Wissam Haddad, an Islamist preacher associated with the Al Madina Dawah Centre in Sydney, is embroiled in a legal dispute over accusations of racial discrimination stemming from his controversial sermons delivered in November 2023. These speeches, which have garnered significant attention online, contain inflammatory statements directed at Jewish people, with some describing them as “vile and treacherous.” Haddad’s lawyer contends that these comments are not racist but are part of a broader and vigorous discussion.
The plaintiffs, Peter Wertheim and Robert Goot, leaders of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, have taken legal action against Haddad, aiming to have his speeches removed and seeking to prevent him from making similar remarks in the future. In court, Wertheim highlighted that Haddad’s language was openly dehumanising, labelling Jews with derogatory terms that evoke significant distress within the Jewish community.
Haddad, also known as Abu Ousayd, has responded by denying any wrongdoing, claiming his speeches were intended for a private Muslim audience of approximately 40 attendees and asserting that he should not be held accountable for their online dissemination. His barrister, Andrew Boe, argued that it is improbable that Jewish individuals would have encountered the speeches without media coverage.
Boe further likened the situation to a person intentionally seeking out offensive material online and then expressing outrage over their exposure. He upheld that Haddad’s discourse should be viewed in the context of historical and religious scholarly commentary, suggesting that it emerged from fervent political debate influenced by longstanding religious tensions.
While Haddad maintains that he was exercising free speech within a robust dialogue, Wertheim emphasised that while challenging ideas can be tolerated, they must not cross the line into vilification. He pointed out that the Jewish community holds a collective consciousness of historical persecution and remains vigilant about threats related to their identity.
As this legal case unfolds, it raises important questions about the balance between free speech, religious discourse, and the potential for harmful rhetoric to incite discrimination or hate. Both parties are presenting competing narratives, contributing to an ongoing discussion about the limits of acceptable speech within deeply contested socio-political contexts.