Civil liberties

Two students at the University of Melbourne could be expelled and two others suspended for participating in a pro-Palestine protest last year, in what rights groups are calling an unprecedented crackdown on political activism in Australia.

All four students plan to appeal the penalties if they are enforced, according to a report by The Guardian.

The protest took place in October 2024, when demonstrators briefly occupied the office of a university academic allegedly linked to partnerships with Israel's University of Jerusalem. Protesters called for the university to disclose and divest from collaborations with Israeli institutions, citing Israel’s human rights record and occupation of Palestinian territories in alignment with the global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement.

One student, reportedly facing expulsion, told The Guardian they were present for "no more than 10 minutes" and had not engaged in harassment or intimidation. Nevertheless, the university pushed for expulsion, citing the "seriousness of the breaches" and the student's prior conduct record.

In the first week of January, I received a letter from the Berlin Immigration Office, informing me that I had lost my right of freedom of movement in Germany, due to allegations around my involvement in the pro-Palestine movement. Since I’m a Polish citizen living in Berlin, I knew that deporting an EU national from another EU country is practically impossible. I contacted a lawyer and, given the lack of substantial legal reasoning behind the order, we filed a lawsuit against it, after which I didn’t think much of it.

I later found out that three other people active in the Palestine movement in Berlin, Roberta Murray, Shane O’Brien and Cooper Longbottom, received the same letters. Murray and O’Brien are Irish nationals, Longbottom is American. We understood this as yet another intimidation tactic from the state, which has also violently suppressed protests and arrested activists, and expected a long and dreary but not at all urgent process of fighting our deportation orders.

Then, at the beginning of March, each of our lawyers received on our behalf another letter, declaring that we are to be given until 21 April to voluntarily leave the country or we will be forcibly removed.

The letters cite charges arising from our involvement in protests against the ongoing genocide in Gaza. None of the charges have yet led to a court hearing, yet the deportation letters conclude that we are a threat to public order and national security. There has been no legal process for this decision, and none of us have a criminal record. The reasoning in the letters continues with vague and unfounded accusations of “antisemitism” and supporting “terrorist organisations” – referring to Hamas – as well as its supposed “front organisations in Germany and Europe”.

This is not the first instance of Germany weaponising migration law. Since October 2023, the German Federal Office for Migration and Refugees has unlawfully frozen the processing of all asylum seekers from Gaza. And on 16 April 2025 a federal administrative court in Germany will reportedly decide on a case that could set a precedent for the German state to increase deportations of asylum seekers to Greece.

These extreme measures are not a sudden shift or solely a fringe rightwing position. They are the result of a more than year-long campaign by the liberal Ampel coalition – the Social Democratic party (SPD), the Free Democratic party (FDP) and the Greens – and the German media, calling for mass deportations, widely seen as a response to the growing pro-Palestinian movement, and targeted predominantly at the Arab and Muslim German population.

On 27 March, some 20 police officers burst in on a group of young women at a Quaker’s meeting house in central London and arrested them on suspicion of conspiracy to cause a public nuisance.

The women were activists who had gathered for an open meeting of Youth Demand, a pro-Palestine and climate justice movement demanding an end to UK government arms sales to Israel and new fossil fuel licensing. The group emerged in the aftermath of Israel’s war on Gaza, which began in October 2023.

“It was a publicly advertised talk,” said Lia, 20, who attended the meeting. “It was a low turnout - six people in total.”

The women were sitting in a circle drinking tea when Lia looked up to see a large group of police pressed against the window.

“Their hats were tapping against the glass,” she told Middle East Eye. “Then, there was a big thud. They kicked down the door, and then the whole room was full of police.”

The officers seized the women’s laptops and phones, and led them off one by one, some in handcuffs.

“None of us were resisting arrest,” Lia said.

Three of the women were taken to Bromley police station, the others to Kingston, where they were held incommunicado and interrogated in the middle of the night.

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 stipulates that detainees are permitted an initial phone call, although this right may be delayed in cases relating to serious organised crime, terrorism or espionage.

It is a tactic increasingly deployed against pro-Palestine activists.

Simultaneously, police officers conducted overnight raids on their homes with the keys they confiscated from the arrestees.

Ella Grace Taylor, another one of those arrested, said she came home to find her room ransacked.

“My bed was stripped. All my things were lying across the floor,” she told MEE.

