A New Legislative Push in Sydney

GLOBAL - The government of New South Wales (NSW), Australia, announced on Tuesday, 11 November 2025, its intention to introduce fresh legislation aimed at restricting protests outside places of worship. This move comes just one month after the state's Supreme Court invalidated a previous, broader law that had granted police expanded powers to disperse protesters. The new legislative effort is a direct response to a neo-Nazi rally held outside the NSW Parliament on Saturday, 8 November 2025, which has intensified the debate over hate speech and public order.

NSW Premier Chris Minns stated that the proposed laws would be more narrowly focused, targeting actions such as “harassing, blocking, [or] intimidating people from entering a place of worship.” This follows a Supreme Court ruling in October 2025, where Justice Anna Mitchelmore found that the earlier police powers “impermissibly burdened the implied constitutional freedom of communication on government or political matters.” That case was brought forward by the Palestine Action Group, which argued the law's vague wording had a “chilling effect” on legitimate political expression.

The Rally and a Controversial Backstory

The immediate catalyst for the new bill was a rally by approximately 60 members of the National Socialist Network, who gathered with antisemitic banners and chanted slogans. The protest had been authorised by NSW Police, a decision later attributed to an “internal communication error” by Commissioner Mal Lanyon, who confirmed neither he nor the Premier's office had been briefed. Premier Minns described the event as a “shocking display of hatred, racism and antisemitism.”

The political climate surrounding these laws is further complicated by the “Dural caravan plot.” In January 2025, a caravan containing explosives and antisemitic materials was discovered in a Sydney suburb, an event Premier Minns initially labelled as potential “terrorism.” However, in March 2025, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) concluded the incident was an elaborate “criminal con job” orchestrated by organised crime figures to divert police resources. Despite the AFP's assessment, Premier Minns has recently challenged the notion that the plot was a hoax, arguing that such rhetoric emboldens extremists. This divergence highlights the tense political backdrop against which the new protest laws are being debated.

Global Principles and Kenyan Parallels

The situation in NSW presents a case study in the universal challenge of balancing fundamental democratic rights: the right to peaceful assembly and the right to freedom of religion. This is a tension familiar to Kenya, whose 2010 Constitution robustly protects both. Article 37 guarantees every person the right, “peaceably and unarmed, to assemble, to demonstrate, to picket, and to present petitions to public authorities.” Simultaneously, Article 32 ensures freedom of conscience, religion, belief, and opinion, including the right to worship in community with others.

Kenya’s legal framework for managing protests is primarily outlined in the Public Order Act. This legislation requires organisers to notify the police of any planned public meeting or procession at least three days in advance. While the law is intended to ensure public safety and order, it has been criticised by human rights groups for being used to arbitrarily restrict legitimate and spontaneous protests. Recent legislative proposals in Kenya, such as the Public Order Amendment Bill, 2025, have sought to introduce further restrictions, including the creation of zones where protests are prohibited, such as near Parliament.

The Australian court's decision to strike down the previous NSW law was based on its overbreadth—it could have been used to stop any protest near a place of worship, regardless of its subject matter. This legal reasoning underscores a key principle relevant to Kenya and other democracies: any limitation on a fundamental right must be reasonable, justifiable, and narrowly tailored to achieve a legitimate aim without disproportionately silencing political speech. As Kenyan authorities continue to navigate the complexities of public demonstrations, the legal battles in NSW offer a pertinent international example of the judicial scrutiny such laws face when they risk infringing on core constitutional freedoms.