Lawyers argue preacher Wissam Haddad's lectures were 'humiliating' and 'offensive' to Jews

Australia Broadcast Center

10-06-2025

Lawyers for the nation's peak Jewish body have told a judge speeches delivered by an Islamic preacher in Western Sydney contravened the Racial Discrimination Act and were calculated to "denigrate all Jewish people".
The Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) took Wissam Haddad to the Federal Court over a series of lectures delivered at the Al Madina Dawah Centre in Bankstown in November 2023.
Mr Haddad denies he breached anti-discrimination laws and will argue in part that the speeches were based on religious text.
On the opening day of the four-day hearing, Peter Braham SC, representing the council, told the court the speeches attributed negative characteristics to Jewish people and encouraged the audience to hold those views.
Mr Braham said the aim was to inform the audience about Jews "as a people" using stories from the time of the prophet, and make "a general point about race".
He told Justice Angus Stewart the intent was to "persuade an audience that the Jewish people have certain immutable and eternal characteristics that cause them to come in conflict with Muslims" and to "be the objects of contempt and hatred".
"It's that exercise that's so dangerous," Mr Braham said.
"It's threatening, it's humiliating and it's offensive. It's calculated to denigrate all Jewish people, including the Australian Jews for whom we appear.
"It involved repeating a large range of offensive tropes about Jews; they're mischievous, they're a vile people, that they're treacherous, and that they control the media and banks et cetera."
Mr Haddad is expected to give evidence and be cross-examined during the proceedings.
Counsel for Mr Haddad, Andrew Boe, said this was not a case about antisemitism and it will be resolved by "sober, objective analysis".
Mr Boe said the court should not form a view about the merits or otherwise of the religious views expressed by Mr Haddad, or their theological foundations.
Mr Boe said in a democratic society, there must be room for "the confronting, the challenging, even the shocking".
He said it was important in these types of cases for courts to take a "rigorous and detached approach" to applying the Racial Discrimination Act.
That approach must maintain the "intended balance between, on the one hand, proscribing racially motivated behaviour that may be harmful in the Australian community, and on the other hand, preserving the freedoms of speech and religion that are so essential to the continued existence of a free democracy".
The ECAJ asked the court for orders that there was a contravention of the law and an order requiring videos of the speeches to be removed online.
It has also requested the court make an order prohibiting Mr Haddad and the centre from participating in similar conduct in the future.
In defence documents, Mr Haddad argued the speeches were derived in substance from the text of the Koran and Hadith — reports believed by Muslims to be the words of Mohammed, his family and companions.
He said some contained direct and allegorical references to that material, together with "political commentary on the Gaza war".
Mr Haddad's lawyers denied there was any breach of the Racial Discrimination Act and said the speeches were directed only at practising Muslims.
They further argued the centre was not a public place because members of the public do not have access to it as a right — its attendees must be either Muslim or permitted by a member of its committee.
Mr Haddad's legal team says that if the court does find there was a contravention of the law, then that section of the Racial Discrimination Act is unconstitutional because it would be prohibiting the free exercise of religion.