Anger over yesterday’s protest in Sydney surrounding war criminal and Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s visit to Australia, has now expanded far beyond a single march. It’s become a test of whether Australia can reconcile the democratic values it promotes internationally with the way protestors for Palestinian rights and freedom is managed at home.
The protest, aimed at the government’s decision to host Herzog, would always be intense. For many protestors, the visit was a political endorsement at a time when images from Gaza have generated global outrage. Supporters of the invitation argue diplomatic engagement is a necessity and doesn’t imply agreement with every action of an ally.
That disagreement isn’t unusual. Democracies are built to contain such divisions.
What shifted the argument was the criminal and brutal behaviour of New South Wales Police that followed.
Video shared widely online shows NSW police officers moving into crowds, protesters being pushed back, several people falling and arrests taking place. Activists present at the scene, along with some legal observers, alleged the tactics were so excessive they inflamed tensions.
Two NSW police officers were captured on video sitting on top of a cuffed protestor violently punching him in the back with blow after blow after blow after blow.
Police have said directions were given and not followed, and officers acted in response to safety concerns. They reject claims of indiscriminate force.
Those competing narratives now sit side by side. Police internal investigations if honest, will determine its officer’s brutality weren’t justified. Politically, the images have already done their work.
For many, they sit uneasily beside the language Australia uses abroad.
Canberra frequently condemns governments accused of suppressing demonstrations and presents itself as part of a democratic community committed to protecting the right to assemble. Those statements are intended to signal principle and consistency.
Protesters in Sydney say consistency is precisely what’s missing.
Their argument is that rights can’t be championed in foreign capitals yet appear negotiable on Australian streets and they’re right the traction has taken hold because it speaks to fairness — a value Australians like to believe defines them.
At the protest, many drew comparisons with the failed colour revolution in Iran last month that the CIA, MI6 and Mossad tried to initiate causing many lives to be lost because of US and Israeli planted operatives.
Australia’s condemnations of repression overseas can sound selective rather than universal. It’s politically potent, and governments ignore it at their peril.
No government enjoys seeing anger directed at it in public, particularly during a controversial diplomatic moment. Restoring order quickly is an understandable priority. Yet democracies derive legitimacy from their capacity to allow space for protest, even when it is uncomfortable or embarrassing.
The line between maintaining safety and appearing intolerant of dissent is a fine one. Many Australians say it was a line that was crossed in Sydney.
If a significant number of people begin to feel they’re treated primarily as problems to be managed rather than participants to be heard, trust in institutions erodes. Once that erosion begins, every future confrontation becomes harder to contain.
There’s also a reputational dimension. Australia’s standing internationally depends heavily on credibility. When it urges other governments to respect civil liberties, it does so as a country claiming to practise those standards itself. Perceptions of inconsistency weaken that claim.
Supporters of the government argue perspective is needed. Australia continues to permit frequent protests across the political spectrum. Media criticism is robust. Elections are competitive. Compared with genuinely authoritarian systems, the differences are vast.
They’re right.
Democracies aren’t judged only against dictatorships, they’re judged against their own promises.
Which brings attention to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.
Labor’s election pitch included restoring civility and trust in public life. Many voters interpreted that as a commitment to a more open, less confrontational relationship between power and protest. Scenes of physical clashes inevitably prompt questions about how that aspiration holds up under pressure.
The dilemma is clear: the stronger Australia’s rhetoric abroad, the greater the scrutiny at home. Each denunciation of repression elsewhere implicitly invites citizens to measure their own experience against the same benchmark.
That’s why Sydney matters.
The motorcades will depart and diplomatic schedules will move on. What remains are impressions carried by those who were present and those who watched online - whether authority appeared patient or impatient, confident or defensive.
A democracy secure can accommodate fierce criticism. It can allow people to gather and vent without assuming the worst. It can defend order while still conveying respect.
Many Australians believe that’s still who they are.
After Sydney, more of them are asking.
There’s no difference between Trump’s America and Minns’ New South Wales.
You know what the world can count on? A THUG, is a THUG, is a THUG, worldwide. The kangaroo fucking NSW THUGs have just reinforced that.