Censorship in Queensland Arts (2)

Office of the Lord Mayor

GPO Box 2287

Brisbane QLD 4001

Dear Lord Mayor

Censorship in Queensland Arts

We refer to reports, for example on the ABC website on 27 March 2025 that the Brisbane City Council has withdrawn its funding from the Queensland Music Awards, following musician and award winner Kellee Green’s acceptance speech for her composition ‘River to Sea’.        

The Queensland Council for Civil Liberties (QCCL) is alarmed and disappointed to hear that

The QCCL does not take a position on the Gaza conflict as that is outside our ordinary work. However, as it has done since its inception, it supports the right of all to participate in the debate without fear of retribution.

You are reported to have claimed the song by Ms Green was an offensively anti-Jewish song. However, the phrase is subject to different interpretations. Pro-Palestinian activists say it's a statement of reclaiming their homeland, while pro-Israeli activists say it's advocating for the abolition of the State of Israel.

In our view the relevant standard for the restriction of speech which advocates illegal action, which it is argued this does, is whether the speech was intended to incite or produce imminent lawless action and that was it likely to incite or produce such action. There can be no serious suggestion that the use of this expression in this context fell within that standard. Certainly, "offence" cannot be used as a standard to restrict free speech because too many people are offended by too many things.

Furthermore, we note that on 15 August 2023 the Dutch Court of Appeal gave legal protection to the Palestinian liberation chant “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”, on free speech grounds.

The Dutch appeal court – whose rulings are final and cannot be appealed – acquitted Thomas Hofland, a pro-Palestine activist who used the chant in a speech he delivered at a Nakba day rally in Amsterdam in May 2021.The ruling upholds an earlier decision by a lower Dutch court not to prosecute Hofland. That court concluded that the pro-Palestinian slogans Hofland had used in his speech “are subject to various interpretations” and “relate to the state of Israel and possibly to people with Israeli citizenship, but do not relate to Jews because of their race or religion”.

We draw your attention to section 21 of the Human Rights Act (“the Act”) which protects the right to free speech.

Ms Green’s remarks, clearly fall within the bounds of protected speech.[1] Criticising government policy is a cornerstone of a healthy democracy, and attempts to suppress such criticism, particularly within artistic expression, set a dangerous precedent. While public institutions may not always agree with the views expressed by individuals, it is wholly inappropriate for governments to use the withdrawal of financial support as a tool to punish or silence speech.

The Brisbane City Council is a public entity as defined by the Act and is required to comply where stipulated with the provisions of the Act.

Did you as the apparent decision maker in this case have regard to section 21 when making this decision? If not, the decision is unlawful.

We invite you to explain how the decision is consistent with the right set out in that section.

Leaving aside the legalities, the decision by the Brisbane City Council to withdraw funding from the Queensland Music Awards due to one artist’s lawful political expression during an acceptance speech is deeply concerning and sets a dangerous precedent. If artists must now fear losing employment, funding or grant eligibility for expressing deeply held convictions, it represents a serious infringement on their right to free expression. It also sends a chilling message to all artists, particularly those from marginalized communities or with lived experience of conflict, that their voices are welcome only if they are non-political or convenient to those in power.

The QCCL urges the Brisbane City Council to reconsider and reinstate funding for the Queensland Music Awards

We will be raising this matter with the Queensland Human Rights Commission

[1] The High Court has consistently affirmed that the implied freedom of political communication extends beyond traditional political settings. In Levy v Victoria (1997) 189 CLR 579, the Court recognised that political expression can occur through conduct, protest, or symbolic acts, including within artistic and cultural contexts. What matters is whether the communication concerns political or governmental matters capable of influencing public discourse. See also Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520 and Coleman v Power (2004) 220 CLR 1.