Lawyers argue preacher Wissam Haddad's lectures were 'humiliating' and 'offensive' to Jews
The Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) took Wissam Haddad to the Federal Court over a series of lectures delivered at the Al Madina Dawah Centre in Bankstown in November 2023.
Mr Haddad denies he breached anti-discrimination laws and will argue in part that the speeches were based on religious text.
On the opening day of the four-day hearing, Peter Braham SC, representing the council, told the court the speeches attributed negative characteristics to Jewish people and encouraged the audience to hold those views.
Mr Braham said the aim was to inform the audience about Jews "as a people" using stories from the time of the prophet, and make "a general point about race".
He told Justice Angus Stewart the intent was to "persuade an audience that the Jewish people have certain immutable and eternal characteristics that cause them to come in conflict with Muslims" and to "be the objects of contempt and hatred".
"It's that exercise that's so dangerous," Mr Braham said.
"It's threatening, it's humiliating and it's offensive. It's calculated to denigrate all Jewish people, including the Australian Jews for whom we appear.
"It involved repeating a large range of offensive tropes about Jews; they're mischievous, they're a vile people, that they're treacherous, and that they control the media and banks et cetera."
Mr Haddad is expected to give evidence and be cross-examined during the proceedings.
Counsel for Mr Haddad, Andrew Boe, said this was not a case about antisemitism and it will be resolved by "sober, objective analysis".
Mr Boe said the court should not form a view about the merits or otherwise of the religious views expressed by Mr Haddad, or their theological foundations.
Mr Boe said in a democratic society, there must be room for "the confronting, the challenging, even the shocking".
He said it was important in these types of cases for courts to take a "rigorous and detached approach" to applying the Racial Discrimination Act.
That approach must maintain the "intended balance between, on the one hand, proscribing racially motivated behaviour that may be harmful in the Australian community, and on the other hand, preserving the freedoms of speech and religion that are so essential to the continued existence of a free democracy".
The ECAJ asked the court for orders that there was a contravention of the law and an order requiring videos of the speeches to be removed online.
It has also requested the court make an order prohibiting Mr Haddad and the centre from participating in similar conduct in the future.
In defence documents, Mr Haddad argued the speeches were derived in substance from the text of the Koran and Hadith — reports believed by Muslims to be the words of Mohammed, his family and companions.
He said some contained direct and allegorical references to that material, together with "political commentary on the Gaza war".
Mr Haddad's lawyers denied there was any breach of the Racial Discrimination Act and said the speeches were directed only at practising Muslims.
They further argued the centre was not a public place because members of the public do not have access to it as a right — its attendees must be either Muslim or permitted by a member of its committee.
Mr Haddad's legal team says that if the court does find there was a contravention of the law, then that section of the Racial Discrimination Act is unconstitutional because it would be prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
23 minutes ago
- ABC News
The inching steps that paved the way for Australia to recognise Palestinian state
For decades, Australian politicians from both sides of the aisle have remained united on the need for a two-state solution in the Middle East. Under that blanket of agreed position, years passed without either side formally moving to recognise Palestinian statehood, despite the end goal entailing two sovereign nations. Australia, as the government has repeatedly noted, is not a major player in the conflict between Israel and Hamas. But a decision by Australia to recognise Palestinian statehood still carries weight, especially when made in tandem with other Western nations. Which is exactly what happened on Monday, when after much-anticipation the Albanese government pledged to recognise a Palestinian state within months, breaking with the long-held bipartisan position. "We can't keep waiting for the end of a peace process that has ground to a halt," Foreign Minister Penny Wong said. "We made clear we would recognise Palestine when it would best contribute momentum to peace. September is that time." The road to this moment has been decades in the making and paved with incremental shifts, even after the war that began almost two years ago added a new urgency to the discussions. But when France, the United Kingdom and Canada announced they would recognise Palestine weeks earlier, suddenly Australia's own imminent declaration appeared all but inevitable. Over the course of months, spurred by a war without an end in sight, here's how Australia came up with an answer to the 77-year-old question of a Palestinian state. Terror group Hamas launched its surprise assault on Israel. More than 1,200 were killed in the attack, and another 250 taken hostage, some of whom are still being held in Gaza. