In a decision that underscores the Australian judiciary's stance against hate speech, a Federal Court has ordered the removal of a series of lectures by Islamic preacher Wissam Haddad from social media platforms. Delivered at Sydney's Al Madina Dawah Centre in November 2023, these lectures have been deemed by Justice Angus Stewart to contain 'fundamentally racist and antisemitic' material, contravening the Racial Discrimination Act. This ruling came after the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) lodged a complaint, highlighting Haddad's portrayal of Jewish people using derogatory terms such as 'wicked', 'scheming', and 'descendants of apes and pigs'.

Haddad, also known as Abu Ousayd, defended his speeches, asserting they were rooted in religious texts like the Koran and were intended for a private Muslim audience, with no specific reference to Australian Jews. However, Justice Stewart dismissed these defenses, emphasizing that the lectures conveyed 'disparaging imputations' likely to offend and intimidate Jewish communities in Australia. 'These imputations include age-old tropes against Jewish people that are fundamentally racist and antisemitic,' Stewart stated, underscoring the profound historical sensitivities associated with such rhetoric.

The court's judgment further elaborated on the 'devastatingly offensive and insulting' nature of the comments, which Stewart noted would be particularly harassing and intimidating during a period of 'heightened vulnerability and fragility' for Jewish Australians. The historical context of Jewish persecution amplifies the severity of such remarks, making their impact on Jewish Australians 'profound and serious'.

Interestingly, the court differentiated between criticism of Zionism and antisemitism, noting that while Haddad's lectures included disparaging remarks about the Israel Defense Forces and Zionists, these did not inherently target Jewish people as a whole. Justice Stewart clarified, 'The ordinary, reasonable listener would understand that not all Jews are Zionists and that disparagement of Zionism constitutes disparagement of a philosophy or ideology and not a race or ethnic group.'

As part of the ruling, Haddad and the Al Madina Dawah Centre are required to publish corrective notices on their social media accounts for a duration of 30 days. The court also ruled that Haddad should bear the legal costs, marking the ECAJ's case as 'overwhelmingly successful'.

The ECAJ's counsel, Peter Braham SC, had previously labeled Haddad's speeches as 'dangerous', suggesting they were crafted to 'denigrate all Jewish people'. Braham argued that Haddad sought to portray Jews as possessing 'immutable and eternal characteristics' that incite conflict with Muslims and attract contempt.

Representing Haddad, Andrew Boe contended that democratic societies must accommodate challenging and even shocking discourse, urging a 'rigorous and detached' application of the law. Haddad's legal team argued that the speeches contained references to the Koran and political commentary on the Gaza conflict, suggesting a religious and political context rather than racial animosity.

During his testimony, Haddad initially distanced himself from the online publication of the lectures but eventually conceded awareness of their dissemination. He insisted his comments targeted 'Jews of faith, not of ethnicity', denying any intent to provoke controversy through racism.

This case highlights the delicate balance between free speech and the prohibition of hate speech, with significant implications for religious discourse and racial discrimination laws in Australia. The court's decision reinforces the legal boundaries against antisemitic rhetoric, setting a precedent for future cases involving religious and political speech.