“We were left this piece of paper that acknowledged they’d been there. It said in small print on the back: ‘If you want to know what's been taken, you have to come to the police station.’”

“We’ve all been having nightmares. When we hear a noise outside or a van go past, there is this sense of paranoia,” she added.

The police are still withholding the women’s phones, laptops and university coursework. 

What’s especially creepy about conflating anti-corporate sentiment with terrorism is that it opens the door to spying on the American people. Counter-terrorism is literally the business of “pre-crime,” in which law enforcement and its intelligence arm work to seek to prevent hypothetical crimes of the future, even where no information exists to suggest any preparations. This is the post-9/11 standard that has become the norm when it comes to well-resourced terrorist organizations like al Qaeda and ISIS. But it should have no place against random shitposters online.

If it sounds like I’m exaggerating when I say there’s a new War on Terrorism, consider Attorney General Pam Bondi’s recent remark calling Molotov cocktails thrown at Teslas “Weapons of Mass Destruction.”

“We are not negotiating” with the vandals whom she has elsewhere deemed “terrorists,” Bondi also declared, as if she were speaking of airline hijackers bargaining to release hostages on an airplane. 

There are two significant problems with using gametes to define sex. First, no one checks gametes at the moment of sex assignment, let alone at conception (when they don’t yet exist). They are not observable. To base sex assignment on gametes is therefore to rely on an imperceptible dimension of sex when observation remains the principal way sex is assigned. Second, most biologists agree that neither biological determinism nor biological reductionism provides an adequate account of sex determination and development. As the Society for the Study of Evolution explains in a letter published on 5 February, the ‘scientific consensus’ defines sex in humans as a ‘biological construct that relies on a combination of chromosomes, hormonal balances, and the resulting expression of gonads, external genitalia and secondary sex characteristics. There is variation in all these biological attributes that make up sex.’ They remind us that ‘sex and gender result from the interplay of genetics and environment. Such diversity is a hallmark of biological species, including humans.’ Interplay, interaction, co-construction are concepts widely used in the biological sciences. And, in turn, the biological sciences have made considerable contributions to gender theory, where Anne Fausto-Sterling, for example, has long argued that biology interacts with cultural and historical processes to produce different ways of naming and living gender.

The language of ‘immutability’ belongs more properly to a natural law tradition in which male and female kinds are established by divine will and so belong to a version of creationism. They are immutable features of the human, as Pope Francis has affirmed. Trump speaks in the name of science, but the cameo appearance of the gamete theory notwithstanding, he does so effectively to insist that God decreed the immutable character of the two sexes, and that he, Trump, is decreeing it once more, either to echo the word of God, or to represent his own word as the word of God. Religious doctrine cannot serve as the basis for scientific research or state policy. But that what is happening in this executive order.

[…]

When authoritarians promise a return to an imaginary past, they stoke a furious nostalgia in those who have no better way to understand what is actually undermining their sense of a durable and meaningful future. We find this in the discourse of the AfD in Germany, the Fratelli d’Italia, Bolsonaro’s followers in Brazil, Trump, Orbán and Putin. But we also see the anti-gender animus among centrists hoping to recruit support from the right in order to stay in power. When diversity, equity and inclusion become ‘threats’ to the order of society, progressive politics in general is held responsible for every social ill. The result, as we have seen in recent years, can be that popular support ushers in authoritarian powers who promise to strip rights from the most vulnerable people in the name of saving the nation, the natural order, the family, society, or civilisation itself. Ideals of constitutional democracy and political freedom are regarded as dispensable in the course of such campaigns, since the preservation of the nation must be put before all else: it is a matter of self-defence.

TL;DR: Yes.

Being a law-abiding protester in Australia has become more difficult with each passing year, experts say, and some fear the right to protest is being slowly eroded.

Over the past two decades, at least 49 laws affecting protest have been introduced in federal, state and territory parliaments.

Most recently, Victoria announced a raft of proposed protest restrictions on 17 December, following a series of antisemitic attacks in Melbourne.

David Mejia-Canales, a senior lawyer at the Human Rights Law Centre, said the public should be "very, very, very critical" about such legislation. 

[…]

Ohad Kozminsky, executive member of the Jewish Council of Australia — a group formed in the last year by progressive Jewish academics, activists and lawyers — said the laws were counterproductive.

