is considering whether to introduce laws banning slogans like ‘globalise the intifada’ and ‘from the river to the sea’. There is a public inquiry on this proposal until 12 January 2026. Anyone can make a submission and submissions are an important way to show community opinion on this issue.
You can make a submission here: https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/committees/inquiries/Pages/lodge-a-submission.aspx?pk=3167
Only submissions from organisations and subject matter experts will be made public. If you submit as a community member, your submission and personal details will not be shared publicly.
Below are the terms of reference of the inquiry and relevant points you may wish to make in relation to each one:
a) The threat that the use of phrases like “globalise the intifada” poses to community cohesion and safety and the importance of maintaining social harmony and cohesion;
b) How best to prevent the use of phrases that are so inherently hateful by their nature that they lead to incitement of hatred and threaten community safety;
c) The need to protect communities from hatred, intimidation and violence;
- The slogans have been used in a variety of contexts, including to oppose the genocide in Gaza and express the Palestinian desire for statehood
- ‘Intifada’ is a commonly-utilised term to describe the uprising/resistance for freedom by the Palestinian people against the actions of Israel. For example, the UN General Assembly used the term to describe the 1987 uprising.
- ‘From the river to the sea’ has been used by both Israeli and Palestinian politicians on the far ends of their respective political spectrums to claim the land “from the river to the sea” as belonging exclusively to either Jews or Palestinians. It is commonly used by more moderate camps amongst both Israelis and Palestinians as reflecting a desire for a political solution that would allow both groups to live in freedom in either one or two states.’, according to the Ontario Supreme Court in University of Toronto (Governing Council) v. Doe et al. 2024 ONSC 3755. The current Netanyahu Likud Party manifesto includes language to the same effect, being “between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.” (Likud Party Platform, 1977)
- There is no evidence that the slogans have been used in themselves as an endorsement or expression of sympathy any terrorist organization or extremist group.
- There is no evidence that banning the use of the slogans would have any impact on addressing the risk of extremist violence due to the lack of links between the use of these slogans and extremist violence and the difficulty of evaluating the risk of a person engaging in extremist violence. The Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, Mr Grant Donaldson SC, has expressed doubt that there could ever be a valid quantitative method to evaluate the risk of a person engaging in extremist violence because ‘within the pool of offenders, the variety of extremist violence and its causes is so diffuse that prediction of future acts is impossible’.
- A variety of slogans are used in protests in Australia which could be interpreted as inciting violence and hatred, including slogans such as ‘fuck off, we’re full’ and ‘go back to where you came from’. There have been no legislative attempts to specifically prohibit such slogans.
d) Australian and international examples of best practice to combat the use of such slogans, including measures and approaches taken in the United Kingdom;
e) The Australian Constitution and the implied freedom of political communication;
- Laws banning specific slogans, rather than addressing them via existing hate speech legislations, risks legal challenge on the basis of it being incompatible with the implied freedom of political communication
f) Existing offences and other measures in New South Wales and Commonwealth legislation, including offences and measures that have been announced
- The existing section of the NSW Crimes Act (s93Z) could be used to assess the use of such slogans contextually to determine their meaning and whether they can be associated with calls for violence
g) Any other related matters.
- Although not directly about the referred symbols, guidance from the UN Human Rights Committee 71 General Comment 37 on the Right to Peaceful Assembly in the ICCPR is important to note for what is says about the use of signs/banners and symbols:
Generally, the use of flags, uniforms, signs and banners is to be regarded as a legitimate form of expression that should not be restricted, even if such symbols are reminders of a painful past. In exceptional cases, where such symbols are directly and predominantly associated with incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, appropriate restrictions should apply.
These points draw on a draft submission to the inquiry by Dr Maria O’Sullivan, Associate Professor, Deakin Law School.
Legal Observers NSW 