In short:
Religious groups and unions have made submissions to a Queensland parliamentary committee probing new laws that would ban certain phrases and expressions.
The Islamic Council of Queensland and the Archdiocese of Brisbane raised concerns about religious freedom and civil liberties.
What’s next?
The committee will table its report on February 27.
The legislation before the parliament does not specifically ban any phrases, but it gives the government of the day the power to outlaw a phrase through regulation.
The legislation would allow the government to ban an expression if the attorney-general was satisfied it was regularly used to incite discrimination, hostility, or violence towards a relevant group.
The government has already confirmed it intends to use the laws to ban the phrases “from the river to the sea” and “globalise the intifada”.
Asked on Thursday if his government was open to outlawing more expressions in the future, Mr Crisafulli said: “No. No, we’ve said the two phrases.”
That’s already a red line. Banning phrases that call for resistance to oppression and for freedom from that oppression is disgusting.
But let’s say it’s not. Let’s say their claim that these are hateful calls to violence wasn’t an antisemitic lie predicated on the idea that all Jews are complicit in the crimes of Israel. Think through the consequences of that.
Maybe Crisafulli is being honest and only these two phrases are planned. But circumstances change. What if there’s another event that can be tied via a similarly roundabout route to another phrase? Or what about the next government? Crisafulli won’t be in charge forever, and he’s just handed his successor some immense power.
And that power would be so easy to abuse.
But let’s say it’s not. Let’s say their claim that these are hateful calls to violence wasn’t an antisemitic lie predicated on the idea that all Jews are complicit in the crimes of Israel. Think through the consequences of that.
I don’t really understand what your saying in this bit.
Could you elaborate? I don’t really understand what bit you don’t understand. Particularly since the quoted bit that you said you didn’t understand leaves off the payoff that that was an introduction to?
I think its the first sentence that throws me,
But lets say its not,
I’m not sure what ‘it’ is in this sentence.
“it” is “banning phrases that call for resistance to oppression and for freedom from that oppression”. I had just said “it” is disgusting, and then say “but let’s say it’s not?”
Cheers :) I don’t know why that threw me, maybe Sunday morning, brain not switched on.
Glad we worked it out.
