by Tim Anderson
A single judge of the Australian Federal Court, Justice Angus Stewart, has rejected Zionist claims that a Muslim lay preacher has breached the Race Discrimination Act by harsh criticisms of Israel and Israeli crimes. However the case (Wertheim v Haddad 2025) affirmed careful application of a new provision of Race Discrimination law which prohibits ‘offence, insult, humiliation and intimidation’ of an entire community, in this case Jewish people.
This decision sets a precedent by rejecting the IHRA “working definition” of Anti-Semitism – already adopted by many Australian universities in a slightly modified form – which conflates anti-Israel speech with anti-Jewish speech. This IHRA “working definition” has been criticised as racist and misleading, including by Jewish scholars. Five years ago I wrote:
“A racialised Israel is the greatest contemporary source of anti-Jewish prejudice. … The history, myths and evils of European anti-Jewish racism certainly deserve attention. But racism more broadly stems from imperialism and colonialism. To link the essentially colonial and racist state of Israel with a definition of anti-Jewish racism is a travesty.”
As a single judge decision, untested by a full bench or a higher court, Justice Stewart’s decision is not binding on other judges; but the reasoning can be used in future cases.
Two Zionist leaders, Peter Wertheim, Co-CEO of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) and Robert Goot, Co-Chair of the World Jewish Congress (WJC) Policy Council brought the case against William Haddad and the Sydney-based Al Madina Dawah Centre (AMDC) in the NSW division of the Australian Federal Court.
Both the ECAJ and the WFC present as religious community groups but also function as Israeli lobby groups. They claimed that Haddad and the AMDC breached the (controversial) section 18C of the Race Discrimination Act 1975, which prohibits acts which “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people … [when] the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.” The vagueness of the section has led to much criticism of its potential to repress free speech.
Stewart’s decision both confirms and allays those fears, as he both confirmed and dismissed some of Wertheim’s complaints.
Those complaints revolved around five speeches in 2023 by lay preacher William Haddad, published online. Two of those speeches, which were carefully aimed at the Israeli regime and its crimes, were found to not breach 18C. The reasoning deserves attention:
“The ordinary, reasonable listener would understand that not all Jews are Zionists or support the actions of Israel in Gaza and that disparagement of Zionism constitutes disparagement of a philosophy or ideology and not a race or ethnic group. Needless to say, 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 … Indeed, the applicants did not submit that it is. 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 one flows from the other.” (107)
However in the other three speeches, titled ‘The Jews of Madina’ and citing both Quranic and Hadith references to the misdeeds of particular Jewish groups at the time of Prophet Muhammad, Stewart found that there was a breach of 18C.
In these cases the defence of ‘religious freedom’ failed because Haddad made direct links between Quranic criticisms of particular Jewish groups, of that time, to the crimes of present day Zionists – who are indeed called “the Jews” by Arabs and Israelis alike, across West Asia. Justice Stewart says:
“In the [first] lecture Mr Haddad draws no distinction between the Jews of the ancient tribes and the Jews of today, and he draws no distinction between Jews who adhere to the political ideals of Zionism, i.e. the establishment and maintenance of a Jewish state or homeland, and Jews more generally. That is to say, his opening message is that Jews are Jews and they are all the same.” (46)
Accusing “the Jews” of today of the vices of Zionists offends European sensibilities and allows no escape ramp for those Jewish people who say “Not in our name” to Israeli crimes. This may be oversensitive and reek of double standards – western commentators freely use the labels of “Muslim terrorists” and violent “jihadists” – but it has become a part of western institutionalised racism.
At least those of us who make the distinction between Jews and Zionist-Israelis can still claim a freedom of expression that the IHRA nonsense sought to extinguish.
The colonial media (those that support every North American war and intervention) reported Wertheim vs Haddad as a victory for the Jewish complainants, as Justice Stewart ruled against three of the five speech and ordered them taken down.
However the significance of the case is that it sets a standard for other cases, including possible affirmation by the higher courts. That may present a challenge for the supine universities which rushed to appease Canberra and the Zionist lobby, in their anxiety to muzzle even intellectual dissent.
The fragility of this case hangs on the fact that it is reasoning by a single Federal Court judge. Had the mater been heard by the fanatical Israeli supporter Justice Michael Lee, who sabotaged NTEU vs the University of Sydney, the outcome might have been very different.
