This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . The next check for changes will be

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/jun/19/palestine-action-group-tells-nsw-supreme-court-that-laws-meant-to-protect-places-of-worship-are-chilling-ntwnfb

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Protest at Sydney synagogue wasn’t targeting ‘religious event’ but Israel Defense Forces speaker, court told Protest at Sydney synagogue wasn’t targeting ‘religious event’ but Israel Defense Forces speaker, court told
(32 minutes later)
NSW Labor’s anti-protest laws protecting places of worship have ‘chilling effect’ on democracy, Palestine Action Group barrister tells supreme courtNSW Labor’s anti-protest laws protecting places of worship have ‘chilling effect’ on democracy, Palestine Action Group barrister tells supreme court
Australia news live: latest politics updatesAustralia news live: latest politics updates
Get our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcastGet our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcast
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 protest outside a Sydney synagogue - which was the “catalyst” for the NSW government introducing anti-protest laws designed to curb antisemitism - was targeting an event where a member of the Israel Defence Forces was speaking, 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 Palestine Action Group is challenging in the NSW supreme court 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 group’s barrister on Thursday said the protest outside the Great Synagogue in early 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,” Felicity Graham told the court.
The laws being challenged make it an offence to hinder someone from entering or leaving a place of worship, or cause obstruction, harassment, intimidation or fear 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.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.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.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”. Separately, a parliamentary inquiry – supported by the Coalition, the Greens and members of the crossbench – was launched into what the premier, Chris Minns, and his senior cabinet ministers knew about the attacks before passing the controversial legislation.
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. On Thursday in court, Graham referred to comments made by one of NSW Labor’s own MPs, Stephen Lawrence, during a Februray debate over the places of worship bill. Lawrence told parliament that the synagogue protest being the catalyst showed the “clear intention of the bill” was not what the government claimed.
In the same debate, Labor MP Anthony D’Adam said the event “was put on by the Israel Institute of Technology and celebrated 100 years of that organisation”.
D’Adam’s comments weren’t referred to in the supreme court but the MP told parliament at the time: “It was platforming a recently returned Israel Defense Forces member who was going to share their experiences of being on duty, presumably involved in the conflict in Gaza.”
The prime minister, Anthony Albanese, said in December that “more recently, what we’ve seen is people [outside] the Great Synagogue … why would you do that? I mean, what is in people’s heads?”
“I know premier Minns has made comments about this and I certainly support his view.”
‘Near is a broad and elastic term’
The Palestine Action Group is arguing the places of worship law is constitutionally invalid because it “impermissibly burdens the implied [commonwealth] constitutional freedom of communication on government or political matters”.
Craig Lenehan SC, also 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.
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
“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.“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.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.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.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. “Here … the Act refers to obstructing,” Graham told the court.
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.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.
Sign up to Morning Mail “There’s a stark contrast between the word ‘near’ and the terms ‘occurring at or outside’,” Graham said. “Near is a broad and elastic term.”
Our Australian morning briefing breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what’s happening and why it matters The barrister 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”.
after newsletter promotion
“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 prime minister, Anthony Albanese, said in December that “more recently, what we’ve seen is people [outside] the Great Synagogue … why would you do that? I mean, what is in people’s heads?”
“I know premier Minns has made comments about this and I certainly support his view.”
The NSW supreme court hearing continues.The NSW supreme court hearing continues.