The Full Federal Court of Australia has dismissed an appeal by right-wing leader Pauline Hanson, upholding a 2024 ruling that she racially discriminated against Muslim Senator Mehreen Faruqi with a 2022 social media post. The court found Hanson’s comment—calling Faruqi to piss off back to Pakistan
—was unlawful and unprotected by free speech defenses, according to Reuters.
Court Upholds Racial Discrimination Ruling
In a unanimous decision, the three-judge panel affirmed a 2024 ruling that Hanson’s tweet breached Australia’s racial discrimination laws. The court described her comment as a variant of the historically racist, nativist and anti-immigrant slogan ‘go back to where you came from’
and emphasized that it was reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate
Faruqi and other Muslims. The ruling cited a 2024 judgment by Justice Angus Stewart, who had previously ruled that the phrase implicitly targeted Muslims
and constituted a racist trope with a long history.
Hanson had argued that political speech should be protected, but the court rejected her appeal, stating she did not establish a defense for fair comment on a matter of public interest.
The decision also affirmed the constitutional validity of the laws against racial discrimination, which Hanson had challenged.
Faruqi Celebrates Victory, Calls for Accountability
S Senator Mehreen Faruqi, the first Muslim woman to serve in any Australian parliament, called the ruling a victory for every single person out there who has been told to go back to where you came from.
She stated the case was about holding to account racism and holding to account those who perpetrate racism,
adding, Hate speech is not free speech.
Faruqi’s 2022 tweet, following the death of Queen Elizabeth II, criticized the British monarchy as a racist empire built on stolen lives, land and wealth of colonized people.
Hanson responded with the piss off back to Pakistan
comment, which Faruqi argued was reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate
her and others. The court ordered Hanson to delete the tweet and pay Faruqi’s legal costs.
Hanson Expresses Disappointment, Considers High Court Appeal
Hanson, leader of the One Nation party, expressed disappointment with the decision, claiming public discourse in Australia has been almost totally silenced by laws and rules which prevent ordinary people expressing their personal views.
She announced plans to review the ruling with her legal team, potentially appealing to the High Court of Australia, the nation’s final judicial authority.
Hanson has previously advocated for a “Muslim ban” on immigration and faced criticism for suggesting there were no good Muslims
in a 2024 interview. In a recent podcast with far-right activist Tommy Robinson, she denied promoting the White Australia
policy, which barred non-white immigrants from 1901 to the 1970s, but acknowledged the policy’s abolition as the start of Pakistanis, Somalis, all of these African problems with violent Africans.
Context of the Case and Legal Implications
The case centered on a September 2022 tweet by Hanson targeting Faruqi, who moved to Australia from Pakistan in 1992. The court’s 434-paragraph judgment explicitly labeled Hanson’s post as “racist,” “Islamophobic,” and “hateful,” reinforcing that such speech does not fall under free speech protections. The ruling underscores Australia’s legal stance against racial discrimination, which prohibits expressions reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate
based on race, color, or ethnic origin.
Background on Pauline Hanson and One Nation Party
Pauline Hanson founded the One Nation party in 1997, which gained prominence for its hardline stance on immigration. While initially considered a fringe group, the party has seen increased support in recent polls due to Hanson’s anti-immigration rhetoric. In 2024, she faced backlash for remarks implying that non-white immigrants “bring problems” to Australia, though she later denied advocating for the return of the White Australia
policy.
The High Court of Australia, which could hear Hanson’s appeal, is the country’s final authority on legal matters. A successful appeal could potentially overturn the ruling, but the Full Federal Court’s decision sets a significant precedent in defining the limits of free speech versus racial discrimination protections.
Worth a look
