What's in a Word: Australia, Protest, Language, and the Case for Renewed Hate Speech Laws Australia is a nation shaped by protest.
- Brian AJ Newman LLB
- Dec 19, 2025
- 4 min read
From Aboriginal resistance to invasion and dispossession, through the land rights movement, to campaigns for racial equality, workers’ rights, and social justice, protest has been central to how Australians have challenged injustice and demanded change. At its best, protest in this country has been lawful, principled, and grounded in respect for human dignity.
Recent global conflicts, however, have introduced language into Australian public debate that carries deep historical trauma and contested meanings. One such term is “intifada”. Its growing use in public demonstrations and rhetoric has highlighted a pressing issue for Australia: how our laws and social norms respond to language that sits at the intersection of protest, hate, fear, and cultural harm.
Understanding “intifada” in context
Intifada is an Arabic word meaning “shaking off”. Historically, it refers to Palestinian uprisings against Israeli occupation. These movements have taken different forms across time, ranging from mass protests, strikes, and civil resistance, to periods marked by serious violence and civilian deaths.
Because of this history, the word carries very different meanings for different communities. For some, it symbolises resistance to oppression. For others, particularly Jewish communities, it is inseparable from experiences of terror, trauma, and loss.
In Australia’s multicultural society, these interpretations coexist, and the harm caused by language cannot be assessed in isolation from that reality.
Australia’s protest tradition and its limits
Australia recognises the right to peaceful protest as a core democratic freedom. That right has been essential for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, who were long denied political voice and legal protection. Protest has often been the only way to be heard.
At the same time, Australia’s protest tradition has always been underpinned by a clear boundary: protest must not incite violence, hatred, or harm toward others. Lawful protest does not extend to speech that threatens the safety or dignity of entire communities.
This balance is not new. It reflects a long-standing tension in democratic societies between freedom of expression and protection from harm. What is new is the globalisation of language and symbols, which can import overseas conflicts directly into Australian streets, schools, workplaces, and communities.
Why this must inform a renewed review of hate speech laws
The re-emergence of highly charged language linked to overseas violence underscores the need for Australia to revisit and refine its approach to hate speech and vilification laws.
A renewed review must ask difficult but necessary questions:
How do Australia’s current laws distinguish between legitimate political protest and speech that incites hatred or violence?
How do we ensure protections apply equally across communities, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, Jewish Australians, Muslim Australians, and other targeted groups?
How do we recognise intent while also acknowledging the real-world impact of words on community safety and social cohesion?
This is not about silencing protest or dissent. It is about ensuring that Australia’s legal framework reflects contemporary realities, including the speed at which rhetoric spreads and the harm it can cause when left unchecked.
For First Nations peoples, this conversation is familiar. We have lived through generations where dehumanising language was normalised, excused, or protected, with devastating consequences. That history gives us a clear understanding of why words matter, and why the law must take cultural harm seriously.
NATSIC’s position
NATSIC supports lawful protest, freedom of expression, and the right to advocate for justice, including criticism of governments and state actions anywhere in the world.
We also reject racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia, and all forms of racial and religious hatred. Advocacy that relies on language experienced by others as a call to violence or exclusion undermines the very principles of human rights and dignity it often claims to defend.
Australia’s strength lies in its ability to protect protest while also protecting people. A renewed review of hate speech laws must be principled, balanced, and informed by the lived experiences of those most affected by hate and vilification.
As a nation, we can do both: defend the right to protest and draw firm lines where speech becomes a weapon against community safety and mutual respect.
Sources
Albanese announces tougher hate speech laws in wake of attackshttps://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-12-18/albanese-announces-tougher-hate-speech-laws-after-bondi-terror/106157020Reports on recent federal government announcements responding to hate speech and violence.
Albanese announces new crackdown on hate – The Conversationhttps://theconversation.com/albanese-announces-new-crackdown-on-hate-in-sweeping-initiatives-to-combat-antisemitism-271948Analysis of proposed reforms and their implications for speech and community protection.
Review of criminal law protections against the incitement of hate – NSW Governmenthttps://dcj.nsw.gov.au/content/dcj/dcj-website/dcj/legal-and-justice/laws-and-legislation/review-of-criminal-law-protections-against-incitement-of-hate.htmlOverview of existing reviews into hate speech and vilification laws.
Explainer: New national and NSW hate crime laws – Australian Human Rights Commissionhttps://humanrights.gov.au/about/news/explainer-new-national-and-nsw-hate-crime-lawsExplains how hate crime and hate speech laws operate and the human rights considerations involved.
Protest rights in Australia – Australian Human Rights Commissionhttps://humanrights.gov.au/resource-hub/by-resource-type/publications/rights-and-freedoms/guides/protest-rights-australia-explainerContextualises protest rights within Australia’s legal and democratic framework.
Comments