Latest news with #Lattouf
West Australian
18-07-2025
- Politics
- West Australian
No Lattouf contempt probe after Nine names lobbyists
Nine has dodged a contempt prosecution despite publicly naming several pro-Israel lobbyists who had their identities suppressed after complaining about an ABC radio host's views on Palestine. Antoinette Lattouf was ousted from her casual position on ABC Radio Sydney's Mornings program in December 2023 after a concerted email campaign by the lobbyists demanding she be sacked. She was awarded $70,000 for her unlawful termination in June. As her Federal Court hearing against the ABC started in February, Justice Darryl Rangiah suppressed the names of nine individuals who had complained about Lattouf. He said there were safety fears if they were publicly identified. Then-ABC chair Ita Buttrose wrote to former managing director David Anderson that she was getting over the complaints two days into Lattouf's fill-in hosting shift, in an email presented during the trial. Nine published a series of articles in the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age in January 2024 naming four of the complainants, and did not remove the names until March 2025. The complainants then urged Justice Rangiah to refer the matter to a Federal Court registrar who could prosecute the two Nine-owned publications for contempt. The contempt case was also brought against journalists Michael Bachelard and Calum Jaspan, editors Bevan Shields and Patrick Elligett and Nine's in-house lawyers Larina Alick and Sam White. On Friday, Justice Rangiah declined to refer the matter for prosecution. The complainants had brought a "reasonably arguable" case that Nine was in contempt, he acknowledged in his judgment. But Nine had an arguable defence that the court's suppression order only related to the names of nine complainants found in documents tendered during Lattouf's trial against the ABC, he wrote. Nine argued it had sourced the names from other material, more than a year before the trial started. In declining to send the matter onto a registrar, the judge said the complainants could prosecute the case themselves if they wished. "I consider the intervening parties are 'the ones most naturally placed' to conduct proceedings for contempt of court," he wrote. He ordered the lobbyists pay half of Nine's legal costs, saying the network's failure to properly respond to repeated correspondence from their lawyers was "discourteous and unhelpful". However, he did not order all costs be paid because there was no reasonable basis for contempt proceedings to be brought against Mr White and Ms Alick. The in-house lawyers had no control over whether the articles were amended and there was no evidence about the legal advice they had given, the judge said.
Perth Now
18-07-2025
- Politics
- Perth Now
No Lattouf contempt probe after Nine names lobbyists
Nine has dodged a contempt prosecution despite publicly naming several pro-Israel lobbyists who had their identities suppressed after complaining about an ABC radio host's views on Palestine. Antoinette Lattouf was ousted from her casual position on ABC Radio Sydney's Mornings program in December 2023 after a concerted email campaign by the lobbyists demanding she be sacked. She was awarded $70,000 for her unlawful termination in June. As her Federal Court hearing against the ABC started in February, Justice Darryl Rangiah suppressed the names of nine individuals who had complained about Lattouf. He said there were safety fears if they were publicly identified. Then-ABC chair Ita Buttrose wrote to former managing director David Anderson that she was getting over the complaints two days into Lattouf's fill-in hosting shift, in an email presented during the trial. Nine published a series of articles in the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age in January 2024 naming four of the complainants, and did not remove the names until March 2025. The complainants then urged Justice Rangiah to refer the matter to a Federal Court registrar who could prosecute the two Nine-owned publications for contempt. The contempt case was also brought against journalists Michael Bachelard and Calum Jaspan, editors Bevan Shields and Patrick Elligett and Nine's in-house lawyers Larina Alick and Sam White. On Friday, Justice Rangiah declined to refer the matter for prosecution. The complainants had brought a "reasonably arguable" case that Nine was in contempt, he acknowledged in his judgment. But Nine had an arguable defence that the court's suppression order only related to the names of nine complainants found in documents tendered during Lattouf's trial against the ABC, he wrote. Nine argued it had sourced the names from other material, more than a year before the trial started. In declining to send the matter onto a registrar, the judge said the complainants could prosecute the case themselves if they wished. "I consider the intervening parties are 'the ones most naturally placed' to conduct proceedings for contempt of court," he wrote. He ordered the lobbyists pay half of Nine's legal costs, saying the network's failure to properly respond to repeated correspondence from their lawyers was "discourteous and unhelpful". However, he did not order all costs be paid because there was no reasonable basis for contempt proceedings to be brought against Mr White and Ms Alick. The in-house lawyers had no control over whether the articles were amended and there was no evidence about the legal advice they had given, the judge said.