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu immediately declared his country was at war, launching air strikes into the territory. In the initial aftermath, the Albanese government repeatedly noted that Israel had a right to defend itself against Hamas. "Of course people are worried about escalation, but Israel has a right to defend itself and it will be doing so," Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said on October 8. "This is an attack on Israel by Hamas that has no precedent for what is occurring here." After two months of conflict in Gaza, Mr Albanese urged the world not to "abandon hope" for a two-state solution involving sovereign Palestinian and Israeli nations. But in the speech delivered for the Lowy Institute in Sydney, he also reiterated that every nation had the right to "be secure in its own borders and to determine its own future". "None of us should abandon hope in the ultimate goal: a two-state solution, with Israelis and Palestinians living securely and prosperously within internationally recognised borders," he said. The first signs of a shift came when Senator Wong told a conference at the Australian National University that recognition of a Palestinian state could help build "momentum towards a two-state solution" — the government's stated end goal. The comment suggested the government was not thinking about recognition as a result of that process, but a step along the way. "We are now 30 years on from the Oslo Accords that put Palestinian statehood at the end of a process," she said. "The failures of this approach by all parties over decades — as well as the Netanyahu government's refusal to even engage on the question of a Palestinian state — have caused widespread frustration. "There are always those who claim recognition is rewarding an enemy. This is wrong. "First, because Israel's own security depends on a two-state solution. There is no long-term security for Israel unless it is recognised by the countries of its region." The day after she delivered the speech, Senator Wong made clear for the first time that Australia recognising Palestinian statehood was a matter of when, not if — a line government ministers repeatedly wheeled out more than a year later as momentum grew. "Australia does support a two-state solution. It's not a question of if we will recognise a Palestine state, it is a question of when," she told the ABC. The interview took place hours before a United Nations General Assembly meeting, at which Australia voted with 143 other nations in support of a resolution to expand the rights and privileges afforded to the Palestinian delegation. Nine countries voted against it, including the United States and Israel. It did not, however, grant them full membership of the international organisation. While there is a Palestinian ambassador to the United nations, they are considered an "observer". Following the vote, the foreign minister clarified to reporters that Australia could recognise Palestinian statehood before a formal peace process between Palestinian authorities and Israel was complete, but did not give a hint of the timeline. "We will do that when we think the time is right," she said. "What we would say, and what I do say, is Australia no longer believes that recognition can only come at the end of a peace process. "It could occur as part of a peace process." She also stressed the vote was "not about whether Australia recognises Palestine" as its own state. Australia voted in favour of a draft United Nations resolution to recognise Palestinian "permanent sovereignty" over the natural resources in their occupied territories, again breaking ranks with the United States and Israel. A total of 159 countries voted in favour of the draft resolution, including Australia, the United Kingdon, New Zealand, France, Germany and Japan. It called on the United Nations to recognise "permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources". It also demanded Israel stop destroying infrastructure, such as water, sewage pipelines and electricity networks, and to stop confiscating Palestinian homes and farms. Australia joined with 27 other countries to sign a joint statement demanding Israel lift restrictions on aid entering Gaza and an immediate end to the war. The statement — signed by Britain, France, Italy, Japan, Canada, Denmark and others — criticised what it called the "inhumane killing" of Palestinians and condemned the "drip feeding of aid". It came amid a growing flood of media coverage showing emancipated Gazans, with a slew of human rights and aid organisations warning of mass starvation in the strip. "We are prepared to take further action to support an immediate ceasefire and a political pathway to security and peace for Israelis, Palestinians and the entire region," the statement read. President Emmanuel Macron announced France will recognise Palestinian statehood at a United Nations meeting in September, becoming the first G7 nation to make the pledge. It is also a permanent member of the powerful United Nations Security Council, and what the Australian government would call a like-minded nation. "The urgent thing today is that the war in Gaza stops and the civilian population is saved,″ he said. Mr Macron's announcement began a fresh wave of momentum, with other key Australian allies joining France in the following days. Just days after France's decision, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese told ABC's Insiders that the government did not plan to recognise a Palestinian state "imminently". He instead used the appearance to accuse Israel of "quite clearly" breaching international law by withholding aid from civilians in Gaza. On Palestinian recognition, Mr Albanese said he was open to doing so if there were appropriate guarantees about the viability of such a state, stressing that Australia would not do so as a "gesture". "You need to recognise a Palestinian state as part of moving forward. How do you exclude Hamas from any involvement there? How do you ensure that a Palestinian state operates in an appropriate way which does not threaten the existence of Israel? And so we won't do any decision as a gesture, we will do it as a way forward if the circumstances are met," he said. With growing pressure on the government to outline its own timeline for recognition, Australia issued another joint statement with 14 countries that welcomed a series of previous commitments by the Palestinian Authority. They included the authority's calls in June for Hamas to disarm and release the Israeli hostages and its undertaking to hold fresh elections within a year — conditions for recognition the Australian government had previously identified. Mr Albanese said the assurances were "a very significant step forward", but once again remained coy on when they would move on recognition. "The timeline is not what we're looking at. What we're looking at is the circumstances where recognition will advance the objective of the creation of the two states," he said. "That's my objective. Not making a statement, not winning a political point, but achieving that." The statement came as the United Kingdom's Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer revealed his country would join France in recognising a Palestinian state at the September United Nations meeting unless Israel took significant steps to end the war in Gaza. