Due to Tony Abbott's failure to abolish Sec 18c of the Racial Discrimination 1975 (he promised to do it) the Federal Court has dismissed Pauline Hanson's appeal against the finding that she breached the Act for posting that Green Senator Faruqi should return to Pakistan after that person disparaged Queen Elizabeth at the time of HM's death.

Not for the first time, the insidious 18c has been criticised; this time by Dr. Andrew Bushnell, Director of the Law and Freedom Program at the IPA. He said that18c “places an illegitimate and unnecessary burden on political debate”.

18c has been used on multiple occasions to shut down debate and censor political opponents - while people like Faruqi can take advantage of the ability to badmouth and insult dead people, in this case no less than the non-political head of the Commonwealth for 70 years.

While the Federal Court might have applied 18c lawfully in a strict sense, by inserting itself into a dispute “between two sitting elected parliamentarians (it has) exposed the absurdity of this law”.

Faruqi has used the broad terms and “low threshold” of 18c to shut down a political opponent.

Bushnell believes that this affair and the use of 18c will have a “chilling effect” on contentious discussions like immigration. He believes that Senator Hanson should appeal the decision in the High Court, as it threatens the free speech of all Australians.

People like Dr. Andrew Bushnell, Director of the Law and Freedom Program at the IPA have been moaning relentlessly about section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act for decades now. Yawn - nothing new to see there.

With regard to this incident, “… the Court found that Senator Hanson had a tendency to make racist, discriminatory, hateful, derogatory and Islamophobic statements, particularly in relation to persons of colour, migrants to Australia and Muslims. She was found to be an argumentative witness who would say anything which came to mind if she felt it would suit her at the time...”

In her defence Poor-lean argued that s 18C and s 18D are invalid as they are in conflict with freedom of political communication. The court rejected this claim and ruled that her response was deemed not to be a fair comment.
Source: https://www.hrlc.org.au/case-summaries/2024-11-25-faruqi-v-hanson/

Personally, when a politician disagrees with something others say and resorts to nasty, degrading slurs, it only succeeds in lowering the already low standard of political discourse.

Good on you Mahreen, someone I've called a friend for 20 years. Intelligent, articulate, well versed in the political issues of the day. An Australian who migrated from Pakistan, with husband and family in the 1990's eventually settling in inner city Sydney, ran in a couple of state elections for the Greens, very good campaigner, these folk are the perfect example of hard working migrants that have become decent Australians in their own right.

The Lovely Pauline, she dodges work 88% of the time, and then has the hide to call hard working Australian LAZY that should be SACKED! We know who should be SACKED!

Faruqi:
"I cannot mourn the leader of a racist empire built
on stolen lives, land and wealth of colonised
peoples.
We are reminded of the urgency of Treaty with First
Nations, justice & reparations for British colonies &
becoming a republic."

[Yeah fair enough now shuttup already]

Hanson:
"piss off back to Pakistan".

[Should I be surprised someone said it?]

This is 'Home and Away' level blowup or a small gathering of people after everyones had a few drinks.
It's laughable, doesn't pass the pub test for legal action.

I don't really care...
Maybe we should let them fight it out. Hail pulling, nails etc.
Why don't we just let them tell each other what they really think.

Faruqi seems to have a bit of a chip on her shoulder and she didn't even move to Australia from Pakistan until she was 29.
She seems to be a little racially divisive in her own outward view of the world.
http://www.instagram.com/reel/DCgXx9NNDin/

She says that in Parliament, and then it's 'Waaaah someone hurt my feelings I'm taking you to court'.

Ugh...
Why am I even responding to this...

And I'm not entirely sure that 'piss of back to where you came from' is essentially racist.
If I'm a white person and I tell another white person like an English, French or American', to go back to where they came from, is that racist?
Seems like a genuine grey area.

The important thing is not the personalities involved, but that the Federal Court interfered with an exchange beware two elected politicians UNDER PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE.

Nor is it a popularity competition between Faruqi and Hanson.

If politicians can't ‘have it out’ in Parliament with unelected judges poking their beaks in, Australia is finished, and I agree with Bushnell that Hanson should appeal to the High Court to protect freedom of speech - at least in Parliament, where elected politicians are supposed to be speaking on our behalf, one way or the other.

So, yes AC, they should be let “fight it out”. That's what we pay them to do.

