Latest news with #racialDiscrimination
News.com.au
01-07-2025
- Politics
- News.com.au
Muslim preacher Wissam Haddad breached racial discrimination act in series of speeches, court finds
A Muslim preacher sued over a series of speeches in which he described Jewish people 'treacherous' and 'vile' has lost his racial discrimination case. Wissam Haddad, also known as Abu Ousayd, fronted a four-day hearing in the Federal Court last month over a series of lectures he gave in November 2023, a month after the October 7 attack in Gaza. The speeches allegedly included derogatory language about Jewish people, including describing them as 'vile' and 'treacherous'. Proceedings were launched against Mr Haddad by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) co-chief executive Peter Wertheim AM and deputy president Robert Goot AO SC, who argued the speeches constituted unlawful discrimination. The speeches allegedly inferred Jewish people were 'very mischievous', oppressed one another, and were 'wicked and scheming' among other statements, according to ECAJ's statement of claim. The lengthy document included alleged transcripts from the speeches, with one excerpt claiming Jewish people 'used to kill their own prophets' while another described Jewish people as 'descendants of apes and pigs'. Mr Haddad claims he was referring to Islamic scripture in most cases. Mr Wertheim and Mr Goot submitted the speeches were reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate Jewish people in Australia. The speeches were also published online, with the action extending to the Al Madina Dawah Centre (AMDC) for allegedly posting videos of the sermons on their Facebook and Rumble pages. Justice Angus Stewart delivered his judgment on Tuesday afternoon at the NSW Federal Court, where he found Mr Haddad and AMDC did breach the racial discrimination act by delivering and publishing the lectures. Mr Haddad and AMDC have been ordered to remove the lectures from their social media. Justice Stewart also moved to restrain Mr Haddad from causing words, sounds or images to be communicated anywhere but in private which attribute characteristics to Jewish people that convey any disparaging imputations identified from the lectures.
Yahoo
24-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Former GB News presenter 'sacked for calling Suella Braverman a racist'
A FORMER GB News presenter has claimed he was sacked for calling Suella Braverman a racist. Albie Amankona was dropped by the broadcaster last year and is now taking it to an employment tribunal, alleging that he was subject to racial discrimination and unfair dismissal. He formerly presented GB News's The Saturday Five programme and left after calling the former home secretary 'a racist and a thoroughly bigoted woman'. READ MORE: GB News apologised for his comments at the time, saying they had 'crossed a line between robust debate and causing unnecessary offence'. Amankona is now crowdfunding a legal campaign against the broadcaster, The Telegraph reports, and is getting support from Jolyon Maugham's (below) Good Law Project. He said: 'I regret that it has come to this, I have tried very hard to resolve matters privately and in good faith. Like so many fair-minded Britons I believe in free speech, fairness, the rule of law and I know right from wrong. GB News claims to stand for these values. 'My experience tells a different story. They must be held accountable, not only for cancelling me, but for seemingly treating non-white employees differently from white employees, and for abandoning the very values we Britons hold dear.' READ MORE: The Good Law Project said: 'GB News likes to brand itself as a champion of free speech and journalistic independence. But when one of its own presenters dared to call out racism and intolerance, the response was swift and severe: he was dropped instantly. 'It's a familiar pattern – when free speech aligns with their agenda, they celebrate it. But the moment it challenges their narrative, the mask slips.' A GB News spokesperson said: 'Mr Amankona's claim is misconceived, without merit and being robustly defended. As the claim is ongoing we do not propose to comment further.'
