Preacher's anti-Jewish sermons put racism in spotlight

The Advertiser

19 hours ago

Increasingly racist rhetoric and contentious issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have galvanised a surge in racial discrimination cases not expected to ease anytime soon.
The increase reflects a rise in public racism in Australia, according to prominent lawyer Michael Bradley.
"People have felt a lot more free than they have for a long time to be racist in public and so that requires a response," he said.
Mr Bradley acted for Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi during her successful legal fight against fellow senator Pauline Hanson, who told her to "piss off back to Pakistan" in a racist social media post.
He believes the dispute was a "turning point" for racial discrimination cases because it provided a "fresh understanding" of the outer limits of acceptable speech.
The decision helped inform the Federal Court's ruling on Tuesday against Islamist preacher Wissam Haddad, who called Jewish people "vile" and "treacherous" in a series of sermons.
Justice Angus Stewart found the speeches contained "fundamentally racist and anti-Semitic" tropes and made "perverse generalisations" about Jewish people.
He ordered they be removed from social media and directed Mr Haddad not to publicly repeat similar statements.
The judge's conclusion that criticism of Israel or Zionist ideology is not inherently anti-Semitic was of particular interest to Mr Bradley.
"It's an important point given a lot of the campaigning activity going on against people who speak out against Israel's actions or for the Palestinian people," he remarked.
"Hopefully it will provide a bit of guidance for other cases or disputes that are brewing."
He will be acting in one such case, recently filed against two University of Sydney academics accused of anti-Semitism.
Constitutional law expert Murray Wesson agreed the "very difficult boundary" between criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism was not fully resolved in the ruling against Mr Haddad.
"It's going to be an ongoing matter for discussion," the University of Western Australia associate professor said.
The section of the Racial Discrimination Act that prohibits offensive behaviour on the basis of race or ethnicity can be a "lightning rod" for contentious issues.
"People tend to talk about the issues of the day and then you're likely to have people who will take that speech a little bit further, or much further," Assoc Prof Wesson said.
He predicted more challenges under section 18C, which may have a higher profile due to political controversy.
In 2014, Attorney-General George Brandis infamously declared people had "a right to be bigots" amid a later abandoned push to repeal the section.
The provision largely lay dormant until "a bit of a flood" of recent discrimination cases, Mr Bradley said.
"When a piece of law like this becomes trendy, there's always a risk that it's going to be overdone.
"The way the courts have to date interpreted it, it does strike an appropriate balance and one that conforms to constitutional limitations (regarding freedom of speech)."
But Assoc Prof Wesson suggested the language could be amended to clarify the threshold for harm is much higher than merely insulting or offending someone.
Although the disputes surrounding section 18C appear to have subsided, he suspects there may be further controversy in its future.
Increasingly racist rhetoric and contentious issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have galvanised a surge in racial discrimination cases not expected to ease anytime soon.
The increase reflects a rise in public racism in Australia, according to prominent lawyer Michael Bradley.
"People have felt a lot more free than they have for a long time to be racist in public and so that requires a response," he said.
Mr Bradley acted for Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi during her successful legal fight against fellow senator Pauline Hanson, who told her to "piss off back to Pakistan" in a racist social media post.
He believes the dispute was a "turning point" for racial discrimination cases because it provided a "fresh understanding" of the outer limits of acceptable speech.
The decision helped inform the Federal Court's ruling on Tuesday against Islamist preacher Wissam Haddad, who called Jewish people "vile" and "treacherous" in a series of sermons.
Justice Angus Stewart found the speeches contained "fundamentally racist and anti-Semitic" tropes and made "perverse generalisations" about Jewish people.
He ordered they be removed from social media and directed Mr Haddad not to publicly repeat similar statements.
The judge's conclusion that criticism of Israel or Zionist ideology is not inherently anti-Semitic was of particular interest to Mr Bradley.
"It's an important point given a lot of the campaigning activity going on against people who speak out against Israel's actions or for the Palestinian people," he remarked.
"Hopefully it will provide a bit of guidance for other cases or disputes that are brewing."
He will be acting in one such case, recently filed against two University of Sydney academics accused of anti-Semitism.
Constitutional law expert Murray Wesson agreed the "very difficult boundary" between criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism was not fully resolved in the ruling against Mr Haddad.
"It's going to be an ongoing matter for discussion," the University of Western Australia associate professor said.
The section of the Racial Discrimination Act that prohibits offensive behaviour on the basis of race or ethnicity can be a "lightning rod" for contentious issues.
"People tend to talk about the issues of the day and then you're likely to have people who will take that speech a little bit further, or much further," Assoc Prof Wesson said.
He predicted more challenges under section 18C, which may have a higher profile due to political controversy.
In 2014, Attorney-General George Brandis infamously declared people had "a right to be bigots" amid a later abandoned push to repeal the section.
The provision largely lay dormant until "a bit of a flood" of recent discrimination cases, Mr Bradley said.
"When a piece of law like this becomes trendy, there's always a risk that it's going to be overdone.
"The way the courts have to date interpreted it, it does strike an appropriate balance and one that conforms to constitutional limitations (regarding freedom of speech)."
But Assoc Prof Wesson suggested the language could be amended to clarify the threshold for harm is much higher than merely insulting or offending someone.
Although the disputes surrounding section 18C appear to have subsided, he suspects there may be further controversy in its future.
