Senator Lidia Thorpe ignited a firestorm of controversy after telling a pro-Palestine rally that she would “burn down Parliament House to make a point.” Her comments, framing her role as a vehicle for radical justice, have sparked outrage and debate over the boundaries of political speech.
MELBOURNE – In a speech that escalated political rhetoric to a new intensity, Independent Senator Lidia Thorpe told a pro-Palestine rally she would “burn down Parliament House to make a point,” framing her parliamentary role as a vehicle for radical justice rather than political diplomacy.
The outspoken senator’s comments, delivered to a gathered crowd in Melbourne’s CBD, cut through a day of nationwide protests that saw thousands march in capital cities, demanding a ceasefire in Gaza and championing Palestinian rights.
READ MORE ARTICLES:
- “Burn It Down” Thorpe’s Fiery Rhetoric Ignites Pro-Palestine Rallies
- Tony Blair Met with Jeffrey Epstein: Shock Memo Released
- 2026 National Budget
- PLE RESULTS: October 2025 Physician Licensure Exam
- House Approves ₱6.79-Trillion 2026 Budget, Keeps ₱249-B ‘Shadow Fund’ Despite Uproar
A Speech of “Justice, Not Friendship”
Addressing the rally, Senator Thorpe left little room for ambiguity regarding her political strategy. “So we stand with you every day, and we will fight every day, and we will turn up every day,” she declared, her voice rising with passion. “And if I have to burn down Parliament House to make a point… I am not there to make friends.”
She immediately contextualised the incendiary metaphor, stating, “I am there to get justice for our people and I am there to free Palestine from the river to the sea.” The latter phrase, “from the river to the sea,” is a contested slogan seen by supporters as a call for liberation and equal rights, but viewed by critics and the Australian government as a rejection of Israel’s right to exist.
The speech, reported by the Herald Sun, directly referenced the fragile ceasefire arrangements between Israel and Hamas, positioning the parliamentary system itself as an obstacle to what she termed “justice.”
Nationwide Rallies Met with Significant Police Presence
Senator Thorpe’s fiery oration formed part of a broader day of action, with simultaneous marches taking place in Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane.
In Sydney, an estimated 8,000 protesters gathered at Hyde Park on a scorching 30-degree day. The substantial turnout was met with a highly visible and pre-emptive police operation. Hundreds of officers were deployed to monitor the event, which NSW Police later confirmed concluded with “no significant incidents.”
A single arrest was made near the Opera House around 11:50 am, involving a 41-year-old man unrelated to the protest who allegedly threatened officers. He was taken to hospital and is expected to be charged.
In Melbourne, the protest assembled outside the State Library on Swanston Street, a major arterial road that had only hours earlier reopened following closures for the Nike Melbourne Marathon. The Victorian march remained peaceful, with police escorting the crowd down St Kilda Road towards its planned conclusion at the US consulate.
A Political Firestorm Ignited
While the streets remained calm, Senator Thorpe’s parliamentary colleagues were quick to react to her comments. A government spokesperson stated that “while robust debate is fundamental to our democracy, calls for violence or the destruction of democratic institutions are completely unacceptable and will be condemned by all sensible voices.”
The episode is set to reignite debates about the boundaries of political speech and the use of provocative metaphor in public discourse, ensuring that Senator Thorpe’s pledge to “fight every day” will be met with intensified scrutiny both inside and outside the halls of power.
Defiance and Determination: Pro-Palestine Marches Swell Nationwide Amid Legal Wrangling and Fiery Rhetoric
A wave of pro-Palestine protests washed over Australia this weekend, demonstrating a movement’s entrenched resolve as it navigated legal roadblocks, articulated deep-seated mistrust of international powers, and maintained its momentum through coordinated marches from city centres to regional hubs.
From the eastern seaboard to the island state, thousands gathered in a unified call for an end to the conflict in Gaza, their actions underscoring a movement that is digging in for a long-term campaign.
The national character of the protest was unmistakable. In Brisbane, hundreds marched in a disciplined circuit from Queens Gardens into the CBD before returning to their starting point, a visible and vocal presence in the heart of the city. They were far from alone.
