More info on the Queensland laws: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/mar/05/queensland-pro-palestinian-phrase-ban-river-to-sea-laws-ntwnfb
It’s absurd. Like the British guy arrested for wearing a “Plasticine Action” tshirt.
NO ONE
WANTS
TO DIE
FOR ISRAEL
Just because something is illegal, doesn’t make it wrong and just because something is legal, doesn’t make it right. We need more illegal action against those who oppress legally.
Best example: the holocaust was legal, hiding Jews to save their lives was illegal.
And yet now the Jews are the oppressors/instigators
What a world.
Zionists, not Jews, are the problem.
Even as an atheist I belive the main issue is not your belief, but what you do with it.
Props for sensible atheism as compared to “all & any religion is murder” atheism.
The reality though is that a whole lot of murder has been in the name of religion.
I wouldn’t get as far as sensible, but thanks haha
No, they’re all mental illness adjacent.
Zionists, not Jews,
Zionists are jews.
Incorrect in two ways. There are non Jewist Zionists (see Trump as an example) Even of they were, not all Jews are Zionists.
see Trump as an example
I’d call him a christofascist, not a zionist, he doesn’t give two fucks about israel or jews unless it has some utility to him, but yeah, there are non-jewish zionists for sure: all those who support israel.
not all Jews are Zionists.
duh
Again, why does any country who is not Israel care at all about this? Does Australia have a military base there?
Exactly, half these people are bored with nothing better to do and should be working.
You can tell as they often are a collective with no common goal or objective other than ‘protest’. And it’s causing such division in our society with now a strong anti immigration movement cos people are getting sick of it.
And in the end everyone loses.
If you can get arrested and jailed for wearing a shirt saying “from the river to the sea”, that means your government is suppressing your free speech in service to the genocidal regime of a different country. Even if you don’t care about the genocide, the subversion of your democracy and your civil rights by a foreign power is something that any responsible citizen should be fighting against.
We have no free speech btw. And yes, the government is suppressing and censoring speech because that’s what the political left have been begging them to do for years. Now it’s here and surprise surprise, they thought it wouldn’t be used against them, and now they’re not happy.
Best comment in this whole thread
SINCERELY - Thank you !!!
Again so quick to fire you assume that I disagree with you.
Something to consider though, we do have free speech in this country and its likely and this case (if challenged) will get thrown out. Update edit: she took a caution.
But also tell me how wearing a t shirt constructively convinces others to share our point of view? Quite the contrary I imagine others who don’t share the same opinion will go ‘avoid this person before they shout at me for having a different point of view’
And do you know a better way to make a movement in this country than if everyone is able to convince someone else to share (or perhaps just lean closer to) a common opinion/belief. So if instead of pissing off alternative points of view, have an open chat, you might change ppls minds. 1 million voices is better than 100,000 voices, and 25 million voices is better than 1 million. And an open chat is not wearing a tshirt.
But first people need to actually talk and listen to each other instead of shouting and hating each other.
You assume that I assume that you disagree with me.
Well, I am making a counterpoint to your comments about people having nothing better to do and not having a common goal as a collective. This woman achieved something extremely worthwhile, and she probably wasn’t working in isolation. She brought attention to an absurd ban on free speech, and by calling the government’s bluff on it, helped to reduce the chilling effect on dissent that such restrictions are intended to create. It takes courage, but the most effective way to oppose an unjust law is to break that law, openly and with as much publicity as possible. It draws attention to what is wrong in a way that an open chat simply fails to do. And how open can that chat be anyway? You say you have free speech, but when it gets you arrested with the threat of serious jail time, your freedom of speech is on very thin ice.
I’m not opposed to verbal persuasion, but it has limitations. Sure you might be able to convince one person of something in a face to face conversation. But that’s small fry compared to the influence of internet forums, which have become overrun with bots, paid shills, foreign interference, partisan moderators and hidden algorithms designed to maximize engagement and distort your worldview.
Sure you can try to change people’s minds and/or maintain a balanced worldview in that arena. But any large scale forum for talk tends to create delusion, division and outrage, by design. It keeps dissent in a form that is contained, monitored and manipulated. Keep talking by all means, but people like this woman are doing more to improve the world than mere talk ever could.
