Speaker 1: Already and this is the Daily OS. Oh, now it
Speaker 1: makes sense. Good morning and welcome to the Daily OS.
Speaker 1: It's Wednesday, the second of October. I'm Harry, I'm emma.
Speaker 1: In January, Australia banned symbols linked to terrorist organizations from
Speaker 1: being displayed in public. National police haven't charged anyone yet
Speaker 1: under these new laws, but protests over the weekend could
Speaker 1: change that. Thousands of people marched through the streets in
Speaker 1: multiple Australian cities to protest against the war in the
Speaker 1: Middle East over the weekend. In today's deep dive, we'll
Speaker 1: look at how these protests have caused a political firestorm,
Speaker 1: sparking talk of visas, federal police powers, and an emergency
Speaker 1: sitting of Parliament. The first EMMA. What's making headlines?
Speaker 2: Iran has launched a missile attack on Israel. Over one
Speaker 2: hundred and eighty missiles fired on Tuesday. Israeli and US
Speaker 2: officials say most of the missiles were shot down, but
Speaker 2: a number evaded Israel's missile defense system and struck buildings
Speaker 2: across the country. An IDF spokesperson said the attack would
Speaker 2: have consequences, and White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan
Speaker 2: said the US would work with Israel in its response
Speaker 2: to Iran. Also overnight, six people were killed in what
Speaker 2: Israeli police described as a terrorist attack in Tel Aviv,
Speaker 2: Though it has not been confirmed if the two incidents
Speaker 2: are connected, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said in a
Speaker 2: statement the missile attack was in response to the killings
Speaker 2: of Hesbala's leader, Hamas's political leader, and the IRCG commander.
Speaker 2: It came hours after Israel announced it had launched what
Speaker 2: it described as quote limited, localized and targeted raids in
Speaker 2: southern Lebanon.
Speaker 1: Democrat Tim Waltz and Republican jdvs chants will go head
Speaker 1: to head for today's vice presidential debate. The VP hopefuls
Speaker 1: will meet in New York for what's expected to be
Speaker 1: their first and only debate with just over a month
Speaker 1: to go until the US presidential election. Sixty year old
Speaker 1: Minnesota Governor Waltz was announced as Kamala Harris's VP pick
Speaker 1: in August, following a reshuffling of candidates after Joe Biden
Speaker 1: dropped out. Trump announced thirty nine year old Ohio Senator JD.
Speaker 1: Vance as his PEAK back in July, at the Republican
Speaker 1: National Convention. The debate, hosted by CBS News, will begin
Speaker 1: at eleven am Australian Eastern Standard time.
Speaker 3: The Consumer Watchdog will receive an extra thirty million dollars
Speaker 3: in government funding as it continues efforts to crack down
Speaker 3: on the supermarket and retail sectors. The a trip will
Speaker 3: See will receive the funding over the next three and
Speaker 3: a half years. The money will go towards investigations and
Speaker 3: regulation enforcement. After the A Triple C launched separate lawsuits
Speaker 3: in the Federal Court against Coles and Woolworth's last week
Speaker 3: for allegedly misleading customers over discount pricing. A Triple C
Speaker 3: chair Gina Cascottlieb said the funding boost will enable the
Speaker 3: watchdog to quote escalate a range of investigations, including in
Speaker 3: relation to potential misleading pricing claims or practices, claims about
Speaker 3: delivery time frames and costs, and businesses misrepresenting consumers' rights
Speaker 3: under the Australian Consumer.
