A judge has wondered why racist remarks in a sermon were reportedly needed to exert freely religion, on the last day of the racial discrimination process of a Sydney preacher.
Wissam Haddad, an Islamic teacher, is being charged with comments that are reportedly violated the Commonwealth laws against offensive behavior because of race.
In a series of speeches at the end of 2023, Mr Haddad would have portrayed Jews as “bad and planning”, people who “love money and wealth” and as “descendants of monkeys and pigs”.
Haddad denies the violation of the legislation of racial discrimination, that the tests have been transferred to a “full and honest reading” of the speeches, and says that his comments do not refer to the Australian Jewish people.
The case was mainly set by Peter Wertheim, co-chief executive of the Executive Council or Australian Jewry (ECAJ).
The case was mainly brought by Peter Wertheim, Ecaj Co-chief Executive. ((ABC News: Jerry Rickard ))
After four days of hearings at the federal court, Justice Angus Stewart reserved his decision.
Justice Stewart must now decide whether Mr Haddad Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act had violated the comments.
He will judge whether the comments were reasonably likely in all situations to “insult, humiliate, humiliate or intimate” another … group of people “” to “insult, humiliate,” because of the race … of all the people in the group “.
The Lord Haddad claims that if his comments turn out to be illegal, the law violates the Australian Constitution, which prevents laws that ban “free exercise of a religion”.
The expression “religious expression” must be “read a lot”
While taking out entries on Friday, the judge asked the lawyer of Mr Haddad, Andrew Boe why the preacher’s comments about Jews were vital for the free exercise of religion.
“What is it that what was said in this case is necessary for the exercise of Islam, which is not trying to justify in Islamic texts, as I understand, racist generalizations?” Justice Stewart asked.
Boe admitted that his client “may be a very bad preacher,” but said that his evangelization was protected under the constitution.
“He tries to explain things to people who are very loyal,” said Mr. Boe.
“I think the expression” religious expression “should be read a lot.”
Mr Haddad also claimed that section 18c would infringe the implicit freedom of political communication under the Constitution, as his speeches that tackle the war in Gaza turned out to be illegal.
If Justice Stewart is convinced of this argument, he should ignore his own conclusion in November that the law is valid in a case that is filed by Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi against one nation -senator Pauline Hanson.
Wanted restraint
Peter Braham SC, for Mr. Wertheim, has searched for an order that forbids Mr Haddad to publicly say something about Jews who transmits the racist meanings that are claimed in the case.
“Unless modest, Mr Haddad will break the action again”, “,
he said.
Mr Braham also asked to remove orders to remove the disputed speeches from the internet and to publish a statement in which the comments about Jews are declared illegal.
“We are not looking for compensation in monetary form,” he said.
Outside the court, Mr Haddad did not respond to questions about whether he would adhere to orders that limit his speech.
His lawyer, Elias Tabchouri, said that Mr Haddad would tackle the orders of the court when they arrived.
“We always respect the court’s decision,” he said.
#Racist #generalizations #requested #discrimination #process #Islamic #preacher