"There are laws against hate speech. There are laws against firebombing and the destruction of property. We don't need additional laws to fight that," Kozminsky said.

The proposed measures also include banning protests outside of places of worship, something that Kozminsky also thinks is misguided.

"Religious institutions, irrespective of their denomination or their faith are legitimate sites of protest. We saw that perhaps most strikingly in the protests that took place in response to revelations about institutional, historic and contemporary sexual abuse of young people, of children," he said.

Mejia-Canales said: "If the premier thinks that these measures criminalising peaceful protest is going to fix antisemitism and other forms of racism, then she's deluded.

"This will not do that." 

Drawing on more than a year of information gathering, this position paper presents a snapshot of the repression and criminalization of peaceful environmental protest and civil disobedience observed by the Special Rapporteur in European countries that are Parties to the Aarhus Convention. It explains why the Special Rapporteur considers this repression and criminalization to constitute a major threat to democracy, human rights, the civic space, and to the exercise of the rights guaranteed under the Aarhus Convention, and therefore why he has made this issue a priority topic under his mandate. It sets out why the Special Rapporteur considers a profound change in how States respond to environmental protest to be urgently required and features five calls for action to States on how to do so. It also urges the human rights community to coordinate their efforts to support this call for action.

The criminalisation and repression of climate and environmental protest is problematic for at least two main reasons. First, it focuses state policy on punishing dissent against inaction on climate and environmental change instead of taking adequate action on these issues. In criminalising and repressing climate and environmental activists, states depoliticise them. Second, they represent authoritarian moves that are not consistent with the ideals of vibrant civil societies in liberal democracies.

[…]

Governments, legislatures, courts and police forces should operate with a general presumption against criminalising climate and environmental protests. Instead, climate and environmental protest should be regarded as a reasonable response to the urgent and existential nature of the climate crisis, and activists engaged as stakeholders in a process of just transition.

A new study was released in recent days that should have been newsworthy, but it escaped the media's attention in Australia.

It showed Australian police are world leaders at arresting climate and environmental protesters.

According to the study, more than 20 per cent of all climate and environment protests in Australia involve arrests, which is more than three times the global average (6.3 per cent).

Australia's arrest rate was the highest of 14 countries in the global study.

It's higher than policing efforts in the United Kingdom (17.2 per cent), Norway (14.5 per cent), and the United States (10 per cent).

The research makes it clear that Australia's political leaders have joined the "rapid escalation" of efforts to criminalise and repress climate and environmental protest, while sovereign states globally fail to meet their international agreements and emissions targets.

[…]

When you read the Bristol University study alongside the special rapporteur's position paper and the EDO paper, you get a pretty good sense of how the clampdown on climate and environmental activism actually works, and why it's occurring.

Collectively, the reports discuss an issue that links political donations and pressure from fossil fuel companies, governments writing new laws and harsher penalties for climate and environmental activists, federal and state policing agencies being put to work to enforce the new laws, and legal systems and courts being used to bed them down.

And hanging over the entire political problem is the question of the "pricing mechanism" and the role it plays in a society like ours.

When you look at this issue dispassionately, you'll see that we're witnessing a nasty global battle over the attempt to have the negative externalities of fossil fuels properly reflected in the market prices of the products of fossil fuel companies.

This centrist Democratic strategy fits into a larger, longer-term, bipartisan alliance that views protesters as the enemy, and their tactics as a threat to the fundamental interests of our militarized, fossil-fuel-dependent society.

The repressive bipartisan playbook is partly rooted in the 2001 Patriot Act, rushed through and passed overwhelmingly on the wave of fear following the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The law led to increased racial profiling, sweeps of millions of private phone records, and a vast expansion of the government’s ability to spy on ordinary citizens. Simultaneously, decommissioned military hardware from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan flowed to local police and sheriff’s departments, allowing them to deploy bayonets, riot shields, grenade launchers, sound cannons, sniper scopes, detonator robots, and tank-like Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected trucks known as MRAPs. (Some of this equipment was restricted under President Obama, then allowed again under Trump.) Hence local police and sheriff’s offices, moving in military-like formation in places like Ferguson (after the police killing of Michael Brown), Minneapolis (after the murder of George Floyd), and the Standing Rock Sioux reservation during the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, confronted unarmed citizens as if they were Middle East insurgents. In other words, like the enemy.