All I say to this is, if you witness these events you’ll see it is often students around uni age, or retirees, both with too much time on thier hands. You wont see the 28 year old mum of two, or the 38 year old fella trying to make it in banking. Cos they are at work, contributing to society. This very event was a student group.
This girl achieved nothing except getting a permanent stamp on her criminal record, and costing the tax payer more dollars.
This is why I say a more persuasive approach is better, it’s more effective and will change other points of view. Is it more difficult, I agree with you, but no one is gonna witness what happened here and go ‘geez I’ve been wrong all this time and now I’m gonna change my point of view’ so continuing it will always lead to a more isolated (but loud) group instead of a broader movement.
That’s why I say instead of going to a protest chat with your social group and respectfully bring up the issue, listen and have a respectful sharing of ideas, you might walk away with 3 or 4 more people leave that have changed thier point of view, and another 2 that have had thiers challenged, and are now closer to yours. That is far more effective than this entire event, and if everyone did this, you’d be amazed at the change that would happen.
By “contributing to society” do you mean stuck at work all week, too busy, too exhausted and too tied up by your financial obligations to ever dare to rock the boat in any way? These students and retirees don’t have too much time on their hands. They have ENOUGH time on their hands to get out there and make a difference, and I’m grateful for those that do. I would hate to live in a world where no person outside the ruling class is ever free enough to do such a thing, but that is the way things are going. I guess you’ll be very happy to get there.
No I mean going to work, paying your taxes, using your earnt money to buy things from other people is contributing to society.
Perhaps you work at a mechanic, and you fix cars for the removalist, who moves a banker, who manages finances for a fabricator, who buys a coffee from the cafe.
This is contributing to society and is what makes the economy work, without a strong economy australia will be a husk with no influence. So yes going to work is contributing.
And yes there is a whole discussion on financial obligations and people not owning stuff and being in debt to the hilt, but I’m not sure this is the right page for it.
with too much time on thier hands
“Too much”? Having time to fight for a cause is “too much”? Or is it that the rest of us have too little?
For the students, it’s their future on the line. What good does a clean record do under the boot? They have everything to win.
For retirees, it’s the most selfless thing one could ask for: to put their own wellbeing on the line for a future that won’t affect them as much any more.
The mom of two has more to lose than the retiree or the student. Her children’s immediate need for survival and care trumps the political objective. The 38 year old probably also has a family, or maybe they’re jaded and have given up on fighting for progress or simply don’t care.
But either way, it boils down to: Students and retirees have the time for activism, less attachments and the cause to make a better future. If they succeed, we all benefit from it. We should be cheering them on!
And giving censorship the finger.
It’s the right and privilege of our youth to be able to do things like this, and taking it away from them makes society worse for everyone.
Let’s have a quiet conversation about bombing your family with white phosphorus. You can start :)
Mate I’m super sorry this happened to you. No one deserves it and it shouldn’t happen period.
My point however is the name calling as you did in the other comments on my posts and shouting at me, is not the constructive discussion that will start a movement against this. People will just tune out or worse yet actively oppose you. You will ostracise others and cement thier point of view. Which will disrupt the ability to build a movement against these actions.
Wearing a shirt doesn’t, but then why should the government care? The answer is they shouldn’t.
Punchinb nazis used to be cool. Now, when the forner victims of genocide pay that genocide forward, governments defend it, going so far as to prosecute their own for saying “I don’t like it”.
A normal government reply would be: cool, enjoy your angst. Instead, they spend money and energy on it which is not normal.
I agree with you they shouldn’t care about a tshirt, and if the case was challenged it would likely get thrown out, forcing them to make new laws.
To be clear, punching anyone is not cool, and it’s this kind of hateful thinking that makes wars. “Well it’s okays to physically hurt this person cos they think/believe/are different”.
It is this opinion that people on either side of the war effort use to justify thier actions, either it’s right to physically harm palestinians cos they are different, or it is right to harm israelis again cos they are different. That’s part of the problem not the solution, it will always make the situation of you punch them so they punch back and now your fighting.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
If the citizens of the countries that can exert some pressure on other genocidal countries do nothing who will?
Your logic is no different to saying people involved in WW2 should have mind their own businesses unless directly attacked by the Nazis.
You also fail to recognise that, as history teaches, oppression somewhere in the world can quickly be exported to you country.
And most importantly, unless you are a soulless person with no sense of empathy, we should care about suffering anywhere in the world.
