ECAJ takes legal action against radical preacher

The Executive Council of Australian Jewry has filed a legal case against radical Islamic preacher Wissam Haddad, alleging that his sermons contained nearly 40 defamatory imputations against Jewish Australians.

The case, lodged in the Federal Court in Sydney, accuses Mr Haddad, also known as Abu Ousayd, of delivering five sermons in which he described Jews as “cowards, filthy, liars, and schemers.” The ECAJ claims these sermons breached Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which prohibits speech that is “reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” based on race or ethnicity.

Haddad, who preaches at the Al Madina Dawah Centre in Bankstown, Sydney, refers to himself as Abu Ousayd on his social media accounts. He also hosts the “Muslim Unapologetic” podcast and has posted anti-Israeli content on his Instagram account and Youtube.

ECAJ deputy president Robert Goot and co-chief executive Peter Wertheim, who are the plaintiffs in the case, allege that Mr. Haddad’s statements painted Jewish Australians as deceptive and manipulative, controlling media and politics for nefarious purposes; greedy and oppressive, using banks and financial systems to exploit others; and violent and conspiratorial, seeking to harm others, including Muslims. The sermons allegedly included language such as calling Jews “descendants of pigs and monkeys,” accusing them of controlling right-wing politicians, and urging listeners to “spit” on Israel.

Mr. Haddad’s Al Madina Dawah Centre in Sydney is also a defendant in the case. Many of the sermons in question were uploaded to social media platforms like YouTube and Rumble, though they have since been removed.

Mr. Haddad has denied that his sermons targeted Jewish Australians specifically. His legal team argues that the statements were derived from Islamic religious texts, that the sermons were given in a private setting and were not intended for public circulation, and that they were meant to provide religious and political commentary on the Israel-Hamas conflict in response to requests from his community.

On Instagram, Haddad responded, “I have been sued by the peak body of Jews here in Australia. I like to call them the Australian Jewish Lobby, and they are suing me over sermons, lectures, and a podcast that I did where I mentioned from passages of the Quran speaking about the Jews historically. And other than that, we have mounted our defense. Obviously, they’re the ones that have taken me to court. I didn’t choose to go to court, but I am going to fight it, and I take this as an honour.”

His solicitor, Elias Tabchouri, is also challenging the constitutionality of Section 18C, claiming it unjustifiably restricts free speech. This argument mirrors the failed attempt by One Nation senator Pauline Hanson, who unsuccessfully argued that 18C violated political communication rights in her defamation battle against Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi.

The case comes at a time of increasing religious and racial tensions in Australia. The Minns government in New South Wales recently introduced tougher hate speech laws, making it a criminal offense to incite violence based on race or ethnicity.

Mr. Haddad was also among 50 Muslim community members who defended two Sydney nurses who vowed to “kill” Israeli patients last month. He has also been involved in establishing an Al Madina Dawah affiliate centre in Melbourne, called the Al Bayyinah Islamic Centre.

Federal Court Justice Angus Stewart has suggested that Mr. Haddad’s free speech defence is unlikely to succeed, given his previous ruling against Pauline Hanson’s similar argument. If found in breach of 18C, Mr. Haddad could be ordered to issue a formal retraction and remove any remaining online content.

If the court rules in ECAJ’s favour, this could set a stronger legal precedent for combatting antisemitic rhetoric in Australia, particularly in online spaces where such content often circulates widely before platforms take action.

ECAJ’s decision to pursue this through the Federal Court follows unsuccessful attempts at mediation via the Australian Human Rights Commission, indicating both the gravity of the allegations and the limits of conciliatory measures in addressing hate speech concerns. Peter Wertheim’s comments underscore a broader concern: whether community organisations should have to take such action in the absence of government intervention to uphold social cohesion.

At a societal level, the case reflects broader tensions exacerbated by global conflicts. The October 7 attacks and their aftermath have led to heightened polarisation in Australia, particularly between Jewish and Middle Eastern communities. Wertheim’s remarks about bringing “hatreds, prejudices, and bigotry of overseas conflicts” into Australia reflect an ongoing challenge in multicultural societies: how to maintain intergroup harmony when global events reignite historical grievances.

As this case moves towards a four-day hearing in June, it will be crucial to watch whether the Federal Court’s ruling provides a clearer legal framework for distinguishing between religious expression, political commentary, and hate speech. Regardless of the outcome, it underscores the continuing need for proactive measures—legal, governmental, and social—to prevent hate speech from undermining Australia’s multicultural fabric.

With a four-day hearing scheduled for June, this case is set to test the boundaries of religious speech, racial discrimination laws, and constitutional free speech protections in Australia.