Sydney Harbour Bridge march: Pro-Palestine protesters given the green light to shut down landmark
NSW Supreme Court Justice Belinda Rigg rejected a police application to prohibit Sunday's planned rally due to public safety risks.
Thousands of anticipated protesters are expected at the demonstration to highlight what the United Nations has described as 'worsening famine conditions' in Gaza.
Organised by the Palestinian Action Group Sydney, the protest has garnered support from activists nationwide, human rights and civil liberties groups as well as several MPs and public figures such as former Socceroo Craig Foster.
Arguments were presented to the court on Friday with Justice Rigg choosing to reserve her decision until Saturday morning.
In her judgment, she refused the police commissioner's application, saying arguments the rally would cause disruption on the bridge were not sufficient reason to bar the protest.
'It is in the nature of peaceful protests to cause disruption to others,' she said.
In solidarity with their interstate peers, protesters in Melbourne are gearing up to rally through the city's CBD, aiming to reach the King Street Bridge.
A last-minute application on Friday was also lodged with police by a pro-Israel fringe group for a counter-protest in the tunnel under Sydney Harbour, the court heard.
Police confirmed to AAP the group withdrew the application soon after.
Meanwhile, more than 60 per cent of Australians want tougher government measures to stop Israel's military offensive in Gaza, a poll has found.
Respondents to the YouGov survey published on Friday and commissioned by the Australian Alliance for Peace and Human Rights believed Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's condemnations of Israel had fallen short.
'While the government has recently signed a statement calling for an immediate ceasefire, 61 per cent of Australians believe this is not enough,' the alliance said.
'(Australians) want to see concrete economic, diplomatic and legal measures implemented.'
The alliance called for economic sanctions and the end of any arms trade with Israel, which the federal government has repeatedly said it has not engaged in directly.
The poll surveyed 1,507 Australian voters in the last week of July, coinciding with a deteriorating starvation crisis and while diplomatic efforts from countries such as Canada have ramped up.
Some 42 per cent of polled coalition voters supported stronger measures and more than two thirds of Labor voters, 68 per cent, are pushing their party to be bolder in placing pressure on Israel.
An overwhelming number of Greens voters (91 per cent) wanted a more robust suite of measures as did 77 per cent of independent voters.
The results highlighted how the nearly two-year long war on Gaza had resonated with Australians, YouGov director of public data Paul Smith said.
'This poll shows there's clearly across the board support for the Australian government to be doing much more in response to the situation in Gaza,' he told AAP.
'Sixty-one per cent shows the depth of feeling Australians have towards this issue.'
More than 60,000 Palestinians have been killed including more than 17,000 children, according to local health authorities, with reports of dozens of people dead in recent weeks due to starvation.
Israel's campaign began after Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, reportedly killing 1,200 people and taking 250 hostages.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
Chancellor's attempt to intervene in car finance scandal branded ‘disgraceful'
Rachel Reeves' efforts to intervene in the supreme court case on the car finance scandal were 'unprecedented and disgraceful' and send a 'really bad message' to consumers that the government is willing to defend wrongdoing by banks, Treasury committee member and Lib Dem MP Bobby Dean has said. While the supreme court largely sided with finance companies on Friday – helping lenders avoid a £44bn compensation bill – Dean said the chancellor had gone too far to show she was on the side of business. That included a controversial bid to intervene in the supreme court hearing in January, in which she urged judges to avoid handing 'windfall' compensation to borrowers. That attempt was ultimately rejected. 'I thought it was pretty unprecedented and pretty disgraceful,' said Dean, who sits on an influential parliamentary committee which scrutinises City firms, regulators and the Treasury. The chancellor had also been considering overruling the supreme court's decision with retrospective legislation, to help save lenders billions of pounds, in the event that it upheld the entirety of October's court of appeal ruling, the Guardian revealed last week. 'What message does it send to consumers that the industry can do wrong, the courts can support the claim that they've done something wrong, but the government is ready to intervene and defend the industry that's done wrong, instead of defending the consumer? I think that's a really bad message to put out,' Dean said. 