Latest news with #RacialDiscriminationAct
Sky News AU
5 days ago
- Politics
- Sky News AU
Hate preacher Wissam Haddad ordered not to have corrective notices 'deliberately buried' on social media after breaking law
Jihadi preacher Wissam Haddad has been ordered on Thursday to 'pin' corrective notices acknowledging he had broken discrimination law at the top of his social media accounts. Earlier this month the Federal Court found the Sydney-based Islamic cleric breached 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act after a Jewish organisation sought legal action, citing inaction by Australia's 'responsible authorities'. Mr Haddad or speakers at his Al Madine Dawah Centre called Jewish people the descendants of 'pigs and monkeys' who would drown if people spat on Israel. According to The Australian, Mr Haddad, also known as Abu Ousayd, had attempted to evade the full extent of the court's ruling by arguing he should not be required to pin posts admitting fault online. Justice Angus Stewart on Thursday accepted expert advice that such posts should be held at the top of Mr Haddad's profile so they could not be 'deliberately buried' underneath other social media posts. 'In short, the 'pinning' and 'featuring' of the posts will prevent them from disappearing from view in a short period of time, and it will prevent them from being deliberately buried by way of successive further posts,' Justice Stewart said. 'I do not regard it as disproportionate to the nature and extent of the wrong committed to require redress of that nature.' Executive Council of Australian Jewry co-chief executive Peter Wertheim said the court order was an 'essential part of counteracting the harm' his antisemitic speeches caused. 'We welcome the Federal Court's further orders requiring Mr Haddad and the Al Madinah Dawah Centre to publish a Corrective Notice on their social media pages advising viewers of the findings of unlawful conduct and orders made against them by the court, and requiring the notice to be featured and pinned on those pages,' Mr Wertheim said. 'We see this as an essential part of counteracting the harm that was caused by their online promotion and reproduction of Haddad's antisemitic speeches.' The Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) won its case against Mr Haddad, also known as Abu Ousayd, after Justice Angus Stewart found his series of lectures called 'The Jews of Al Madina' contained remarks which were 'reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate' Australian Jews. 'They make perverse generalisations against Jewish people as a group,' he said. 'The imputations include age-old tropes against Jewish people that are fundamentally racist and antisemitic … Jews in Australia in November 2023, and thereafter, would experience them to be harassing and intimidating.' The Islamic cleric was ordered to have three of his speeches removed from social media and to cover ECAJ's legal fees.
West Australian
04-07-2025
- Politics
- West Australian
Michelle Grattan: Free speech fight reignites as sparks fly in Australian politics
Political and news cycles often work in a certain and predictable way. Issues flare like bushfires, then rage for weeks or even months, until they are finally extinguished by action or fade by being overtaken by the next big thing. On two very different fronts this week, we're reminded how these cycles work. Last term, the Opposition constantly hammered the Government over its handling of the former immigration detainees released after the High Court found they couldn't be held indefinitely. These included people who had committed murder, child sex offences and violent assaults. On Sunday, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke admitted in a Sky interview that the legislation the Government passed to re-detain some of these people was, in effect, impossible to use. Burke's comments attracted only limited attention. The other reminder of an old story came when the Federal Court ordered a militant Muslim preacher to remove inflammatory lectures from the internet. He had lost a case brought by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry under Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. More than a decade ago, political passions ran high in conservative circles about the alleged evils of 18C. First, to the Burke admission. Burke said he had 'a lot of resources' dedicated to trying to get applications to court for preventative detention orders. But 'no one has come close to reaching the threshold that is in that legislation.' For a long