ALBANESE INDIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR BONDI & HELEN HAINES ATTACK (BY DOING NOTHING EMPOWERS ALL OF THE ABOVE )
ALBANESE INDIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR BONDI & HELEN HAINES ATTACK (BY DOING NOTHING EMPOWERS ALL OF THE ABOVE )
Plus there was the "dirt file" Albanese released against Helen Haines (All these left wing lunatics need is perceived reasons to commit violence ) and the whole way through from the Free Palestine (promote Hamas) marches Albanese did nothing accept reduce funding to AFP and ignore these factors that build up as incitement to commit violence BY DOING NOTHING ABOUT IT Albanese indirectly contributes to the results .
Albanese must be removed for government by Double dissolution NOW !
Graham Healy
sat 24 Oct 26 .
**In Australia, there is no explicit constitutional right to free speech or peaceful protest comparable to the US First Amendment. Protections are narrower and more limited.**
### Implied Freedom of Political Communication
The Australian Constitution (particularly sections 7 and 24, requiring members of Parliament to be “directly chosen by the people”) gives rise to an **implied freedom of political communication**. The High Court established this in cases such as *Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills* (1992) and *Australian Capital Television v Commonwealth* (1992), and refined it in *Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation* (1997) and later decisions.
Key points:
- It is **not a personal right** to free speech. It is a limitation on legislative and executive power. Laws that unreasonably burden communication about government or political matters can be invalid.
- It covers political discussion, including many forms of peaceful protest (verbal and non-verbal, such as demonstrations, signs, or presence at events). The High Court has confirmed this in cases like *Brown v Tasmania* (2017), which struck down overly broad anti-protest laws.
- Restrictions are allowed if they serve a legitimate purpose compatible with representative democracy (e.g., public safety, order, or protecting others’ rights) and are proportionate (reasonably appropriate and adapted, often assessed via structured proportionality).
Peaceful protest is generally lawful as an expression of political views, but it is subject to state/territory public order, summary offences, local government, and specific anti-protest laws (e.g., restrictions near workplaces, forests, abortion clinics, or places of worship). Some of these have been struck down or limited when they disproportionately burden political communication. Victoria, Queensland, and the ACT have Human Rights Acts that more expressly protect peaceful assembly, association, and expression (subject to reasonable limits). Nationally and in other jurisdictions, there is no comprehensive statutory right.
Australia has also ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 protects freedom of expression (with limits for others’ rights, national security, public order, etc.), and Article 21 protects peaceful assembly (with similar limits). Article 20(2) requires prohibition of advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence. These international obligations influence domestic law and policy but are not directly enforceable in the same way as domestic legislation.
### Incitement to Violence and Related Offences
Incitement to commit violence (or related acts) is criminalised at both federal and state/territory levels and is **not protected** as free speech or legitimate protest. Hate speech and calls for violence fall outside the implied freedom and international protections for peaceful expression/assembly.
**Federal level** (*Criminal Code Act 1995* (Cth), Division 80):
- Section 11.4: General offence of **incitement** — urging the commission of an offence, with intent that it be committed.
- Section 80.2: Urging violence to overthrow the Constitution/government or interfere in elections/referenda by force/violence (up to 7 years).
- Sections 80.2A–80.2B and related provisions: **Advocating force or violence** against groups or individuals distinguished by race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, disability, nationality, national/ethnic origin, or political opinion. This covers intentionally counselling, promoting, encouraging, or urging such force/violence, while being reckless as to whether it occurs. Penalties are typically up to 5 or 7 years (higher in some aggravated cases involving property damage, leaders, or children). Threatening violence or property damage is also covered.
- Related offences include advocating terrorism or genocide, and prohibitions on Nazi symbols/salutes in certain contexts.
**State/territory examples** (laws vary):
- **New South Wales** (*Crimes Act 1900*, s 93Z): Publicly (by any public act, including speech, writing, online, signs, etc.) intentionally or recklessly threatening or inciting violence against a person or group on grounds of race, religious belief/affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, intersex status, or HIV/AIDS status. Maximum penalties have been updated and can reach several years’ imprisonment (higher if violence results). It is irrelevant whether anyone was actually incited or whether assumptions about the victim’s attributes were correct.
- Other jurisdictions have analogous vilification, hate crime, or public order offences targeting threats, incitement of violence, or serious vilification based on protected attributes.
### The Practical Distinction
- **Peaceful protest / political speech**: Protected to the extent it communicates political/government matters and does not cross into criminal conduct. Courts assess whether laws burden the implied freedom and, if so, whether the burden is justified and proportionate. Reasonable disruption is often tolerated; violence, property damage, obstruction beyond certain limits, or threats are not.
- **Incitement to violence**: Criminal. It is excluded from free-speech protections because it advocates or threatens unlawful force. International human rights law and Australian law treat this as a legitimate (and often mandatory) restriction to protect safety, equality, and public order.
Laws on these issues are spread across federal and state/territory statutes, with ongoing legislative activity (including recent expansions of hate-crime offences and occasional court challenges to anti-protest laws). Specific application depends on the jurisdiction, the exact words/actions, context, and intent/recklessness. This is a general overview, not legal advice—outcomes turn on the facts and can be tested in court. ________________________________________________ “globalise the infardarta” — is the well-known slogan **“globalise the intifada”** (also spelled “globalize the intifada”).
### What it means
“Intifada” is Arabic for “uprising” or “shaking off.” It refers specifically to the two major Palestinian uprisings against Israeli occupation:
- First Intifada (1987–1993)
- Second Intifada (2000–2005)
“Globalise the intifada” is a slogan used by some pro-Palestinian activists. It calls for extending the methods, spirit, or pressure of those uprisings beyond the Israeli–Palestinian conflict — into Western countries and elsewhere — usually framed as resistance, boycotts, disruption, or direct action against Israeli interests or, in the eyes of critics, against Jews more broadly.
### Why it is controversial
- Supporters treat it as a call for international solidarity and legitimate political pressure.
- Critics argue it functions as a call to export violence, terrorism, or antisemitic attacks, pointing to the Second Intifada’s suicide bombings and the rise in antisemitic incidents that have accompanied the slogan in recent years.
This is exactly why the slogan sits at the centre of the legal debate you asked about earlier: the boundary between **protected political speech / peaceful protest** and **incitement to violence**.
In short: you were asking about the Australian (and then global) legal treatment of that specific slogan and the ideas it represents.
______________________________
