Queensland Police have denied a request from the activist group Justice for Palestine to hold a march over Brisbane’s Story Bridge, citing safety concerns and the potential disruption to other community members. The planned protest on August 24 was expected to attract around 7,000 participants and aimed to parallel a recent successful march in Sydney, which saw approximately 90,000 people cross the Sydney Harbour Bridge to voice their support for Palestine.
A spokesperson for Queensland Police confirmed that the proposed route for the protest was not authorised due to public safety risks and would significantly impact the rights and activities of other residents. While the police expressed respect for the right to peaceful assembly, they emphasised the need to maintain public safety and minimise disruptions.
In response to the rejection, a mediation process has been initiated with Justice for Palestine to find an alternative route for their march. Rally organiser Remah Naji maintained that the group would persist in advocating for their cause, asserting that police cannot prevent them from exercising their rights to free expression.
Naji reiterated the group’s determination, stating, “The cops can’t stop us from exercising our fundamental rights to freedom of conscience and speech. The police can’t shut down a massive expression of community concern.” The situation in Brisbane reflects a similar incident earlier this month in Sydney, where police and the New South Wales government attempted to halt the march over the Harbour Bridge for safety reasons. Ultimately, a last-minute decision by the NSW Supreme Court allowed that protest to proceed as planned.
The Story Bridge, an iconic structure in Brisbane, is not just a significant landmark but also a vital transport link for the city. The debate surrounding the march highlights broader tensions between the exercise of civil liberties and community safety, as activists continue to seek platforms for raising awareness about their causes.
As the organisers work with police to find a feasible alternative, the ongoing dialogue illustrates the complexities faced when balancing protest rights and public order within urban environments.