Judge in Wissam Haddad's trial asks if 'racist generalisations' vital to religious freedom

Australia Broadcast Center

2 days ago

A judge has questioned why making alleged racist comments in a sermon is needed to freely exercise religion, on the final day of a Sydney preacher's racial discrimination trial.
Wissam Haddad, an Islamic teacher, is being sued for comments that allegedly breached Commonwealth laws against offensive behaviour because of race.
In a series of speeches in late 2023, Mr Haddad is alleged to have portrayed Jews as "wicked and scheming", people who "love money and wealth" and as "descendants of apes and pigs".
Mr Haddad denies breaching racial discrimination legislation, rejects the imputations were conveyed in a "full and fair reading" of the speeches, and says his comments do not refer to Australian Jewish people.
The case was brought principally by Peter Wertheim, co-chief executive of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ).
After four days of hearings in the Federal Court, Justice Angus Stewart reserved his decision.
Justice Stewart must now decide whether Mr Haddad's comments violated section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.
He will assess whether the remarks were reasonably likely in all situations to "offend, insult, humiliate or intimate another … group of people" and were made "because of the race … of all the people in the group".
Mr Haddad argues that, if his comments are found to have been unlawful, the act breaches the Australian Constitution, which prevents the making of laws that prohibit the "free exercise of any religion".
During closing submissions on Friday, the judge asked Mr Haddad's barrister Andrew Boe why the preacher's comments about Jews were vital to free exercise of religion.
"What is it that what was said in this case, that is necessary to the exercise of Islam, which doesn't seek to justify in Islamic texts, as I understand it, racist generalisations?" Justice Stewart asked.
Mr Boe admitted his client "may be a very bad preacher" but said his evangelism was protected under the constitution.
"He's trying to explain matters to people who are very faithful," Mr Boe said.
"I think the phrase 'religious expression' must be read widely."
Mr Haddad also argued section 18C would infringe the implied freedom of political communication under the constitution, if his speeches, which addressed the war in Gaza, were found to be unlawful.
If Justice Stewart is persuaded of this argument, he would have to overrule his own conclusion in December that the law is valid in a case brought by Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi against One Nation Senator Pauline Hanson.
Peter Braham SC, for Mr Wertheim, has sought an injunction banning Mr Haddad from publicly saying anything about Jews that conveys the racist meanings alleged in the case.
Mr Braham has also asked for orders to remove the impugned speeches from the internet and to publish a statement declaring the comments about Jews unlawful.
"We're not seeking compensation in monetary form," he said.
Outside court, Mr Haddad did not respond to questions about whether he would abide by any orders restricting his speech.
His solicitor, Elias Tabchouri, said Mr Haddad would deal with the court's orders when they arrived.
"We always respect the court's decision," he said.