An Islamist preacher, identified as Haddad or Abu Ousayd, is facing backlash for his inflammatory remarks about Jewish people, which he described as “vile,” “treacherous,” and even referred to them as “murderous” and “descendants of pigs and apes.” Despite these comments, Haddad’s lawyer, Andrew Boe, argues that they should not be deemed racist, claiming they were part of legitimate religious discussions aimed at contextualising the conflict in Gaza, intended for a small, private Muslim audience.
However, Haddad had acknowledged knowing that his speeches would be shared publicly, contradicting his lawyer’s assertion of privacy. Boe contended that the remarks aimed at Jews of faith rather than ethnicity, likening historical Jews to the current Israeli government.
Boe further reasoned that censoring Haddad’s speeches, which quoted Islamic texts, would infringe on religious freedoms, suggesting that ruling in favour of the plaintiffs could wrongly conflate religious expression with racist intent. He expressed awareness of the offensive nature of Haddad’s language but stressed that a dismissal of the case would not equate to condoning his rhetoric.
In contrast, representatives for the plaintiffs, Peter Wertheim and Robert Goot from the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, argued that Haddad’s speeches did not represent a valid exercise of religious freedom and that Islam does not justify negative portrayals of Jews. They described Haddad’s assertions as a thinly veiled attack on Jewish people, pointing to a pattern of offensive comments he has made about other religious communities, including Christians and Hindus.
The plaintiffs seek to have Haddad’s speeches removed, demand a public acknowledgment of wrongdoing, and want a prohibition on similar future statements. They firmly believe that such a ruling is essential, with one attorney stating, “He should be ordered to not repeat the conduct,” highlighting the case’s broader implications for religious discourse and community harmony.