In what is widely regarded as one of the world’s most liberal democracies, the state of Queensland, Australia, has recently enforced legislation leading to the arrest of a pro-Palestinian demonstrator for wearing a T-shirt bearing the slogan “from the river to the sea,” a phrase widely associated with Palestinian political aspirations, though its meaning remains contested. Its application exposes a profound contradiction: the Australian federal government recognises the Palestinian State, yet the Queensland government now criminalises certain expressions of solidarity with them. The case mirrors patterns seen in other contexts, most notably Hong Kong, where slogans such as “Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of Our Times” have been treated as unlawful under national security provisions. Such enforcement highlights a troubling tension between the liberal ideals of free speech and the practical realities of political risk management, revealing how even democratic societies may suppress dissent under the guise of protecting vulnerable communities, or, in the Hong Kong case, the Chinese state itself, which asserts sovereignty over the territory in question.

This article examines how political systems that have previously exhibited liberal-democratic characteristics regulate expressions of dissent, focusing on the two slogans that have emerged in response to external domination and subsequent political constraint. While originating in distinct contexts, both slogans articulate claims to self-determination and have been subject to legal restriction. This analysis conceptualises these processes as interpretive governance of political expression, referring to the capacity of state institutions to shape and stabilise the meaning of political language through legal and security frameworks. By comparing their treatment in Hong Kong and Queensland, the analysis highlights how the interpretation of political language can shift from contested meaning to regulated expression.

Historical Background

The slogan “Liberate Hong Kong, Revolution of Our Times” has emerged as one of the most prominent expressions of Hong Kong’s demand for self-determination. First popularised by Edward Leung during the 2016 Legislative Council by-election campaign, it was later revived and widely adopted throughout the 2019 protest movement. In the aftermath of the imposition of the Hong Kong National Security Law and the subsequent exile of many Hongkongers, the slogan has continued to resonate in diaspora communities, particularly in the United Kingdom, where it is frequently heard at protest gatherings.

The slogan operates as a powerful framing device. It casts Hong Kong as a city subjected to authoritarian control while positioning the protest movement as a form of resistance against the interference of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) into Hong Kong’s affairs. The invocation of “revolution” implies not merely reform, but a fundamental restructuring of Hong Kong’s political system, specifically the establishment of democratic governance through universal suffrage (Wong 2025, 88). Crucially, the legal treatment of the slogan has not depended solely on its literal wording, but on how authorities interpret its political implications, particularly its perceived challenge to state sovereignty.

“Liberate Hong Kong” itself carries layered meanings. In its earlier usage, it reflected aspirations for self-determination through a decisive break from Chinese sovereignty or the removal of the CCP’s control over the territory. As Edward Leung articulated during his campaign, many Hongkongers came to believe that meaningful autonomy or democratic development promised under the Joint Declaration was unattainable under Chinese rule. However, the slogan has since evolved. Following the introduction of the British National (Overseas) visa pathway, “liberation” has also come to encompass freedom from fear, particularly fear of political repression under Beijing’s claimed authority over Hong Kong. As Ho (2023, 252) has noted, this pervasive sense of anxiety has shaped two parallel responses: continued resistance among those who remain, and exile among those who seek safety in the mother country.

For members of the Hong Kong diaspora, especially those resettled in the United Kingdom, the slogan retains both its political and emotional significance. While exile may provide a degree of physical security, it does not sever their attachment to a once liberal-democratic city (Iu 2025, 3). Rather, the continued use of the slogan abroad reflects an enduring identification with a stateless nation resulting from the incorporation of Hong Kong into the PRC political order and an ongoing commitment to Hong Kong’s political future.

A similar dynamic can be observed in the treatment of the phrase “from the river to the sea.” The expression refers geographically to the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, encompassing Israel and the Palestinian territories, and has been used in various forms since the mid-twentieth century within Palestinian political discourse, particularly among groups advocating for self-determination. Its meaning, however, remains highly contested. For many pro-Palestinian activists, the phrase expresses a call for equality, freedom, and rights for Palestinians across that entire area, representing a vision of liberation from occupation and displacement. At the same time, others within Jewish communities and pro-Israel perspectives interpret the slogan as implying the elimination of the State of Israel, as it appears to envision a single political space replacing the current Israeli state. Consequently, authorities in........

© E-International