The Policing of Dissent: A Tale of Two Protests
Same playbook, different decade: CASE A: The Sydney Anti-Herzog Protest (2026) Event: Protesters in Sydney demonstrating against Israeli President Isaac Herzog's visit, following calls for 'unity' by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. Official Response: Police used pepper spray and conducted 'mass charges' against demonstrators. The police chief publicly stated speakers 'incited' the crowd,
effectively preemptively criminalizing the protest's leadership and the demonstration itself. Framing: The Guardian article reports police 'under fire for handling' but quotes the chief's justification. The focus shifts to police actions as a reaction to 'incitement,' implying the protest was inherently problematic. This aligns with a broader governmental effort, noted by the Australian Palestine
Advocacy Network (APAN) in 2024, to silence dissent related to Israeli actions. Narrative Implication: The protest was volatile, necessitating a forceful police response due. Herzog's visit, explicitly framed by Albanese as promoting 'unity,' implicitly positions any opposition as disunity or extremism. CASE B: Pro-Mining or Establishment-Aligned Protests (e.g., Anti-Climate Protest, 2022) Event:
Climate change denier protests or demonstrations supporting fossil fuel expansion, often backed by industry groups. For instance, the 'Convoy to Canberra' (2022) saw largely unhindered demonstrations despite disrupting public services and featuring elements considered conspiratorial. Official Response: Typically characterized by minimal police intervention, often confined to traffic management.