time, the Government had kept saying it was working up cases to put to the court. But, realising the difficulty, it also passed legislation facilitating the deportation of these people to third countries. There are now three former detainees due to be deported to Nauru, following a financial agreement with that country. But there's a hitch: their deportations are tied up in court appeals. (They can however be held in detention while the cases proceed.) The challenge still presented by the former detainees is no small matter, despite the political storm having calmed and the media interest dissipating. According to the Home Affairs department, 300 people had been released as at the end of February. Of these, 104 had offended since release, and 30 were incarcerated. Some 83 had only a State or Territory criminal charge; seven only a Migration Act charge; 14 people had both a Migration Act charge and a State or Territory charge. In recent weeks, one former detainee is alleged to have murdered a photographer in Melbourne. The political context can be very relevant to whether the embers of an old issue re-spark into something major. Anthony Albanese's decision last year to put Burke into home affairs was something of a political masterstroke. If Clare O'Neil and Andrew Giles had still been in their former respective portfolios of home affairs and immigration, the present failure to deal more successfully with the former detainees would have been a much bigger issue. Burke is skilled at throwing a blanket over contentious areas. On the other side of politics, James Paterson was moved out of home affairs in Sussan Ley's reshuffle. Paterson pursued the former immigration detainees relentlessly. The new spokesmen, Andrew Hastie (home affairs) and Paul Scarr (immigration) haven't hit their strides yet. The Government would have been under more pressure on the issue if Parliament were sitting. But the new Parliament doesn't meet until July 22. When it does, one of the new arrivals will be a former face, Liberal MP Tim Wilson. Way back when, Wilson was a player in the story of 18C. For him, the way 18C resurfaced this week contains more than a little irony. In February 2014, Wilson took up his post of Human Rights Commissioner, appointed by the Abbott government with the special brief of promoting freedom of speech. That government was strongly opposed to 18C, which made it unlawful to 'offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate' a person or group because of their race or ethnicity. The assault on 18C ran into vigorous opposition from ethnic and other groups, including the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. Eventually PM Abbott retreated. A disappointed Wilson tweeted: 'Disturbed to hear the government has backed down on 18c and will keep offensive speech illegal. Very disturbed.' In his 2025 bid for election, Wilson — who had been member for Goldstein in 2016-2022 — was helped by the Jewish vote, after the rise of anti-Semitism. The debate about free speech has moved on a great deal since the Abbott government days, when conservatives were particularly agitated about 18C following a court judgement against journalist Andrew Bolt, who'd disparaged some fair-skinned Indigenous people. Today's debate is in the context of 'hate speech' associated with the Middle East conflict. Hate-crime laws have provoked another fierce round of controversy about the appropriate limits to put on 'free speech.' The Executive Council of Australian Jewry brought its case under the 18C civil law against preacher William Haddad, from Western Sydney, after no action was taken by the authorities under the criminal law. In lectures, Haddad made highly derogatory comments about Jews. Finding against Haddad, Judge Angus Stewart said the lectures 'were reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate Jews in Australia.' Reflecting on the decision, George Brandis — who was attorney-general during the 18C furore — says, 'My view hasn't changed. It should not in a free country be either criminally or civilly actionable to say something that merely offends. However, in this case the conduct went far beyond mere offence, to intimidation. It did not require 18C to get the redress that was sought in the case.' Wilson doesn't wish to re-enter the debate. The new Opposition industrial relations spokesman says his focus is 'my portfolio responsibilities'. It's likely many of those who fought 18C years ago hold to their original view, while having to applaud the judgement made under it this week. That's another irony.
