Australian move to fast-track new gun and protest laws draws criticism

Australian move to fast-track new gun and protest laws after Bondi shooting draws criticism Civil rights groups and pro-gun advocates in Australia have raised concerns that new fast-tracked laws will place undue restrictions on firearms and protests in the wake of the Bondi shootings. NSW Premier Chris Minns says the new laws will protect the community On Monday, the Australian state of New South Wales (NSW) recalled its parliament to debate a raft of new laws such as banning the phrase "globalise the intifada", limiting the number of guns one person can own, and greater police powers for protests. NSW Premier Chris Minns said some may feel the changes had "gone too far" but they were needed to keep the community safe. A pro-gun politician said the laws unfairly target law-abiding gun owners while civil libertarians said restrictions on protests were an affront to democracy. On banning the "intifada" phrase, Minns said its use at protests in Australia and around the world "are a call to a global intifada. That is what it means. Not in the Middle East, not in Israel or Gaza but here in Sydney". "I do believe it leads to a culture and environment of heightened disunity," he said, and "an invitation to violence". The term intifada came into popular use during the Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1987. Some have described the term as a call for violence against Jewish people. Others have said it is a call for peaceful resistance to Israel's occupation of the West Bank and actions in Gaza. In the aftermath of the Bondi attacks , in which 15 people were killed, the Jewish community accused the government of not doing enough to protect it from rising antisemitism. The new protest laws will also allow police to restrict demonstrations at places of worship, with stronger penalties for breaches. Timothy Roberts, president of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, said the new law ignores a recent decision by the state's supreme court which found the so-called "move-on power" at religious locations went against Australia's implied constitutional freedom of political communication. Religious institutions exercise significant and overt political power in Australian politics and this makes them a legitimate site of protest in a democratic society, Mr Roberts said. "The laws introduced today are an affront to our right to assemble and communicate with each other," he said, adding they "damage our democracy". He said Minns wants social cohesion but he does not know the meaning of the term. "He thinks silence is peace, and does not seem to realise it can also reflect oppression. Passing laws that oppress some parts of our community in the wake of an attack like we saw, does not bring us closer - it drives us further apart and stops us from healing well in this time of grief." Police will also be able to remove face coverings from protesters who are suspected of committing an offence - including low-level...

Preview: ~500 words