I am opposed to this proposed legislation.
I will restrict my comments in this submission to the proposed s 52DA which creates a new prohibition against the public recitation, publication, display or distribution of expressions which are not in the Bill but are proposed to be created by regulation.
The intention of introducing the Bill to the Parliament may, however, be gauged from the Joint Media Statement of the Premier and Attorney-General dated 8 February 2026 which announced the introduction of the Bill.
The media statement argues that, by prohibiting the public statement of “from the River to the Sea” and “globalise the intifada”, the Queensland Parliament will be taking strong, decisive action to combat antisemitism and address terrorist-motivated offending to make Queensland safer.
Indeed, the media statement characterises both expressions, “from the River to the Sea” and “globalise the intifada” as “terrorist slogans”.
In my experience, having, over the last two years and more, attended many rallies and marches, the protests of tens of thousands of people against the actions of the Israeli government in Gaza and the West Bank have been marked by two things.
Both the speakers and those people attending the events have been extremely careful to distinguish between criticising actions of the Israeli government and any criticism of Jewish people, generally, or Jewish Australians.
Further, the marches and rallies have been noticeable for the numbers of Jewish people attending and participating in the criticisms of the actions of the Israeli government.
The equating of outlawing protests against the actions of the Israeli government to combatting anti-semitism is patently incorrect.
The phrases, themselves, carry no sense of anti-semitism. As used by me and, generally, “from the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free” expresses an aspiration that the Palestinian territories will, no longer, be subject to illegal occupation; the government of Israel will, no longer, administer a system of apartheid; and all persons living in what was previously Mandatory Palestine will have equal rights irrespective of their ethnic background or religion.
Equally, “globalise the intifada” means that peaceful protests against the same illegal occupation and apartheid administration should take place in every country in the world.
Moreover, equating the use of these phrases by peaceful protestors to terrorism is even more inappropriate. The Joint Statement’s argument that every peaceful protestor who has used either of these phrases is engaged in or inciting terrorism casts a defamatory slur upon law abiding Australians who have done nothing but request that a genocide cease and that a long running injustice be brought to an end. The Parliament should not endorse these slurs by passing this legislation.
Last, I urge the Parliament to take heed of recent events in the United Kingdom.
For over a year, British police officers, at the behest of the government, have been arresting impeccably respectable and law abiding citizens for displaying a “terrorist” slogan, “Palestine Action”. These actions by the police were recognised by many to be bringing the Parliament, the government, the police and the legal system into disrepute.
Now, the High Court of Justice has confirmed this by declaring the government’s action in proscribing Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation to be unlawful.
This Parliament should avoid a similar course of events. The members of the police service should not be required to arrest lawful citizens exercising their human right[1] to protest injustice in circumstances where there is considerable risk that a future court ruling will declare this proposed law, itself, unconstitutional.
I urge the Parliament to reject this legislation.
Stephen Keim SC
Higgins Chambers
17 February 2026
[1] Section 21 of the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) recognises the human right to freedom of expression including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds whether within or outside Queensland.
