3 days ago
1
Opinion
February 10, 2026 — 5:40pm
The violence we saw in Sydney last night is a symptom of the disquiet over political and media attacks on free speech and the legitimate right to protest since the Bondi terrorist attack.
The NSW government must promptly investigate the shocking allegations of police brutality against protesters opposed to Israeli atrocities and the visit of Israel’s President Isaac Herzog, just as any unlawful violence by protesters should be scrutinised.
It is unsurprising that protesters feel frustrated when their democratic rights have been suppressed by illiberal laws and aggressive policing. NSW is now one of the most draconian anti-protest jurisdictions in the democratic world. The restrictions do not make the public safer and may, counterproductively, fuel social division.
In December, the NSW parliament rushed through new laws preventing certain protests from being authorised, exposing protesters to prosecution merely for obstructing traffic or pedestrians.
Under international law, peaceful assembly and freedom of expression are not only crucial human rights, but are essential to democracy and political inclusion, the rule of law, and the peaceful resolution of differences. Political protest and speech enjoy the highest protection. People have a right to express ideas even if they shock, offend or disturb, are disagreeable to the authorities or majority opinion, or are exaggerated or untrue.
If a society aspires to be truly democratic, its governments must allow protests to take place without unjustified interference. Protests must be “peaceful”, meaning an absence of widespread and serious violence to people and property. Otherwise, protests can only be restricted by law where it is necessary and proportionate to protect vital interests such as national security, public safety, public order or the rights of others. This includes preventing incitement to violence or national, racial or religious hatred, including antisemitism as properly defined. Mere disruption of vehicles, pedestrians and daily life, inconvenience to the public, or resource burdens on police also do not justify restrictions.
The NSW anti-protest laws clearly violate international law. The NSW Police Commissioner Mal Lanyon claims they are necessary to prevent “risks to community safety”, but has not substantiated these claims. He has referred to vague concerns about community “tension” and “division”, people feeling “upset”, “hurt” or angry, the need for people to “feel” safe, and the possibility of counterprotests.
None of these are adequate reasons to restrict protest, absent proof of a serious risk to life or property or incitement to violence or racial or religious hatred. Under international law, expressions such as “globalise the intifada” and “from the river to the sea”, accusing Israel of genocide or apartheid or calling for its boycott, or political criticism of Zionism, are not intrinsically violent or hateful and are presumptively legitimate free speech, absent other indicators. No Australian has any right to be shielded from political ideas they do not like. That is the nature of a democracy.
The restrictions seem to assume that every protest critical of Israel is a risk to community safety. The many peaceful protests over the past two years, involving hundreds of thousands of Australians, obviously disprove that prejudice. While there have regrettably been some deplorable antisemitic attacks in Australia of late, formal protests have not involved systematic violence. Nor, in my view, have they reached a threshold of violent hatred against Jewish Australians that would justify restricting entire protests, let alone every protest regardless of its size, route, aims, context, organisers and other circumstances.
The police commissioner himself admitted that “overwhelmingly, we are pleased with the actions and behaviours of protesters. However, a few continue to incite violence and cause fear and harm”. Under international law, if any individuals pose risks, the proportionate response is to take law enforcement action against them individually and not to indiscriminately restrict the rights of thousands of law-abiding protesters. NSW is using a hammer to crack a nut.
Blanket restrictions unjustifiably stigmatise all protesters as risks to public safety, particularly when they derive from counter-terrorism laws adopted after the Bondi attack. Protest against Israel has nothing to do with terrorism.
The laws also counterproductively impede constructive collaboration between police and organisers that can mitigate risks. Applying restrictions to most of Sydney, Australia’s largest city, has also unjustifiably restricted the right to march in the areas that protesters believe are most important to maximise impact. It also disproportionately restricted the protest rights of the 5.5 million Sydneysiders who are not terrorists or antisemites.
The laws restrict all protests, regardless of the cause, which is not rationally related to the Bondi terrorist attack and any genuine safety concerns following it. Protests against Indigenous deaths in custody, climate change, Russia’s war in Ukraine, Iran killing protesters, US threats against Greenland, or failures by authorities to prevent the Bondi attack are all restricted.
The threat of arrest and prosecution under a counter-terrorism law has a major chilling effect on anyone thinking about protesting, further undermining liberty and democracy.
While the laws formally apply to all protests, they disproportionately impact pro-Palestine political opinion.
These unjustified restrictions on democratic freedoms are themselves stimulating social division and political exclusion, factors which risk making protest more, not less, unruly.
The Israeli president has indicated he is visiting Australia this week not only to ceremonially honour the Bondi victims and support Jewish Australians, but to defend Israel’s conduct in Palestine. He has deliberately politicised his visit. Protest is to be expected.
Under international law, the right to protest is particularly important for marginalised groups. These include the victims of Israeli violations in Palestine, whose families also live among us, who deserve respect and a political voice, and who should not be stigmatised as terrorists.
Ben Saul is Challis Chair of International Law at The University of Sydney and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism.
Get a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up for our Opinion newsletter.
