A Sydney Muslim cleric has been ordered by the federal court docket to take down a collection of “basically racist and antisemitic” speeches posted on-line, and instructed by a decide to not make related addresses once more.
However Justice Angus Stewart dominated different criticisms of the state of Israel and its army didn’t breach the Racial Discrimination Act, discovering it’s not inherently antisemitic to criticise Israel.
Wissam Haddad – whose authorized first identify is William however who’s also called Abu Ousayd – has been efficiently sued by two senior members of Australia’s peak Jewish physique, the Govt Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ), over a collection of lectures he gave on the Al Madina Dawah Centre in Bankstown in November 2023 – subsequently broadcast on-line – by which, the court docket discovered, he maligned Jewish folks.
On Tuesday, Justice Stewart discovered three lectures given by Haddad breached part 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which prohibits offensive behaviour based mostly on race or ethnic origin.
“The court docket has discovered that the collection of lectures, titled ‘The Jews of Al Madina’, conveys disparaging imputations towards Jewish folks that, in all of the circumstances, have been fairly prone to offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate Jews in Australia.
“The imputations embrace age-old tropes towards Jewish folks which are basically racist and antisemitic; they make perverse generalisations towards Jewish folks as a gaggle.”
In his lectures, Haddad quoted and provided interpretation of ayat from the Qur’an and hadith, and described Jewish folks as “mischievous”, “treacherous” and “vile”. His defence informed the court docket the speeches involved historic writings about Jewish folks in Medina within the seventh century CE, on the time of the prophet Muhammad.
His defence additionally argued the lectures got for an academic goal, and that they might not be discovered to have breached part 18C as a result of they weren’t public, however fairly addressed to a personal Muslim viewers.
However the complainants informed court docket Haddad used “overtly dehumanising” language about Jewish folks and that he revelled in being “intentionally provocative and inflammatory”. The court docket heard the speeches have been made within the information they’d be broadcast on-line, with microphones and cameras set as much as file them.
Peter Wertheim, one of many claimants within the case and ECAJ co-chief government, gave proof that Haddad’s speeches “making derogatory generalisations, calling Jews a vile and treacherous folks, calling them rats and cowards … are issues which I feel could be skilled by most Jews as dehumanising”.
Justice Stewart stated Jewish folks in Australia would have discovered Haddad’s lecture “harassing and intimidating” and stated the context of the speeches’ supply – as battle raged in Gaza – had exacerbated their affect.
“The lectures have been delivered at a time of heightened vulnerability and fragility skilled by Jews in Australia following the assault by Hamas on 7 October 2023, Israel’s bombardment and blockade of Gaza in response, and resultant solidarity protests and different actions in Australia.”
In his judgment, Justice Stewart pointedly said that criticism of Israel, or of the actions of the Israel Protection Forces, was not inherently antisemitic.
skip previous publication promotion
Signal as much as Breaking Information Australia
Get crucial information because it breaks
Privateness Discover: Newsletters might include information about charities, on-line adverts, and content material funded by outdoors events. For extra info see our Privateness Coverage. We use Google reCaptcha to guard our web site and the Google Privateness Coverage and Phrases of Service apply.
after publication promotion
Justice Stewart discovered a separate sermon – delivered on 10 November 2023 and specializing in the actions of the Israel Protection Forces – didn’t breach the act.
“Political criticism of Israel, nonetheless inflammatory or adversarial, will not be by its nature, criticism of Jews usually or based mostly on Jewish racial or ethnic id,” his judgment stated.
“The conclusion that it’s not antisemitic to criticise Israel is the corollary of the conclusion that in charge Jews for the actions of Israel is antisemitic; the one flows from the opposite.”
The court docket rejected two constitutional arguments made by Haddad: that half 2A of the Racial Discrimination Act (together with part 18C) was past the ability of the parliament to legislate as a result of it conflicted with the implied freedom of political communication; or that it contravened part 116 of the structure as a regulation “prohibiting the free train of any faith”.
The court docket ordered Haddad to take away the speeches from the web, and to not make related public addresses in future. Attorneys for either side will handle the court docket on the way and wording of any “corrective discover” required to be printed.
Wertheim, and co-claimant Robert Goot, didn’t search damages. The court docket has ordered Haddad to pay the claimants’ prices.
Outdoors court docket, Wertheim stated the judgment confirmed with “crystal readability” that Haddad had racially vilified Jewish folks.
“Persons are free to interact in strong debate about worldwide conflicts, whether or not their beliefs are true or false, knowledgeable or ignorant. However that doesn’t embrace the liberty to mobilise racism as a polemical instrument to advertise one’s views – to dehumanise and vilify whole communities or people on the idea of their racial, ethnic or ethno-religious id.”
