MediaLand Special: Lattouf wins ABC case
In a MediaLand special we dissect the ruling for Antoinette Latouff in her case against the ABC this morning.
This morning, the judgement in the case of Antoinette Lattouf vs the Australian Broadcasting Corporation was handed down in the Federal Court of Australia.
Justice Darryl Rangiah ruled that Australian Broadcasting Corporation contravened the Fair Work Act by terminating the employment of the applicant, Antoinette Lattouf, for reasons including that she held a political opinion opposing the Israeli military campaign in Gaza.
Her lawyers had also argued that her national extraction and race had played a role in her termination, however Justice Rangiah ruled the executives involved were not motivated by these factors.
The ABC consistently denied she was unlawfully terminated during the hearing process.
The judge ruled that the ABC must pay Ms Lattouf compensation of $70,000. He also ruled that a further hearing will take place in the future to decide on pecuniary compensation.
Guests: Michael Bradley, Director of Marque Law and media commentator
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
West Australian
an hour ago
- West Australian
Political opinion puzzle after ex-ABC host's court win
A decision awarding $70,000 in damages to an ABC radio host fired for her views on Gaza has been seen as "groundbreaking" but raises further questions about what can be claimed as a political opinion. Antoinette Lattouf was dismissed three days into a five-day casual radio shift due to a co-ordinated campaign of complaints from pro-Israel lobbyists. The 41-year-old shared a Human Rights Watch post saying Israel was using starvation as a "weapon of war" in Gaza before she was terminated. Justice Darryl Rangiah found the ABC had unlawfully fired her for holding a political opinion. The decision was "groundbreaking" and gave clarity to employers about political opinions expressed by employees off-duty, Associate Professor of Law Giuseppe Carabetta told AAP. There were still questions which remained however, he said, pointing to comments he had received that the judgment would help someone get away with hate speech. "I don't think the decision means that at all," he said. "But we still don't know how far political opinion will go. That's the unknown." The decision has led to one legal not-for-profit calling for clarity with a national human rights act. "(This litigation) draws attention to the current lack of a constitutional right to freedom of speech in Australia," said Australian Lawyers Alliance spokesperson Greg Barns SC. "A federal human rights act would ensure that those who wield power such as employers are subject to a code of conduct that would prevent them from exercising this power in a way that infringes upon people's rights." Justice Rangiah is yet to determine whether the ABC will pay a penalty or Lattouf's legal costs. On Wednesday, the organisation's managing director Hugh Marks admitted on ABC News that more than $1 million spent defending the case was not a good use of taxpayer money.
Perth Now
an hour ago
- Perth Now
Political opinion puzzle after ex-ABC host's court win
A decision awarding $70,000 in damages to an ABC radio host fired for her views on Gaza has been seen as "groundbreaking" but raises further questions about what can be claimed as a political opinion. Antoinette Lattouf was dismissed three days into a five-day casual radio shift due to a co-ordinated campaign of complaints from pro-Israel lobbyists. The 41-year-old shared a Human Rights Watch post saying Israel was using starvation as a "weapon of war" in Gaza before she was terminated. Justice Darryl Rangiah found the ABC had unlawfully fired her for holding a political opinion. The decision was "groundbreaking" and gave clarity to employers about political opinions expressed by employees off-duty, Associate Professor of Law Giuseppe Carabetta told AAP. There were still questions which remained however, he said, pointing to comments he had received that the judgment would help someone get away with hate speech. "I don't think the decision means that at all," he said. "But we still don't know how far political opinion will go. That's the unknown." The decision has led to one legal not-for-profit calling for clarity with a national human rights act. "(This litigation) draws attention to the current lack of a constitutional right to freedom of speech in Australia," said Australian Lawyers Alliance spokesperson Greg Barns SC. "A federal human rights act would ensure that those who wield power such as employers are subject to a code of conduct that would prevent them from exercising this power in a way that infringes upon people's rights." Justice Rangiah is yet to determine whether the ABC will pay a penalty or Lattouf's legal costs. On Wednesday, the organisation's managing director Hugh Marks admitted on ABC News that more than $1 million spent defending the case was not a good use of taxpayer money.
News.com.au
8 hours ago
- News.com.au
NSW Teachers Federation urges educators to use ‘gender-neutral' terms in the classroom
The NSW Teachers Federation union has called for 'gender-neutral' greetings in classrooms in a push for schools to become more 'inclusive'. The quarterly magazine article released by the union has angered some educators and suggests using the terms 'epic and awesome humans' instead of 'boys and girls', to avoid gendered language. 'While most teachers have moved away from saying phrases like 'Okay boys and girls', there are times when we may, accidentally, be addressing whole classes or groups using gendered language,' the Journal of the NSW Teachers Federation wrote. Speaking to Sky News, Colleen Harkin, Institute of Public Affairs Schools Program Director and Research Fellow, said the attempt at inclusivity is 'nothing but virtue signalling'. 'Parents would rightfully be appalled at this latest attempt to jam even more woke activism into classrooms,' Ms Harkin said. 'As a former teacher myself, my students would have rightfully laughed me out of the room had I attempted to call them 'epic and awesome humans'. It's a dehumanising pursuit of ideological conformity that denies biological reality.' The article also includes 'subject specific' terms. It suggests music students referred to as composers and maths students as 'mathematicians, critical thinkers or problem solvers'. There are also 'empowering' terms including 'experts, intellectuals, learners, future leaders, change makers and 'superstars'. The article suggests English students are referred to as 'readers, writers, actors, playwrights and poets'. Some teachers wrote into 2GB radio station with concerns. 'Words such as 'experts' and 'intellectuals' have a clear definition and meaning in society,' one teacher said. 'We're now expected to categorise students in Year 9 woodworking class, with the ranks of intellectuals.'
