Pauline Hanson the scapegoat for freedom of speech hypocrisy

Upon the passing of Queen Elizabeth II in September 2022, Deputy Greens Leader Mehreen Faruqi said that she couldn’t mourn “the leader of a racist empire built on stolen lives, land and wealth of colonised people”. Faruqi was leveraging the freedom of speech provisions within the Australian Constitution to make an inflammatory statement which would have been considered deeply hurtful and offensive to a large proportion of the Australian pro-monarchist community.

Since then, Faruqi claimed that she was subjected to racial vilification, abuse and discrimination after One Nation Party Leader Pauline Hanson tweeted in response to Faruqi’s so-called critique. Hanson had the intestinal fortitude to call out and highlight the hypocrisy of Faruqi’s statement, given the democratic rights, freedoms and opportunities that Australia has provided since her migration from Pakistan. 

Faruqi took great offence to Hanson’s remarks and brought a case against her for racial discrimination at the Federal Court of Australia. Hanson, a long-term champion and advocate for freedom of speech, has been used as a scapegoat by Faruqi. Hanson should be afforded the same rights to express herself in any way she likes, much the same way as woke apologist left-wing leaders like Faruqi do.

The Deputy Greens Leader is an outspoken pro-Palestinian advocate who has made many statements accusing the State of Israel of genocide, apartheid and war crimes. All such claims have gone unchallenged in a legal sense, given her inherent right to freedom of speech, aka her right to have an opinion.

Freedom of speech and expression is one of the most important themes in liberalism. I believe that even race hate speech is a legitimate aspect of public debate. The freedom to say ‘nasty, vicious, wrongheaded, and downright evil’ things is something I regard as essential for the functioning of a vital democracy.

Whilst ongoing anti-Israel commentary by Faruqi is alarming, distressing and hurtful, this should be debated, challenged and criticised in a way that educates people to make their own informed decisions and have opinions based on access to balanced, truthful information. If we ban comments of this nature, it will simply embolden those advocating such views by sending these people underground. It serves to increase their notoriety and influence by banning what they have to say. This is far more damaging than allowing them to speak and publicly calling them out for the rubbish they are saying. 

Rather than debating Hanson on the merits of her opinion, Faruqi chose to be the victim and go down a very different (litigious) path. Unsurprisingly, the freedom of speech which Faruqi gladly utilised to simply give an opinion has not been afforded the same rights when it came to Hanson’s reply. What is good for the goose is clearly not good for the gander in the bizarre and twisted world of the anti-Israel movement.

In a parliamentary statement, Faruqi proudly stated that she is “proud to be representing the Australian Greens in this place today as it is a party which long ago recognised Palestinian statehood and has the courage to call out Israel’s systemic injustice for what it is: apartheid. Palestinians, for decades, have been amongst the most oppressed people in the world. They are subject to daily humiliation, brutality and violence by the Israeli government. Not only is Australia silent but the government is aiding and abetting this violence, oppression and systemic elimination of the Palestinian people. Australia is complicit, and it’s a disgrace.” 

As a proud Jew and grandson of Holocaust survivors, it would be very easy to take great offence to the one-sided, biased, extreme, and defamatory nature of Faruqi’s long history of making such remarks. I clearly disagree with everything in this statement as a staunch supporter of State of Israel’s inherent right to defend their safety and sovereignty at all costs. However, I do not wish to supress Faruqi’s remarks or place a gag order on them in any way. This is because I believe in true freedom of speech and expression.

I want to hear what anti-Israel zealots such as Faruqi are saying about Israel and the Jewish people so I can specifically target her for rebuke. I prefer to highlight the factual inconsistency, deliberate bias, and one-sided nature of such arguments and advocate for the truth on merit. This brings into focus the Racial Discrimination Act and the hypocritical way in which this is being applied to a range of controversial issues of global importance currently. Specifically, the way in which the aggressive pro-Palestinian movement in Australia relies on freedom of speech to torment, threaten, abuse and harass Jewish students at Australian Universities presently.

