The demonstration against Israel’s President, Isaac Herzog, had been authorised on clear conditions. It was approved to take place around Sydney Town Hall, provided it remained in that designated area and remained peaceful.
That is how civil society works.
You apply.
You are granted permission.
You comply with the terms.
And for a time, the protest remained within those bounds.
Then organisers decided they wanted to march toward the separate location where President Herzog was meeting thousands of supporters.
That was not authorised.
At that point, police moved to contain the demonstration and issued lawful directions to disperse.
That is also how civil society works.
When “Prayer” Becomes a Tactic
What happened next is the part that deserves serious scrutiny.
After being directed to move on, a number of demonstrators sat down and began what was described as an impromptu Muslim prayer session in the middle of the public thoroughfare.
Police then broke up the gathering.
Scuffles followed.
Several officers were injured.
Around ten arrests were made.
Almost immediately, multiple Muslim organisations accused police of “breaking up a prayer meeting.”
And astonishingly, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese suggested that police actions required justification.
Let’s be clear.
This was not a scheduled religious service in a mosque.
It was not a permitted assembly.
It was not a protected religious ceremony in a designated space.
It was a protest that had exceeded its authorised boundaries and was refusing a lawful order to disperse.
You do not get to convert a protest into a religious shield the moment police intervene.
The Law Applies to Everyone
Australia is a secular democracy. That means two things simultaneously:
People are free to practise their religion.
No religious practice overrides the law of the land.
No group — religious or otherwise — has the right to take over a public roadway after being given a lawful direction to move on.
Not for a rally.
Not for a sit-in.
Not for a prayer.
If the tactic works once, it will be used again. And not just by one community.
Imagine the precedent:
Every protest that is ordered to disperse simply kneels down and declares a prayer meeting.
Is the law then suspended?
If not, then why are we pretending this incident was about religious freedom rather than public order?
Where Was the Prime Minister?
The most disappointing element in all of this was the response from the Prime Minister.
At a time when police officers were injured enforcing lawful directions, the country’s leader chose not to firmly back them.
Instead, he implied that the police may have overstepped in breaking up a “prayer.”
That framing matters.
When the Prime Minister appears to side with demonstrators who were refusing lawful orders — and doing so under a religious pretext — he sends a dangerous message:
That the enforcement of the law is negotiable.
That public order is secondary to political optics.
That certain groups may be treated more delicately than others.
That is not leadership.
That is pandering.
A Dangerous Precedent
None of this is about denying religious freedom.
It is about refusing to allow religion to be weaponised as a tactic to defy lawful authority.
The protest was authorised within limits.
Those limits were breached.
Police acted.
Officers were injured.
That is the sequence.
If we blur those facts by pretending this was primarily about a “broken-up prayer meeting,” we undermine both the rule of law and genuine religious freedom.
Because real religious freedom does not depend on exploiting procedural loopholes during a public order operation.
The Bigger Question
Are we prepared to uphold equal application of the law?
Or are we entering an era where enforcement depends on who is protesting — and how loudly they claim grievance?
The police deserve support when they enforce lawful orders within the framework they were given.
The Prime Minister should have said so clearly.
Instead, he hesitated.
And in moments like these, hesitation erodes confidence far faster than confrontation.