Canberra Times
16-07-2025
- Politics
- Canberra Times
I have marital advice for our anti-Semitism envoy
I mean, Lawyers for Israel already did that. It campaigned hard against Antoinette Lattouf's brief appearance on ABC Sydney. It led to Lattouf losing her gig. It led to the ABC losing $2 million in fighting a futile court case. And I'll tell you what else it led to. It led, in my view, to people using the phrase "Jewish lobby", one of the most ill-conceived and racist phrases ever. I would not for one minute complain about social media posts sharing Human Rights Watch information. And there are many Jews here and elsewhere who rightly criticise the use by Israel of starvation as a weapon of war. The prospect of you trying to censor what the ABC broadcasts is so horrific. We don't need more censors in this country. We don't need lobby groups like Lawyers for Israel trying to silence those with valid opinions LIA doesn't like. Or you don't like.
Sydney Morning Herald
15-07-2025
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
Segal's report lays a trap for Albanese. How he responds will have profound implications
In December 2024, when the ABC was confronted with the relentless lobbying by some members of a WhatsApp group calling itself Lawyers for Israel and demanding the sacking of its broadcaster, Antoinette Lattouf, it had a clear choice. It could have responded by rejecting their demands to illegally sack Lattouf. Instead, as Justice Darryl Rangiah of the Federal Court of Australia recently found, the ABC capitulated and embarked on a $2 million campaign to defend the indefensible. In its ruling, the court made clear that sacking an employee who expressed criticisms of the Israeli government's treatment of Palestinians was illegal because Australian laws protected our right to express political opinion. Last week, antisemitism envoy Jillian Segal walked into a press conference with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and laid a similar trap for the government. Her 16-page report contained recommendations that undermine the rule of law by seeking to bypass the institutions which protect our democracy: the parliament, the courts, tribunals and the Australian Human Rights Commission. All forms of racism and antisemitism are already unlawful in Australia, and hate speech laws have been toughened in response to an increase in antisemitic incidents in the last year. Loading When the issue has been put to the test, existing laws have worked, too. A court found this month that a Sydney Muslim cleric's lectures were unlawful because they were 'fundamentally racist and antisemitic'. The court also correctly determined that 'political criticism of Israel, however inflammatory or adversarial, is not by its nature, criticism of Jews in general or based on Jewish racial or ethnic identity' and therefore was not antisemitic or unlawful. One of the key recommendations in Segal's report is that all levels of government, institutions and 'regulatory bodies' adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's controversial definition of antisemitism. In part, this definition states that it is antisemitic to target the state of Israel and/or claim the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour. Adopting the IHRA definition would render the opinions of many protesters in Israel as antisemitic, let alone those here in Australia. It is completely at odds with the Federal Court's recent finding and our existing anti-discrimination laws.
The Age
15-07-2025
- Politics
- The Age
Segal's report lays a trap for Albanese. How he responds will have profound implications
In December 2024, when the ABC was confronted with the relentless lobbying by some members of a WhatsApp group calling itself Lawyers for Israel and demanding the sacking of its broadcaster, Antoinette Lattouf, it had a clear choice. It could have responded by rejecting their demands to illegally sack Lattouf. Instead, as Justice Darryl Rangiah of the Federal Court of Australia recently found, the ABC capitulated and embarked on a $2 million campaign to defend the indefensible. In its ruling, the court made clear that sacking an employee who expressed criticisms of the Israeli government's treatment of Palestinians was illegal because Australian laws protected our right to express political opinion. Last week, antisemitism envoy Jillian Segal walked into a press conference with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and laid a similar trap for the government. Her 16-page report contained recommendations that undermine the rule of law by seeking to bypass the institutions which protect our democracy: the parliament, the courts, tribunals and the Australian Human Rights Commission. All forms of racism and antisemitism are already unlawful in Australia, and hate speech laws have been toughened in response to an increase in antisemitic incidents in the last year. Loading When the issue has been put to the test, existing laws have worked, too. A court found this month that a Sydney Muslim cleric's lectures were unlawful because they were 'fundamentally racist and antisemitic'. The court also correctly determined that 'political criticism of Israel, however inflammatory or adversarial, is not by its nature, criticism of Jews in general or based on Jewish racial or ethnic identity' and therefore was not antisemitic or unlawful. One of the key recommendations in Segal's report is that all levels of government, institutions and 'regulatory bodies' adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's controversial definition of antisemitism. In part, this definition states that it is antisemitic to target the state of Israel and/or claim the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavour. Adopting the IHRA definition would render the opinions of many protesters in Israel as antisemitic, let alone those here in Australia. It is completely at odds with the Federal Court's recent finding and our existing anti-discrimination laws.
