Federal Court finds Islamic preacher breached racial discrimination laws
Judge says Wissam Haddad conveyed 'disparaging imputations about Jewish people' that included 'age-old tropes against Jewish people that are fundamentally racist and antisemitic'
A Federal Court judge has found that Islamic preacher Wissam Haddad contravened section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act by delivering a series of lectures that were “reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate Jews in Australia”.
Justice Angus Stewart ruled that Haddad’s three lectures titled “The Jews of Al Medina”, delivered at Bankstown’s Al Madina Dawah Centre in November 2023, conveyed “disparaging imputations about Jewish people” that included “age-old tropes against Jewish people that are fundamentally racist and antisemitic”.
The judge found that Haddad, whose real name is William Haddad, made “perverse generalisations against Jewish people as a group” that would be experienced as “harassing and intimidating” by Jews in Australia.
Executive Council of Australian Jewry co-CEO Peter Wertheim and deputy president Robert Goot brought the case against Haddad and the Al Madina Dawah Centre after the lectures were video recorded and uploaded to social media platforms including Rumble and Facebook.
Justice Stewart noted the timing of the lectures was particularly significant, as they were delivered “at a time of heightened vulnerability and fragility experienced by Jews in Australia following the attack by Hamas on 7 October 2023, Israel’s bombardment and blockade of Gaza in response and resultant solidarity protests and other actions in Australia”.
The judge rejected Haddad’s defence under section 18D of the Racial Discrimination Act, finding the lectures were “not delivered reasonably and in good faith”. Stewart noted that while Haddad claimed he was teaching Islamic scripture interpretation, expert witnesses on Islamic theology from both sides agreed that “neither the Quran nor the Hadith teach that Jews have an inherent negative quality as a people”.
However, Justice Stewart distinguished between criticism of Israel and antisemitism, finding that passages in Haddad’s interview and sermon that were “critical and disparaging” about Israel and Zionists would not be understood by “the ordinary, reasonable listener” to be about Jewish people in general.
“Political criticism of Israel, however inflammatory or adversarial, is not by its nature criticism of Jews in general or based on Jewish racial or ethnic identity,” Stewart said. “The conclusion that it is not antisemitic to criticise Israel is the corollary of the conclusion that to blame Jews for the actions of Israel is antisemitic.”
The court also rejected constitutional challenges raised by Haddad’s legal team, who argued that section 18C was beyond parliament’s legislative power and conflicted with freedom of political communication and religious expression.
Justice Stewart ordered Haddad and the Al Madina Dawah Centre to remove the three lectures from any internet pages or publications under their control and to take reasonable steps to have them removed from other sources of republication.
The court will consider whether the respondents should be ordered to publish corrective notices on their social media platforms, with parties given the opportunity to make further submissions.
Haddad and the Al Madina Dawah Centre were ordered to pay the applicants’ costs.
Speaking after an earlier hearing, Wertheim described the case as “a test of whether rank antisemitism, whichever way it might be dressed up, falls into the category of views that members of the community are now expected to put up with”.
Goot had described Haddad’s comments as “utterly unacceptable, un-Australian, and we hope that the court will find, unlawful”.
comments