Similar crowds assembled in Hobart, Canberra, and, notably, in the regional centres of Cairns and Coffs Harbour, signalling that the issue has galvanised communities far beyond the metropolitan epicentres.
The movement’s persistence was framed as a moral imperative by organising groups. In a statement released ahead of the weekend, the action group Friends of Palestine WA declared, “We long for an end to Israel’s bombardment and welcome any reprieve, but we do not trust Israel and we do not trust Donald Trump.”
The statement, reflecting a sentiment echoed at rallies, added, “Previous ceasefires were broken by Israel and the genocide has continued apace.” The claims of genocide are vehemently denied by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government.
Sydney Standoff: A Legal Victory and a Movement’s Pivot
The most significant friction point emerged in Sydney, where the planned protest was thrust into a legal battle. The New South Wales Supreme Court issued a prohibition order, blocking the rally from proceeding at its intended destination, the Sydney Opera House, concluding the event presented “extreme” safety risks.
The ruling set the stage for a tense confrontation, but the Palestine Action Group (PAG), which is leading the demonstrations, responded not with cancellation, but with adaptation. Defiantly stating their movement would “not be stopped,” the PAG arranged a new, familiar route from Hyde Park to Belmore Park—a path worn over two years of recurring protests since the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war on October 7, 2023.
NSW Police Assistant Commissioner Peter McKenna struck a balance between facilitation and enforcement. He confirmed police supported the new route, stating, “We will facilitate that march and it is our job to keep people safe on Sunday.”
His words, however, were coupled with a stark warning. He made it clear that assembling at the Opera House was now illegal. “I don’t expect people to attend the Opera House, but if people are silly enough to and want to flout the law or break the law, action will be taken,” Commissioner McKenna stated, underscoring the thin blue line between enabling protest and enforcing court orders.
The successful execution of the alternative march, without significant incident, demonstrated a movement capable of navigating legal constraints without diminishing its public presence—a sign that the national debate over Palestine is set to continue, both in the streets and in the courtrooms. – gawcam
‘Disaster Written All Over It’: Police and Protesters Clash in Court Over High-Stakes Opera House March
The fate of a major pro-Palestine protest at one of Australia’s most iconic landmarks now rests with the NSW Court of Appeal, after a senior police officer testified that a planned march to the Sydney Opera House has “disaster written all over it,” citing “significant” and unprecedented safety risks.
The legal battle, pitting NSW Police against representatives from the Palestine Action Group (PAG) and Jews Against Occupation, reached a fever pitch this week, with the court forced to weigh the fundamental right to protest against grave concerns of public safety and crowd control.
At the heart of the dispute is a proposed march this Sunday, intended to mark two years since the October 7 attacks and call for “an end to genocide in Gaza.” The PAG’s plan to divert from its usual route to the Opera House forecourt was knocked back by police on Friday, setting the stage for a urgent legal showdown.
A Clash of Imperatives: Safety vs. Symbolism
In a tense courtroom, Assistant Commissioner Peter McKenna laid out a stark vision of the potential catastrophe. His primary concern: how a crowd of 40,000 expected participants—a number he suggested could be higher—would safely navigate the confined space of the Opera House forecourt without risk of a deadly crowd crush.
“We are not anti-protest,” McKenna asserted, noting police have facilitated over 100 protests for this group in the last two years. “All the altruism in the world does not assist when we have a physical situation where we believe the numbers are far too excessive to keep people safe.”
He dismissed suggestions from PAG’s barrister, Felicity Graham, that police could stagger the crowd’s departure from Hyde Park, stating such measures were feasible for 10,000 people, but not for a crowd potentially ten times that size. “You’re talking significant resources, which I don’t have,” he told the court.
The security concerns were further amplified by the Opera House’s own bylaws, which allow for searches, including X-ray equipment. McKenna said he would advise such screenings, citing the iconic site’s symbolic value and the current threat environment. “There are people… who would love an opportunity to do some things at that location because of the media interest,” he cautioned.