Increasingly racist rhetoric and contentious issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have galvanised a surge in racial discrimination cases not expected to ease anytime soon.
The increase reflects a rise in public racism in Australia, according to prominent lawyer Michael Bradley.
"People have felt a lot more free than they have for a long time to be racist in public and so that requires a response," he said.
Mr Bradley acted for Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi during her successful legal fight against fellow senator Pauline Hanson, who told her to "piss off back to Pakistan" in a racist social media post.
He believes the dispute was a "turning point" for racial discrimination cases because it provided a "fresh understanding" of the outer limits of acceptable speech.
The decision helped inform the Federal Court's ruling on Tuesday against Islamist preacher Wissam Haddad, who called Jewish people "vile" and "treacherous" in a series of sermons.
Justice Angus Stewart found the speeches contained "fundamentally racist and anti-Semitic" tropes and made "perverse generalisations" about Jewish people.
He ordered they be removed from social media and directed Mr Haddad not to publicly repeat similar statements.
The judge's conclusion that criticism of Israel or Zionist ideology is not inherently anti-Semitic was of particular interest to Mr Bradley.
"It's an important point given a lot of the campaigning activity going on against people who speak out against Israel's actions or for the Palestinian people," he remarked.
"Hopefully it will provide a bit of guidance for other cases or disputes that are brewing."
He will be acting in one such case, recently filed against two University of Sydney academics accused of anti-Semitism.
Constitutional law expert Murray Wesson agreed the "very difficult boundary" between criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism was not fully resolved in the ruling against Mr Haddad.
"It's going to be an ongoing matter for discussion," the University of Western Australia associate professor said.
The section of the Racial Discrimination Act that prohibits offensive behaviour on the basis of race or ethnicity can be a "lightning rod" for contentious issues.
"People tend to talk about the issues of the day and then you're likely to have people who will take that speech a little bit further, or much further," Assoc Prof Wesson said.
He predicted more challenges under section 18C, which may have a higher profile due to political controversy.
In 2014, Attorney-General George Brandis infamously declared people had "a right to be bigots" amid a later abandoned push to repeal the section.
The provision largely lay dormant until "a bit of a flood" of recent discrimination cases, Mr Bradley said.
"When a piece of law like this becomes trendy, there's always a risk that it's going to be overdone.
"The way the courts have to date interpreted it, it does strike an appropriate balance and one that conforms to constitutional limitations (regarding freedom of speech)."
But Assoc Prof Wesson suggested the language could be amended to clarify the threshold for harm is much higher than merely insulting or offending someone.
Although the disputes surrounding section 18C appear to have subsided, he suspects there may be further controversy in its future.
Increasingly racist rhetoric and contentious issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have galvanised a surge in racial discrimination cases not expected to ease anytime soon.
The increase reflects a rise in public racism in Australia, according to prominent lawyer Michael Bradley.
"People have felt a lot more free than they have for a long time to be racist in public and so that requires a response," he said.
Mr Bradley acted for Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi during her successful legal fight against fellow senator Pauline Hanson, who told her to "piss off back to Pakistan" in a racist social media post.
He believes the dispute was a "turning point" for racial discrimination cases because it provided a "fresh understanding" of the outer limits of acceptable speech.
The decision helped inform the Federal Court's ruling on Tuesday against Islamist preacher Wissam Haddad, who called Jewish people "vile" and "treacherous" in a series of sermons.
Justice Angus Stewart found the speeches contained "fundamentally racist and anti-Semitic" tropes and made "perverse generalisations" about Jewish people.
He ordered they be removed from social media and directed Mr Haddad not to publicly repeat similar statements.
The judge's conclusion that criticism of Israel or Zionist ideology is not inherently anti-Semitic was of particular interest to Mr Bradley.
"It's an important point given a lot of the campaigning activity going on against people who speak out against Israel's actions or for the Palestinian people," he remarked.
"Hopefully it will provide a bit of guidance for other cases or disputes that are brewing."
He will be acting in one such case, recently filed against two University of Sydney academics accused of anti-Semitism.
Constitutional law expert Murray Wesson agreed the "very difficult boundary" between criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism was not fully resolved in the ruling against Mr Haddad.
"It's going to be an ongoing matter for discussion," the University of Western Australia associate professor said.
The section of the Racial Discrimination Act that prohibits offensive behaviour on the basis of race or ethnicity can be a "lightning rod" for contentious issues.
"People tend to talk about the issues of the day and then you're likely to have people who will take that speech a little bit further, or much further," Assoc Prof Wesson said.
He predicted more challenges under section 18C, which may have a higher profile due to political controversy.
In 2014, Attorney-General George Brandis infamously declared people had "a right to be bigots" amid a later abandoned push to repeal the section.
The provision largely lay dormant until "a bit of a flood" of recent discrimination cases, Mr Bradley said.
"When a piece of law like this becomes trendy, there's always a risk that it's going to be overdone.
"The way the courts have to date interpreted it, it does strike an appropriate balance and one that conforms to constitutional limitations (regarding freedom of speech)."
But Assoc Prof Wesson suggested the language could be amended to clarify the threshold for harm is much higher than merely insulting or offending someone.
Although the disputes surrounding section 18C appear to have subsided, he suspects there may be further controversy in its future.