The Advertiser
04-07-2025
- Politics
- The Advertiser
How two once hot-button issues this week barely sparked media and political interest
Political and news cycles often work in a certain and predictable way. Issues flare like bushfires, then rage for weeks or even months, until they are finally extinguished by action or fade by being overtaken by the next big thing. On two very different fronts this week, we're reminded how these cycles work. During the last term, the opposition constantly hammered the government over its handling of the former immigration detainees released after the High Court found they couldn't be held indefinitely. These included people who had committed murder, child sex offences and violent assaults. On Sunday, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke admitted in a television interview that the legislation the government passed to re-detain some of these people was, in effect, impossible to use. Burke's comments attracted only limited attention. The other reminder of an old story came when the Federal Court ordered a militant Muslim preacher to remove inflammatory lectures from the internet. He had lost a case brought by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry under Section 18C for the Racial Discrimination Act. More than a decade ago, political passions ran high in conservative circles about the alleged evils of 18C. First to the Burke admission. Burke told Sky he had "a lot of resources" dedicated to trying to get applications to court for preventative detention orders. But "no one has come close to reaching the threshold that is in that legislation". Burke insisted he was "not giving up", but there is little reason to believe things will change. The opposition has suggested amending the preventative detention legislation, but Burke says that would hit a constitutional obstacle. For a long time, the government had kept saying it was working up cases to put to the court (and given the impression action was close). But, realising the difficulty, it also passed legislation facilitating the deportation of these people to third countries. There are now three former detainees due to be deported to Nauru, following a financial agreement with that country. But there's a hitch: their deportations are tied up in court appeals. (They are, however, able to be held in detention while the cases proceed.) The challenge still presented by the former detainees in the community is no small matter, despite the political storm having calmed and the media interest dissipating. In evidence in Senate estimates in March, the Department of Home Affairs said 300 people had been released from immigration detention as at the end of February. Of these, 104 had offended since release, and 30 were incarcerated (including on remand). Some 83 had only a state or territory criminal charge; seven only a Migration Act charge; 14 people had both a Migration Act charge and a state or territory charge. In recent weeks, one former detainee is alleged to have murdered a photographer in Melbourne. The political context can be very relevant to whether the embers of an old issue re-spark into something major. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's decision last year to put Burke into Home Affairs was something of a political masterstroke. If Clare O'Neil and Andrew Giles had still been in their former respective portfolios of Home Affairs and Immigration, the present failure to deal more successfully with the former detainees would have been a much bigger issue. Burke is skilled at throwing a blanket over contentious areas. On the other side of politics, James Paterson was moved out of home affairs to become shadow finance minister in Sussan Ley's reshuffle. Paterson pursued the former immigration detainees relentlessly. The new spokesmen, Andrew Hastie (home affairs) and Paul Scarr (immigration) haven't hit their strides yet, and what they have said on the issue hasn't grabbed much attention. The government would have been under more pressure on the issue if parliament were sitting. But the new parliament doesn't meet until July 22. When it does, one of the new arrivals will be a former face, Liberal MP Tim Wilson. Way back when, Wilson was a player in the story of 18C. For him, the way 18C resurfaced this week contains more than a little irony. In February 2014, Wilson took up his post of Human Rights Commissioner, appointed by the Abbott government with the special brief of promoting freedom of speech. (He was even dubbed the "freedom commissioner".) The Abbott government was strongly opposed to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which made it unlawful to "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" a person or group because of their race or ethnicity. The assault on 18C ran into vigorous opposition from ethnic and other groups, including the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. In the end, then prime minister Tony Abbott retreated. Wilson was disappointed, tweeting: "Disturbed to hear the government has backed down on 18c and will keep offensive speech illegal. Very disturbed." In his 2025 bid for election, Wilson - who had been member for Goldstein from 2016-2022 - was helped by the Jewish vote, after the rise of anti-Semitism. The debate about free speech has moved on a great deal since the days of the Abbott government, when conservatives were particularly agitated about 18C following a court judgement against journalist Andrew Bolt relating to what he had written about some fair-skinned Indigenous people. Today's debate is in the context of "hate speech" associated with the Middle East conflict. Hate-crime laws have provoked another fierce round of controversy about the appropriate limits to put on "free speech". The Executive