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.

We expect such rhetoric from activists, but not judges. They should be above everything but the laws of Australia.

And already we see Greens Senator Nick McKim referencing Fagan’s judgement in his cynical response to the Zionist Federation of Australia for calling him out over saying politicians in Australia had “been captured by Zionist interests” – an antisemitic trope if ever there was one.

In the meantime, the Royal Commission has just held its last hearing, despite the federal Coalition and NSW Premier Chris Minns – usually political adversaries – both calling for it to be extended.

We said last week Commissioner Bell and her excellent team have barely scratched the surface of the problem. Clearly, this judgement only reinforces the argument that its work is not done.

We are not in any way suggesting Justice Fagan is an antisemite. But it is difficult not to worry that actual antisemites will seize upon his words to justify their own rhetoric and actions.

And that in itself risks undermining much of the good work the Royal Commission has managed to achieve.