There’s a difference between free speech and violent protest

It could hardly be doubted that the chants of “From the river to the sea” and “intifada” in the present context are unambiguous calls for the Israeli people and government to be ousted by violent action from the territory that is Israel, Gaza and the West Bank. Implicit in the calls is the idea that Israelis have forfeited their right to be treated as equals in those territories because of what is judged to be their oppressive, unjust treatment of non-Israelis over time.

Having regard to this, it is quite unnecessary to identify the calls as being motivated specifically by anti-Semitism to conclude they are antithetical to the fundamental values upon which an Australian university must be taken to be established. This is so even though it would seem very probable that some protest participants are motivated by anti-Semitism, thereby aggravating the injury to those fundamental values.

It is equally unnecessary to identify acts of intimidation or harassment for campus protests to warrant condemnation. The inflammatory calls signal a rejection of the values upon which a university is based and which is its mission to engender. The calls are not simply an example of “deeply uncomfortable” political speech.

Standing mute when they are made is not action that “fosters understanding and learning”. It is to accede to the on-campus repudiation of the values of a university.

Mark Scott, a professor of political philosophy, seems unable or unwilling to grasp this (“Uni protests must strike a balance of free speech and safety”, 20/5). His approach fails to consider what actual action is being urged by the incantations, who are the targets and the base criterion by which the targets are chosen; and, adding to that, the compatibility of the conduct with foundational university values. He asks readers to accept all of these matters are unclear because the meaning of the calls can depend on context, and therefore to accept also that it is right to stand meekly by. Accepting that all meaning is contextual, all that should mean to a person of serious bent of mind is that it is necessary to attribute a meaning to the calls in the context in which they are being made so they can calibrate their reaction. That is the inescapable responsibility of high office. There is clearly no difficulty in doing it in the present case.

Bryan Mueller, barrister, Surrey Hills, Vic

University of Sydney vice-chancellor Mark Scott claims he ensures law-breaking and other unacceptable conduct will be subject to disciplinary action on campus (“Uni protests must strike balance of free speech and safety”, 20/5). How then does he continue to permit the Gaza protesters to desecrate the University of Sydney War Memorial Carillon and Honour Rolls? Protesters use it as a pantry and dumping ground for garbage bags, banners and other detritus, while blocking access to it with their clutter of chairs. Regardless of one’s view of the Israel- Gaza conflict, I find it offensive that a solemn memorial to those who laid down their lives defending the cause of freedom should be so disrespected. It also appears to be a breach of Section 8(3) of the Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW), which states it is against the law to commit any nuisance or offensive or indecent act in connection with any war memorial.

More broadly, until the university Gaza protesters demand long and loud that Hamas repents of rape, murder and terrorism, and releases all hostages unconditionally, we know they have little genuine interest in human rights or in finding a realistic peaceful solution for Palestine and Israel.

Sandy Grant, Forest Lodge, NSW

Mark Scott seems to confuse setting up an encampment on university grounds with the right to protest and the right of free speech. I haven’t seen or heard anyone disputing the rights of students to protest or to exercise freedom of speech within the bounds of reasonable decency and respect for the rights of others. On the other hand, it takes a long and very dubious step to link that right with an implied right to pitch camp on university grounds whenever a person or group decides to do so.

If the pitching of tents without authorisation were just a bit of harmless fun and jollity, it is doubtful whether the university authorities would permit it for more than a day or two. When it is an encampment that involves thumbing noses at the authorities and taking political positions very offensive to many people, some university authorities turn to politician-like use of noncommittal language. It’s not good enough.

David Morrison, Springwood, NSW

I was one of the many non-Jewish attendees at Victoria’s Never Again Is Now “Stop the Hate, Mate” rally at the steps of Parliament House in Spring Street (“Premier handballs Gaza grenade”, 20/5). Overwhelmingly, the mood of the gathering was peaceful, positive and united. The focus was on opposing hate. Those who spoke, or presented music and dance, were diverse, spanning ethnicity and culture: Jewish and non-Jewish; Indigenous; Pacific Islanders; and members of the Asian, Indian and pre-revolution Iranian communities.

There was no attempt to whip up antagonism or vengeful rage.

However, in supreme irony, Free Palestine Melbourne, which reportedly urged its supporters to avoid “the Zionists’ possible attempt to provoke violent confrontation”, disseminated promotional material of a jackboot stomping on the Star of David; deliberately shifted its planned protest location from the State Library to Spring Street; had to be held back by mounted and riot police; aggressively blocked anti-hate supporters from attending; and in a baying cacophony of drumming and shouting, howled “Israel is a terrorist state”, “intifada”, “from the river to the sea”, “You can’t run, you can’t hide, you’re supporting genocide”.

The contrast was stark.

Deborah Morrison, Malvern East, Vic

Perhaps contrary to the intentions of the Intifada Tent Land encampment occupants at the University of Sydney, my granddaughter’s graduation ceremony was not impacted and she and fellow graduates had a memorable time. I do, however, have a few words to say to the USyd student occupants: I hope your graduations (if you graduate) are similarly disrupted.

And to the gutless masked protesters from outside and rent-a-crowd tent occupiers: why don’t you find some other places on which to trespass? I am disgusted my alma mater has allowed this situation to deteriorate to the position that it has, though perhaps vice-chancellor Mark Scott’s statements are a step in the right direction.

Michael Afaras, Henley, NSW