'I feel like this government sometimes is too keen to demonstrate it is on the side of business, and is sometimes not understanding the rights of consumer,' he added. Reeves intervention efforts followed intensive lobbying by the car loan industry, which feared that the supreme court would uphold last October's shock ruling by the appeal court. That October ruling suggested commission payments paid by lenders to car dealers were unlawful, unless explicitly disclosed to borrowers. It could have opened the door to billions of pounds of compensation claims against companies including Lloyds Banking Group, Santander UK, Barclays and Close Brothers, and result in a redress scheme that rivalled the £50bn payment protection insurance saga. Lobby group the Financing and Leasing Association (FLA) – which represents car lenders – had warned the government that a big compensation bill could push some lenders into failure, while others would offer fewer or more expensive loans to claw back their losses. That could restrict options for borrowers who relied on credit. City bosses were also warning the Treasury that ongoing uncertainty over the scandal was deterring international investment in the finance industry, and was therefore putting the UK's economic growth at risk The FLA's head of motor finance Adrian Dally said that the lobby group was 'pleased' with the supreme court's ruling, and felt its concerns had been heard by Treasury and regulators. He confirmed the FLA had been speaking with the Treasury nearly every week in the wake of the court of appeal ruling in October, including about its concerns on the car finance case. However, he rejected suggestions the Treasury had prioritised the industry over consumers. 'We absolutely disagree with that because, ultimately, this [car finance] industry is a vital part of the nation's infrastructure, and enables millions of people to get to work, to get to school, and that was put at risk by these court cases. And ultimately, we believe the industry's interests and the consumers' interests are aligned on this.' Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion But Dean said government interventions set a 'really bad precedent if you're going to intervene on cases of consumer redress on the basis that it might damage industry, because then almost every consumer redress case would fall,' Dean said. Dean added that compensation schemes can give consumers confidence to borrow and invest, knowing will be protected when companies take advantage of customers. 'Obviously, the best industry is one where these redress systems are not needed in the first place, because people play by the rules.' The Financial Conduct Authority is due to confirm whether or not it will press ahead with a compensation scheme before the stock markets open on Monday morning. A Treasury spokesperson said: 'It is vital that consumers have access to motor finance to enable them to spread the cost of a vehicle in a way that is manageable and affordable. 'We respect this judgment from the supreme court, and we are working with regulators and industry to understand the impact for both firms and consumers. 'We recognise the issues this court case has highlighted, and we are already taking forward significant changes to the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Consumer Credit Act.'
Daily Mail
5 hours ago
- Daily Mail
A defence insider told me last year AUKUS was f****d. Now the final nail was just hammered into the coffin - and the blame game has started: PVO
You're on your own Defence minister and Deputy PM Richard Marles appears to have accidentally belled the cat this week in Question Time.
The Guardian
8 hours ago
- The Guardian
How the courts became the biggest roadblock to Trump's plans
A federal judge's ruling last week to maintain a sweeping nationwide ban on Donald Trump's birthright citizenship order highlights the dizzying legal battle that has defined the administration's opening months, with courts issuing dozens of such sweeping orders to systematically halt abrasive elements of the president's agenda. US district judge Leo Sorokin in Boston rejected Trump administration arguments to narrow his nationwide injunction, a court order that prohibits the federal government from enforcing a law or policy against anyone across the nation, and not just the people who filed the legal challenge. His decision represents just one case in a broader pattern of judicial resistance to Trump administration actions. Courts have issued an estimated 35 nationwide injunctions against various Trump executive orders and policy changes from his inauguration until the supreme court intervened on 27 June, according to a Guardian analysis of court records and Congressional Research Service data. There's no standard legal definition for a nationwide injunction, so it is not possible to provide a single definitive count, but the roughly 35 orders during Trump's second term have halted a broad range of policies, from the president's attempt to end birthright citizenship to restrictions on federal funding for diversity programs and changes to refugee resettlement. In June, the supreme court significantly limited courts' ability to issue nationwide injunctions, which fundamentally reshaped how opponents can challenge executive overreach and dismantled what some legal experts viewed as the most potent weapon against sweeping presidential policies. Without nationwide injunctions, challengers largely have to now pursue slower class-action lawsuits or file multiple suits across jurisdictions to achieve the same blocking effect, although the supreme court left the possibility for exceptions in some cases like Sorokin's ruling, which found that nationwide relief was necessary to protect Americans from harm. 'President Trump's illegal abuses of power have created widespread harm for Americans across the country including farmers, students, working families and retirees that demanded a national response,' said Donald Sherman, deputy director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. 