A Federal Court judge has ordered the removal of a series of lectures by Sydney Islamic preacher Wissam Haddad from social media, after finding they contained “fundamentally racist and antisemitic” remarks.
Haddad, also known as Abu Ousayd, delivered the sermons at the Al Madina Dawah Centre in Bankstown in November 2023. The Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) brought the case, alleging Haddad breached the Racial Discrimination Act by making deeply offensive claims about Jewish people—describing them as “wicked,” “vile,” “scheming,” and even “descendants of apes and pigs.”
Haddad’s defence argued that his speeches were based on religious texts like the Koran, delivered privately to a Muslim audience, and not aimed at Australian Jews specifically. However, Justice Angus Stewart dismissed this defence, ruling that the comments did breach the Racial Discrimination Act.
The court found the lectures conveyed harmful stereotypes and derogatory generalisations about Jewish people, likely to offend, insult, humiliate, and intimidate members of Australia’s Jewish community.
“These statements include age-old, racist tropes and perverse generalisations about Jews,” Justice Stewart said.
In his full ruling, the judge described the statements as “devastatingly offensive,” stating that Jewish Australians would feel harassed and intimidated, especially given the current climate of “heightened vulnerability.”
Justice Stewart noted that although some of Haddad’s remarks were critical of the Israeli military and Zionism, those comments did not amount to antisemitism, as they were directed at a political ideology rather than Jewish people as a whole. He clarified that criticism of Israel does not equate to criticism of Jewish people, and conflating the two is, in itself, antisemitic.
The judge said Haddad and the Al Madina Dawah Centre would be required to publish corrective notices on their social media platforms for 30 days, with the final terms to be determined. He also stated that the ECAJ’s case was “overwhelmingly successful” and indicated Haddad should cover legal costs.
During an earlier hearing, the ECAJ’s legal counsel, Peter Braham SC, described Haddad’s speeches as “dangerous,” asserting they were crafted to vilify Jews as a group. He said the content suggested Jews had unchangeable traits that caused conflict with Muslims and made them targets for contempt and hate.
In response, Haddad’s lawyer, Andrew Boe, defended the preacher’s right to express provocative views in a democratic society, urging the court to take a measured and objective view of the law.
Haddad’s legal team argued that his sermons contained scriptural references as well as political commentary on the Gaza conflict. While initially distancing himself from the online posting of the lectures, Haddad ultimately admitted under questioning that he knew they would be shared publicly.
He maintained that his comments were about Jews as followers of a religion—not an ethnicity—and denied any intent to be inflammatory or racist.
His lawyers further argued that if the court found the content unlawful, it would mean the relevant section of the Racial Discrimination Act infringes on religious freedom, and should be deemed unconstitutional.