Speaker 1: Law and today's good News. Australian scientists SIR a step
Speaker 1: closer towards developing a breakthrough pregnancy safe epilepsy medication. Valproic
Speaker 1: acid is commonly used in the treatment of epilepsy. However,
Speaker 1: it's been linked to spinal court defects and other complications
Speaker 1: in newborns when taken by pregnant women. Now, University of
Speaker 1: Queensland researchers have identified a drug that could reverse the
Speaker 1: harmful side effects of valproic acid. The conducted tests on
Speaker 1: lapgrown spinal cords that closely mimic the spinal cord of
Speaker 1: a fetus in the early weeks of gestation. The mini
Speaker 1: cords were exposed to a clinically approved drug called rapamycin
Speaker 1: before they were exposed to valproic acid. Rapamsin prevented the
Speaker 1: negative effects of the acid. Scientists said it means co
Speaker 1: treatment of epilepsy using both drugs could open safe access
Speaker 1: to an extremely effective treatment for women with epilepsy.
Speaker 3: Harry on the podcast yesterday, Zara and I spoke about
Speaker 3: hez Bala. Zara gave us some background on the group
Speaker 3: based out of Lebanon, but overnight we saw the local
Speaker 3: angle for Australians with this story really pivot and so
Speaker 3: today we're talking about that Australian angle. After some protesters
Speaker 3: were seen waving flags in support of Hezbola over the weekend,
Speaker 3: So in particular the conversation. The reaction to that has
Speaker 3: now turned to these new laws. We're going to get
Speaker 3: to that, but first of all, can you talk us
Speaker 3: through what we know about the weekend's protest action.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So just to recap really quickly, over the weekend,
Speaker 1: the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network organized what it called a
Speaker 1: Day of Action for Gaza. It called for quote, communities,
Speaker 1: groups and individuals all around the country to stand for Gaza,
Speaker 1: where data sided by the United Nations says more than
Speaker 1: forty one thousand Palestine people have been killed by Israeli
Speaker 1: forces since October last year. So that protest was organized
Speaker 1: for Sunday and thousands of people turned out right across
Speaker 1: the country, so Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth. So there were
Speaker 1: people who went along to the protest, taking Lebanese and
Speaker 1: Palestinian flags with them and brandishing those and calling for
Speaker 1: an end to the violence that Ew and Zarup spoke
Speaker 1: about in the pod yesterday.
Speaker 3: Now, I just want to jump in here, Harry and
Speaker 3: reiterate as we mentioned yesterday on the podcast. It's an
Speaker 3: important distinction to make that Lebanon and Hezbola are two
Speaker 3: different entities. So Hesbola is an Iranian backed group based
Speaker 3: in Lebanon. The Australian government lists it as a terrorist
Speaker 3: organization and the government of Lebanon isn't controlled by Hesbola,
Speaker 3: but there are Hesbela representatives in Lebanon's parliament. Back home
Speaker 3: to Australia where we had these protests over the weekend,
Speaker 3: I think it would also be helpful to understand a
Speaker 3: little bit about the representation of Lebanese people in Australia.
Speaker 3: What is the kind of diaspora like here.
Speaker 1: So according to the latest census data, there are about
Speaker 1: two hundred and fifty thousand people in Australia who have
Speaker 1: family ties to Lebanon. And so going back to the protests,
Speaker 1: this was also held on the same weekend that Israel
Speaker 1: confirmed that it the Hesbela leader, Hassan Nazraala.
Speaker 3: So the timing of that was actually coincidental to these protests.
Speaker 3: They'd already been organized when news of that death of
Speaker 3: Hassan Israela's death in Lebanon buy an Israeli air strike emerged.
Speaker 1: That's correct. And at these protests though there were some
Speaker 1: people who were in attendance who had taken the Hesbelah
Speaker 1: flag and they had also brought portraits of Nazraala to
Speaker 1: the protests. Now, as you also mentioned, Emma, Australia lists
Speaker 1: Hesbela as a terrorist organization. So that's how the conversation
Speaker 1: moved from considering whether those flags and portraits that were
Speaker 1: at these protests fell foul of the new hate symbols
Speaker 1: legislation that's in Australia.
Speaker 3: Okay, So a lot has been said in the last
Speaker 3: day about these hate speech laws. They're new, A lot
Speaker 3: of people had interpreted them as meaning that these kinds
Speaker 3: of symbols band at protests. So for anyone who's missed it,
Speaker 3: can you talk us through these new laws?