Telegraph
23-06-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
GB News presenter claims he was sacked for calling Suella Braverman a racist
A former GB News presenter has claimed he was sacked for calling Suella Braverman a racist on air. Albie Amankona, who was dropped by the broadcaster last year, is taking the channel to an employment tribunal over a string of claims including racial discrimination and unfair dismissal. Mr Amankona, a Tory commentator who presented debate programme The Saturday Five, left the broadcaster shortly after stating that he believed Ms Braverman was 'a racist and a thoroughly bigoted woman'. GB News issued an apology to the former home secretary, saying the comments 'crossed a line between robust debate and causing unnecessary offence'. The broadcaster added that Ms Braverman was 'understandably upset'. Mr Amankona alleges that he was taken off air as a result of the comments. He is crowdfunding his claim, which also includes allegations of harassment and victimisation, through the Good Law Project, a legal campaign group founded by outspoken barrister Jo Maugham. Mr Amankona said: 'I regret that it has come to this, I have tried very hard to resolve matters privately and in good faith. Like so many fair-minded Britons I believe in free speech, fairness, the rule of law and I know right from wrong. GB News claims to stand for these values. 'My experience tells a different story. They must be held accountable, not only for cancelling me, but for seemingly treating non-white employees differently from white employees, and for abandoning the very values we Britons hold dear.' The Good Law Project said: 'GB News likes to brand itself as a champion of free speech and journalistic independence. But when one of its own presenters dared to call out racism and intolerance, the response was swift and severe: he was dropped instantly. 'It's a familiar pattern – when free speech aligns with their agenda, they celebrate it. But the moment it challenges their narrative, the mask slips.' GB News denies the claims. A spokesman said: 'Mr Amankona's claim is misconceived, without merit and being robustly defended. As the claim is ongoing we do not propose to comment further.' String of controversies Mr Amankona is a broadcaster and activist who co-founded the Conservatives Against Racism For Equality group. He presented the GB News programme from March 2023 until August 2024, and has made regular appearances on other broadcasters including the BBC, LBC and Sky News. The legal challenge marks the latest twist in a turbulent few years for GB News, which has courted controversy since its launch in 2021 as a challenger to incumbents such as the BBC. Ofcom has found the channel in breach of broadcasting rules a dozen times over impartiality issues including its use of politicians as presenters. But in a major victory earlier this year, GB News successfully challenged Ofcom's decisions in the High Court, leading to several impartiality rulings being dropped. Nevertheless, the start-up is still locking horns with the watchdog, which is now consulting on plans to broaden its ban on politicians acting as news presenters. Angelos Frangopoulos, GB News chief executive, has accused Ofcom of having a 'jailer' mentality towards broadcasters, while co-owner Sir Paul Marshall last month claimed the regulator was unfairly punishing the channel under pressure from Left-wing activists.
Yahoo
23-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
GB News presenter claims he was sacked for calling Suella Braverman a racist
A former GB News presenter has claimed he was sacked for calling Suella Braverman a racist on air. Albie Amankona, who was dropped by the broadcaster last year, is taking the channel to an employment tribunal over a string of claims including racial discrimination and unfair dismissal. Mr Amankona, a Tory commentator who presented debate programme The Saturday Five, left the broadcaster shortly after stating that he believed Ms Braverman was 'a racist and a thoroughly bigoted woman'. GB News issued an apology to the former home secretary, saying the comments 'crossed a line between robust debate and causing unnecessary offence'. The broadcaster added that Ms Braverman was 'understandably upset'. Mr Amankona alleges that he was taken off air as a result of the comments. He is crowdfunding his claim, which also includes allegations of harassment and victimisation, through the Good Law Project, a legal campaign group founded by outspoken barrister Jo Maugham. Mr Amankona said: 'I regret that it has come to this, I have tried very hard to resolve matters privately and in good faith. Like so many fair-minded Britons I believe in free speech, fairness, the rule of law and I know right from wrong. GB News claims to stand for these values. 'My experience tells a different story. They must be held accountable, not only for cancelling me, but for seemingly treating non-white employees differently from white employees, and for abandoning the very values we Britons hold dear.' The Good Law Project said: 'GB News likes to brand itself as a champion of free speech and journalistic independence. But when one of its own presenters dared to call out racism and intolerance, the response was swift and severe: he was dropped instantly. 