I can’t find any other sources for this news. Admittedly I am out walking so I’m a bit distracted but still… Anyone else find anything about this?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-01/federal-court-sydney-wissam-haddad-lectures-social-media/105480506 is mentioned here, but it the framing is a bit different and the ruling a little more detailed. (Probably a better source out there but I’m also on my phone)
Mr Haddad’s lawyers also argued that if the court found the speeches were unlawful, a section of the Racial Discrimination Act must be unconstitutional because it would be prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
As a Muslim can I just comment on how absolutely vile this is? This guy is throwing all Muslims in Australia under the bus to protect himself from the consequences of his own antisemitism. I mean, I know he’s making shit up (or at least being very misleading, I’d need to actually see the lecture to decide), but your average Australian wouldn’t, which will only provide Islamophobes with ammunition.
which will only provide Islamophobes with ammunition.
No need to worry about us, we are overflowing with ammunition at this point 🌞
Apparently America is running out, after giving so many arms to Israel.
Here’s hoping it blows up in your face ;).
Thank you. This is a much better source.
A series of lectures delivered by an Islamic preacher at a Sydney prayer centre must be removed from social media under orders from a Federal Court judge who found they contained “fundamentally racist and antisemitic” material.
…
The court found the series of lectures conveyed “disparaging imputations” about Jewish people, based on race or ethnic origin, that were reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate Jews in Australia.
…
However, the judge found the “ordinary, reasonable listener” would not understand those things to be about Jewish people in general.
…
Justice Stewart said he was satisfied Mr Haddad and the centre should be ordered to publish corrective notices on their social media accounts for 30 days, but will hear the parties further on the terms.
He said the ECAJ’s case had been “overwhelmingly successful” and there was no reason why Mr Haddad should not have to pay costs.
Nor can I in this light, but here’s the court judgment record, which details everything that this article has quoted, so it’s not imaginary.
I found an MSN article that links back to this.