Speaker 1: Yeah, so just zoom me out a bit. Over the
Speaker 1: last couple of years, there's been some incidents involving neo
Speaker 1: Nazis at certain protests in Australia, and the most notable
Speaker 1: one involved in anti trans rally outside Victoria's Parliament last year,
Speaker 1: and that was gate crashed by a group of neo
Speaker 1: Nazis who were wearing all black. They were chanting some
Speaker 1: white supremacists slurs and slogans and they were performing the
Speaker 1: Nazi salute and in response to those incidents. The government
Speaker 1: introduced laws to parliament in June last year to crack
Speaker 1: down on publicly displaying hate symbols. Today, the Albanezi government
Speaker 1: is taking a significant step toward sending a message that
Speaker 1: astroner is united against displays of hate. In introducing the legislation,
Speaker 1: the top law officer, the Attorney General, Mark Drafers he
Speaker 1: was referring to the neo Nazi demonstrations specifically, and the
Speaker 1: laws focused on those Nazi symbols and salutes. But if
Speaker 1: you look at the law overall, they also ban public
Speaker 1: displays of terrorist organizations.
Speaker 3: Okay, so we've got legislation that's kind of borne out
Speaker 3: of this trend of people bringing along Nazi flags, for example,
Speaker 3: to these far right demonstrations. But the legislation reaches further
Speaker 3: than that. So what does it reach? What does it include?
Speaker 1: So to ban symbols linked to terrorist organizations broadens it
Speaker 1: out a lot, actually, because Australia lists thirty organizations that
Speaker 1: it considers terrorists in total. So this varies from the
Speaker 1: white extremist group called the Base which is based out
Speaker 1: of the US, to Hesbalah in Lebanon. Now, the hate
Speaker 1: speech laws say that if you carry a symbol link
Speaker 1: to one of those prescribed terrorist groups in public, you
Speaker 1: could face a year in jail. But in addition to that,
Speaker 1: police need to be satisfied that at least one of
Speaker 1: the following situations occurred as a result of parading the
Speaker 1: hate symbol. So the first is the public displaying of
Speaker 1: the symbol spread ideas based on racial superiority or racial hatred.
Speaker 1: The second is, by publicly displaying these symbols, it was
Speaker 1: likely to motivate others to hate a person or group
Speaker 1: because of their race. The third would be that it
Speaker 1: would be trying to advocate for hating someone based on
Speaker 1: their race or if they fall into one of the
Speaker 1: targeted groups. And finally, if it was likely to offend, insult, intimidate,
Speaker 1: or humiliate someone based on their race, their sex, their religion,
Speaker 1: or a host of other personal attributes.
Speaker 3: Okay, So those sort of caveats, I suppose are important
Speaker 3: distinctions within the legislation. So it's not just enough to
Speaker 3: send someone to jail for publicly displaying one of these symbols.
Speaker 3: That symbol also has to meet one of those situations.
Speaker 3: But I suppose it's quite complicated, because how do you
Speaker 3: define the specifics of being offended or insulted or intimidated.
Speaker 3: It's pretty vague, right.
Speaker 1: It's pretty complicated. And the reason that there is those
Speaker 1: prescriptions and those conditions under the law is so that
Speaker 1: somewhere like a school that's teaching a class about Nazi
Speaker 1: Germany in the nineteen thirties and forties wouldn't come under
Speaker 1: these legislation for showing a Nazi flag.
Speaker 3: Okay, So a museum is not going to be charged
Speaker 3: with a federal offense if they have some kind of
Speaker 3: paraphernalia because of historical and educational purposes.
Speaker 1: That's right, and that's what these law is meant to defend.