Before you get on your high horse that’s not what I said.
I said that a lot of these people are protesting without having a common cause on what they are protesting for. And that it is creating deep fractures in our society.
But don’t let a fact get in the way of your keyboard rage, grab your pitchfork, jump down the throat of anyone who you think is pro Israeli, and make sure to throw in a WW2 or Nazi reference.
Or perhaps consider that your response is exactly what I was talking about, and it’s this kind of rant that is dividing us.
I encourage a good discussion, sharing of ideas/opinions, perhaps you’ll change peoples minds but instead you resort to a “you’re wrong and I’m gonna call you names”
And for the record, I still haven’t said I’m pro war cos I’m not. What I’ve said is I am disappointed in the people in this country with how they have responded to it.
Wow, internet person… I never ever called you names or said you are pro-war.
I’d rather have a not-so-clear-about-the-issue protester than whatever excuse for doing nothing you are proposing.
Dont let perfect be the enemy of good.
You just tied my ‘logic’ to the thinking and people of ‘WW2’
That’s a form of name calling and not a constructive discussion point there. It was your way of suggesting that one of us is above or below the other.
And again I did not say ‘do nothing’ as you suggest. But again don’t let a good fact get in the way of your ranting.
But that’s fine, keep contributing to dividing society and in ten years time when half the country hates the other half, just remember you contributed to making it that way.
Half the country already hates the other half. Wake the fuck up!
You are suggesting that the half that has good intentions does nothing because they are not organised or clear about the motives.
Also, please stop fabricating ways to victimise yourself to win an argument.
Make your case instead.
What a great argument, the horse has bolted so crack the whip and ensure it never comes back.
Fabricating ways to victimise myself? I said you resort to name calling, which you did, and I called you out on it.
If you took the time to read past the first line, you’d see I have made my case, several times now. But your clearly disinterested and your aggressive tone suggests you would rather shout at whoever you think is different, than have a mature discussion.
Removed by mod
The Coalition were all about free speech when Andrew Bolt published a series of articles explicitly attacking and trying to humiliate named Aboriginal people on the basis of (what he decided was) their race. They tried to weaken the racial discrimination act. Brandis even said Australians have “a right to be bigots” - this was only 12 years ago. The double standard is breathtaking.
I’m gona jump in to defend Brandis a little here and say his views on these things are usually ideologically consistent. I don’t know if he’s been asked specifically about this case, but his response (if he decided to respond), would likely be worth listening to. Even if disagreeable.
Not at all shocking because it was never really a double standard.
The LNP exists to maintain the current power structures of Australia. If you in any way threaten that structure (based on Anglo-European patriarchal values) the LNP will be against you. If you uphold those values they will support you.
-
Calling for the destruction of a nation - be it Palestine or Israel - is calling for genocide.
-
It should be legal to call for genocide.
1.5 “from the river to the sea” is not a slogan calling for the destruction of Israel.
By defining the geographic scope of a future Palestinian state as the entire territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, the slogan encompasses the land where Israel currently exists. To remove all doubt about the context, remember that it has been widely used by groups like Hamas - whose founding charter explicitly calls for the elimination of Israel.
I’m sure there are people who use this phrase now and do not wish to destroy Israel. Just like there are people who use phrases like “all lives matter” and genuinely want racial equality. Unfortunately the terms are hard to disambiguate from the people chanting them.
Either way, we won’t settle this argument now, and we don’t have to. I simply do not wish to see people imprisoned for saying offensive things. That seems like an important pillar of democracy to me. I uphold the rights of people to say offensive things especially when I disagree with them. Free speech means nothing unless we’re doing it when it’s really hard.
If your interpretation of “Palestine will be free” somehow includes killing people because they’re Jewish, then you’re telling on yourself.
It’s really simple, and didn’t require a text wall to explain.
Additionally, genocidal speech is a crime, or evidence thereof at least, and rightly so.“Palestine will be free”
This is not part of the original call to action. That is a modern addition used very selectively. It is frequently omitted, as we see on the t-shirt on the activist in the article. Selectively adding a nice phrase on the end of a very bad phrase doesn’t erase the original meaning, intent, and history of the phrase.
