Australian Jewish leaders celebrate as Islamist preacher is banned from making anti-Semitic comments after racist sermons
Sydney-based Al Madina Dawah Centre cleric, Wissam Haddad, was accused of racial discrimination in relation to a series of fiery sermons, which have racked up thousands of views online, since November 2023.
The preacher, also known as Abu Ousayd, referred to Jewish people as 'vile, treacherous, murderous, and mischievous'.
During the landmark case at the NSW Federal Court in Sydney, leaders from the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) argued the online lectures were offensive and could incite violence towards Jews.
Justice Angus Stewart found on Tuesday that the speeches were disparaging and likely to offend, insult, harass or intimidate Jewish people.
'The imputations include age-old tropes against Jewish people that are fundamentally racist and anti-Semitic,' he said.
'They make perverse generalisations against Jewish people as a group.'
ECAJ's co-chief executive Peter Wertheim and deputy president Robert Goot stood proudly outside the court after the verdict which 'vindicated' them.
'It confirms that the days when Jewish communities and the Jewish people can be vilified and targeted, with impunity, are a thing of the past,' Mr Wertheim said.
'(This case) was about antisemitism and the abuse of those freedoms in order to promote antisemitism.
'If the 300 ancestry groups and 100 faith communities living in Australia today were all free to vilify one another in the way that Mr Haddad vilified the Jewish people, the door would be wide open to chronic racial and sectarian strife.
'(This would be) of the kind that has devastated other countries, and the peace and harmony we have generally enjoyed in Australia would be ruined for everyone.'
Mr Goot described the preacher as a 'picture of anti-Semitic hatred', adding that he had brought the case to court to protect the Jewish community's safety.
'No community in this wonderful country should be dehumanised in the way that Mr Haddad treated us,' he said.
'Freedom of expression must not be abused by the promotion of hateful antisemitism.
'Those that wish to do so, should know that that conduct will not be tolerated by us.'
The ECAJ leaders' case sought the removal of the published speeches, a public declaration of error and an order restraining Mr Haddad from making similar comments in future.
Mr Haddad denied breaching anti-discrimination laws and claimed he was delivering historical and religious lectures on events from the Qur'an to contextualise the war in Gaza.
He said he was speaking about 'Jews of faith' rather than ethnicity while trying to explain that 'what the Israeli government is doing to the people of Gaza' is 'not something new'.
Ruling against the preacher would be tantamount to restricting the free exercise of religious expression, Mr Haddad's lawyer argued.
But Justice Stewart rejected the defence on Tuesday and ordered Mr Haddad to remove the speeches.
He directed the preacher not to make any further comments that convey similar disparaging imputations.
Mr Haddad has also been ordered to foot the legal bill for the ECAJ which the leaders told reporters would be 'several hundred thousand dollars'.
The preacher's speeches were delivered during a time of heightened sensitivity after the designated terror group Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, sparking Israeli retaliation that has left the Gaza Strip in turmoil.
The reporting of the war prompted questions and concerns from Mr Haddad's congregants and at the same time left Jewish Australians feeling unsafe, the court was told.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Ex-wife loses Supreme Court fight against retired banker over the £80m he gave her in a bid to avoid tax - before she divorced him and kept the money
An ex-wife of a retired banker has lost a Supreme Court battle over an £80million sum he granted her in an attempt to avoid tax before their divorce. Clive Standish, 70, a sheep farming tycoon and former chief financial officer of banking giant UBS, we d Anna Standish, 56, in December 2005. But the couple separated in 2020 after a 15-year marriage, during which they had two children. The marital assets at the time of the split amounted to £132million, almost all of which had grown from the £57.3million fortune Mr Standish brought into the marriage. He retired in 2007, living off the profits of a £28million sheep farm in Australia, while the couple enjoyed life in 18-bedroom mansion Moundsmere Manor, set in 83 acres near Hampshire village Preston Candover. The court heard of Mr Standish's worries about changes to the inheritance tax regime announced in 2016 by HM Revenue and Customs. He feared these would expose his personal assets to a 40 per cent levy on his death. He then transferred £80million-worth of assets to his wife in 2017, with a plan for them to eventually be placed in an offshore trust for the benefit of their children. But the marriage hit the rocks before that could happen, leaving the couple estranged and Mrs Standish claiming the £80million was hers outright. She said it had been 'gifted' to her and so should form part of the matrimonial pot to share on divorce. Mr Justice Moor ruled in the divorce courts in December 2023 that Mr Standish should get £87.6million of the total family wealth valued at a total £132,648,326, with his wife walking away with £45million. That decision was made using the so-called 'sharing principle' of dividing the family fortune. Mrs Standish was said to have insisted the £80million was 'matrimonial' money to be divided equally, despite bringing 'no significant wealth' of her own into the marriage. Last year the Court of Appeal cut her payout, ruling that the 'fair outcome' of the case would leave Mrs Standish with £25million rather than £45million. She has since taken the case to the Supreme Court in a bid to get the ruling overturned and reclaim the extra £20million. But today five of England and Wales' most senior judges upheld the earlier verdict, saying that the £80million had not been turned into 'matrimonial assets' simply because it was put in her name to avoid tax. The court ruling stated: 'Tax planning schemes to save tax, involving transfers of assets from one spouse to another, are commonplace. 