Again, yes I agree that Faruqi has a massive chip on her shoulder, and she injects Palestinian propaganda into our Parliament which has nothing to do with us, or her as an Australian politician. She also accuses Australians of being “racist” in the safety of the Senate. I agree with Hanson that she seems to be so unhappy with Australia and Australians that she made a big mistake coming here. And “piss off back to Pakistan” is rude and not what is expected from one of our representatives, but it is not racist.

This bloke is as dumb as Hanson. Likes to use a bit of Goebbelism, tell a big lie, and hope everyone believes it.

"The important thing is not the personalities involved, but that the Federal Court interfered with an exchange beware two elected politicians UNDER PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE."

"Pauline Hanson did not use parliamentary privilege to attack Mehreen Faruqi. Instead, the attack occurred on the public social media platform X (formerly Twitter), leading to a civil racial discrimination lawsuit in the Federal Court of Australia."

p/s Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor was 96 when she died in her sleep, was I upset, nope, did I care, nope. So what, luckier than most, lived a long and privileged life, then carked it in her sleep from old age, without pain, at aged 96. I'd say she was bloody lucky.

24 hours ago Pauline Hanson said she is not "letting it go". Looks like there will be a High Court appeal.

Hi ttbn,

Then she can claim it was all said UNDER PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE. Maybe Dennis Denuto will act on her behalf; “In summing up, it's the constitution, it's Mabo, it's justice, it's law, it's the vibe... ah, no, that's it, it's the vibe. I rest my case.”

Hanson was involved in major defamation litigation regarding allegations she made outside parliament against former senator Brian Burston concerning behaviour in a parliamentary office, resulting in substantial court-ordered damages.

Hi ttbn,
As you know I'm not opposed to support for Palestinians.
And I don't want Australia turned into Greater Israel.
There's a few issues Shoebridge stands up for that I have to commend him on, but I'm not generally supportive of progressives.

The point I wish to add, is that us voters never win.

If a politician has one policy or position you would support;
Then they are sure to also have 2 positions that you'd oppose.
Every single one of them, because they all sellout in the end.
No one wins, we all lose.

Jus this sham called democracy where we all go home feeling optimistic stupidly thinking that our team had a small win this week.
Its all total bs, it's a road to nowhere.

Albo, Angus, David, Pauline. These are our saviours?
It's a clownshow of incompetents that disagree constantly and achieve little without screwing things up just as often.

AC,

Given the level of antisemitism in Australia, there is no chance of us becoming a “Greater Israel”. You can rest easy on that.

You can support Palestinians or whoever, but I'm not sure how that ‘support’ works. I don't think that you are the type to break Australian law and go there to help out; do you send them money? How is your ‘support’ working for Palestinians? Israel still has the upper hand; it has been beating off your Palestinians for about 80 years.

Let's just say you prefer Palestine, I prefer Israel, but neither of our opinions means diddly squat in real terms. The never-ending conflict has nothing to do with us or our country.

What we do agree on, I think, is that our political class of all colours is absolutely crap, completely uninterested in what we or anyone else thinks.

It is fine to talk endlessly about an apparent injustice.
But what, in practice, can we do about it?
For one thing, we can make it clear to politicians that we don't approve.
This discussion should help with that.
We can also change the way we vote if we wish.
Or in extreme cases a public protest might be initiated.
But generally speaking, our hands are tied.
We must wait to see how legal processes pan out.
And perhaps make further protest if we disagree with the outcome.

I dislike both Faruqi and Hanson, and think both of them made nasty and vicious comments.

I do not think, though, that either of their comments should be illegal.

Freedom of speech is a vital part of democracy, and that includes freedom to be nasty and vicious.

18C is broad and vague and leaves courts to interpret what is “reasonably likely” to offend a “reasonable” person. Calls for repeal or reform have not just come from the right – Philip Adams, Jillian Trigg and the Australian Law Reform Commission have all criticised it.

One of the unfortunate consequences of making this a legal issue is that it transfers responsibility for sanctioning unacceptable behaviour from the community to the courts. Hanson should be utterly condemned for her comments. So should Faruqi. Instead, one appears to be vindicated while the others can be portrayed as a free-speech martyr rather than a spiteful bigot.

Rhian,

Fair comment.

Let's just say you prefer Palestine, I prefer Israel, but neither of our opinions means diddly squat in real terms. The never-ending conflict has nothing to do with us or our country.