Speaker 1: But also it wants to prosecute anyone that is trying
Speaker 1: to to motivate some form of hatred as a result
Speaker 1: of publicly displaying these symbols. So these laws were passed
Speaker 1: in January this year, and since then there have been
Speaker 1: two incidents that we know about in New South Wales
Speaker 1: and Queensland that were called into question based on the
Speaker 1: new laws. So those investigations, though they were conducted by
Speaker 1: the state police, they didn't involve the federal police. And
Speaker 1: that's where we get into what happened over the weekend
Speaker 1: because it's the first time that the AFP have been
Speaker 1: called in to look into something that might have fallen
Speaker 1: foul of these new hate symbol laws.
Speaker 3: Okay, so then under the new laws, and given what
Speaker 3: we saw over the weekend, and there are photos and
Speaker 3: videos that show people attending the protests or bit a
Speaker 3: small number of people out of thousands attending these protests
Speaker 3: holding what appeared to be Hesbella flags images of the
Speaker 3: Hesbala leader who died in the Israeli strike. So was
Speaker 3: anyone arrested over the weekend?
Speaker 1: So I'll start in New South Wales police said that
Speaker 1: they have arrested a twenty two year old man for
Speaker 1: alleged assault during the protests in the Sydney CBD, but
Speaker 1: he's now been released and there's an investigation underway, So
Speaker 1: that's not related at all to these hate symbol laws.
Speaker 1: What we have been hearing about and what the AFP
Speaker 1: have confirmed, is that in Melbourne, the AFP have been
Speaker 1: referred to six reports of crime that have been made
Speaker 1: to them about questions over whether someone was displaying or
Speaker 1: chanting something linked to a terrorist organization. Now there's nothing
Speaker 1: we really know. In addition to that, at this stage.
Speaker 3: So the AFP are looking into six reports in relation
Speaker 3: to displays of potentially banned symbols at these protests. What
Speaker 3: about the response to this more broadly, what have politicians
Speaker 3: been saying?
Speaker 1: Well, you're right to talk about politicians. It did get
Speaker 1: political really really quickly. So the Home Affairs Minister Tony
Speaker 1: Burke issued a statement after the protests saying that there
Speaker 1: was quote a higher level of scrutiny if anyone is
Speaker 1: on a visa, saying the government had the power to
Speaker 1: cancel a visa of anyone who was seeking to incite
Speaker 1: discord by potentially displaying these symbols of hate. So I
Speaker 1: think it's important to say here that we just don't
Speaker 1: know if anyone attending these protests were actually visa holders
Speaker 1: from overseas as well, and the AFP hasn't publicly released
Speaker 1: that information either, and Tony Burke has clarified that no
Speaker 1: visas have been canceled at this stage.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think this is a moment from the protests
Speaker 3: or the aftermath that seems to have really dominated headlines,
Speaker 3: this talk of canceling visas. But that implies that there
Speaker 3: were visitors to this country who attended these protests and
Speaker 3: did the wrong thing. And as you mentioned, we really
Speaker 3: don't know.
Speaker 1: No one's confirmed that. No authority has confirmed that. Tony
Speaker 1: Burke didn't confirm that. The AFP haven't come confirmed that.
Speaker 1: So it's exactly right. We just don't know what.
Speaker 3: About Peter Dutton, the Opposition leader, because I know he
Speaker 3: has weighed in on this one. What's he said?
Speaker 1: So Peter Dutton made a suggestion that the Federal Police,
Speaker 1: which are the agency that's prosecuting the hate symbols that
Speaker 1: had been displayed in public, they needed more powers to
Speaker 1: prosecute or if there was a bit of questioning about
Speaker 1: their ability to do their jobs, that the government needed
Speaker 1: to close that loophole by passing legislation immediately. So he
Speaker 1: was actually calling for Parliament to sit straight away to
Speaker 1: be recalled as an emergency sitting if the government did
Speaker 1: come to the conclusion that the laws needed to be strengthened.
