How did John Farnham, Australia\u2019s perennial pop sweetheart, find one of his most popular songs unexpectedly implicated in current debates over hate speech legislation?<\/p>\n
It began when Queensland artist James Hillier \u2014 also known as \u201cNordacious\u201d \u2014 created a series of artworks. One depicted\u00a0the arrest of 18-year-old woman<\/a> who was wearing a singlet with a recently banned phrase printed on it during a protest in Brisbane. The woman at the centre of\u00a0the artwork<\/a> is flanked by two large policeman who have hold of her arms. (She was subsequently released without charge.)<\/p>\n A second artwork depicted Queensland Premier David Crisafulli wearing a blue tie with the Star of David on it, pointing at a state map and saying: \u201cfrom Brisbane River, to Moreton Bay: I\u2019ll decide what you can say\u201d.<\/p>\n The third work shows Farnham\u2019s smiling face and glorious eighties bouffant, along with slices of watermelon and the words \u201cRiver to the Sea\u201d \u2014 a line from his 1988 chart-topping song \u201cTwo Strong Hearts\u201d:<\/p>\n We\u2019ve got two strong hearts<\/p>\n We stick together like the honey and the bee<\/p>\n You and me<\/p>\n We\u2019ve got two strong hearts<\/p>\n Reaching out forever like a river to the sea<\/p>\n Running free.<\/p>\n Two weeks after Queensland passed legislation\u00a0outlawing use of the phrases \u201cfrom the river to the sea\u201d and \u201cglobalise the intifada\u201d<\/a> in certain contexts, Hillier said the police got in touch him. They were following up on\u00a0a complaint they had received<\/a> about the use of a banned expression.<\/p>\n The legal basis of these actions<\/p>\n Queensland\u2019s Fighting Antisemitism and Keeping Guns out of the Hands of Terrorists and Criminals Amendment Act 2026<\/a> amends the Criminal Code to make it an offence to publicly recite, distribute, publish or display a \u201cprohibited expression\u201d in a way that \u201cmight reasonably be expected to cause a member of the public to feel menaced, harassed or offended\u201d. The penalty for this offence is a fine or two years imprisonment. The only two expressions that are specified in the legislation are \u201cfrom the river to the sea\u201d and \u201cglobalise the intifada\u201d \u2014 slogans frequently used by pro-Palestinian protesters.<\/p>\n The offence provision does create a \u201creasonable excuse\u201d defence . It provides that a person can argue that they used the phrases for \u201ca genuine artistic, religious, educational, historical, legal or law enforcement purpose\u201d. At the same time, the \u201cevidential burden is placed on the defendant\u201d to show that such a \u201creasonable excuse\u201d applies.<\/p>\n This is why banning these phrases is deemed so controversial: the legislation is focused on slogans that are political in nature \u2014 it is what lawyers call \u201ccontent specific\u201d rather than setting out general laws prohibiting hate speech. Concerns along these lines were voiced in\u00a0submissions<\/a> made by academics and civil society advocates to the Queensland Parliament\u2019s Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee. Many of these submissions expressed apprehension about banning slogans that have such\u00a0contested meanings<\/a>: some groups understand the slogans as emancipatory calls for resistance, while others experience them as expressions of hate.<\/p>\n The effects on artistic freedom<\/p>\n James Hillier\u00a0said<\/a> that when police told him they were investigating a complaint involving the use of banned expressions, they did not specify which artworks they were referring to. Erring on the side of caution,\u00a0he removed the three pieces from his website<\/a> he thought were most likely to fall afoul of the legislation. It has been\u00a0reported that police are also investigating a mural in South Brisbane by Sydney-based street artist Scott Marsh, which\u00a0likewise features<\/a> John Farnham, slices of watermelon and the lyrics \u201criver to the sea\u201d. The lyrics have become the centre of a graffiti war, being painted over and reapplied repeatedly.