Senator Pauline Hanson has lost her appeal of the Federal Court’s finding that she racially vilified Senator Mehreen Faruqi.
The case dates back to 2022, when Faruqi criticised the monarchy in a social media post following Queen Elizabeth II’s death.
Hanson replied with what a Federal Court judge found in 2024 was an “angry personal attack” that carried racist meaning.
Now that the Full Federal Court has denied Hanson’s appeal, she plans to take it to the High Court.
In a post to X in September 2022, Faruqi wrote: “Condolences to those who mourn the Queen. I cannot mourn the leader of a racist empire built on stolen lives, land and wealth of colonised peoples.” She called for a “Treaty with First Nations, justice & reparations for British colonies”.
In response, Hanson told Faruqi to “piss off back to Pakistan.”
Background
Faruqi initially lodged a complaint through the Australian Human Rights Commission.
However, when Hanson refused to participate, Faruqi pursued legal action in the Federal Court instead.
Faruqi accused Hanson of breaching the Racial Discrimination Act.
Under section 18C of the act, it’s unlawful to take any public action likely to “offend, insult, humiliate, or intimidate” someone on the basis of “race, colour, or national or ethnic origin”.
If a person is found guilty, a court can order them to financially compensate the victim.
Legal case
Hanson argued she was making “fair comment” on a matter of public interest: the monarchy, a First Nations Treaty, and the possibility of Australia becoming a republic.
She also argued her post was protected by an implied (not expressly stated) Constitutional right to political communication.
Hanson’s lawyers also argued she didn’t know Faruqi was Muslim when she made the post.
Your contribution ensures The Daily Aus can continue doing the work you love.
I want to give $10 monthly to help TDA keep doing the news.
Your details:
In 2024, Justice Angus Stewart rejected Hanson’s arguments and found the post was racist.
Decision
If a person appeals a Federal Court decision, the original judge’s reasoning is reviewed by a panel of at least three other judges, called the “Full Federal Court”.
The Full Court dismissed Hanson’s appeal in full, upholding the original finding that her post breached section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.
The panel also upheld the original judge’s finding that Hanson’s post carried three messages: that Faruqi, as an immigrant, “took advantage” of Australia, and “should be grateful for what she has and keep quiet”; that she should “piss off back to Pakistan,” a version of the racist trope “go back to where you came from”; and an anti-Muslim message.
The Court also made decisions on two bigger constitutional questions Hanson raised.
It ruled that section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act is constitutionally valid.
On free speech, it found that the law had a “significant” impact on the implied right to political communication, but that this was justified by the goal of protecting people from racism.
Hanson’s “fair comment” defence failed too. The Court found her tweet had no genuine connection to the issues Faruqi’s post had raised.
Responses
Faruqi said the judgment is “a win for every person who has been told to go back to where you came from.” She added: “Justice has prevailed today and I want to make sure it will prevail tomorrow and the day after.”
The Greens said the decision “sends a clear message that hate speech is not free speech, and that racial vilification, including from public figures with large platforms, has consequences under Australian law.”
Following the ruling, Hanson maintained that when she made the post, she was “incensed” by what she called “incredible disrespect” shown to the Queen on the day of her death, and “simply wanted to call that out.”
She says she is now reviewing the decision with a view to launching an appeal in the High Court of Australia.
The High Court does not automatically hear appeals. It first decides whether a person has grounds to make that appeal. This will be the next stage in Hanson’s case.
