The Selective Application of 'Peaceful Protest'
CASE A: The 'Problematic' Protest in 2026 The Palestine Action Group in New South Wales plans to march against Israeli President Isaac Herzog. Despite their stated intention for a 'peaceful march,' the NSW police commissioner has extended existing protest restrictions (Guardian, 2026). The call from group spokesperson Josh Lees for police to 'exercise their discretion' highlights the subjective
nature of protest allowances when political optics are at play. The mere presence of a dignitary like President Herzog, whose nation is currently facing allegations of genocide at the International Court of Justice (ICJ, 2023), seems to trigger a preemptive curtailment of assembly rights. CASE B: The 'Justified' Protest of 2003 Consider the protests against the Iraq War in Australia in 2003.
Hundreds of thousands marched in Sydney, often without significant police intervention or pre-emptive bans, despite the contentious nature of the war and the perceived 'threat to order' by some government officials. Then-Prime Minister John Howard, a staunch ally of the US, faced widespread and largely unimpeded public dissent. Police facilitated these large-scale demonstrations, viewing them as a
legitimate expression of public opinion, even when challenging established foreign policy. THE FRAMING: A Question of Discretion In 2026, the Palestine Action Group 'calls for NSW police to “exercise their discretion”' to facilitate their march. In 2003, such calls were largely unnecessary; the 'discretion' was inherently exercised in favor of public assembly. The explicit request for 'discretion'