Please also note that I did not suggest that the slogan is a call to kill all Jews. The slogan is a call to destroy Israel. Those are not mutually inclusive. Palestinian activists argue that when right wing Israelis call for the destruction of Palestine, that does constitute intent to commit genocide, and I agree. So I don’t have much tolerance for hypocrisy on this. I find the call to destroy any nation - be it Israel or Palestine - to be incredibly immoral.
I’m failing to see how the phrase “from the river to the sea”, alone, can be considered a call to destroy Israel, let alone unequivocally genocidal. It seems like there’s a lot of top-down reasoning required to arrive at that conclusion. I don’t think there is genocidal intent on the deployment of those words on that woman’s top. I think you assume too much. Israeli leaders, on the other hand, use unmistakably genocidal language. And then they also commit genocide. You don’t get to both sides this issue with a very tenuous argument that this popular slogan is a call to genocide.
This is like saying “I don’t see how the phrase “white power” alone can be considered a call to kill black people?” 🤣
It is a call to destroy/eliminate Israel. Don’t try to pretend it’s not.
No, it isn’t like that. Because “white power” is used exclusively by extremists, whereby “from the river to the sea” is not. Do you see the difference there?
The same Wikipedia article hints at both Zionist and Palestinian use of a similar phrase even before PLO adopted it, so I am not sure if we can just plainly state that the cited sentiment is the original one behind this phrase.
I have a honest question though - if one calls for a one state solution, would you say that it always entails destroying one or the other?
In my imagination, even if it’s quite naïve, if there ever was a peaceful one-state resolution to this mess, it would indeed require superseding the ethno-state of Israel, but I don’t think it would necessarily be a destruction per se - similarly when the Russian Empire was superseded by the USSR, one could say that the Empire was destroyed but to me it was more of a regime change and policy shift (of course forced by a brutal civil war, but still, I don’t think it was destruction in a way we’d normally imagine when hearing the word). The Russian state essentially persisted, just in a different form.
The same Wikipedia article hints at both Zionist and Palestinian use of a similar phrase even before PLO adopted it, so I am not sure if we can just plainly state that the cited sentiment is the original one behind this phrase.
When Menachem Begin’s Likud party won the 1977 elections, its official platform explicitly laid out a vision for the land that excluded any possibility of a Palestinian state. The relevant section states: “The right of the Jewish people to the land of Israel is eternal and indisputable… therefore, Judea and Samaria will not be handed to any foreign administration; between the Sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.” It sounds kind of similar, and has been used by right wing parties since at various times. I condemn its use by them too.
I have a honest question though - if one calls for a one state solution, would you say that it always entails destroying one or the other?
This would require a 300 page document to answer. To shorten it, it would depend on things like the structure of the plan, the intent, the citizens involved, the negotiations, the history, and many other factors. As I have heard a one-state solution described by both Israel and Palestine leaders, they don’t want that. They want the other state to dissolve and be replaced by their respective states. Their positions are so unbelievably intractable it is impossible to ever envision a one-state solution.
When I was younger I believed that a one-state solution were possible, but things have only deteriorated in my lifetime and having had long conversations with citizens of both nations, I cannot ever conceive of such a plan working. They hold a level of hatred for each other that is generational, built by collective trauma and pain, oppositional religious views which are extremely dogmatic, and a history which is literally Biblical.
Thanks for your perspective
As I have heard a one-state solution described by both Israel and Palestine leaders, they don’t want that. They want the other state to dissolve and be replaced by their respective states
Except one state is the colonist and the other is getting genocided. How does it feel twosiding a genocide
It 100% is, and pretending it isn’t just makes it worse.
What a silly thing to say. Here are a few examples of actual genocidal language:
Galit Distel Atbaryan (Likud MK, former Public Diplomacy Minister): Called for “erasing all of Gaza from the face of the Earth” and described the enclave as needing to be “wiped out”.
Amit Halevi (Likud MK): Stated that the goal of the war is that there is “no more Muslim land in the land of Israel” and suggested leaving Gaza as a “monument, like Sodom”.
Nissim Vaturi (Deputy Speaker of the Knesset, Likud): Stated in February 2025 that “all adults in Gaza should be killed” and that “the children and women need to be separated and the adults in Gaza eliminated”.
Boaz Bismuth (Likud MK): Invoked the biblical reference to “erase the memory of Amalek,” a phrase frequently interpreted as a call for the total destruction of an enemy, similar to references made by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Ariel Kallner (Likud MK): Urged a “Nakba that will overshadow the Nakba of '48,” referencing the 1948 forced displacement of Palestinians.
