Share this @internewscast.com
An Islamist preacher who called Jewish people “vile” and “treacherous” defends his remarks, claiming they weren’t racist but were safeguarded religious lectures.
In his speeches, Haddad, who is also known as Abu Ousayd, described Jewish people as “vile,” “treacherous,” “murderous,” and “descendants of pigs and apes.”
His lawyer, Andrew Boe, has previously argued that the speeches were intended for a small, private Muslim audience and were unlikely to capture the attention of the wider community.
Yet he conceded at the 11th hour that the speeches were not made in private, after Haddad admitted he knew they would be published online.
Boe argued the speeches were not racist because they were historical and religious lectures delivered in good faith to contextualise the war in Gaza.
He maintains Haddad was referring to Jews of faith, not ethnicity, while comparing seventh century Jews to the current Israeli government.
“He may be a very bad preacher. That doesn’t mean what he’s saying about Islam doesn’t fall within [the protections for freedom of religious expression].”
Haddad had been quoting in large part from Islamic texts so ruling in favour of the two Jewish plaintiffs would be the equivalent of prohibiting the recitation of religious material, Boe argued.
He told the court such a judgment would suggest there was an “inextricable link” between religious speech, religious narratives and racially motivated speech.
“I’m not understating the awfulness of some of the language,” Boe said.
“A rejection of the applicants’ case ⦠does not mean the court condones the actions of the respondent in any way.”
However, lawyers for Executive Council of Australian Jewry co-chief executive Peter Wertheim and deputy president Robert Goot who are suing Haddad, said there was “no basis” for concluding the speeches were an exercise of religious freedom.
“The evidence positively says Islam doesn’t require or justify wholesale negative expression about Jewish people,” Hannah Ryan told the Federal Court.
Peter Braham SC concluded the argument that Haddad was trying to comfort and educate his congregation was “putting a very thin veil” over a message that equated to “Jews bad”.
He pointed to Haddad’s previous provocative comments about the Christian and Hindu communities as evidence of an offensive pattern of behaviour by the preacher.
His clients are seeking the removal of the published speech, a public declaration of wrongdoing and an order restraining Haddad from making similar comments in future.
“He should be ordered to not repeat the conduct,” Braham said.
