Across Australia, the right to speak for Palestine is under attack. The panel discussed the issue of the growing repression of solidarity – and how we fight back. The summary of the panel discussion and Q&A: “Resisting Repression: Defending Palestine Solidarity” organised by Free Palestine Melbourne

SPEAKERS:

Nick Hanna, criminal defence lawyer and civil libertarian. Hanna Thomas, survivor of police brutality and former Greens candidate. Bart Shteinman, expert in public policy, and Michael Shaik, forum moderator.

Nick spoke about the weaponisation of fear – how “Jewish safety” is being used politically, and how that actually backfires. Creates division, fuels resentment, makes people less safe, not more. Even when those hate speech laws were going through, the Liberal National Party didn’t fully hold the line. Some of their own people backed off because they were worried the laws could be used more broadly, not just in the way they intended.
He also pointed to a deeper contradiction: under international law, people under occupation are often understood to have a right to resist. But in Australia, groups like Hamas and Hezbollah are prescribed as terrorist organisations — which means even discussing resistance can become legally risky.
Nick has reminded people that pushback has worked before. Legal challenges have stopped or weakened protest laws. Broad coalitions, such as unions, civil society, and different groups coming together, have actually forced governments to soften their approach. Even in places like Queensland, there’s been political resistance. Movements can’t afford to be passive. Legal fights, political pressure, community organising – all of it has to happen at once. We need more organising, bigger alliances, and something structural like a national human rights act.

Hannah brought up defiance. Laws are being rushed through, rights stripped back – and if people don’t push back in practice, not just in words, it doesn’t stop.
Some of the biggest moments we’ve seen came from people refusing to comply. Hannah also talked about not just fighting for Palestine in isolation, but building campaigns that bring more people in around shared rights. The anti-protest laws were not just brought up to silence the Palestine movement, but climate activism and others. So, we must work together to fight back. Don’t underestimate how much pressure can still move things.

She agrees things are escalating fast — laws, censorship, workplace punishments, social backlash — not just at a legal level but everyday stuff too (people getting in trouble at work, online, etc.).

But her main angle is resistance:

• This crackdown isn’t just about Palestine — it’s a testing ground. What works here will be used against other movements (climate, workers, anti-war).
• So movements need to stop operating separately and start backing each other.
• Use everything: legal challenges, unions, elections, public pressure.
• And importantly — hold politicians (especially Labor, in her view) accountable because they’re the ones actually passing these laws.

Then Bart from the Jewish Council of Australia comes in and kind of reframes part of the conversation.

He pushes back on the idea of a single “Jewish lobby,” saying it’s misleading and dangerous — because Jewish communities aren’t one bloc and many Jewish groups oppose Israel’s actions.

His key points:

• Lobbying itself isn’t unusual — lots of groups do it.
• The issue isn’t that lobbying exists, but what’s being pushed (in this case, support for Israel and repression of criticism).
• Pro-Israel groups don’t represent all Jewish people — and many Jewish voices are actively against what’s happening.
• The power behind these laws isn’t just one lobby — it sits inside a bigger system (politics, media, military interests, etc.).

He also flips something interesting:
The intensity of repression might actually show that public opinion is shifting — and that those pushing these laws are reacting to losing support, not winning.

What’s happening right now

This isn’t abstract.

In Queensland, people can face serious legal consequences for saying phrases like “from the river to the sea.”
In New South Wales, there’s an ongoing crackdown on protesters — with people being charged, monitored, and restricted for participating in demonstrations.

At the same time, “terrorist” and “hate” designations are expanding.

In Australia, proscription laws already limit what can be said about certain groups. In the UK, even direct action groups like Palestine Action have faced attempts to be labelled in similar ways — showing how far governments are willing to go to shut down dissent.

Once something is labelled this way, it doesn’t just criminalise actions — it reshapes speech, debate, and what people feel safe to say.

If you strip it all down, the whole thing circles around a few ideas:

And the response, according to all speakers, is not to retreat but to organise, connect movements, and push back harder

Governments in Australia are increasing legal and social pressure on pro-Palestine activism

These laws are broad, vague, and potentially very harsh

This isn’t just about Palestine — it’s about the future of protest and dissent in general

And the response?

Not retreat.
Organise.
Build wider coalitions.
Stay connected.
Push back — harder.