Online Hate
Prevention Institute
Donate

Wertheim v Haddad [2025] FCA 720

Our CEO, Dr Oboler, served as an expert witness for the case Wertheim v Haddad heard in the Federal Court of Australia. Dr Oboler’s written testimony examined a number of antisemitic statements that had been made by Mr Haddad, an Islamic preacher, in speeches he delivered at the Al Madina Dawah Centre in Bankstown, NSW. these speeches were filmed and shared with the public via social media. Dr Oboler’s evidence provided vital context, explaining the history and context of the antisemitic tropes, stereotypes, and conspiracy theories in the speeches. Dr Oboler testified in court answering questions on the submission in cross examination. This articles shares some extract from the judgement related to Dr Oboler’s testimony.

From the Judgement

This is section has direct quotes from the judgement, the three headings have been added.

The results of the Case

“THE COURT DECLARES THAT:

1. William Haddad contravened s 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) by delivering each of the following three lectures, being lectures that were reasonably likely in all the circumstances to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate Jewish people in Australia and that were made because of the race or ethnic origin of Jewish people in Australia, and that were not made reasonably and in good faith in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held for any genuine purpose in the public interest:

    (a) The Jews of Al Madina Part 1 (3 November 2023);

    (b) The Jews of Al Madina Part 2 (10 November 2023); and

    (c) The Jews of Al Madina Banu Quraytha Part 3 (17 November 2023).

    2. The Al Madina Dawah Centre Inc contravened s 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) by publishing on Rumble each of three lectures delivered by William Haddad in November 2023, and publishing on Facebook one of those lectures, being speeches that were reasonably likely in all the circumstances to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate Jewish people in Australia and which were made and published because of the race or ethnic origin of Jewish people in Australia, the act of publication not being done reasonably and in good faith in the course of a publication for a genuine purpose in the public interest or in publishing a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest.”

    The Impact on the victims

      “The likely impacts on Jewish people in Australia

      196. Dr Oboler’s evidence establishes that many of the imputations in Mr Haddad’s lectures (ie Speeches A, C and E comprising “The Jews of Al Madina” series) rehearse old tropes, conspiracy theories and stereotypes about Jews. Those include that Jews are a mischievous, treacherous, shifty or cunning people, Jews are wicked, Jews are arrogant and think they are the best, Jews control the media, Jews love money and control the banks, Jews control governments and that Jews are descended from apes and pigs. Those imputations are likely to have added detrimental impact on members of the Jewish community because of what they carry with them historically.

      197. Taken together, the established imputations in Mr Haddad’s lectures are fundamentally racist and antisemitic and devastatingly offensive and insulting. They make perverse generalisations against Jewish people as a group. Jewish people in Australia in November 2023 and thereafter would experience them to be harassing and intimidating. That is all the more so because they were made at the time of heightened vulnerability and fragility experienced by Jews in Australia, but they would also have been harassing and intimidating had they been made prior to 7 October 2023. That is because of their profound offensiveness and the long history of persecution of Jews associated with the use of such rhetoric. Those effects on Jews in Australia would be profound and serious.”

      Discussion of the testimony

      “191. The applicants called Dr Andre Oboler as an expert witness on the historical and cultural context for the pleaded imputations. Dr Oboler is the managing director and Chief Executive Officer of the Online Hate Prevention Institute which is based in Sydney. Dr Oboler has 20 years of experience researching, publishing and advising civil society organisations and governments on antisemitism. His core focus is on the nexus between antisemitism and internet technologies, particularly social media. He has an Honours degree in Computer Science from Monash University and a PhD in Computer Science from Lancaster University in the United Kingdom.

      192. Dr Oboler explained that Jewish history is filled with examples of persecution triggered by the incitement of anti-Jewish hate through the use of well-established tropes, conspiracy theories and stereotypes. He cited the blood libels which led to the massacre at York in 1190, the rape and death of Jews in Russia in more than 250 pogroms between 1881 and 1884, and the Nazi propaganda campaigns which ultimately led to the Holocaust. He explained that there is a long history of antisemitic tropes, conspiracy theories and stereotypes that are used to incite violence against the Jewish community; understanding antisemitism involves understanding not only Jewish history, but also those tropes, conspiracy theories and stereotypes.

      193. The respondents accept that the characteristics of the ordinary, reasonable Jewish person in Australia include a consciousness of the circumstances of the Holocaust, a familiarity with historical forms of antisemitism including at least some of the antisemitic tropes described by Dr Oboler, and an experience of shock, distress and generalised fear at the events of 7 October 2023.”