Council of Australian Jewry brought its case under the 18C civil law against preacher William Haddad, from Western Sydney, after no action was taken by the authorities under the criminal law. Haddad described Jews as "a treacherous people, a vile people", among other offensive remarks, that included saying: "The majority of banks are owned by the Jews, who are happy to give people loans, knowing that it's almost impossible to pay it back". Haddad argued in his defence his lectures drew on religious writings, relating them to contemporary events, and were delivered for educational purposes. READ MORE GRATTAN: Finding against Haddad, Judge Angus Stewart said the lectures conveyed "disparaging imputations about Jewish people and that in all the circumstances were reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate Jews in Australia". Reflecting on this week's decision, George Brandis - who was attorney-general during the 18C furore - says, "My view hasn't changed. It should not in a free country be either criminally or civilly actionable to say something that merely offends. However, in this case the conduct went far beyond mere offence, to intimidation. It did not require 18C to get the redress that was sought in the case." Wilson does not wish to re-enter the debate. The new opposition industrial relations spokesman says his focus is "my portfolio responsibilities". It's likely many of those who fought 18C years ago hold to their original view, while having to applaud the judgement made under it this week. That's another irony. Political and news cycles often work in a certain and predictable way. Issues flare like bushfires, then rage for weeks or even months, until they are finally extinguished by action or fade by being overtaken by the next big thing. On two very different fronts this week, we're reminded how these cycles work. During the last term, the opposition constantly hammered the government over its handling of the former immigration detainees released after the High Court found they couldn't be held indefinitely. These included people who had committed murder, child sex offences and violent assaults. On Sunday, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke admitted in a television interview that the legislation the government passed to re-detain some of these people was, in effect, impossible to use. Burke's comments attracted only limited attention. The other reminder of an old story came when the Federal Court ordered a militant Muslim preacher to remove inflammatory lectures from the internet. He had lost a case brought by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry under Section 18C for the Racial Discrimination Act. More than a decade ago, political passions ran high in conservative circles about the alleged evils of 18C. First to the Burke admission. Burke told Sky he had "a lot of resources" dedicated to trying to get applications to court for preventative detention orders. But "no one has come close to reaching the threshold that is in that legislation". Burke insisted he was "not giving up", but there is little reason to believe things will change. The opposition has suggested amending the preventative detention legislation, but Burke says that would hit a constitutional obstacle. For a long time, the government had kept saying it was working up cases to put to the court (and given the impression action was close). But, realising the difficulty, it also passed legislation facilitating the deportation of these people to third countries. There are now three former detainees due to be deported to Nauru, following a financial agreement with that country. But there's a hitch: their deportations are tied up in court appeals. (They are, however, able to be held in detention while the cases proceed.) The challenge still presented by the former detainees in the community is no small matter, despite the political storm having calmed and the media interest dissipating. In evidence in Senate estimates in March, the Department of Home Affairs said 300 people had been released from immigration detention as at the end of February. Of these, 104 had offended since release, and 30 were incarcerated (including on remand). Some 83 had only a state or territory criminal charge; seven only a Migration Act charge; 14 people had both a Migration Act charge and a state or territory charge. In recent weeks, one former detainee is alleged to have murdered a photographer in Melbourne. The political context can be very relevant to whether the embers of an old issue re-spark into something major. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's decision last year to put Burke into Home Affairs was something of a political masterstroke. If Clare O'Neil and Andrew Giles had still been in their former respective portfolios of Home Affairs and Immigration, the present failure to deal more successfully with the former detainees would have been a much bigger issue. Burke is skilled at throwing a blanket over contentious areas. On the other side of politics, James Paterson was moved out of home affairs to become shadow finance minister in Sussan Ley's reshuffle. Paterson pursued the former immigration detainees relentlessly. The new spokesmen, Andrew Hastie (home affairs) and Paul Scarr (immigration) haven't hit their strides yet, and what they have said on the issue hasn't grabbed much attention. The government would have been under more pressure on the issue if parliament were sitting. But the new parliament doesn't meet until July 22. When it does, one of the new arrivals will be a former face, Liberal MP Tim Wilson. Way back when, Wilson was a player in the story of 18C. For him, the way 18C resurfaced this week contains more than a little irony. In February 2014, Wilson took up his post