'The problem for the wife is that there is nothing to show that, over time, the parties were treating the 2017 assets as shared between them. 'Rather, the transfer was in pursuance of a scheme to negate inheritance tax and it was for the benefit exclusively of the children. 'The parties' intention was that the £80million should not be retained by the wife.' Tim Bishop KC, for Mr Standish, had said during the Court of Appeal hearing that the husband had 'a very successful career in banking'. He told the judges that in June 2004 his client was worth £57.3million, while Mrs Standish had 'no significant pre-marital wealth'. Mr Standish is British but moved to Australia in 1976 before moving back to England with his family in 2010. That potentially left him open to a huge inheritance tax hit when prospective changes were announced in 2016 - affecting anyone with a British domicile of origin returning to the UK from a country they had made their new permanent home. In the face of this, he 'commenced a process to shield his property from IHT' by 'transferring his assets to the wife to hold for a period and for the wife then to settle the transferred assets into a trust', the court was told. Mr Bishop said: 'The husband made the transfers in March 2017, but the wife failed to transfer the assets into trust by the time the marriage ran into problems in 2019 and then broke down finally in 2020.' Mr Standish's barrister criticised the divorce judge's eventual division of the assets last December as 'unfair'. Mr Bishop argued it had been wrong for the £80million to have been regarded as 'matrimonialised' property, rather than the personal property of the husband and not to go into the pot for division. The Court of Appeal went on to rule that 25 per cent of the £80million should be shared, as that money had been made by the husband during a time when he was being supported by his 'homemaker' but that the rest should not - cutting her divorce payout by £20million. For Mrs Standish, Richard Todd KC said the £80million was her property and everything else apart from the sheep farm ought to be equally split - leaving the former spouses with £56.3million apiece. But delivering the Supreme Court ruling, Lord Burrows and Lord Stephens, with whom Lord Reed, Lord Lloyd Jones and Lady Simler agreed, said the Appeal Court had got it right. They said: 'Here, the source of the pre-marital assets within the 2017 assets was exclusively the husband. 'Those assets have been transferred to the wife. But the problem for the wife is that there is nothing to show that, over time, the parties were treating the 2017 assets as shared between them. 'Rather, the transfer was in pursuance of a scheme to negate inheritance tax and it was for the benefit exclusively of the children. 'The parties' intention was that the £80million should not be retained by the wife but should be used by her to set up trusts for the children, thereby negating inheritance tax. 'In short, there was no matrimonialisation of the 2017 assets because, first, the transfer was to save tax and, secondly, it was for the benefit of the children not the wife. 'The 2017 assets were not, therefore, being treated by the husband and wife for any period of time as an asset that was shared between them. 'In relation to a scheme designed to save tax, under which one spouse transfers an asset to the other spouse, the parties' dealings with the asset, irrespective of the time period involved, do not normally show that the asset is being treated as shared between them. Rather, the intention is simply to save tax. 'Transfers of capital assets with the intention of saving tax do not, without some further compelling evidence, establish that the parties are treating the capital asset as shared between them. 'The 2017 assets comprise, first, the husband's pre-marital assets and, secondly, earnings that the husband made in the years 2004-2007 to which the wife contributed by being the home-maker and childcarer during those years. 'It is not in dispute that the latter constitutes matrimonial property. That should be shared on an equal basis. 'The Court of Appeal assessed the latter, i.e. the matrimonial property, as comprising 25% of the £80million.' The judges said that meant that 25 per cent 'was to be shared equally, and the former, i.e. the pre-marital assets/non-matrimonial property, as comprising 75 per cent of the £80million'. They added: 'We see no reason to interfere with that assessment. The decision and orders of the Court of Appeal should therefore be upheld. For all these reasons, we would dismiss the appeal.' Legal experts have responded by describing the judgment as a 'landmark ruling' - and suggesting it offered a cautionary note to many other couples. Aasha Choudhary, family law partner at law firm Shakespeare Martineau, said: 'Merely transferring assets into joint names or to a spouse does not automatically transform them into matrimonial property, unless there is clear and documented intention to share an asset. 'While it may not be the most romantic topic before a wedding, this decision is a timely reminder of the value of prenuptial agreements. 'Divorces can be emotionally fraught, and decisions made during a separation don't always reflect long-term intentions. 'A well-drafted prenup allows both parties to set expectations early and protect their respective interests with transparency and fairness, saving the financial and emotional cost of litigation. 'Most crucially, this ruling makes it clear that if couples want a non-matrimonial asset to become shared property, it must be recorded clearly. 'Without that, the default position may now lean toward such assets remaining non-matrimonial, a major shift in the legal landscape.'
