Senators Pauline Hanson and Mehreen Faruqi fight in Federal Court over ‘racist’ comments following Queen’s death
The senator suing Pauline Hanson over a controversial tweet is a “hypocrite and only against certain forms of racism”, a court has been told.
One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has argued deputy Greens leader Mehreen Faruqi is “a hypocrite and only against certain forms of racism” as she defends telling the senator to “piss off back to Pakistan” in the Federal Court.
Senator Hanson’s legal representation presented Senator Faruqi during cross-examination with a historical tweet by her son and The Age’s culture editor Osman Faruqi, along with a since-deleted Instagram post in which Senator Faruqi is standing alongside a protester holding a sign that said to “keep the world clean” alongside an image of the Israeli national flag above a rubbish bin.
The social media materials were posited to illustrate a disregard for what Senator Hanson’s representative argued was racism against white people.
Senator Faruqi’s counterparts labelled Senator Hanson a “prolific sayer of racist things” who provoked a “pile-on” against her in the opening statement of their racial discrimination bid before Sydney’s Federal Court.
Senators Hanson and Faruqi’s stoush began following the death of Queen Elizabeth II. On September 9, 2022 Senator Faruqi tweeted: “I cannot mourn the leader of a racist empire built on stolen lives, land and wealth of colonised peoples.”
Senator Hanson later responded to the tweet with the offending remark.
She reiterated the sentiment in parliament, contending that she would take the deputy Greens leader “to the airport and put (her) on a plane and wave (her) away”. While the statement was covered by parliamentary privilege, she would later withdraw it under threat of senate censure.
Senator Faruqi first took Senator Hanson to the Human Rights Commission over the tweet, before suing the One Nation leader.
The deputy Greens leader contended she had faced “a torrent of abusive (messages)” in the wake of Senator Hanson’s statement.
Senator Faruqi has accessed the parliamentary workplace support service for more than a year since Ms Hanson’s statement, the court was told on Monday.
“The tweet added to years and years of experiencing racist speech and racist acts … this was different. It came from a colleague, it came publicly and it unleashed, as she expected it would the moment she saw it, a torrent of abuse that made her doubt her place in Australia,” Senator Faruqi’s chief representative Saul Holt KC said.
“The tweet was making a brown, Muslim migrant into a lesser person.
“(It was) a message of exclusion, just on the face of the words used, from the nation delivered to a migrant … because she is a migrant.”
Mr Holt said the statement was also a trigger for “vicarious racism” that could negatively impact those of similar origin to Senator Faruqi.
Federal Court justice Angus Morkel Stewart is presiding over the five-day Federal Court hearing.
Senator Hanson has enlisted SC Sue Chrysanthou, known for representing former Attorney-General Christian Porter and Channel 10’s Lisa Wilkinson.
Senator Faruqi’s representation is led by Mr Holt, barrister Jessie Taylor and the firm Marque Lawyers.
Ms Chrysanthou told the court the evidence tendered by Senator Faruqi showed she had faced abuse over her comments from the media and public prior to Senator Hanson’s response.
“One might think, on reading (Senator Faruqi’s initial) tweet at the time and on the day it was posted, that it was intended to elicit a reaction,” she said.
“One might think just on reading that tweet that it was intended to provoke, that it was intended to offend, that it was intended to upset those who read it.”
Ms Chrysanthou told the court the “barrage of abuse” Senator Faruqi described started because of her own tweet, “not because of my client’s tweet”.
“If a person enters the fray in such a provocative way they expect and seek out a response,” Ms Chrysanthou said.
Ms Chrysanthou’s opening statement in defence of Senator Hanson also argued the One Nation founder was protected by freedom of speech and Senator Faruqi had sworn an oath of loyalty to the Queen when she was sworn into the Senate.
Senator Faruqi previously faced criticism for congratulating a group of student protesters, among which was the signbearer carrying the anti-Semitic placard. Senator Faruqi took down the Instagram post once she became aware of the sign in the image, the court was told.
During cross-examination, Ms Chrysanthou contended that Senator Faruqi displayed a regular pattern of mistakenly perceiving racial slights against her while offending others online in a manner similar to what Senator Hanson faces trial for.
The relevance of Ms Chrysanthou’s argument faced scrutiny from both Justice Stewart and Senator Faruqi when a tweet by Osman Faruqi was presented to Senator Faruqi. The December 2017 tweet by Mr Faruqi reads: “Mediocre white people: they should be in the bin but instead they own everything and are every f**king where.”