Tally Gotliv (Likud MK): Demanded “crushing and flattening Gaza without mercy”. Hnoch Milwidsky (Likud MK): In a 2026 report, was cited as having stated during a debate that “it is legitimate” for soldiers to rape Palestinians.
No. And no.
Calling for the destruction of israel is as genocidal as calling for the end of appartheid south africa. Jew can stay.
Of course they would have to pay rent and give back the land they stole.
It’s hard to engage with someone who genuinely thinks Apartheid was a nation state. We could call for the end of Apartheid without calling for the destruction of South Africa.
That’s so bad faithed lmao. You can recognize the genocide apologist. Not surprising you don’t one the end of the genocidal state, you live in one yourself.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
-
Cool ass lady
Are we ok with this people?
Obviously, assuming this is the whole story, no. Are there any planned protests? Is there an open donation box for this person’s legal fees open? Is there any other way in which the average person can help?
I’m getting sick of rhetorical questions about tyrannical governments, without any effort made to show people what they realistically can do to help.
Is there an open donation box for this person’s legal fees open?
Just had a look and found this one: https://chuffed.org/project/173177-justice-for-palestine-legal-defence
Are there any planned protests?
Justice for Palestine Magan-Djin (indigenous name for Brisbane) has announced a ‘weekend of action’ against the laws on the 18th-19th of April: https://www.instagram.com/p/DVvfrhOk20n/
Thanks for that info. Perhaps you could do a post to let more people know about these options.
Just be outraged online, bro, you’ll be doing your part.
yes, “we” are. How do we know this, look at election results.
No.
Sure AF doesn’t feel like “hatred”.
You know, in the UAE, they have freedom of speech enshrined in their laws, too…
Are you implying that Australia has freedom of speech enshrined in our laws? Please could you point me to them?
What a fucking legend.
I got down voted last time for pointing out that “between the river and the sea” was the motto of the town of mosman park
It’s also a John Farnham song
One step ahead of you…
Oh fuck! I didn’t see this before I commented the lyrics 🤣🤣 that’s so classic.
Close. There are two potentially relevant Farnam songs that may have been conflated in this discourse. One is That’s Freedom, which includes the lines “From the mountain to the valley / From the ocean to the alley / From the highway to the river”. And the other is Two Strong Hearts, which repeatedly uses the line “Reaching out forever like a river to the sea”. Neither quite uses “from the river to the sea”, but together they give the same sort of impression.
I didn’t expect John Farnham scholarship as part of this topic, but I’m into it.
You’re the voice we needed on this.
Thanks, I appreciate that. But I’m just some random white dude on the Internet. The voices we really need are more prominent figures (including politicians) who can greatly influence their followers, brave anti-zionist Jewish people who can provide a clear counterexample to Israel’s false conflation, and the voices of the people directly affected by Israel’s genocidal activities.
You’re the voice we needed on this.
Oh sorry. I actually had to Google that just now to get it.
Farnsy’s not really my sort of music.
It was a subtle one by cdzero. 😂
It’s almost like context matters. Crazy, right?
I won’t agree with anyone getting arrested for saying words btw. Just pointing out the error in your argument. Also that motto isnt the same as the anti-Israel slogan anyway.
Yes, if you change the words and the context, the meaning changes.
“From the river to the sea” is the rallying cry of various groups who want to destroy Israel and remove the people who were born and live there, even though the slogan doesn’t literally say it.
So maybe use a different slogan if you want something different?It’s not surprising that antisemites would also protest Israel, but that doesn’t mean we should stop protesting Israel. There’s nothing more to it. We should not fall for our opponent’s tricks trying to paint us as antisemites
I’m not saying stop protesting Israel. I’m saying don’t use the slogan that’s used by Antisemites, if you don’t want to be confused with them.
What’s wrong with shouting “Free Palestine, End The Occupation” instead?Because our opponents will always be nibbling at what we can and cannot say and we should resist and reject their bad-faith criticism. Our opponents are trying to paint us as antisemites. Your honest attempt at distancing ourselves from antisemitic groups has exactly the opposite effect: It legitimizes their criticism where it was never in good faith to begin with
I’m honestly just confused why people who aren’t antisemites would insist on using the first part, alone.