      The Testimony

      The testimony provides a “Background on Islamist Antisemitism” section, then discussed the following specific tropes, conspiracy theories, and stereotypes:

      • Describing Jews as a “very mischievous people”
      • Describing Jews as murderous
      • False claims about the Talmud and that it dictates Jewish behaviour
      • The claim that Jews oppress each other and their prophets
      • The claim that Jews are wicked or evil
      • Statements that Muslims should fight and kill the Jews
      • Claims Jews are arrogant and believe themselves to be superior to others
      • Conspiracy theories about Jews
      • The specific cpmnspiracy theory of Jews controlling
      • The stereotype of the “greedy Jew” and that “Jews love money” and the conspiracy theory that Jews “control the banks”
      • The conspiracy theory that Jews control governments
      • The stereotype that Jews are cowards
      • The stereotype that Jews are liars, treacherous, shifty, or break their agreements
      • The stereotype that Jews are racist
      • The trope that Jews hate Muslims
      • The trope of dehumanising Jews as apes and pigs
      • The stereotype of Jews are dirty or filthy
      • A discussion on the BDS Movement

      The substantial part of the expert report (excluding methodology, expertise, appendicies, etc) runs to 46 page and includes 203 references.

      Key sources that were used include:

      I thank all of those working in the field and helping to shed light on the nature and history of antisemitism. A case like this puts that scholarship at the disposal of the courts, helping them to better apply the law to the facts of the case.

      See the full Expert Report.

      Media Coverage

      While I’m sure there will be further coverage here are a few articles on the judgement:

      When Antisemitism targets Zionists

      Most of the case was very clear cut. Dr Oboler’s evidence on what was antisemitic was accepted by both sides. Where the judgement gets a bit tangled is where is (somewhat out of the blue) asserts that criticism of Israel is not antisemitic. That is of course perfectly true, but with some exceptions. For example, applying the tropes of traditional antisemitism to Israel instead of Jews, is indeed antisemitic. Such examples simply didn’t come up in this case.

      More problematic still is the statement in the judgement that reads, “107. …The ordinary, reasonable listener would understand that not all Jews are Zionists or support the actions of Israel in Gaza and that disparagement of Zionism constitutes disparagement of a philosophy or ideology and not a race or ethnic group…”

      There is a subtle switch here as talking about “disparagement of Zionism” is not the same as talking about “disparagement of Zionists”. The two must not be comflated. In fact, “disparagement of Judaism” is also “disparagement of a philosophy or ideology and not a race or ethnic group” and therefore not antisemitic. So what makes it antisemitic? It is when it is about people, not ideas. This issue did not come up in the questions around the nature of antisemitism in the case, and indeed was not really a question before the court in the first place. This line in the judgement, often repeated in the media, is likely to mislead.

      What saves it, to some extent, is the final sentence “107. … The conclusion that it is not antisemitic to criticise Israel is the corollary of the conclusion that to blame Jews for the actions of Israel is antisemitic; the one flows from the other.” This statement makes it clear that targeting Jews in Australia as a “response” to events in the Middle East is going to be seen as antisemitic.

      The judgement makes it clear that where “Zionists” is being used as a code word for “Jews” in general, a statement will still be seen as antisemitic. This was the case in speech A, as the judge highlights in paragraph 46.

      “46 It is immediately to be observed that in the lecture Mr Haddad draws no distinction between the Jews of the ancient tribes and the Jews of today, and he draws no distinction between Jews who adhere to the political ideals of Zionism, ie the establishment and maintenance of a Jewish state or homeland, and Jews more generally. That is to say, his opening message is that Jews are Jews and they are all the same. It is in that context that the ordinary, reasonable listener to Speech A would understand the later references to the character of Jews in ancient times, ie they have that character now too.”

      What about content specifically targeting Zionists? Still, is it ok to have banners saying, for example, “No Zionists on campus”? Such a sign could be compared to one that says “No Halal food eaters on campus”, or “no speakers of Indigenous languages”. While not all Australian Jews are Zionists, and not all Muslims only eat Halal food, and not all Indigneous Australians speak an Indigneous language… never the less such statements are not criticisms of ideas, they are active discrimination against people based on their identity. Whether the “selection” captures all members of the group or just a sub-set is irrelevant. After all, white skinned Aboriginal people (the group discriminated against in Eatock v Bolt) were not a distinct protected group but just a subset of protected group that was specifically targeted. Targeting just Zionist-Jews with antisemitic tropes would be no different. Showing that a non-Zionist Jew has been excused would not make the antisemitism acceptable.

      Media coverage higlighting the line “disparagement of Zionism constitutes disparagement of a philosophy or ideology and not a race or ethnic group” (while technical true) is likely to be misunderstood as a signal that disparagement of Zionists is ok. The phrase in the judgement saying, “to blame Jews for the actions of Israel is antisemitic” counters this, highlighting that targeting Jews in Australia in response to events overseas is unlawful. Unfortunately SBS for one has published an article highlighting the first statement while ommiting the second. A complaint has been lodged requesting that for accuracy the statement that “to blame Jews for the actions of Israel is antisemitic” be included as it goes to the heart of the paragraph that was being cited.

      Recent Posts

      Follow Me