of Human Rights Commissioner, appointed by the Abbott government with the special brief of promoting freedom of speech. (He was even dubbed the "freedom commissioner".) The Abbott government was strongly opposed to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which made it unlawful to "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" a person or group because of their race or ethnicity. The assault on 18C ran into vigorous opposition from ethnic and other groups, including the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. In the end, then prime minister Tony Abbott retreated. Wilson was disappointed, tweeting: "Disturbed to hear the government has backed down on 18c and will keep offensive speech illegal. Very disturbed." In his 2025 bid for election, Wilson - who had been member for Goldstein from 2016-2022 - was helped by the Jewish vote, after the rise of anti-Semitism. The debate about free speech has moved on a great deal since the days of the Abbott government, when conservatives were particularly agitated about 18C following a court judgement against journalist Andrew Bolt relating to what he had written about some fair-skinned Indigenous people. Today's debate is in the context of "hate speech" associated with the Middle East conflict. Hate-crime laws have provoked another fierce round of controversy about the appropriate limits to put on "free speech". The Executive Council of Australian Jewry brought its case under the 18C civil law against preacher William Haddad, from Western Sydney, after no action was taken by the authorities under the criminal law. Haddad described Jews as "a treacherous people, a vile people", among other offensive remarks, that included saying: "The majority of banks are owned by the Jews, who are happy to give people loans, knowing that it's almost impossible to pay it back". Haddad argued in his defence his lectures drew on religious writings, relating them to contemporary events, and were delivered for educational purposes. READ MORE GRATTAN: Finding against Haddad, Judge Angus Stewart said the lectures conveyed "disparaging imputations about Jewish people and that in all the circumstances were reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate Jews in Australia". Reflecting on this week's decision, George Brandis - who was attorney-general during the 18C furore - says, "My view hasn't changed. It should not in a free country be either criminally or civilly actionable to say something that merely offends. However, in this case the conduct went far beyond mere offence, to intimidation. It did not require 18C to get the redress that was sought in the case." Wilson does not wish to re-enter the debate. The new opposition industrial relations spokesman says his focus is "my portfolio responsibilities". It's likely many of those who fought 18C years ago hold to their original view, while having to applaud the judgement made under it this week. That's another irony. Political and news cycles often work in a certain and predictable way. Issues flare like bushfires, then rage for weeks or even months, until they are finally extinguished by action or fade by being overtaken by the next big thing. On two very different fronts this week, we're reminded how these cycles work. During the last term, the opposition constantly hammered the government over its handling of the former immigration detainees released after the High Court found they couldn't be held indefinitely. These included people who had committed murder, child sex offences and violent assaults. On Sunday, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke admitted in a television interview that the legislation the government passed to re-detain some of these people was, in effect, impossible to use. Burke's comments attracted only limited attention. The other reminder of an old story came when the Federal Court ordered a militant Muslim preacher to remove inflammatory lectures from the internet. He had lost a case brought by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry under Section 18C for the Racial Discrimination Act. More than a decade ago, political passions ran high in conservative circles about the alleged evils of 18C. First to the Burke admission. Burke told Sky he had "a lot of resources" dedicated to trying to get applications to court for preventative detention orders. But "no one has come close to reaching the threshold that is in that legislation". Burke insisted he was "not giving up", but there is little reason to believe things will change. The opposition has suggested amending the preventative detention legislation, but Burke says that would hit a constitutional obstacle. For a long time, the government had kept saying it was working up cases to put to the court (and given the impression action was close). But, realising the difficulty, it also passed legislation facilitating the deportation of these people to third countries. There are now three former detainees due to be deported to Nauru, following a financial agreement with that country. But there's a hitch: their deportations are tied up in court appeals. (They are, however, able to be held in detention while the cases proceed.) The challenge still presented by the former detainees in the community is no small matter, despite the political storm having calmed and the media interest dissipating. In evidence in Senate estimates in March, the Department of Home Affairs said 300 people had been released from immigration detention as at the end of February. Of these, 104 had offended since release, and 30 were incarcerated (including on remand). Some 83 had only a state or territory criminal charge; seven only a Migration Act charge; 14 people had both a Migration Act charge and a state or territory charge. In recent weeks, one former detainee is alleged to have murdered a photographer in Melbourne. The political context can be very relevant to whether the embers of an old issue re-spark into something major. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's decision last year to put Burke into Home Affairs was something of a political masterstroke. If Clare O'Neil and Andrew Giles had still been in their former respective portfolios of Home Affairs and Immigration, the present failure to deal more successfully with the former detainees would have been a much bigger issue. Burke is skilled at throwing a blanket over contentious areas. On the other side of politics, James Paterson was moved out of home affairs to become shadow finance minister in Sussan Ley's reshuffle. Paterson pursued the former immigration detainees relentlessly. The new spokesmen, Andrew Hastie (home affairs) and Paul Scarr (immigration) haven't hit their strides yet, and what they have said on the issue hasn't grabbed much attention. The government would have been under more pressure on the issue if parliament were sitting. But the new parliament doesn't meet until July 22. When it does, one of the new arrivals will be a former face, Liberal MP Tim Wilson. Way back when, Wilson was a player in the story of 18C. For him, the way 18C resurfaced this week contains more than a little irony. In February 2014, Wilson took up his post of Human Rights Commissioner, appointed by the Abbott government with the special brief of promoting freedom of speech. (He was even dubbed the "freedom commissioner".) The Abbott government was strongly opposed to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which made it unlawful to "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" a person or group because of their race or ethnicity. The assault on 18C ran into vigorous opposition from ethnic and other groups, including the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. In the end, then prime minister Tony Abbott retreated. Wilson was disappointed, tweeting: "Disturbed to hear the government has backed down on 18c and will keep offensive speech illegal. Very disturbed." In his 2025 bid for election, Wilson - who had been member for Goldstein from 2016-2022 - was helped by the Jewish vote, after the rise of anti-Semitism. The debate about free speech has moved on a great deal since the days of the Abbott government, when conservatives were particularly agitated about 18C following a court judgement against journalist Andrew Bolt relating to what he had written about some fair-skinned Indigenous people. Today's debate is in the context of "hate speech" associated with the Middle East conflict. Hate-crime laws have provoked another fierce round of controversy about the appropriate limits to put on "free speech". The Executive Council of Australian Jewry brought its case under the 18C civil law against preacher William Haddad, from Western Sydney, after no action was taken by the authorities under the criminal law. Haddad described Jews as "a treacherous people, a vile people", among other offensive remarks, that included saying: "The majority of banks are owned by the Jews, who are happy to give people loans, knowing that it's almost impossible to pay it back". Haddad argued in his defence his lectures drew on religious writings, relating them to contemporary events, and were delivered for educational purposes. READ MORE GRATTAN: Finding against Haddad, Judge Angus Stewart said the lectures conveyed "disparaging imputations about Jewish people and that in all the circumstances were reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate Jews in Australia". Reflecting on this week's decision, George Brandis - who was attorney-general during the 18C furore - says, "My view hasn't changed. It should not in a free country be either criminally or civilly actionable to say something that merely offends. However, in this case the conduct went far beyond mere offence, to intimidation. It did not require 18C to get the redress that was sought in the case." Wilson does not wish to re-enter the debate. The new opposition industrial relations spokesman says his focus is "my portfolio responsibilities". It's likely many of those who fought 18C years ago hold to their original view, while having to applaud the judgement made under it this week. That's another irony. Political and news cycles often work in a certain and predictable way. Issues flare like bushfires, then rage for weeks or even months, until they are finally extinguished by action or fade by being overtaken by the next big thing. On two very different fronts this week, we're reminded how these cycles work. During the last term, the opposition constantly hammered the government over its handling of the former immigration detainees released after the High Court found they couldn't be held indefinitely. These included people who had committed murder, child sex offences and violent assaults. On Sunday, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke admitted in a television interview that the legislation the government passed to re-detain some of these people was, in effect, impossible to use. Burke's comments attracted only limited attention. The other reminder of an old story came when the Federal Court ordered a militant Muslim preacher to remove inflammatory lectures from the internet. He had lost a case brought by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry under Section 18C for the Racial Discrimination Act. More than a decade ago, political passions ran high in conservative circles about the alleged evils of 18C. First to the Burke admission. Burke told Sky he had "a lot of resources" dedicated to trying to get applications to court for preventative detention orders. But "no