And omit the second part “Palestine must be free”, thereby creating the ambiguity of what they mean in the first place.Why concede that ground, though? It’s not about the second part. They will always find something. Stop playing their game, you can’t ever win. It’s in bad faith
There must be an Innuendo Studios video about this one, right?
Do you believe the same for the “anti-immigration” protests too, or were you calling everyone attending them racist and/or Nazis?
Isn’t the left saying that if you let one Nazi into a bar you now have a Nazi bar? Same applies here. There are many anti-Semites in these protests chanting this saying, therefore everyone there is an anti-Semite.
This isn’t me making the rules, it’s just applying the rules the left set and try to force on everyone.
Does Australia not have freeze peach laws in general? Asking as an ignorant Yank.
No, we don’t. In fact our leftist government is currently adding more and more authoritarian censorship and speech-restricting laws seemingly every month these days.
You can now be jailed for saying something that might offend a certain subset of people even if no one actually was offended. Let that sink in.
Its a very recent addition that creates some exceptions to australian free speech protections under the guise of combatting anti-semitism. Basically just the Israel lobby getting their personal laws.
From the river to the sea is not per se anti Jewish, Hamas has said that includes killing all 1.75 million Israeli Sunni Muslims too.
Hamas has said that includes killing all 1.75 million Israeli Sunni Muslims too.
Got a source for that? I’ve seen you state it as fact multiple times now.
Another time this users just drops by with some “facts” of a particular persuasion only to vanish without any clarification despite posting every other hour. Seems to be a bit of a pattern.
No they haven’t. You made that up
Australia’s constitution has been interpreted by our High Court to contain an implied right to freedom of political communication. Restrictions on that right may be constitutional if they are (1) for a valid purpose and are (2) narrowly targeted towards that purpose.
The law she was arrested under was only passed by the Queensland state Parliament earlier this week (or late last week? I forget). It is definitely going to face constitutional challenge, and there is a very good chance it is ruled struck down. This is because the law literally outlaws two specific phrases from one side of a political issue, and is likely to be seen as stifling free flow of political discourse, rather than being a more “content-neutral” law.
This article, written by a constitutional scholar, gives some great insight: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/mar/08/the-lnps-phrase-banning-law-is-wide-open-to-constitutional-attack-is-it-a-victory-for-the-people-or-a-smart-political-play
We have a lot of laws and legal interpritation, but it isnt written into our constitution like the US.
It’s about the vibe.
Pollies like to say free speech is “implied” when it supports them and point out that it’s not a right when it doesn’t support them.
It’s a funny ol’ system.
In short our constitution is boring.
There will be states, federal government will do this, states do everything else
Separation of powers, there will be a crown, legislative (parliamentary), executive (public service) and judicial (courts).
Then how to alter the constitution and add the ability to annex new Zealand and that’s pretty much a wrap. Nothing fancy like yous have.
Edit, forgot consolidated revenue
It’s complicated.
It’s not a constitutional right.
However, there’s a lot of case law that supports the rights of citizens to express their thoughts about governments. All levels all processes, with the exception of sedition, treason, national security, et cetera.
We do have strong defamation laws. There was a case a few years ago where a politician was found to have been “defamed” by another politician with respect to comments that were made.
We also have recently strengthened hate speech laws, which is the issue in this specific picture.
Finally spreading information that might compromise national security, and publications showing violence or other offensive content.
In practice, I expect that the situation is similar to what it was in pre-Trump America. However, it’s true that in theory the government could pass a law saying you’re not allowed to say anything bad about the government.
10 years ago any self respecting American would have pointed out how inferior our system is and that we don’t have any rights or freedoms. I feel like that imbalance has shifted however.
There are limits to it even in the us for example if you say something slightly offending about the president.
This is a John Farnham appreciation shirt! “TWO STRONG HEARTS. We stick together from the River to the Sea! Ruuuning free!” See. All good.
Those aren’t the lyrics lol
The lyrics are:
Reaching out forever like a river to the sea
Their leaders are all in the Epstein files and Israel has a copy
I am literally traveling from the river (Murray) to the sea tomorrow. Very Aussie and quite legal down south.
In Australia? Which sea? We are surrounded by Ocean, not Sea.
Aren’t we ‘girt by sea’? 🤣
