Tayeh conviction penalty “woefully inadequate”

Two Jewish community figures most closely involved in legal action over the chant “All Zionists are terrorists” have welcomed the conviction of pro-Palestinian activist Hash Tayeh as an important precedent.

But one has criticised the penalty imposed on him and the time the case took.

Tayeh was found guilty of one criminal charge over the chant, with four further charges not made out.

After a constitutional challenge against the conviction failed, Magistrate Thomas recorded a conviction and placed Tayeh on a 12-month good behaviour undertaking.

Menachem Vorchheimer, who brought a similar civil case focusing on the same chant, said the outcome confirmed the legal framework had been in place all along.

“I’m happy with the decision of the court,” he said. “I think the decision, both in the criminal case and the civil case, affirms that the laws have always existed criminally and civilly.”

He said the criminal provision dated from 1966 and the civil provision from 2001, which he said disposed of “any argument that’s been put forward by the government wrongly that the rise in antisemitism has been a factor of an absence of laws. It’s rather driven by a failure to enforce laws that, as the Tayeh case demonstrates, have been in place for six decades.”

On what the judgments mean for public demonstrations, Vorchheimer said: “First and foremost, it puts to bed any assertion, wrongful assertion, that freedom of speech is absolute. It never has been, and this is something that I’ve consistently stated.”

“Secondly, I think it creates a greater onus upon Victoria Police and our law enforcement agencies to understand that the right to protest is not a right to vilify.”

He called the penalty “woefully inadequate”, noting Tayeh already had prior convictions, “so recording of a further conviction is not really much more of a stain on a person that already got a criminal conviction”.

His civil case, by contrast, obtained an undertaking from Tayeh not to use or encourage others to use the chant at rallies. It also secured a $10,000 civil penalty, which he said remained unpaid, and publication orders.

“The police could have and should have pushed for a harsher penalty in those circumstances, and I think their failure to do so underscores that perhaps there’s more work to be done with law enforcement agencies on sending the right message,” he said.

Asked whether Tayeh appeared to accept the result, Vorchheimer said, “This case is not going to rise or fall on Mr Tayeh’s disposition to the result. This case is about establishing precedents, and those precedents have been established.”

He said the finding could open the way to action over other chants heard at rallies, including “Khaybar Khaybar ya yahud”, which he described as “a war cry about the murder of Jews”, though he said any such action would be considered in due course.

Akessandra Steele, chief executive of the Jewish Centre for Law & Justice (JCLJ), said the verdict on one of five charges was a good outcome, pointing to the magistrate’s reasoning rather than the result.

“There’s a strong statement by Magistrate Thomas that Zionism is connected with Jewish cultural and religious identity, and that a statement of this kind is inherently dehumanising,” she said.

Steele said the criminal case had been slow. The conduct that led to the charges occurred on 30 March 2025, more than a year before judgment.

“In an environment that’s quite heated, it is important for these signals to be given to the community at the earliest possible time,” she said, adding that the delay validated JCLJ’s decision to support Vorchheimer’s earlier civil case..

Asked whether such cases amounted to a legal game of whack-a-mole, Steele said the courts remained a useful instrument. “I think it’s very effective when it works. When it fails or when it’s slow, then it can be problematic. But I do think that an outcome, a guilty finding, is a strong signal to the community about what is acceptable.”

She said the judgment also highlighted the difficulties of criminal prosecutions for hate speech, which “can create confusion in the community about what’s acceptable and what’s not”.

“We’re glad that the courts have recognised the chant for what it really was, an antisemitic dog whistle that is antisocial and harmful,” she said.

Vorchheimer said the twin findings should reassure the community that the law recognises such words “don’t belong in our society”.