“No Major Event is Risk Free”
The judiciary expressed its own deep-seated reservations. Chief Justice Andrew Bell, one of three judges overseeing the case, voiced concern about protesters finishing their march in what he pointedly called a “cul-de-sac,” implicitly questioning the feasibility of a safe exit.
In a moment of high drama, Justice Bell directly raised the spectre of a “Hillsborough-type tragedy,” referencing the 1989 UK football stadium disaster that claimed 97 lives.
In response, Felicity Graham for the PAG acknowledged that “no major event is risk free,” but argued that the protest could be managed through “cooperation, common sense and … the good will of participants.” She outlined a plan involving three exit points and the possibility of staggering arrivals to limit the forecourt crowd to around 6,000 at a time.
Ultimately, Graham urged the court to look beyond logistics and consider the profound moral imperative driving the protest. She asked the judges to “weigh all the factors, including the overwhelming factor of trying to stop a genocide,” framing the event as “critical to our democracy” deserving of “maximum facilitation.”
As the legal arguments concluded, the court was left with an unenviable task: to adjudicate between the uncompromising demands of public safety and the powerful, symbolic cry for a protest at the nation’s most celebrated stage. Its decision will set a pivotal precedent for the limits of public assembly in an age of heightened global conflict and civic unrest.
Courtroom Cliffhanger: Sydney Braces for Unauthorised Protest as Opera House March Ruling Looms
The New South Wales Court of Appeal has been thrust into the epicentre of a global conflict, tasked with a Solomon-like judgment that pits the absolute right to protest against profound community safety and sectarian fears. After a tense hearing, the court has reserved its decision on whether a major pro-Palestine march can proceed to the Sydney Opera House, with a ruling set for Thursday morning that could determine the course of a weekend protest with national implications.
The legal battle reached a critical juncture as the court grappled not only with logistics but with the very definition of justice, even briefly entertaining—before ultimately sidestepping—a request to make a formal finding of genocide in Gaza.
The hearing took a dramatic turn when Chief Justice Andrew Bell directly asked Palestine Action Group (PAG) barrister Felicity Graham if the protest would proceed regardless of the court’s ruling. Graham’s response—”It’s unpredictable”—hangs over the city as a stark warning, suggesting the potential for unauthorised demonstrations.
This uncertainty carries significant legal weight. If the court issues a “prohibition order,” those who attend an unauthorised march will be stripped of legal immunity from prosecution for offences under the Summary Offences Act, such as obstructing traffic. This sets the stage for a potential high-stakes confrontation between police and protesters on the streets of Sydney.
In a bold legal strategy, the PAG’s case initially sought to anchor itself in international law. The group submitted an affidavit from Chris Sidoti, one of Australia’s most eminent international legal experts and a member of a UN commission of inquiry, stating that Israel’s conduct in Gaza amounts to genocide—a finding echoed in a recent UN report that Israel has vehemently rejected.
PAG barrister Felicity Graham had asked the court to make a finding, “on the balance of probabilities,” that a genocide is occurring. This move was swiftly opposed by police counsel James Emmett SC, who argued the court “neither can nor should” make such a determination. The panel of judges indicated it would decline the request due to the urgency and specific scope of the application, though it acknowledged the evidence as reflective of the protesters’ beliefs.
The court also heard powerful submissions representing the profound anxiety within the Australian Jewish community. Barrister Vanessa Whittaker, for the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, argued that the protest’s timing—near the second anniversary of the October 7 attacks—and its iconic location would inflict “further fear of antisemitism, which includes violence, and further distress.”
“The affront is that in reality, in the modern age, in a modern democracy, it is impossible for the Jewish community … to be oblivious to the consequences, the attention and the heat … generated by this kind of protest,” Whittaker told the court, framing the event as more than a logistical challenge, but a deep communal wound.
As the judges retire to consider their verdict, they weigh more than just crowd capacity and exit routes. Their decision, due at 9.30 am Thursday, will be a defining moment, balancing the scales between the fervent demand for a political voice, the immutable duty of public safety, and the palpable fear of a community caught in the crossfire of a distant war. All of Sydney now waits to see if the weekend will be marked by a sanctioned rally or a prohibited, and potentially volatile, act of defiance.