'It's a familiar pattern – when free speech aligns with their agenda, they celebrate it. But the moment it challenges their narrative, the mask slips.' GB News denies the claims. A spokesman said: 'Mr Amankona's claim is misconceived, without merit and being robustly defended. As the claim is ongoing we do not propose to comment further.' Mr Amankona is a broadcaster and activist who co-founded the Conservatives Against Racism For Equality group. He presented the GB News programme from March 2023 until August 2024, and has made regular appearances on other broadcasters including the BBC, LBC and Sky News. The legal challenge marks the latest twist in a turbulent few years for GB News, which has courted controversy since its launch in 2021 as a challenger to incumbents such as the BBC. Ofcom has found the channel in breach of broadcasting rules a dozen times over impartiality issues including its use of politicians as presenters. But in a major victory earlier this year, GB News successfully challenged Ofcom's decisions in the High Court, leading to several impartiality rulings being dropped. Nevertheless, the start-up is still locking horns with the watchdog, which is now consulting on plans to broaden its ban on politicians acting as news presenters. Angelos Frangopoulos, GB News chief executive, has accused Ofcom of having a 'jailer' mentality towards broadcasters, while co-owner Sir Paul Marshall last month claimed the regulator was unfairly punishing the channel under pressure from Left-wing activists. Ofcom has insisted it enforces its rules 'fairly and proportionately'. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Forbes
17-06-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
Judge Rules NIH Grant Cuts Illegal
On Monday, U.S. District Judge William G. Young declared the Trump administration's cancellation of more than $1 billion in NIH research grants 'void and illegal' and accused the government of racial discrimination. The grants targeted included studies on vaccine hesitancy, maternal health in minority communities, and gender identity. The ruling temporarily restores funding for a coalition of researchers and Democratic-led states who sued to block the cuts. Judge Young's language was unusually direct. According to the New York Times, Judge Young said from the bench that he had 'never seen government racial discrimination like this,' and later asked, 'Have we no shame?' The case marks a key moment in what academics and journalists have referred to as a broader war on science by the Trump administration — an effort to reshape the role of public science under political pressure and for ideological reasons. The decision comes amid warranted scrutiny of how federal agencies set research priorities. The direction of science has always reflected the influence of its patrons — from the Medici court's support of Galileo to the Manhattan Project's harnessing of physics for wartime goals. Since the advent of 'big science,' governments have become the principal sponsors, shaping inquiry through formal mechanisms including peer review, targeted programs, and oversight by professional staff. These procedures have not only preserved the integrity of the scientific enterprise but also enabled science to generate broad societal returns from public health and technological innovation to economic productivity yielding dividends that greatly exceed the costs of research. The Trump administration's abrupt termination of peer-reviewed grants represents a sharp break from these norms. While not necessarily unlawful on its face, this departure has disrupted the institutional systems that convert public funding into innovation — and raised fears of a mounting brain drain from the United States. The administration justified its actions by appealing to a vague critique of science as 'ideologically driven.' In court, Department of Justice lawyer Thomas Ports explained that NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya had determined some areas, such as gender identity, were 'not scientifically valuable.' Yet the selective nature of the cuts — and the absence of procedural transparency — led Judge Young to conclude that the motive was discriminatory rather than scientific. In the absence of official disclosure, the scope of the NIH grant cancellations was reconstructed by Grant Watch, a grassroots initiative led by academic scientists. That the federal judiciary had to rely on this volunteer effort for evidence highlights the fragility of scientific governance when institutional transparency fails. What is most striking is that the government itself was unable to produce a clear and accurate record of which grants had been terminated. This gap is not merely bureaucratic — it signals a breakdown in accountability at the heart of the research funding process. The long-term consequences of the ruling remain uncertain. But it points to a deeper issue: the authority of science depends not only on the knowledge it produces, but on the credibility of the institutions that produce it. That credibility goes both ways. The erosion of public trust in elite institutions does not excuse the government's ideological manipulation of the scientific process. Peer review, transparency, and procedural integrity are not bureaucratic niceties; they are what separate scientific inquiry from political opinion or ideological assertion. When those norms are ignored, the line between science and politics disappears — not because science is ever apolitical, but because its function in a democratic society depends on institutions that are seen as fair, consistent, and accountable.