Speaker 3: And so this is kind of coming off the back
Speaker 3: of some comments from the AFP following the protests that
Speaker 3: some people had suggested were a little bit confusing that
Speaker 3: there seemed to maybe be a bit of confusion within
Speaker 3: the AFP itself about what met that threshold for those
Speaker 3: federal laws to be prosecuted. So Dutton is suggesting Parliament
Speaker 3: sit immediately to strengthen the laws, make it easier for
Speaker 3: federal police to make arrests in relation to those laws.
Speaker 3: How would that happen?
Speaker 1: So the Parliament would have to be recalled, So all
Speaker 1: parliamentarians would have to go back to Canberra because they're
Speaker 1: on a break, that's right, But they are actually expected
Speaker 1: to return to Camberra next week. But he saw it
Speaker 1: as such a matter of urgency that he was suggesting
Speaker 1: that the Prime Minister had the capacity to tell everybody
Speaker 1: to come back a week early at least to pass
Speaker 1: these strengthen laws. Now the government doesn't look like it
Speaker 1: will be rashing back to camber at this stage. In
Speaker 1: a statement to TDA, the Attorney General Mark Dreyfus said,
Speaker 1: the government quote has faith in our police forces to
Speaker 1: enforce the law. And you talk about that confusion there
Speaker 1: with the AFP, and I think it's a very valid point,
Speaker 1: and part of it is because these are just such
Speaker 1: new laws. There's no precedent that they can draw on
Speaker 1: to establish a way in which they can prosecute. There's
Speaker 1: no established wisdom among the AFP on how to go
Speaker 1: about finding potential hate symbols out in public at a protest,
Speaker 1: and so this is definitely new ground for them, and
Speaker 1: I think what Peter Dutton was really wanting to confirm
Speaker 1: was there's just no confusion whatsoever. We're not talking about
Speaker 1: Nazi symbols that might be in a classroom when there's
Speaker 1: a lesson on Nazi Germany. Necessarily we're talking about a
Speaker 1: listed terrorist organization and the potential for those symbols appearing
Speaker 1: at a demonstration to incite hatred. And so I think
Speaker 1: Peter Dutton was really at pains to say there can't
Speaker 1: be any confusion on the police's power to prosecute if
Speaker 1: they're convinced that that falls foul of the new hate
Speaker 1: symbol laws. The political debate around this is all also
Speaker 1: not likely to go away. We've heard from both Coalition
Speaker 1: and Labor MPs who have said that this is a
Speaker 1: concerning trend if there are people attending these protests with
Speaker 1: hate symbols potentially, and we can expect to hear a
Speaker 1: bit more about it next week when Parliament regimes. There
Speaker 1: will be plenty of robust debate on the floor of
Speaker 1: both chambers. I can be almost certain of that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and as you mentioned, this is uncharted territory in
Speaker 3: terms of stress testing these new laws. And I think
Speaker 3: one of the reasons that there is so much public
Speaker 3: interest is whatever happens from here will probably set the
Speaker 3: agenda for protests and demonstrations to come. Protesting is an
Speaker 3: important part of any democracy, but you do want to
Speaker 3: make sure that people who attend protests feel safe, that
Speaker 3: members of the community don't feel intimidated by symbols that
Speaker 3: are brought to those protests. So really really interesting stuff
Speaker 3: here and we will as always keep a very close
Speaker 3: eye on what comes next and keep you updated on
Speaker 3: The Daily Ods. Harry, thank you so much for explaining
Speaker 3: it to us. Thank you so much for listening to
Speaker 3: today's episode of The Daily Ods. Don't forget to follow
Speaker 3: or subscribe wherever you are listening to us, or if
Speaker 3: you're watching us over on our YouTube channel. We will
Speaker 3: be back again tomorrow, but until then, have a great day.
Speaker 1: My name is Lily Maddon and I'm a proud Arunda
Speaker 1: Bungelung Calcottin woman from Gadigol Country. The Daily oz acknowledges
Speaker 1: that this podcast is recorded on the lands of the
Speaker 1: Gadighl people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and Torres
Speaker 1: Strait Island and nations. We pay our respects to the
Speaker 1: first peoples of these countries, both past and present,