I don't begrudge you for opposing the Palestinian protests
It wouldn't be unreasonable if you thought 'Take your garbage elsewhere'

'...it has been beating off your Palestinians for about 80 years."
Ever since it got there funnily enough.

I guess the Zionist slogan "a land without a people for a people without a land" was a bit of a furphy.
Maybe they should've gone with 'A nation built of lies and death'.
- But what do I know...

"What we do agree on, I think, is that our political class of all colours is absolutely crap, completely uninterested in what we or anyone else thinks."
- We agree.

Hi Rhian,
"Freedom of speech is a vital part of democracy, and that includes freedom to be nasty and vicious."
- I think it was more the timing. It's one thing for Faruqi to have those opinions but venting them during the Queens funeral was maybe asking for a response, and Pauline gave her one.

You can't blame an Aussie in a position of leadership for telling someone else to shut-up and be respectful during the Queens funeral.
Likewise Faruqi comments aren't entirely unexpected.
You probably could've seen it coming, it's how she rolls.

Hi Rhian,

"Freedom of speech is a vital part of democracy, and that includes freedom to be nasty and vicious."

I agree with the first part; "Freedom of speech is a vital part of democracy" The rest is rather vexed, to what extent should nasty vicious speech be condoned in society? The law is there to protect individuals from those that use the kind of "free speech" that causes personal harm to people, speech that insights violence towards individuals or groups. There has to be a responsible balance drawn, where free expression is balanced by the individuals right to protection from unfair hateful speech, that is intended to cause harm.

"18C is broad and vague and leaves courts to interpret what is “reasonably likely” to offend a “reasonable” person." That may be true, but what is the alternative, no law at all.

Faruqi should go back to Pakistan. The biggest colonisers of all time has been Islam. Every country gets turned into a hole when Islam takes root and the grubs come here wanting turn Australia into the filth they left. What treacherous fools our 'multicultural' Pollies and supporter have been and are. The left and Islam using each other as useful idiots as our taxes funds mosques and our own demise. Leftist anarchist and Islam have much in common with their hatred of anything decent.

Hi Runner,

Still creating lies I see, "our taxes funds mosques" that's not true, no taxpayer funds are used to build mosques. On the other hand plenty of taxpayer funds have ended up in the hands of paedophile Christian clergy. The federal government provides an estimated $20 billion in recurrent funding to Church schools for the 2026 period. A known breeding ground for paedophiles.

Runner

Good on you for speaking up. Multiculturalism. Inappropriate migrants. Never should have happened.

Yes well we can't put the toothpaste back in the tube can we.
Problem is some pollies just want to keep squeezing the tube.
Aussies are almost a minority now.
Those who are immigrants or kids of immigrants outnumber the originals.

Hi AC,

"Aussies are almost a minority now. Those who are immigrants or kids of immigrants outnumber the originals."

To right, the originals only account for 3.8% of the population, the other 27 million are blow ins or the kids and grand kids of blow ins. Hardly any of the blow in's can speak the native languages, they all speaking gubba! In fact they're even typing on this little old forum in gubba. Although a few here do speak gobbledegook, but that's not native, its from the land of stupidity!

Just the other day, there was me sit'n in the sun enjoying a fair dinkum Aussie meat pie, it was fresh, no more than a fortnight old, I got from Aussie Wong's Take-A-Way, when this original came up speaking native, I'll put it in English for those who don't speak the language of Nullawadda tribe. "Fella, why ya eat'n dat discust'n thing for?" I said quick as a flash; "I don't know". With that he offered me a couple of juicy witchetty grub he'd got from a nearby rotting log. Naterally I threw away that disgusting Aussie crap I got from Aussie Wong, and proceed to munch on the delicious native tucker, BTW it tasted better than that disgusting 2 week old PIE! I'm sure like me you enjoy a juicy witchetty grub or three, but I must warn you, they're high in cholesterol, so no more that 10 at a time, live ones straight out of log are best.

Hi Paul

I most certainly do not think than nasty and vicious speech should be condoned. But it should not be illegal, unless it does tangible harm. 18C is problematic, as even many on the left acknowledge, e.g.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2026/07/30/pauline-hanson-racist-tweet-one-nation-free-speech/

The alternative isn’t no law at all – we already have laws against inciting violence, slander and libel, and racial discrimination. I support all these laws.