'The supreme court's decision has certainly made it more complex to challenge President Trump's lawless executive actions and put an unnecessary strain on judicial resources, but legal advocates and concerned citizens will not be deterred from holding the administration accountable in court.' During Trump's first presidency, federal courts issued at least 64 nationwide injunctions against his administration, compared with 12 under Barack Obama's eight-year presidency and just six under George W Bush's two terms. The White House has praised the supreme court's June order, saying 'low-level activist judges have been exploiting their positions' to deliberately cut down Trump's policy agenda. Those injunctions were issued by courts in mostly Democratic-leaning states and jurisdictions, including Washington DC, California, Rhode Island, Maryland, Texas, Massachusetts, New York and others, according to a Guardian analysis. Harvard Law Review research from Trump's first term found that 92.2% of nationwide injunctions came from Democratic-appointed judges, while 100% of similar injunctions against Biden came from Republican-appointed judges. The Guardian analysis of the 35 nationwide injunctions issued during the first six months of the Trump administration demonstrates the types of policies that had been blocked by courts using this tool. Immigration enforcement and citizenship changes have prompted at least eight major nationwide injunctions, including in the landmark birthright citizenship case, cases targeting refugee program defunding and deportation accelerations. Federal funding policies have generated a wave of litigation, with at least six injunctions stopping various funding freezes and restrictions, stemming from suits filed by groups including the National Council of Nonprofits targeting funding freezes, and on targeting National Institutes of Health grants by the Association of American Medical Colleges. Policies on diversity, equity and inclusion and civil rights face numerous legal challenges and have resulted in nationwide injunctions in at least five cases, including a suit by the National Association of Diversity Officers fighting restrictions under Trump's executive orders. At least two cases stemming from military service requirements stopped by nationwide injunctions fall into the same category, while federal agency restructuring has prompted suits from multiple state governments and federal employee unions and ended with nationwide injunctions. Some injunctions focused on executive overreach and legal targeting, while additional injunctions stopped emergency tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and restrictions on law firms that previously opposed Trump policies. 'Since the moment President Trump took office, low-level activist judges have been exploiting their positions to kneecap the agenda on which he was overwhelmingly elected,' the White House said in a statement after the supreme court's ruling in June. 'In fact, of the 40 nationwide injunctions filed against President Trump's executive actions in his second term, 35 of them came from just five far-left jurisdictions: California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Washington, and the District of Columbia.' The Guardian has not been able to identify 40 nationwide injunctions independently. The White House and the Department of Justice have not responded to requests for comment on which injunctions they have on their list. The justice department has reportedly faced difficulties defending the volume of Trump's executive orders, with lawyers struggling to answer judicial questions and correct the record in court, prompting the justice department to seek rapid transfers of attorneys to the division handling Trump policy defenses. The administration is also believed to be testing traditional presidential deference, the longstanding practice where courts generally defer to executive authority for national security and foreign affairs as it defends aggressive immigration, trade and economic policies, while taking the unprecedented step of suing federal judges who issue blocking orders. Legal challenges have also targeted more specific policies, prompting nationwide injunctions in cases targeting restrictions on gender-affirming care in federal prisons, changes to passport gender markers and federal employment terminations affecting thousands of workers. Following the supreme court decision in Trump v Casa in June, courts are now prohibited from issuing nationwide injunctions against presidential policies. But there is an exception, which comes when a judge decides it is the only way to fully protect the people bringing the lawsuit, like in the case of the birthright citizenship challenge. The White House said: 'Now, the Trump Administration can promptly proceed with critical action to save the country – like ending birthright citizenship, ceasing sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding, stopping taxpayers from funding transgender surgeries, and much more.' But some legal experts aren't so sure on the long-term impact of the supreme court's restrictions on nationwide injunctions just yet. 'I think it remains to be seen how the practical consequences of the supreme court's decision shake out,' said Barbara McQuade, a University of Michigan law professor and former Obama-appointed US attorney. 'Several of the justices suggested that class actions would provide a mechanism to block lawless executive orders and prevent irreparable harm, but, of course, class actions can be cumbersome and slower than a simple temporary restraining order. 'We will need to see how lower courts address the supreme court's exception where necessary,' McQuade said. For those in the crosshairs of Trump's policies – like undocumented immigrants facing deportation and non-profits losing federal funding – the harm could be measured in weeks or months. The supreme court's decision hasn't eliminated legal challenges to presidential power, but it has fundamentally altered their speed and scope.