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney revealed his country planned to recognise Palestine at the same meeting, putting him in lockstep with France and the United Kingdom. Mr Carney said the decision was predicated on the Palestinian Authority's commitment to reforms, including that it would hold an election in 2026 in which Hamas could play no part. "The deepening suffering of civilians leaves no room for delaying coordinated international action to support peace, security and the dignity of human life," he said. In an interview with ABC's Afternoon Briefing, Foreign Minister Penny Wong appeared to leave the door open for Australia to join with its allies and recognise a Palestinian state in September. She repeated the government's line that such a decision had become a "matter of when, not if" while acknowledging a number of international developments, including the Arab League nations' unprecedented step to call on Hamas to disarm and relinquish power in Gaza. Mr Albanese spoke with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas for the first time since the weeks after the Hamas terror attack on Israel. The Palestinian Authority exercises partial control over the occupied West Bank and also governed Gaza until Hamas swept to power in a 2006 election. According to a government-issued statement, Mr Abbas told the prime minister that Australia could play an "important role" in achieving peace by recognising a Palestinian state. Earlier the same day, Senator Wong ramped up her language in an interview with the ABC, warning there would be "no Palestine left to recognise" if the international community didn't move soon. Days earlier it was also revealed that Mr Albanese had spoken to United Nations' Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and had sought a conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which was later confirmed to be held on August 7. Foreign Minister Penny Wong joined with her counterparts in Germany, Italy, New Zealand and the United Kingdom to reject Israel's plan to take over Gaza City. The joint statement warned that the move would "risk violating international and humanitarian law". "It will aggravate the catastrophic humanitarian situation, endanger the lives of the hostages, and further risk the mass displacement of civilians," it read. Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke flagged that there is precedent for recognising countries occupied by terrorist forces during an interview with Sky News, while maintaining that Hamas can play no role in a future Palestinian state. "There have frequently been countries where part of that nation has been occupied by a terrorist group and we haven't ceased to recognise the country," he said. Mr Albanese and Senator Wong announced Australia's plan to recognise Palestinian statehood at the upcoming United Nations meeting, ending weeks of speculation. At a media conference at Parliament House, the prime minister said the decision to support Palestinians having "a state of their own" was made as part of a "coordinated global effort building momentum for a two-state solution". It was also predicated on commitments the Palestinian Authority had made, including that Hamas have no role in the state and that general elections are held. "The international community's vision for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East always encompassed two states — living side-by-side with internationally recognised borders," Mr Albanese said. "I understand that on this issue, history casts a long shadow. Every generation has known failures and false dawns. Yet, the story of this struggle is also one of opportunities not taken. "That is where the risk of trying is nothing compared to the danger of letting this moment pass us by."
News.com.au
23 minutes ago
- News.com.au
Radicalisation of youth and violent emerging ideologies spur independent review into definition of terrorist act
The increasing radicalisation of young people and 'hate-based violent' acts committed by perpetrators influenced by mixed ideologies, such as the woman-hating incel movement, have spurred a review into the definition of a terrorist act. The 'timely' probe, the first since the definition was instituted after September 11, will be conducted by the government's independent National Security Legislation Monitor, and is set to be launched in Canberra on Monday. While Australia's legislation was first created in response to the 2001 attacks in the US and the threat of 'major mass-casualty events' organised by the likes of al-Qa'ida, the issues paper notes the threat is now posed by 'young, lone actors with basic weapons who are pursuing grievances fuelled by a mix of ideologies'. Quoting ASIO director-general Mike Burgess, the report noted Australia's top spy chief's anxieties that a 'generation of digital natives' will 'enter a vulnerable age for radicalisation' inflamed by 'AI-fuelled algorithms'. The features will 'make it easier for extremist material to find vulnerable adolescent minds that are searching for meaning and connection'. The review will also look into whether the definition of an ideological driver for a terrorist act should be sharpened to capture emerging violent threats, 'such as the 'incel' movement'. This would also help authorities avoid 'focusing only on 'traditional' motives such as al-Qa'ida-inspired extremism'. As it stands, a terrorist act under the Criminal Code needs to be done with the intention (a terrorist purpose) to coerce or influence either the Australian or foreign government through intimidation, or be done to intimidate the public or a group. It also requires a terrorist motive, like the intent to advance a political, religious or ideological cause. An act of terrorism also only applies to specific harm, which includes death or endangering life, causing serious physical harm or damage to property, or creating a serious risk to health and safety. Cyber attacks, or the serious interference, destruction or disruption of an electronic system. The number of laws which rely on the definition of a terrorist act has also expanded from 20 offences and three specific powers, to now more than 300 Commonwealth, state and territory laws, offences, obligations and powers 'that rely on his definition'. The increased prevalence of extreme ideologies was one of the reasons Mr Burgess increased Australia's terror threat level from probable to possible in August 2024. The report added that a 'diversity of ideologies and other drivers of violent attacks has also reportedly increased,' with conspiracy-fuelled extremism often 'reinforced through online interactions with like-minded individuals'. 