Your question about how far nasty vicious speech should be condoned in society touches on another of my concerns. This behaviour should not be condoned, nor should it be without consequences, but it is “in society” not in the courts that those consequences should occur: social sanctions, not legal sanctions. We are losing the distinction between things we ought not to do, and things we ought not be allowed to do.

Hi Rhian,

I agree, as a moderate that there has to be consequences for defamatory speech directed towards individuals, and we have laws and a court system to deal with that. What is difficult is how to deal with vilification against a group within society. You said; it is “in society” not in the courts that those consequences should occur: social sanctions, not legal sanctions. To give you a hypothetical; Radical Ted is out addressing crowds of supporters and onlookers with hate speech directed at the Oompa Loompa group in society; "kill the Oompa Loompa's" he rants continually. We agree its unacceptable, but how do you apply social sanctions, to such an individual, when he has a supporter base, which agree with him. What could possibly be the social sanctions that could be applied, and how are they enforced?

Hi Paul
“Kill Oompa Loompas” would be an incitement to violence, so I’d be happy for Ted to be prosecuted for that. “Oompa Loompas eat babies” would be slander, so Ted could be sued for that. “I’ll never employ an Oompa Loompa” would be racial discrimination, and that could be prosecuted too.

“All Oompa Loompas are lazy and stupid” could have different consequences depending on context. If Ted is employed in a job where he must deal with Oompa Loompas, he could be sacked (in an earlier discussion I supported the sacking of the two nurses who claimed to have killed Israelis). Likewise, if he is a prominent or public figure in an organisation whose reputation could be damaged by association with him. He could be expelled from a social club or political party, deregistered from a profession, barred from sporting events, admonished in social gatherings, or just lose friends. These last two may not seem like much, but sociology suggests that social sanctions can be powerful in enforcing social norms and cohesion (though not always in a good way)

Louise Clegg, the Opposition Leader's wife, writes, “My prediction? 18c will bite the dust”.

She thinks that the High Court will be asked, after all those years it has existed, if Parliament can prohibit race based political speech “merely because it is offensive” (to some people).

If Pauline Hanson appeals to the High Court over her loss against Senator Faruqi's whinge, 18c will be on trial. As will the fact that Faruqi's offensive tweet against Queen Elizabeth was not proscribed by Parliament - only Hanson's.

Clegg also writes that the Federal Court's finding against Hanson's appeal is impenetrable, “even to lawyers”. She is also astonished that the High Court has never ruled on whether a law prohibiting specifically race-based speech is likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate is “compatible with our Constitution”.

The full Federal Court, unlike the judge who found against Hanson in the first place, accepted that 18c puts a “significant burden” on political communication.

Efforts to oust 18c have failed because, according to Clegg, “... at least in part because our society has no fundamental understanding of the importance of freedom of speech”. A High Court appeal might stimulate public debate.

An appeal by Hanson would also show us if the “implied freedom” of political communication in the Constitution is the “real deal”.

Bully for Mrs Clegg, I didn't know who Mrs Clagg was, I thought she might have been the heiress to the Clagg Glue empire, sorry only one "g". I didn't realise she was married to Fungus Taylor, and in your patriarchal world ttbn, shouldn't Mrs Clegg be Mrs Taylor, the little woman? Doesn't she have a decent recipe for Pumpkin Scones, or some other delicious titbit to enlighten us with?

YOU can bellyache all YOU like about the findings of the Federal Court against your racist tart, the Lovely Pauline, it was a unanimous decision, the court found Hanson had breached the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 because her remarks constituted an unlawful and racist personal attack. Obvious YOU are clueless on this as YOU are on everything else.

As for the old gal in London who carked it at the age of 96 peacefully in her sleep, so what, she's was dead, and you can't slander dead people. YOU are full of it!

In what can only be described as a political farce, or a case of policy back flip, One Nation's David Farley appeared on the ABC's 'Insiders' program to tell the world One Nation will bring in not the stated 130,000 migrants its leader has said, but 230,000. That's 5,000 more than the target set by the Labor government. According to Mr Farley on top of the Hanson 130, there will be another 100,000 brought in as "rural workers". The Lovely Pauline forgot to mention that, as she, like Barnyard Joy and now Mr Farley are clueless on policy, making it up on the run as they do.

If Australia wants chaos then vote in a One Nation government. The Lovely Pauline makes The Mad Katter look positively intelligent.