Response to ACSQ Parliamentary submission: Fighting Antisemitism and Keeping Guns out of the Hands of Terrorists and Criminals Amendment Bill 2026

The Integrity of the QLD Public Square

Analyzing the 2026 Amendment Bill and the Church's Response

The recent submission by the Anglican Church Southern Queensland (ACSQ) regarding the Fighting Antisemitism and Keeping Guns out of the Hands of Terrorists and Criminals Amendment Bill 2026 highlights a growing tension in the Queensland legislative landscape. While the Church calls for "meaningful consultation," we must look deeper at the data they present—specifically the documented double standards in how QLD institutions report on religious friction.

The Symptom vs. The Source "We are dealing with symptoms while leaving and encouraging the source problem to continue and flourish."

The ACSQ submission points to a "jaw-dropping double standard" in Queensland Police Service (QPS) media statements. However, from a Western liberal perspective, this institutional confusion is a direct result of trying to force a "multi-faith" harmony onto ideologies that are fundamentally at odds. The QLD Government, led by Premier David Crisafulli and Attorney General Deb Frecklington, is attempting to navigate this by prohibiting specific expressions, yet the Church argues this burdens "political communication."

Institutional Friction in QLD The QPS media statements cited by the Church show a clear struggle to categorize "hate speech" when the foundational texts of the groups involved demand mutual exclusivity.

The QLD Legislative Rush The Bill was introduced to the QLD Parliament on Feb 10 with a mere 7-day window for submissions. This prevents any real discussion on the "Theological Literacy" required to understand these conflicts.

Beyond the Submission: A New Framework for QLD

The Church’s response focuses on "exceptionalising" one form of racism over another. But the real data point we should be looking at is the compatibility of the way of life being protected within the Australian framework.

• The Sovereignty Conflict: While the ACSQ worries about "criminalizing legitimate political expression," we must ask if slogans associated with movements that demand religious submission are compatible with the QLD community's safety and the supremacy of Australian Law.
• The Failure of Restorative Justice: The Church prefers "restorative justice" for those who disturb worship in QLD. However, restorative justice requires a shared moral baseline—something that does not exist when one party views the other as fundamentally "illegitimate" based on foundational texts.
• The UDHR Standard: Any QLD legislation must move beyond sentimentality and uphold the supremacy of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights over sectarian mandates that stand in tension with freedom of conscience.

True social cohesion in Queensland cannot be built on "nominal" peace or rushed legislation. It requires an honest admission that some ways of life are simply not compatible with the individual freedoms guaranteed by the Western tradition.