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
The bizarre place customs found FIVE hard drives on passenger who allegedly tried to smuggle child abuse material into Australia
A 52-year-old man has been charged after allegedly concealing child abuse material in his shoes and underwear at Sydney Airport. The Sydney man landed from Fiji in the early hours of June 25 and was selected for screening by Australian Border Force (ABF) officers. A large volume of child abuse material was allegedly discovered on his phone across several applications. The man said during an interview that he had deleted images prior to arriving in Australia. Officers found an additional mobile phone, a tablet, smart watch, hard drive and laptop during a baggage examination. These items have been held for further inspection. ABF officers conducted a frisk search on the 52-year-old which revealed he had five additional hard drives hidden in his shoes and one in his underwear. The Sydney man was immediately arrested and charged with multiple charges including importation of child abuse material, use of a carriage service to transmit child abuse material and obstruction of Commonwealth officials. Acting Superintendent Michael Mahony branded the lengths the 52-year-old man went to conceal his crime as 'disturbing'. 'This detection is the direct result of a robust combination of intelligence profiling, data analysis, and the vigilance of our front line officers,' acting superintendent Mahony said. 'But this isn't just about apprehending this individual – it's about protecting children from harm. 'Every file intercepted is a potential crime prevented, and a child safeguarded.' 'This case is a disturbing example of the extreme lengths some individuals go to in order to conceal their criminal activity, and we congratulate the officers involved for removing one more predator from our streets.' The Sydney man was refused bail and will reappear in court on August 19.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Kanye West barred from entering Australia over Hitler song, Tony Burke says
The US rapper and artist Kanye West has been barred from travelling to Australia after the release of his widely condemned song Heil Hitler, which has been banned on Apple Music, Spotify and YouTube. The home affairs minister, Tony Burke, disclosed on Wednesday that the government had revoked the rapper's visa after his song referencing the Nazi leader Adolf Hitler was released independently in May. Burke inadvertently revealed the news about West – who has legally changed his name to Ye – during an interview with the ABC's Afternoon Briefing program when the minister was asked about the visa cancellation of an Israeli-American tech advocate who wrote 'Islamophobia is rational'. Burke said he would not let anyone who tried to argue that either Islamophobia or antisemitism was 'rational' enter Australia to go on a speaking tour, given the purpose of the visa in question was to 'give public speeches'. Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email 'Most of the visas that have been cancelled under this section have been where someone was seeking to make a public speech,' he said. 'The only one I can think of where it wasn't for public advocacy – the visa – but we cancelled it anyway, would be Kanye West.' Burke said Ye, whose wife, Bianca Censori, is from Melbourne, had been coming to Australia 'for a long time' and had family here. But Burke alleged Ye had 'made a lot of offensive comments that my officials looked at again once he released the Heil Hitler song and he no longer has a valid visa in Australia'. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion Asked if it was 'sustainable' to keep the ban in place given the possibility for international concerts, Burke replied: 'I think that what's not sustainable is to import hatred. 'Every visa application gets reassessed by my officials each time,' Burke continued. 'I'm not taking away the way the act operates but even for the lowest level of visa, when my officials looked at it, they cancelled that following the announcement of that song.' A spokesperson for the home affairs department said it did not comment on individual cases, but all non-citizens who wanted to travel to Australia must satisfy the 'character' requirements under the Migration Act. 'The Australian government will continue to act decisively to protect the community from the risk of harm posed by individuals who choose to engage in criminal activity or behaviour of concern, including visa cancellation or refusal where appropriate,' they said. Guardian Australia attempted to contact Ye for comment through his fashion label, Yeezy.
