Jim Dowling, a 70-year-old peace activist, was apprehended and charged in April for displaying a banner that read “From the River to the Sea.” This incident occurred under the recently enacted hate speech laws in Queensland.
Dowling is scheduled to appear in the Brisbane Magistrates Court tomorrow. He was taken into custody during a protest outside the Boeing headquarters in Brisbane in March, where he voiced his opposition to the company’s production of aircraft and military equipment, some of which is supplied to Israel.
With a banner stating, “From the River to the Sea, Brisbane will be free of Boeing,” Dowling expressed his belief that the new legislation infringes upon free speech and political discourse. Reflecting on his history of activism, he noted, “I’ve been arrested multiple times for exercising my right to free speech, starting back in 1978 during the Joh Bjelke-Petersen era. This situation is even more perplexing than what we faced then. To ban the phrase ‘From the River to the Sea’ is, in my view, completely irrational.”
A representative from the Queensland Police Service confirmed that Dowling had been charged following the protest on Albert Street in Brisbane City on March 18. The police statement indicated that he received a Notice to Appear in court on April 14 for allegedly reciting, distributing, publishing, or displaying prohibited expressions.
In a related incident, Dowling’s son, Franz, was also confronted by law enforcement for showcasing a banner that included the phrase “From the River to the Sea.” His banner read: “From the River to the Sea, Come get us Crisafulli.” Franz reported to ABC Brisbane that the charges against him were eventually dropped, and he received only a warning.
Experts have voiced concerns regarding the legality of these new laws. Katherine Gerber, a public policy professor at the University of Queensland, suggested that it may only be a matter of time before these regulations are contested in the High Court. She expressed skepticism about their ability to withstand judicial scrutiny, noting that the terms “menace,” “harass,” or “offend” are already encompassed by existing civil law and carry broad interpretations.
Professor Gerber highlighted that the criminalization of specific phrases could infringe upon Australia’s implied freedom of political communication. She stated, “This law is highly susceptible to a constitutional challenge on several grounds. It is clear that, in the current context, these phrases are forms of political expression.”
