Minns shelves ban on ‘globalise the intifada’ – citing queensland ruling
New South Wales Premier Chris Minns has dramatically backtracked on his pledge to ban the inflammatory slogan ‘globalise the intifada,’ effectively tying his legislative action to the outcome of a constitutional challenge currently underway in Queensland. The move signals a significant shift in strategy, prioritizing legal precedent over a proactive stance against the contested phrase.
Legal gamble: nsw waits on queensland verdict
Minns’ decision, revealed in an interview with 2GB, hinges entirely on Queensland’s upcoming court ruling regarding another banned slogan, “from the river to the sea.” He stated bluntly, “If [the ban] is upheld in Queensland, I’ll do it in New South Wales, I won’t muck around.” This admission underscores the precariousness of Minns’ position, demonstrating a clear reliance on a neighbouring state’s legal judgment.
Initially, following the Bondi terror attack in December, Minns had unequivocally declared his intention to suppress the slogan, referring to it as “hateful, violent rhetoric.” However, the issue was promptly referred to a parliamentary inquiry – a process criticized for its rushed timeline and lack of public consultation – ostensibly to pave the way for legislation. Yet, despite the inquiry’s recommendation for a ban linked to incitement of hatred, no such legislation has materialized.
Divided opinions: jewish groups clash over ban
The controversy surrounding ‘globalise the intifada’ has sharply divided opinion. Jewish advocacy groups, including the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies and the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, have vocally supported a ban, citing the phrase’s historical association with Palestinian uprisings and its potential to incite violence. Conversely, groups such as the Australian National Imams Council and the Jewish Council of Australia argue the slogan is a contested term, disproportionately targeting Palestinian and Middle Eastern communities. The inquiry’s broad definition of “incitement of hatred” has been deemed inadequate, failing to capture the nuances of the phrase’s usage.
Constitutional law expert Anne Twomey, from the University of Sydney, offered a pragmatic assessment, suggesting Minns’ strategy is “wise,” noting the potential counterproductive effect a ban might have in fueling further protest. The recent court of appeal ruling against Minns’ anti-protest laws – a second legal setback – further complicated the situation, casting doubt on his commitment to pursuing a ban.
A retreat, not a victory
Minns’ latest comments represent a further retreat from his earlier, more forceful pronouncements. Rather than directly confronting the legal challenge, he is now strategically awaiting the outcome in Queensland, acknowledging the potential for a more damaging legal precedent. This approach, while seemingly prudent, raises questions about his leadership and priorities. Legal representative Nick Hanna, representing the protest groups challenging the Queensland ban, described the strategy as “extraordinary,” highlighting the impossibility of Minns accurately predicting the legal arguments that will be presented. Sue Higginson, the Greens MLC and justice spokesperson, welcomed the apparent recognition of the “risks and dangers” associated with pursuing draconian laws. Ultimately, Minns’ decision underscores a pragmatic, if somewhat hesitant, response to a complex legal and political landscape.
The premier concluded his statement by emphasizing the need for “civic leadership” in maintaining social harmony, a sentiment that feels increasingly disconnected from the contentious legal battles unfolding around this divisive slogan.