'With no agreed definition of what constitutes an ideology and how 'mixed motives' should be treated, there may be some uncertainty as to how law enforcement agencies should respond to certain violence,' it said. 'That is, should they respond using special terrorism powers and offences or using general law enforcement powers and criminal offences or in some other way. 'Hypothetical examples of 'mixed motive' violence include a man with a history of engaging in family and domestic violence and downloading 'incel' material who kills a number of women, including family members.' Attorney-General Michelle Rowland said the threat of terrorism in Australia and in Australian interests was 'evolving', acknowledging comments from Mr Burgess who has said the security environment was 'more volatile and unpredictable than ever before'. However, she said 'extremism thrives where division festers' and said the government would remain 'vigilant, principled and united' against hate. 'We know that the best way to prevent radicalisation is to ensure that all Australians – regardless of background, faith or belief – feel heard, valued and protected,' she said. 'That is why partnerships with communities, education programs and early intervention initiatives are an essential part of our national Counter-Terrorism and Violent Extremism Strategy released earlier this year.' Ms Rowland attended the launch of the review alongside UN Special Rapporteur Ben Saul and Law Council president Juliana Warner. Also present at the launch were victims of terror including Louise Hope, a survivor of Sydney's Lindt Cafe siege in 2014, and Alpha Cheng, whose father Curtis, an accountant for NSW Police, was killed by a 15-year-old boy in 2015.
West Australian
an hour ago
- West Australian
Free ride could soon be over for EV owners as the Australian Government eyes national road-user charge
The free ride could soon be over for electric vehicle owners with the Australian Government confirming it's eyeing a national road-user charge. As petrol and diesel cars disappear from the roads, senior Labor ministers admit it's 'no secret' EV drivers may soon face new fees to help pay for Australia's crumbling infrastructure amid speculation it's on the agenda at next week's economic reform roundtable. Tanya Plibersek said the measure was being considered as declining numbers of petrol and diesel vehicles eroded Australia's fuel excise revenue — a major source of road funding. 'It's no secret that as the number of petrol vehicles and diesel vehicles goes down, the take from fuel excise decreases. That means less money for building and maintaining roads. So, the States and Territories have been looking at this for some time,' she said. She stressed any charge 'wouldn't be happening tomorrow' but said it was important to consider long-term measures to secure road funding. 'I'm sure the Treasurer will be very interested in the discussion,' she said. Fellow frontbencher Murray Watt downplayed the discussions. 'It's no secret that we've said previously we'll work with the states and territories on this matter,' Watt said. Senator Watt said it was too 'premature' to say when the charge would be enforced: 'I wouldn't want to jump ahead of any sort of decision-making with that'. 'You'd be aware that there was a High Court decision which really raised this issue front and centre and ever since then, we've been working with the states and territories,' he added. Victoria had tried to implement a State-based road-user charge in 2021 but the proposal was struck down in 2023 by the High Court of Australia. Identifying that it needs to be introduced at a Federal level the Albanese Government is working on a scheme of its own. Federal Labor support for the charge came as Treasurer Jim Chalmers attended an Infrastructure Partnerships Australia-hosted road-user charging forum alongside industry members and public servants in Sydney on Monday. IPA chief executive Adrian Dwyer told the ABC momentum was growing to introduce a distance-based charge for EV owners and said it would have little impact on EV adoption. Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce said he supported EV drivers paying their fair share. 'They definitely should, 100 per cent they should,' Mr Joyce said. Mr Joyce said current system unfairly benefitted city drivers who were less likely to use combustion-powered vehicles than those in the regions. 'I have a sense there's a lot of EVs in Tanya's electorate. We out here are overwhelmingly combustion engines because… it's different terrain and we feel that we're paying the excise that other people in the inner city are getting away with,' he said. Opposition leader Sussan Ley accused the Albanese Government of convening the three-day roundtable next week to 'work out how they can levy more taxes on Australians' using the EV charge as an example. 'They're getting ready for their productivity roundtable. It's three days of working out how they can levy more taxes on Australians. We're watching them closely,' she told 4GB radio on Monday. Roads Australia chief executive Ehssan Veiszadeh was among guests at the Sydney forum and welcomed the charge, saying there needed to be a fair, transparent and future-ready fee system. 'Fuel excise revenue is in terminal decline. Without reform, we risk a future where our roads are underfunded, unsafe, and unable to support the demands of a growing population,' Mr Veiszadeh said. 'We're not just talking about replacing a tax — we're talking about rebuilding equity in how we fund the roads Australians rely on every day,' Mr Veiszadeh said. Australian Automobile Association managing director Michael Bradley was also in attendance. Other nations, including New Zealand, have already implemented all road user charge.
