There was a moment during Pauline Hanson’s cross examination in the federal court, where she was defending herself against an allegation of racially discriminating against a fellow senator, where she was asked if she had ever told an Australian-born Australian to leave the country.
Hanson paused and thought about it. “I’ve heard of Aussie whingers,” she told the court. “And I still feel the same, if they don’t like it, I am sure they can find some other place else to go as well. So I’m not being, you know, picky.
“I am a very proud, patriotic Australian, and if people aren’t happy here, then fine, probably find someplace else around the world to live.”
Moments later Hanson was asked if she had ever suggested that a white migrant, from a white background, should ever leave Australia.
“I probably have,” Hanson said. She couldn’t remember an example, so her legal team provided one the next day.
Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi has brought a racial discrimination case against Hanson, alleging she was subjected to racial vilification, abuse and discrimination after Hanson tweeted “piss off back to Pakistan” in response to Faruqi critiquing colonisation after Queen Elizabeth II’s death.
This week the court was shown footage of Hanson debating the former senator Derryn Hinch on the Network Seven breakfast show, Sunrise, on 20 September 2018. Hanson tells Hinch to go back to New Zealand and come back when he has some manners.
Hanson’s counsel explained: “That’s relevant to the question about whether Senator Hanson has ever asked someone who [is] white to do that [leave the country].
The federal court will now decide whether Hanson telling Faruqi to “piss off back to Pakistan” contravenes the Racial Discrimination Act, and therefore is racist speech.
Hanson’s legal team has referred to her comment as “standard rhetorical device” meant to convey emotion, not intent, and in this case an emotive example of political communication. It wasn’t “nice” or “polite” and wasn’t meant to be – but that didn’t make it racist, her counsel argued.
Faruqi, who has brought the case against Hanson, has claimed otherwise.
Faruqi, who was born in Pakistan, says Hanson telling her to “go back to where she came from” is language every migrant, particularly those of colour and Muslim, understands as “othering”.
Faruqi’s team argue Hanson violated section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act, and her tweet was reasonably likely to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” another person or group because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or group of people.
How the case started
The case stems from an interaction the pair had on X, then called Twitter, on 9 September 2022, shortly after Queen Elizabeth II died. Faruqi greeted the news by tweeting “Condolences to those who knew the Queen. I cannot mourn the leader of a racist empire built on stolen lives, land and wealth of colonised peoples. We are reminded of the urgency of Treaty with First Nations, justice & reparations for British colonies & becoming a republic.”
Condolences to those who knew the Queen.
— Mehreen Faruqi (@MehreenFaruqi) September 9, 2022
I cannot mourn the leader of a racist empire built on stolen lives, land and wealth of colonised peoples.
We are reminded of the urgency of Treaty with First Nations, justice & reparations for British colonies & becoming a republic.
The court heard that a member of Hanson’s staff rang her to let her know what Faruqi had said. Hanson dictated a response over the phone, which was then tweeted out through her account.
“Your attitude appalls and disgusts me. When you immigrated to Australia you took every advantage of this country. You took citizenship, bought multiple homes, and a job in a parliament. It’s clear you’re not happy, so pack your bags and piss off back to Pakistan. PH”
Faruqi says she was subjected to a barrage of racial and Islamophobic abuse over the tweet, which severely affected her and others. Attempts to have the matter mediated outside court failed, leading to the federal court case.
Hanson’s defence centred around two main claims – that the tweet was not intended to be racist and was instead fair comment and political communication, and that the section of legislation Faruqi has brought this complaint under impedes her implied freedom of speech.
Most of the past week was spent looking at the racial element of the case. Faruqi outlined the impact to her health and wellbeing, while affidavits from other people who saw the tweet were also submitted to the court.
Experts in racism and its impacts gave evidence. Hanson’s time giving evidence was spent cross-examining her over her many historic statements criticising migrants, migration, Islam and Muslims and what her intent was in telling Faruqi to “piss off back to Pakistan”.
Justice Angus Stewart will have to decide if Faruqi’s complaint meets the bar of section 18c, before moving on to whether Hanson breached it. The constitutional aspect of Hanson’s defence, if considered at all, will come after.
What needs to be shown
Hanson denies knowing Faruqi was Muslim at the time of the tweet. Faruqi’s counsel, Saul Holt, appeared taken aback by Hanson’s declaration Faruqi’s religion was not known to her until recently and put to the One Nation senator she was “lying under oath”. The moment was pivotal, given that much of the abuse suffered by Faruqi, Australia’s first Muslim female senator, was Islamophobic.
As part of their case attempting to prove intent, Faruqi’s legal team provided numerous examples of Hanson attending anti-Islamic rallies or making anti-Islamic or anti-migrant statements, ranging from the late 1990s, when she emerged on the political scene, to last month.
Hanson said she was protesting against “extremist” or “fundamentalist” ideology and that a Muslim migration ban was not One Nation party policy as it wasn’t in the “policy booklet”, however conceded it “might be a personal opinion”.
Religion isn’t covered under section 18c, but Faruqi’s legal case centred around Hanson’s knowledge of Faruqi as a “brown, Muslim migrant woman”. It will be for the judge to decide whether Hanson was truthful in front of the court. Stewart can only consider what was said or submitted in evidence.
Other revelations
The court also heard Hanson only recently became aware of what was being said under her name on the social media site X.
Hanson said she did not have access to her X account on either her phone or her computer, and never looks to see the reaction to a particular tweet.
“I’m a paper girl, OK. Not technology,” she said.
It has only been in the last four months or so, Hanson told the court, that her staff have begun running tweets past her for approval before posting them.
Hanson told the court she never saw Twitter users call Faruqi an “infidel, a cow, a mutt, an Islamist snake” in response to her tweet as she “didn’t read them”.
When Hanson was asked whether it crossed her mind there could be a response to telling someone to “piss off back to Pakistan”, she replied: “The response came from me, my feelings how I felt at that time, as I said, I wasn’t interested in what other people thought. That’s how I felt, how upset and how I felt about her tweet. I was, I was incensed, I was insulted. It was, it was terrible.”
The question of fair comment
Hanson’s legal argument centres around her making “fair comment” because she had a genuinely held opinion which she expressed and therefore was within the exemption provided by 18d of the Racial Discrimination Act.
That opinion, her barrister, Kieran Smark, argued, was also normal within the political sphere Faruqi and Hanson engaged in.
“Politics involves the deployment of rhetoric, powerful language, emotion, all with a view to persuading the audience towards a particular view and in this case, a particular, powerful view on issues … as part of the political process.”
Faruqi’s barrister, Saul Holt, dismissed the political argument by saying politicians had the right to engage in robust debate without being subjected to racist speech and, in this case, Hanson didn’t engage in a political argument but a personal one “playing the player, not the ball”.
The case is likely to push the debate over section 18c back into the mainstream, with the potential for a further constitutional challenge.
Hanson says the reason she told Faruqi to “pack her bags and piss off back to Pakistan” was not because she was from Pakistan.
“I told her that because she insulted me,” Hanson said.
“And many other Australians ….it’s not about hurting anyone …. I was insulted. I was offended … that’s not me lashing out.”
