Shortly after the decision was made by the NSW Supreme Court to allow the controversial pro-Palestinian march to shut down the Sydney Harbour Bridge on short notice and pass within shouting distance of the Opera House where horrific chants were made by Palestinian supporters following the October 7 terror attack, public figures of the Right began to weigh in.

Former Liberal Prime Minister Tony Abbott posted on X:

‘It should not be for judges to decide when a political protest is justified. The decision to close the Sydney Harbour Bridge to facilitate this protest is a political decision and should be made by elected and accountable ministers who, as it happens, think the march should not go ahead. We are on a slippery slope when unelected judges start making political judgments.’

In reply, Senator Babet from the United Australia Party, wrote:

‘I must respectfully disagree. Here’s why: the true slippery slope is allowing either politicians or judges to suppress speech or protest simply because they dislike the message. Free speech must be protected especially when it’s uncomfortable, inconvenient, or controversial. Agreeing with the content is beside the point, if we only defend speech we approve of, then we don’t believe in free speech at all.’

Which is interesting, because neither Hamas nor the Palestinian culture in general are advocates of free speech. Quite the opposite. However, that is not the discussion at hand.

The question is whether the main artery of the city should be turned into a billboard for political protest.

Protests are disruptive, they rob businesses of customers and no compensation is issued to them. This can destroy a business in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. I must say, it is disappointing that neither the political class nor activist class appear to notice or care about what happens to the average Australian in the shadow of activist theatre.

Why aren’t the protesters gathering in Speakers’ Corner?

Because this is about disruption. The same tactic as climate protesters who glue themselves to buildings and pour orange paint over the road.

Mindless, meaningless, performance.

Senator Babet is not the only voice to disagree with Tony Abbott. NSW MLC for the Libertarians, John Ruddick, wrote on X:

‘I was proud to march against Covid lockdowns. Tomorrow I’ll be proud to march against what can only be described as genocide. See you tomorrow. It may be raining, but don’t let that deter you (it’s raining bullets in Gaza).’

Then, in direct reply to Tony Abbott’s post, Ruddick added:

‘Tony Abbott says politicians should have power to approve some protests … and disapprove ones they don’t like.

Tony claims to revere the US Founding Fathers … but there’s a fundamental disconnect with what those statesmen inserted as the First Amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.”

I’m with the US Founding Fathers.’

NSW Liberal Opposition Leader Mark Speakman said:

‘I can understand people have sincere and passionate views about what is happening in the Middle East, which whichever way you look at it, it is a tragedy. The failure to release hostages is a tragedy, the initial terrorist attack is a tragedy … and what is happening to innocent people in Gaza is a tragedy.’

Mr Speakman then agreed that the Sydney Harbour Bridge was not the right place to host a protest, saying there were alternative venues.

‘Absolutely they should not be taking over the Harbour Bridge.’

Rukshan Fernando, who worked hard to bring us the livesteam of Covid Freedom protests during the Victorian lockdowns, wrote on X:

‘Now that the court has allowed the blockade of Sydney Harbour Bridge to take place after government and police raised concerns about serious impacts on emergency infrastructure, other groups that want to hold such disruptive protests in NSW on major landmarks should look at this win as a precedent of sorts. It would be unfair to deny this ability to other Australians concerned about other issues to use such symbolic landmarks for the purpose of raising awareness.’

Which is a serious point.

Climate Change radicals will say that there is no issue more important than ‘climate’ and use that to hold the Sydney Harbour Bridge ransom. The trans movement could claim the same about the lives of children. Conversely, I am sure we would be told that a protest for Australia Day or for digital privacy would be stopped.

Very few Australians believe the protest rules are equal or fair or, indeed, have anything to do with free speech.

Can you imagine these same courts allowing a protest against mass migration to close the Sydney Harbour Bridge?

Spare us the arguments about free speech.

I have been a free speech absolutist since before it was cool and I do not believe for one moment that marching in support of Islamic regimes is a free speech issue, just as I don’t believe third-wave feminists care about women when they fail to defend biological reality in law.

Many people who oppose this pro-Palestine march insist that public structures, such as the Sydney Harbour Bridge, should be protected from activism, if for no other reason than to stop ideological anarchy breaking out.

And while the sails of the Opera House are less destructive to the city, I have never supported their use for political messaging. Where does it end?

It was not enough that the red triangle of Hamas was draped over Parliament House in Canberra, the Palestinian flag will now be marching across our bridge on Sunday.

What does Hamas think of international spectacle? ‘There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. The initiatives, proposals, and International Conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility.’

When Palestine is free, it is likely Hamas will retain control, just as Syria has fallen into the hands of ISIS.

If the walls ever come down, the regime will do exactly as it promises and butcher its way from the river to the sea.

You could hardly accuse me of being a fan of NSW Premier Chris Minns, but I agree when he said, ‘We cannot allow Sydney to descend into chaos.’

Although there is something more to this.

The Sydney Harbour Bridge is the centre of our city and the vision Australia projects to the world.

It is clear this is why it has become a target for foreign causes, but to Australians, it is meant to be a unifying structure. It is where we gather at the end of every year, rig up fireworks, and celebrate as one people.

If the Sydney Harbour Bridge becomes a billboard of activism, it will equally become a symbol of division.

This should not be allowed to happen and shame on the members of the Right who allow political ambitions to override the structural integrity of the Australian soul.

You are not going to solve over a thousand years of religious conflict in the Middle East on Sunday, but you will take steps to dismantle the sacred nature of our harbour.

At the end of this year, I do not want to see the shadow of Palestine on our harbour.