‘The ultimate racist slur’: Faruqi pursues Hanson in court over tweet

Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi has told a court that One Nation leader Pauline Hanson levelled “the ultimate racist slur” by telling her to “piss off back to Pakistan” in a social media post.

Faruqi is suing Hanson under racial discrimination laws in response to the comment on Twitter, now X, which was posted on September 9, 2022. The Federal Court trial before Justice Angus Stewart started in Sydney on Monday.

Mehreen Faruqi and Pauline Hanson outside the Federal Court in Sydney on Monday.Credit: Nick Moir

Faruqi, who migrated from Pakistan in 1992 and is deputy leader of the Greens, is seeking court orders requiring Hanson to delete the post, attend anti-racism training at her own cost, and make a $150,000 donation to a charity chosen by Faruqi.

“I started experiencing racism in an overwhelming way once I entered into public life,” Faruqi told the court on Monday. She denied bringing the action because Hanson was a political opponent, and said she had experienced “extreme trauma”.

“The racism that you’ve experienced … is far, far worse than the conduct that you complain about in relation to my client,” Hanson’s barrister, Sue Chrysanthou, SC, suggested. Faruqi rejected this.

Faruqi said the comment left her humiliated and distressed, because it was “implying and clearly saying that I don’t belong here”. This was “the ultimate racist slur”, she said, and it unleashed a torrent of racial abuse against her.

The court heard Hanson’s comment was made in response to a post by the Greens senator, who noted the death of Queen Elizabeth II and said she could not “mourn the leader of a racist empire built on stolen lives, land and wealth of colonised peoples”.

Hanson responded that Faruqi’s “attitude appalls and disgusts me”. “When you immigrated to Australia you took every advantage of this country ... It’s clear you’re not happy, so pack your bags and piss off back to Pakistan,” she said.

“I’m really happy in this country,” Faruqi told the court. “I want this country to be the best country in the world.”

Faruqi’s barrister, Saul Holt, KC, told the court on Monday that Hanson was “a well-known, longstanding and prolific sayer of racist things, particularly anti-migrant and anti-Muslim things”.

Hanson had “played the person and not the ball” and “the racist aspect of [her comment] ... was wholly gratuitous”, he said.

Holt said Hanson’s post was a version of the well-known anti-migrant phrase, “go back to where you came from”. Hanson had previously said Muslim immigration should be banned entirely, Holt said.

But Chrysanthou argued the barrage of abuse against Faruqi “arose and started” because of her own “provocative and insensitive” comment on X “about the death of the monarch”.

During cross-examination on Monday, Chrysanthou put to Faruqi: “You understood, didn’t you, that many Australians would find your tweet offensive?”

“They obviously did. I did not intend it to offend anyone. I was stating a fact,” Faruqi said.

“You intended to provoke a response?” Chrysanthou pressed.

“I intended to put this issue on the political agenda,” Faruqi said.

Faruqi said the comments in response to her post, including emails and “hundreds of pages” of social media comments, were starkly different after Hanson’s comment.

Faruqi alleges Hanson’s post amounted to unlawful offensive behaviour under the Racial Discrimination Act because the comment was reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate, and it was done because of her race, colour or national or ethnic origin.

Hanson’s legal team argue the comment fell within an exemption because she acted reasonably and in good faith in making a fair comment on a matter of public interest, and it was an “expression of a genuine belief” held by her.

Chrysanthou argued that merely referring to someone’s background, colour or race was “not sufficient” to show the act was done because of that factor, and the conduct in question needed to be serious.

Hanson’s legal team has also argued the Racial Discrimination Act provisions fall foul of the implied freedom of political communication in the Commonwealth Constitution, and are therefore “invalid in full” or in part.

That argument has prompted the Commonwealth attorney-general, represented in the hearing by Craig Lenehan, SC, to intervene in the case to defend the constitutional validity of the sections.

Hanson is expected to give evidence on Tuesday.

Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.