one has come close to reaching the threshold that is in that legislation". Burke insisted he was "not giving up", but there is little reason to believe things will change. The opposition has suggested amending the preventative detention legislation, but Burke says that would hit a constitutional obstacle. For a long time, the government had kept saying it was working up cases to put to the court (and given the impression action was close). But, realising the difficulty, it also passed legislation facilitating the deportation of these people to third countries. There are now three former detainees due to be deported to Nauru, following a financial agreement with that country. But there's a hitch: their deportations are tied up in court appeals. (They are, however, able to be held in detention while the cases proceed.) The challenge still presented by the former detainees in the community is no small matter, despite the political storm having calmed and the media interest dissipating. In evidence in Senate estimates in March, the Department of Home Affairs said 300 people had been released from immigration detention as at the end of February. Of these, 104 had offended since release, and 30 were incarcerated (including on remand). Some 83 had only a state or territory criminal charge; seven only a Migration Act charge; 14 people had both a Migration Act charge and a state or territory charge. In recent weeks, one former detainee is alleged to have murdered a photographer in Melbourne. The political context can be very relevant to whether the embers of an old issue re-spark into something major. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's decision last year to put Burke into Home Affairs was something of a political masterstroke. If Clare O'Neil and Andrew Giles had still been in their former respective portfolios of Home Affairs and Immigration, the present failure to deal more successfully with the former detainees would have been a much bigger issue. Burke is skilled at throwing a blanket over contentious areas. On the other side of politics, James Paterson was moved out of home affairs to become shadow finance minister in Sussan Ley's reshuffle. Paterson pursued the former immigration detainees relentlessly. The new spokesmen, Andrew Hastie (home affairs) and Paul Scarr (immigration) haven't hit their strides yet, and what they have said on the issue hasn't grabbed much attention. The government would have been under more pressure on the issue if parliament were sitting. But the new parliament doesn't meet until July 22. When it does, one of the new arrivals will be a former face, Liberal MP Tim Wilson. Way back when, Wilson was a player in the story of 18C. For him, the way 18C resurfaced this week contains more than a little irony. In February 2014, Wilson took up his post of Human Rights Commissioner, appointed by the Abbott government with the special brief of promoting freedom of speech. (He was even dubbed the "freedom commissioner".) The Abbott government was strongly opposed to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which made it unlawful to "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" a person or group because of their race or ethnicity. The assault on 18C ran into vigorous opposition from ethnic and other groups, including the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. In the end, then prime minister Tony Abbott retreated. Wilson was disappointed, tweeting: "Disturbed to hear the government has backed down on 18c and will keep offensive speech illegal. Very disturbed." In his 2025 bid for election, Wilson - who had been member for Goldstein from 2016-2022 - was helped by the Jewish vote, after the rise of anti-Semitism. The debate about free speech has moved on a great deal since the days of the Abbott government, when conservatives were particularly agitated about 18C following a court judgement against journalist Andrew Bolt relating to what he had written about some fair-skinned Indigenous people. Today's debate is in the context of "hate speech" associated with the Middle East conflict. Hate-crime laws have provoked another fierce round of controversy about the appropriate limits to put on "free speech". The Executive Council of Australian Jewry brought its case under the 18C civil law against preacher William Haddad, from Western Sydney, after no action was taken by the authorities under the criminal law. Haddad described Jews as "a treacherous people, a vile people", among other offensive remarks, that included saying: "The majority of banks are owned by the Jews, who are happy to give people loans, knowing that it's almost impossible to pay it back". Haddad argued in his defence his lectures drew on religious writings, relating them to contemporary events, and were delivered for educational purposes. READ MORE GRATTAN: Finding against Haddad, Judge Angus Stewart said the lectures conveyed "disparaging imputations about Jewish people and that in all the circumstances were reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate Jews in Australia". Reflecting on this week's decision, George Brandis - who was attorney-general during the 18C furore - says, "My view hasn't changed. It should not in a free country be either criminally or civilly actionable to say something that merely offends. However, in this case the conduct went far beyond mere offence, to intimidation. It did not require 18C to get the redress that was sought in the case." Wilson does not wish to re-enter the debate. The new opposition industrial relations spokesman says his focus is "my portfolio responsibilities". It's likely many of those who fought 18C years ago hold to their original view, while having to applaud the judgement made under it this week. That's another irony.
