In a constitutional challenge against New South Wales’ anti-protest laws aimed at curbing antisemitism, a barrister for the Palestine Action Group has argued that the sweeping legislation is so “vague” it leaves both protesters and police uncertain about its parameters. Presented to the NSW Supreme Court, the claim asserts that the laws are unclear to the point of creating a “chilling effect” on freedom of communication regarding government or political matters, as individuals might face prosecution without clear guidelines.
The controversial laws, passed in February following a series of antisemitic incidents, including the discovery of a caravan laden with explosives near Sydney, grant police extensive powers to restrict protests. They criminalize hindering access to places of worship and allow for tighter controls on protests in their vicinity. Critics, represented by Josh Lees on behalf of the Palestine Action Group, contend that these measures illogically burden the constitutional freedom of political communication, especially since the initial incident that spurred the laws was revealed to be a misdirection by organized crime to influence prosecutions and divert police resources.
Crisis Graham SC, acting for the plaintiff, emphasized the legislation’s vagueness concerning terms like “in or near” places of worship, which could expand police powers significantly across key protest sites in Sydney, including Town Hall and Hyde Park. The defense is arguing that these powers should only extend to situations where worshipers are “so affected by obstruction, harassment, intimidation, or fear,” a point Graham contests as unsupported by the legislation’s text, context, or purpose. The case is ongoing, with broader implications for freedom of assembly and protest in NSW.
Source: 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