The original Racial Discrimination Act was (and still is) primarily concerned with situations in which racism produces a material disadvantage for someone. However, it’s important to be aware that Section 18C was added to the Racial Discrimination Act just over 20 years ago, with the passage of the Racial Hatred Act. Under Section 18C: (1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and(b) 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.

As are many others who sit on the right of the political spectrum, I am in favour of rolling back 18C, particulary the words “offend” and “insult” that form part of the key phrase in the legislation (“offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate”). Cory Bernardi poignantly argues that “the range of language that may offend, insult or even humiliate is far larger than language that is hateful. The assertion that some offensive or insulting expression leads to hate overlooks the many instances where such expression doesn’t lead to hatred. Many government and political matters involve controversial issues concerning race, colour, ethnicity or nationality. Feelings will run high about these issues. Offence and insult over these matters will inevitably be given or taken.”

Hanson should be free to state her feelings and emotions regarding the way in which Faruqi disrespected the passing of the Commonwealth’s longest-ever serving Monarch. The hypocricy of this matter brought before the Federal Court of Australia is nothing short of disgraceful. As a long-term supporter and advocate for the Australian Jewish Community and someone who has championed the challenging of extreme Islamism permeating into mainstream Judeo-Christian culture, Hanson should be supported and acknowledged for being made a scapegoat accordingly.

For example, when the Greens staged a dramatic walkout of the Senate in November 2023 in response to Israel’s invasion of Gaza, Hanson was a lone voice in support of the Australian Jewish Community. She told Sky News at the time that the Greens “are purely haters of the Jewish community and say ‘free Palestine’. We’ve got to be fair in our assessment of what’s happened with Palestine and Israel and what’s happened in our streets here in Australia as well – I don’t believe that it’s the place in the Senate for that stunt to be carried out.” 

One could take great offence at Hanson’s comments, depending on which side of the argument you sit. Once again, this is why Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act should be considered for repeal. 

How does this apply to the current Israel-Hamas conflict?

Sensibly commenting on this hypocrisy was Mike O’Connor from the Courier Mail Newspaper, saying that “one can’t help but contrast her treatment to the blind eye that has been turned to the anti-Israel sentiment that has now moved from the streets on to university campuses around the nation and that goes unchecked. Students waving flags and chanting ‘interfada’ and ‘from the river to the sea’ which can be code for advocating the destruction of the Jewish state now invade our most elite educational institutions, institutions which are supposed to be seats of learning and intellectual excellence. University vice-chancellors mumble about freedom of speech and do nothing. But this is not about freedom, and with freedom, it must be remembered, comes responsibility. This is hate speech urging the extermination of the state of Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, and all who live within it.”

We can’t have it both ways in Australia when it comes to freedom of speech. As the ABC reported, when it came to her response to Faruqi“Senator Hanson’s counsel Kieran Smark SC said undoubtedly his client could have expressed herself differently, more reasonably and in a way the court would find more acceptable. Senator Hanson was speaking about the character and suitability for office of another politician.” Whether or not someone chooses to take offence to such remarks is a matter for the individual to determine in a free democratic society.

Faruqi chose a legal challenge against Hanson, rather than show some backbone and lean on the same feedom of speech provisions which she has used herself on countless occasions to sway everyday Australians to excuse the barbaric actions of terrorist group Hamas. Hamas is a globally classified terrorist organisation with a stated aim that State of Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth, including the death and destruction of the Jewish people. Faruqi took the weak option. I am one of many Australians who are hoping that the racial discrimination case brought against Hanson backfires on Faruqi in a major way.

Hanson said it best when she stated that “we must take a stand for freedom of speech. We must fight for it. As Thomas Jefferson said, the tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Making sure that hard-won individual freedoms endure in our society requires constant vigilance.” Food for thought in a complex dialogue about what one can and can not say in a civil, democratic western country like Australia.