On the ground at the Herzog protests

What are you hoping to achieve by coming here today?

Well, I'm hoping to help show the abhorrence that a lot of Australians have for this visit and how insulting that is in the context of our multicultural community.

Thousands of protesters here in Sydney. It's Monday night and they're demonstrating against the controversial visit by Israeli President Isaac Hertzel. He was invited here by the Prime Minister Anthony Alberizi after the Bondai terror attack earlier in the day. He visited Bondai and later wreath to honor the fifteen people killed in the attack. But these protesters say Hertzong is not welcome.

The fact that our government has invited a member of the Israeli government here to represent Jews, I think is highly offensive to many in the Jewish community.

Who's a person.

Who has said that all Palasinian people are responsible for what happened on October seven and has incited that demonization of a.

Whole group of people, and it's just not just and it shouldn't be here.

The New South Wales government put limits on the march and protesters challenged it. They lost in a last minute decision by the court, but they won't be silenced.

It's just inconceivable that people who are trying to stop the murder of children, families of people in Palestine should not be able to freely protest what is going on.

And they represent sort of opportunistic push from the New Southist governments to stop protests, particularly protests against the genocide in Palestan.

I'm Nicole Johnston and you're listening to seven am today President of the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties, Timothy Roberts on whether the right to protest is under threat and what this means for the rest of the country. It's Tuesday, February ten. Tim, could you explain what this court case was about and your reaction to the ruling.

Well, the court case was about the Men's government using another set of powers that had had on its books, essentially some rules around special events and the ability of the police to use powers to move on crowds of people and to disperse crowds with respect to those events. And there was a question from the Palestine Action Group in particular as to whether or not this was a valid use of that legislation. And that power, and ultimately the judge decided it was.

And what else did the judge have to say about it?

Well?

Nothing, Basically, the judge made the decision without reasons. It's common for them to provide it later for scrutiny, and I think it was the option court to get them out as quickly as possible given the impact they had on the event and the protests themselves.

But really it wasn't something that was ventilated at the time.

Tim have we ever seen these types of powers given to the police before, all these types of major event laws used in this way to restrict a protest.

Not in this context.

This is unusual where these powers are used as big events where there's needed a large police presence and there's issues of crowds and stuff.

So you can think about big sporting events and the like. So using in this context is new. And the concern therefore is.

That the police will be able to draw on this power in the future going forward and use it to suppress and disperse crowds in protests.

And so the court has made a decision that many might not agree with.

What is unequivocal is that we have a legislator, a government that has been passing laws and giving police by too much power to control these events and to restrict interfere with our protests. So when it comes to a decision we don't agree with, that's based on laws that are on the books.

If you don't agree with that, that's the question, then you need to take to.

Your local member of Parliament and something in money to take to the ballot box next time if you don't agree with what's.

Happened coming up? What does this all mean for freedom of expression? Tim? We've seen wide restrictions on protests in New South Wales since the Bondai attack. What do these laws actually do?

So, the laws that were introduced after the Pondeye attack empowered the Police Commissioner to make a declaration that particular areas are designated to be assembly free essentially, so that is to say, there's a prohibition against seeking authorization to

Is it the role of the police to step between the animosity and part of the population, and are currently you know, to make declaration about people's so political views about that lead.

No, my view is purely on community safety.

I need to balance up the level of animosity about his visit with.

The need for community safety.

And that's what we've done again.

So where before there was this broad recognition that we all had that right, an unequivocal right to protest and then also seek authorization of protest, now in these events, the police commissioner says quite broadly, no one can. And so while you know, what happened in Bondai was obviously the beginning of this particular law. You saw it impact communities related to Venezuela, communities related to Iran, other international events,

Tim The state government says that it's new protest laws, a short term that they don't formally ban or protest. They say they're trying to reduce tension in the community around the Hertzeg.

Visit, balancing the rights of protest alongside the understandable responsibility of the New South Wales government and the police to protect a visiting head of state as well as mourners as well as protesters and regular Sydney siders who are going about their job on a Monday afternoon. We're trying to get that balance right.

How convincing is that argument to you and what could be the long term impact of the crackdown.

I think the long term impact of the crackdown is that we have a community that changes its understanding of what its rights are. You know, it started with an unequivocal right to assembly and political communication. It's one of the few rights that are protecting our constitution. But it's a right that we only really have if we use it.

And know we have it.

And the concern is that as a community that we change our understanding we live our rights. That's the start of it. But I don't think that is a particularly convincing argument at all. I think it's one of those ones that is used with things like social cohesion and the like. You know, I keep keep bringing this to the idea that you know, yeah, sure, if an angry dad coming home shats at a family for to be quiet because they're annoying him, sure the thing that's frustrated,

That's the division.

That's the division is when some voices are listened to and not others. And I truly believe the animosity in the environment now, the tension the stress that has come about the course of the intervention of the government in trying to silence protest and intervene. So it's actively doing the opposite of what they're saying it can do.

And as this time passes.

And we heal as a community, we've got to be really worried then about what happens to our right to assemble around issues like climate change or your workers' rights, or you know, some other circumstance we want to assemble about the actions of the men's government.

We now have an environment where those rights have been a.

Road and we might not be able to avail ourselves all of them as readily, and that's the worry of Utimately, it's about keeping our government to account and letting them know what our views are, and we're not getting close to.

That goal now. Separately, we have a number of activist groups. They've filed another Supreme Court challenge against these broader restrictions that were brought in after Bondai. What is that case about.

It's about whether or not again the new laws are valid.

So every time there's a constitutional challenge, if you will, to laws like this, you're balancing the question about whether or not there.

Was a purpose in the one sense, a valid purpose for them, and.

Whether or not because they are an infringement on these key rights to our democracy. So whether or not that burden on that particular right in New South Wales has been overly done and the groups that are challenging the laws are saying that the balance isn't right and there's an impermissible burden on our right to communicate with each other because of them, and the hope from these groups is that as that the laws will be wound back as result.

Tim we're seeing these New South Wales restrictions in the middle of a wider debate about cracking down on protests all over the country. Queensland is set to introduce the first hate speech laws, banning two pro Palestinian slogans. What does all of this say about how Australia is trying to balance that idea of social cohesion with freedom of expression.

I think it says that we have a real failing of political leadership in our country. Quite frankly, we have a community in distress, we have pain. We've had decades of understanding that to have reconciliation, to have cohesion, we need to have truth telling and speak in exchange, and yet we have leadership that is troubled by difficult times is choosing to use a regressive approach to that so as opposed of allowing truth telling, allowing disputes to happen.

The other states that have followed do. I think it's telling that.

In those communities where it's not part of our public discourse, our front of mine understanding of our rights, that those rights have been eroded first, so I think it's time for us to get better equated with our rights and understanding about how our democracy works.

Tim, thanks for joining us.

Thank you for having me.

Also in the news, the Australian man behind New Zealand's deadliest mass shooting, which saw fifty one Muslim worshipers killed, is in court attempting to have his guilty please thrown out. Brenton Tarrant claims he was not in a fit state to plead guilty to the terrorism murder and attempted murder chargers in twenty nineteen. He's testified that he felt forced to admit the crimes because of the harsh prison conditions

You have un