Three activist groups are preparing a constitutional challenge to NSW’s new anti‑protest laws, arguing they are undemocratic and breach the implied freedom of political communication. Premier Chris Minns has dismissed much of the criticism as misguided and says he is confident the laws will hold up in court.
The legal challenge
Palestine Action Group Sydney, Jews Against the Occupation and the First Nations‑led Blak Caucus say they will lodge a constitutional case once the Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 passes Parliament. They argue the protest provisions amount to an effective ban on demonstrations for months at a time and will impact a wide range of movements, including upcoming Invasion Day rallies.
Palestine Action Group convener Josh Lees called the laws “undemocratic” and said they were “based off a series of lies and misinformation” that wrongly link the Bondi terror attack to pro‑Palestine rallies.
“These laws will take away the rights of everyone in NSW to gather together as a community to express their views, to express their opposition to whatever government policies they oppose, to demand change — all the things that have been so crucial to our democracy,” he said, per the ABC.
Minns hits back at critics
Minns has framed the reforms as “extraordinary changes” made necessary by a volatile climate after the Bondi Beach terror attack, and says the bill has been “run… thoroughly through the crown solicitor”.
“We’re confident that the laws will withstand a constitutional challenge,” he said on Tuesday, adding that the government could not “wait” on measures it sees as essential to community safety.
He has been particularly critical of chants like “globalise the intifada”, which the bill will ban as hate speech. After Lees said he had “never chanted this in the last two years” and warned that a ban “might make it popular”, Minns described that as “almost troll‑like”, saying: “I don’t think it’s a big game… I do think that it leads to violence in our community. I think that it leads to disharmony.”
“The definition of ‘intifada’ is … a shaking off or an uprising,” Lees said, per The Guardian.
“When people say ‘intifada’, it’s a basic act of us supporting the uprisings of Palestinians against their oppression, against illegal occupation and genocide.”
What the new laws would do
The bill, drafted after the 14 December Bondi attack, combines firearms reforms with sweeping new protest powers. Key protest changes include:
- Allowing police to declare a “public assembly restriction” within 14 days of a terror incident, blocking authorisation of protests in designated areas for up to 90 days.
- Banning processions and giving police broader powers to move on some static protests.
- Prohibiting displays of terrorist organisation symbols.
- Prohibiting supposed “hateful statements” including “globalise the intifada”.
- Letting police direct people at protests to remove face coverings if they reasonably suspect an offence has been or may be committed.
Supporters in government say the laws are aimed at preventing the “weaponisation of fear” after Bondi, while the three applicant groups and their backers warn they could reshape the future of protest in NSW if they survive the court challenge.
Lead image: Getty
The post Why 3 Activist Groups Plan To Challenge Chris Minns’ Proposed Protest Laws appeared first on PEDESTRIAN.TV .