Sky News AU
03-07-2025
- Politics
- Sky News AU
'Treating a gangrenous arm with painkillers': Silencing Islamic preacher Wissam Haddad's sermons leaves our community no safer
The Federal Court's ruling on Wissam Haddad is a win for the Jewish community, but a hollow one. A true victory would have seen Mr Haddad address the media outside the court and say 'I have seen the error of my ways. Jews are not the descendants of pigs, but my fellow Australians. I will now spread that message publicly and privately.' But that's not what we heard. We instead have a ruling from the Federal Court that the videos of offending sermons from Mr Haddad must be scrubbed from the internet, and the teachings not to be repeated in public. What person who believes Jews control the world would have their mind changed by that ruling? Surely they are more likely to have a deeper belief of their anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Australians have a strong sense of justice. When people spread hateful messages, we want there to be punishment for it. So when a hate preacher suffers legal consequences, it is easy to sit back and think the issue is solved. But the goal must be set higher than that. We want a harmonious society. One where different religions co-exist and hateful ideologies are rejected. Forcing these ideologies underground and away from public scrutiny does not remove them from society but lets them fester in the dark. This is the problem with 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which Mr Haddad was found to have breached. It is not a cure for hatred in society. It is treating a gangrenous arm with painkillers instead of surgery. Reality is kept from the patient as the situation worsens. Section 18C makes it illegal to harass, intimidate, humiliate or insult someone on the basis of their race. These are all worthy objectives, as society is better without people suffering those feelings for immutable characteristics. But 18C can only catch people saying hateful things in the presence - physically or digitally - of those who can be offended. It cannot catch people saying those views in private or thinking them - no law could. People who believe Mr Haddad's hateful teachings will not be swayed by non-believers saying those expressions can't be repeated. If anything, it gives them justification to think the truth is being silenced, and that it is not just holy to spread their views in secret, but brave and exciting. And what becomes exciting to say becomes enticing to hear. The views spread - unchallenged, as we who believe in a harmonious society remain ignorant of these hidden conversations - and the rot of antisemitism in our society grows. Free speech is scary. It permits the spread of good ideas and bad ones alike, and bad ideas must be stopped from spreading. History shows what happens when they spread too far. But the solution to bad speech isn't less speech but more. Bad ideas can be quietened by the law but not snuffed out. It is only the advocacy of good ideas that has been the antidote to bad ones. Support of slavery was the default position of the West for centuries. This stain on our history wasn't scrubbed out by the law. It was through right-minded people continuously and loudly preaching abolition that the public was won over, and slavery became erased through advocacy. It will be a long journey for our society to rid itself of the hateful thoughts Mr Haddad preaches. No society has managed it. But every time these debates are played out in public, it gives us another opportunity to inch closer to the goal. When these stories come up, they display the problem in full view. They give our society a platform to state its morals. They give right-minded influential Islamic leaders in Australia an impetus to reassert to their followers that hateful views aren't acceptable. When these stories stop coming up - because the holders of these views avoid the law's sight - we don't have these opportunities. It is good that Jewish leaders are advocating for their community, especially when so many of our institutions are playing dumb about the spread of anti-Semitism. They should be applauded for their vigorous defence of people who rightly feel marginalised. But for those who think the law is the way to combat anti-Semitism, I would ask: Would you feel safer knowing how many people wanted to cause you harm, or not knowing? James Bolt is a Sky News Australia contributor.
Sky News AU
02-07-2025
- Politics
- Sky News AU
Islamic leaders have failed to speak out against ‘hate-filled' Haddad
Sky News host Caleb Bond has called out Muslim organisations for failing to condemn the 'rancid, hate-filled' preachings of Wissam Haddad. This comes after the Islamic cleric was found to have breached the Racial Discrimination Act section 18C as his lectures contained content which could 'offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate' Australian Jews. 'Muslim organisations in Australia have failed to condemn the rancid, hate-filled preachings of Haddad,' Mr Bond told Sky News Australia. 'This pondscum doesn't believe in democracy, has advocated for jihad and has supported ISIS.'
