Concerns raised over proposed laws to ban certain phrases as part of antisemitism crackdown

Queensland's push to outlaw certain phrases and expressions has triggered an intensifying debate over where the boundaries of lawful speech should sit - and how governments should respond to hateful language without sweeping up legitimate political expression.

The reforms are being examined by a parliamentary committee after submissions from a broad range of groups, including religious bodies and unions, raised concerns about the way prohibited expressions could be defined and enforced. Critics argue the framework risks capturing language that can be interpreted differently depending on context - and warn that criminalising speech is among the most serious interventions a state can make.

Supporters of the proposed changes argue the opposite: that particular slogans have been used in ways that intimidate or vilify, and that legal tools are necessary to deter harm and reduce the risk of violence against minority communities. The argument is not simply philosophical - it is rooted in the lived experience of people who say certain phrases have escalated tension and fear, particularly at rallies and in public settings.

A key point of contention is how the law would distinguish between explicit incitement and broader political messaging, and whether the government should be empowered to designate new banned expressions through regulation. Critics want clearer statutory criteria and stronger safeguards to ensure enforcement is targeted, proportionate, and consistent with long-standing civil liberties protections.

The debate lands in a charged national atmosphere, where governments face pressure to respond decisively to hateful conduct while also defending the principle of open democratic debate. Legal experts and community leaders have emphasised that clarity is essential: if a law is too vague, it can chill lawful speech; if it is too narrow, it can fail to prevent intimidation.

The committee is expected to deliver its report on 27 February, which will shape the next parliamentary steps and determine whether amendments are recommended before any final vote.