Senator Faruqi contended the statement, which Ms Chrysanthou argued also reflected the Greens senator’s views, was not racist.
“Skin colour is also about who holds power in this country, or anywhere else in the world. It is tied to who holds the power and who has the authority to perpetrate racism and oppress people, and in this country, the power of that is held by white people,” Senator Faruqi said.
“If you look at it historically, (Australia) was colonised by white people, with the bloody dispossession and theft of First Nations land. The power has always lain with that white narrative, and so there is a clear distinction when it comes to racism.”
Elements of Ms Chrysanthou’s hypocrisy argument highlighted Senator Faruqi telling Scott Morrison to “f**k off” in 2019 during the Black Summer bushfires and dismissing a public speaker as a “white feminist”.
Ms Chrysanthou contended that Senator Faruqi “in highlighting a person’s race as being white (was) seeking to undermine or denigrate them”, and that she had specifically targeted Senator Hanson due to her commonly being a political opponent.
“I want to suggest to you there wasn’t any difference of any substance in tone or content between the comments you received before Senator Hanson’s tweet that day and the comments you received afterwards,” she said.
To illustrate the immediate psychological harm of Senator Hanson’s statement on Senator Faruqi, the Greens deputy leader’s silk pointed to a day of personal leave she took in the aftermath of the tweet. However the claim came under scrutiny when evidence could not be lodged verifying the date of this “mental health day”.
“It was a pretty traumatic week, so I’m uncertain whether it was Sunday or Monday or whether it was both days,” Senator Faruqi said in her cross-examination.
“(Senators) don’t submit leave forms for days we take off. We hardly take days off, so I wouldn’t have a record which says that I took a leave day.”
On February 29 an interlocutory hearing determined the vast majority of evidence tendered by Senator Faruqi was admissible.
This included 93 statements by Senator Hanson intended to illustrate consistent racism.
Ms Chrysanthou argued in the hearing that the trial should not be a “Royal Commission” into Senator Hanson, and instead sharpen its focus on the events immediately related to the offending remark.
The court heard Senator Faruqi had provided the ABC with legal materials prior to her declaration of defamation proceedings against Senator Hanson. Senator Faruqi did not recall this event.
Ms Chrysanthou told the court this was done to garner publicity.
Senator Faruqi denied exaggerating her emotional distress or impulse for self-censure following the tweet by Senator Hanson.
“While (further comments) have been made, it has taken so much thinking, and effort, and mulling over again and again, and having to question myself,” Senator Faruqi said.
“I look at every single word that I say to try and avoid the same sort of backlash that Senator Hanson unleashed.
“I started experiencing racism in an overwhelming way once I entered into public life … (but) I have not experienced the level of sleepless nights and waking up in distress like I have (since Senator Hanson’s message).”
This “tendency material” included Senator Hanson’s submission of the “It’s okay to be white” bill, and her referring to Australia being “swamped by Asians” in her 1996 maiden speech.
Justice Stewart suggested the 93 statements by Senator Hanson on the grounds of racist sentiment could be proof of a consistency of belief and a “tendency to make statements because of the race, colour, nationality or ethnic origin of the other person”. The statements were largely deemed admissible, excluding a number of media reports which could be found to be hearsay.
Also before the court is an online survey sourced by Marque Lawyers titled “How Does It Make You Feel?” which called for participants “to indicate your view” on the tweet by Senator Hanson.
The survey was viewed by 9430 people, and 776 filled it out. Nine of them had their Twitter accounts tendered as evidence in the form of “lay-affidavits”. Ms Taylor alleged that these affidavits would be a “drawing in technicolour (of) the real life experiences of racism of people in our community”.
Senator Faruqi’s sought damages include a $150,000 donation from Senator Hanson to the Sweatshop Literacy Movement, her enrolment in anti-racism training at her own cost, and her publishing an apology tweet.
Both senators have partially funded their legal fees through crowd-funding.
The hearing will continue on Tuesday, when Senator Hanson is slated for cross-examination.
More Coverage
‘Extreme’: Total fire ban for Sydney
A total fire ban will be enforced in Sydney and other parts of NSW on Friday with temperatures expected to top 40C during the hottest day of summer yet.
‘Too late to leave’: Fire ravages Victoria
Residents in parts of Victoria have been told they are “in danger” and “need to act immediately to survive” as bushfires tear through the state.