Jihadi preacher’s sermons ‘comfort to Muslim congregants’, court hears

Lawyers for Wissam Haddad have argued his sermons were given to provide private ‘comfort’, despite accusations he was in active dialogue with reporters as a self-proclaimed ‘mosque shock jock’.

Wassim Haddad arrives at the Federal Court in Sydney. Picture: James Dowling/The Australian

You can now listen to The Australian's articles. Give us your feedback.

You can now listen to The Australian's articles.

Lawyers for Jihadi preacher Wissam Haddad have argued his sermons were given to provide private “comfort” to Muslim congregants, despite accusations he was in active dialogue with reporters as a self-proclaimed “masjid (mosque) shock jock”.

Mr Haddad, whose first name is William but who is also known as Abu Ousayd, arrived at court on Tuesday ahead of his racial discrimination hearing, avoiding questions and surrounded by his legal team, as he stares down a four-day trial over alle­gations by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry that he breached the Racial Discrimination Act through his sermons in the wake of the Hamas October 7, 2023 attacks on Israel.

Mr Haddad or speakers at his Al-Madina Dawah Centre have called Jewish people “descendants of pigs and monkeys”, recited parables about their killing and said people should “spit” on Israel so its citizens “would drown”.

In most cases, he has claimed he was referring to or reciting Islamic scripture. He sat in the front row of the Federal Court and did not rise or bow to Judge Angus Stewart as proceedings began or were adjourned.

The ECAJ, with ECAJ co-chief executive Peter Wertheim as the primary applicant, first launched court action against Mr Haddad and his Bankstown-based Al-Madina Dawah Centre in Oct­ober after a failed mediation process in the Human Rights Commission.

In a provocative video posted before the hearing Mr Haddad stated that “we are not going to come (to the trial) unarmed, we’re going to fight them with everything that we have”, followed by the image of a sword.

Peter Braham, representing Mr Wertheim and deputy president Robert Goot SC, said Mr Haddad’s behaviour had “the effect of normalising anti-Semitic prejudices and the expression of them, and (could) encourage acts of violence against Jewish people”.

“He makes no distinction between Jews who support Israel today and Jews who don’t. As we will see, in fact, the speeches were just speeches about Jews, ascribing to Jewish people certain negative characteristics, and encouraging his audience to hold those views,” he said.

“The intent of the speeches was to persuade an audience that the Jewish people had certain immutable and eternal characteristics that caused them to come into conflict with Muslims.”

Mr Haddad’s representative Andrew Boe suggested a judgment against Mr Haddad would unjustly limit freedom of speech and the “boundaries of legitimate debate cannot be set so narrowly as to exclude that which is not polite, bland, (or) muted”.

“It cannot be … that Section 18C (of the Racial Discrimination Act) can be contravened because some people in a group have gone out of their way to expose themselves to speech which they might reasonably expect to be critical of Israel,” Mr Boe said.

“It would be analogous to a person with a prudish sensitivity seeking out pornography on the web and then complaining about being offended by it.

“Mr Haddad’s evidence will be his motivation was to respond to expressions of great distress … by providing historical and religious context on those events in an attempt to provide spiritual comfort to them. That motivation is entirely consistent with the content of the speeches.”

He argued Mr Haddad throughout his sermons addressed only historical Jewish tribes referenced in the Koran or the state of Israel and the influential figures within it, not the global Jewish diaspora.

Mr Braham disputed this purported intention, and said Mr Haddad knowingly entered a public dialogue with journalists who reported on his sermons, including citing articles by this masthead.

“Mr Haddad read these newspaper articles, and as you see in his speech, he responds to them … and he says, ‘Hey, journalists, get your microphones ready, I’ve got more,’” Mr Braham said.

He pointed to extracts from Mr Haddad’s speeches.

“Today, I’m going to be a masjid (mosque) shock jock, and I want to rub salt in the wound so on Monday they have something to report about,” Mr Haddad said in a speech played before the court.

A directions and interlocutory hearing was carried out on Thursday at which Mr Haddad did not appear, where Mr Braham summarised expert evidence set to assess whether Mr Haddad’s sermons were accurate portrayals of Islamic scripture in the public interest and therefore not discriminatory.

It is seeking declarations that he contravened section 18C, injunctions to remove the five offending sermons from the internet, and an order that the cleric refrain from publishing similar speeches in future.

Mr Wertheim and Mr Goot are also seeking publication of a “corrective notice” on the centre’s social media pages and costs, though not damages or compensation.

Both the applicant and respondent have relied on expert witnesses to assess the speeches and sermons of Mr Haddad, with Mr Wertheim enlisting American professor of Islamic studies and theology Gabriel Reynolds, and Mr Haddad calling on Sheik Adel Ibrahim from the Greenacre Prayers Hall in western Sydney.

Justice Stewart has previously said “upon quick reading” the case against Mr Haddad was “damning”, and pushed back on an argument that certain sermons were protected by section 18D of the ­Racial Discrimination Act, which provides exemptions to 18C for public interest rhetoric, given it runs counter to his own judgment in the successful case of Greens deputy leader Mehreen Faruqi against One Nation leader Pauline Hanson.

Mr Haddad’s most recent sermons were first revealed in a series of stories by The Australian and prompted investigations from NSW Police and the Australian Federal Police.

Despite the publicity, he continued preaching and compared the coverage of his sermons with Nazi newspapers during World War II “before the Jewish genocide”.

Mr Haddad in a video posted last week said he was concerned Muslim leaders were abandoning their right to quote Islamic texts and had refused him support in his legal battle.

He is considered a “central figure in the Salafi-jihadi network in West Sydney and throughout Australia” by the Middle East Research Institute and has boasted of his friendship with notorious terrorists Khaled Sharrouf and Mohamed Elomar while expressing support for terrorist groups including Islamic State and al-Qaeda.