Fear and Self-Censorship in Pro-Palestine Rallies

== Fear and Self-Censorship in Pro-Palestine Rallies ==

''The limits of truth-telling in Australian polite society''

On 18 February 2025, a rally was held in response to the NSW Department of Education banning the keffiyeh for students and staff. The ban was framed as a measure to avoid "divisiveness," reinforcing the idea that Palestinian visibility itself is a political threat. The rally, which should have been an opportunity to highlight the broader oppression of Palestinian children, instead exemplified the self-censorship that colonial societies impose even on their opposition.

Many of the speakers avoided the most direct and undeniable truths about Israel's crimes against Palestinian children. No speaker mentioned that Israel is one of the biggest murderers of children in 2024. No speaker mentioned the systematic rape of Palestinian children by Israeli forces. No speaker mentioned the Palestinian children who have had their limbs blown off or the child killed after a so-called ceasefire. These are not peripheral issues—they are at the heart of the struggle—but they were absent from the rally’s messaging.

The Role of Politeness in Colonial Control[edit | edit source]

Colonial societies do not only enforce their power through law or police violence; they do so through the social expectation of "politeness." In Australia, this politeness dictates that even radical movements must moderate themselves to remain "respectable." Directly confronting the crimes of Israel—especially those that invoke visceral horror—violates this unspoken rule. The colonial state does not need to suppress these conversations outright because activists, fearing backlash, will suppress them themselves.

The Structural Pressures on Speakers[edit | edit source]

Many speakers at the rally held prominent positions in academia, unions, NGOs, or other institutional spaces tied to the colonial system. Their visibility and professional status make them especially vulnerable to what can be called career blackmail—the unspoken but very real threat of job loss, reputational damage, and funding cuts if they step too far outside acceptable discourse.

These pressures do not always come in the form of direct censorship. Instead, individuals preemptively moderate their speech, knowing that there are invisible but firm boundaries they cannot cross. This is why, even at a rally specifically about children, no speaker was willing to say that Israel is systematically murdering, raping, and mutilating Palestinian children.

How Career Blackmail Shapes the Movement[edit | edit source]

The people most likely to be given platforms are also those who have the most to lose. Meanwhile, those who are less constrained—those not tied to colonial institutions—are less likely to be invited to speak at all. This creates a movement where public messaging is dictated not by those who can tell the harshest truths, but by those who must carefully navigate the boundaries of respectability.

By ensuring that the most visible voices in a movement are also the ones most constrained by professional and social risk, the colonial system sets the terms of acceptable debate without ever having to formally intervene. The result is that even within supposedly radical spaces, discourse remains limited by the rules of colonial politeness.

Why the Crowd Accepts It[edit | edit source]

The effect of these constraints extends beyond the speakers to the audience itself. Many in the crowd likely recognized the omissions but did not challenge them, because colonial society has trained people to accept these limitations as normal. When someone disrupts this pattern—by pointing out what is missing—they are often met with discomfort or hostility. The expectation is that activism should always remain within the limits of what is deemed "reasonable," even if those limits prevent a full accounting of the truth.

The Bigger Picture[edit | edit source]

This is not just about one rally—it is about how colonial power dictates the boundaries of resistance. It ensures that the people most capable of speaking are also the ones who are most vulnerable to consequences, and in doing so, it keeps even radical movements within the realm of acceptable dissent.

Until movements actively prioritize voices that do not answer to colonial institutions, they will continue to be shaped by the invisible chains of career blackmail and polite society’s limits on truth-telling. The question is not whether we have the facts on our side—the question is whether we are willing to say them, even when the rules of colonial discourse forbid it.