When judicial words matter

When hate preacher Wissam Haddad was held to account in a civil case at the Federal Court last June, we opined in this column that when it had mattered, Australia’s institutions had not let the Jewish community down.

We cannot say the same thing now.

The task before NSW Supreme Court Justice Desmond Fagan last week was merely to decide whether an extended supervision order was appropriate for Mohommed Farhat, who is currently in prison following his conviction over an antisemitic vandalism spree in Sydney, once he is released.

What is concerning is not that Fagan decided against such an order. It is that the judgement went beyond the immediate question before the court and ventured into political and geopolitical matters.

He called the core text of the IHRA definition “verbose and imprecise” and repeated the accusation that it stifles legitimate criticism of Israel. He opined that it was understandable for someone of Lebanese Shia Muslim background to sympathise with Hezbollah, a proscribed terrorist organisation. He referred in passing to the accusation that Israel is perpetrating genocide in Gaza as though it were an established fact.