“In regulatory and criminal law contexts, proximity in time is not a substitute for causation. Where violent acts are used to justify restrictions on political expression, a demonstrable nexus between the expression and the harm is ordinarily required. The Committee’s report does not establish such a nexus.”
We’ve now published a detailed review of the NSW Parliamentary Committee’s report proposing the prohibition of certain political slogans.
The analysis focuses on the Committee’s own reasoning. It asks whether the evidence supports the conclusions reached, whether existing laws are genuinely inadequate, and whether the proposed response is grounded in necessity and principle or shaped by political judgement after the fact.
The review examines how the report links protest language to harm, how it handles contested meaning, how it distinguishes (or fails to distinguish) political opposition from hatred, and how it justifies singling out a specific phrase for prohibition. It also looks at the inquiry process itself, including the treatment of submissions and the reliance on undisclosed legal advice.
If you’re interested in how decisions about political expression are being framed, justified, and normalised in the current climate, the full report is available to download below.