<\/p>\n We believe these images featuring so iconic a figure as John Farnham are provocative contributions to the public debate over the expression \u201criver to the sea\u201d. As such, they are doing precisely what art is meant to do. Farnham\u2019s likeness adds a jarring, almost comedic dimension to the artwork, in the way it juxtaposes the ultimate \u201cgood bloke\u201d with a highly contentious phrase. Moreover, the use of his actual lyrics highlights how the meaning of words can change over time and the difficulty of trying to control their use. Finally, the image of Premier Crisafulli and the ironic adaptation of \u201criver to the sea\u201d as a commentary on Queensland politics (\u201cfrom Brisbane River, to Moreton Bay \u2026\u201d) is a more direct artistic intervention that frames the government\u2019s actions in an authoritarian light.<\/p>\n In our view, all three of the images Hillier removed from his website should be covered by the \u201cartistic\u201d exemption in the new laws, and the playful, intelligent manner in which they offer their critiques should be deemed valuable in a healthy democracy. But rather than contesting what should be considered legislative overreach, Hillier decided to take the images down.<\/p>\n Social cohesion or social coercion?<\/p>\n It is not surprising that this was the outcome. The prison sentence attached to charges under Queensland\u2019s laws is enough to intimidate most people. Add to this the fact that artists in Australia are, on the whole, a\u00a0precarious<\/a>,\u00a0vulnerable<\/a> group \u2014 that is, unlikely to have the time or resources to fight lengthy, costly court battles with the state \u2014 and the result is a situation where police might anticipate an easy win.<\/p>\n Hillier\u2019s decision to go to the media to describe his experience, however, has resulted in his artworks being disseminated far more widely than would otherwise have been the case. And yet this is a double-edged sword: on the one hand, the prospect of police action has assisted the spread of the artistic critique of these laws; on the other hand, it also reinforces the message that the laws are, in fact, being enforced.<\/p>\n What has happened to James Hillier and Scott Marsh demonstrates how laws like this are likely to have a broad chilling effect on free speech and artistic expression. In addition to Hillier removing his artworks and the lyrics being covered up on the mural, some media reports have been censoring their own reporting \u2014 for instance, by beeping out the supposedly offending lyrics. The uncertainty around the application of the laws, particularly until someone has the resources to challenge them in the court system, will likely lead to further self-censorship, even in instances where this may not be warranted. Will, for example, any Queensland radio station dare to play \u201cTwo Strong Hearts\u201d now, even though it is clearly not a song about Palestine? Why take the risk?<\/p>\n Want the best of Religion & Ethics delivered to your mailbox?<\/p>\n Sign up for our weekly newsletter.<\/p>\n Over the last two years, musicians have\u00a0lost work<\/a> or faced campaigns to see them\u00a0stripped of awards<\/a> for calling for an end to the suffering of Palestinians.\u00a0Galleries<\/a> have removed Palestinian works,\u00a0theatre workers<\/a> have lost commissions and\u00a0libraries<\/a> have stopped writing workshops, among many other examples. On the flip-side, there have also been campaigns\u00a0targeting venues<\/a> that put on shows by artists who are vocally supportive of Israel, and calls for Australia to join the countries boycotting this year\u2019s\u00a0Eurovision competition<\/a> over Israel\u2019s inclusion. On the whole, however, these have been grassroots campaigns, and there has been much more\u00a0state power<\/a> behind the push to\u00a0silence pro-Palestine voices<\/a>.<\/p>\n Laws that make it illegal to say specific phrases, when combined with an atmosphere of increased surveillance, new\u00a0anti-protest laws<\/a> being rolled out across the country and the passage of\u00a0federal hate-speech legislation<\/a>, are not creating an environment for healthy debate and open artistic expression. Making concerned citizens ask themselves whether speaking out about the plight of Palestinians will land them in jail is a sign that we\u2019ve moved beyond social cohesion and are approaching something closer to social coercion.<\/p>\n Will the act of silencing John Farnham be the point at which we stop to ask ourselves if we have gone too far?<\/p>\n