In a Sydney courtroom, a years-long legal contest between two senators reached another turning point — one rooted in the oldest of human tensions: the boundary between free expression and the dignity owed to those targeted by words wielded as weapons. Australia's Federal Court upheld a finding that One Nation leader Pauline Hanson racially discriminated against Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi when she publicly told her to return to Pakistan, a message sent the day a queen died and a colonial reckoning briefly surfaced in public life. The ruling affirms that the reach of the Racial Discrimination
Hanson loses appeal in racial discrimination case against Greens senator Faruqi
Senator Faruqi experienced targeted racial and religious discrimination through a public social media post amplified to Hanson's large following.
Ordinary people prevented from saying what they think for fear of offense
Mark
Why did Hanson's lawyers think the Constitution should shield her from this law?
Mimi
They argued that political communication—especially from elected officials—deserves special protection under the Constitution. The idea is that robust debate about public figures and policy shouldn't be constrained by discrimination law. The court disagreed.
Mark
But the original judge found she knew Faruqi was Muslim. How did Hanson defend that?
Mimi
She simply said she didn't know. The judge looked at the facts and found it overwhelmingly probable she did know. It's hard to claim ignorance when someone's religious identity is fairly public knowledge.
Mark
What made this tweet cross the line from political criticism into discrimination?
Mimi
The core issue was that Hanson didn't just disagree with Faruqi's views on the monarchy. She told her to go back to Pakistan based on her ethnic and religious identity. That's the distinction—criticism of ideas versus attacks on someone's belonging based on who they are.
Mark
Does Hanson have a real chance at the High Court?
Mimi
That's the open question now. The High Court would have to decide whether section 18C actually does restrict political speech in ways the Constitution forbids. It's a genuine constitutional question, even if this particular case seems straightforward.
Mark
What happens to the tweet itself?
Mimi
The original ruling ordered her to delete it. Whether she has complied or plans to defy that order isn't clear from the appeal decision. That's another thing that could come up later.
The Pulse
- A tweet fired in the charged hours after Queen Elizabeth II's death — when Faruqi questioned the empire's legacy — has now cost Hanson two court defeats and counting.
- Hanson's central defense, that she was unaware Faruqi was Muslim, was dismissed as implausible by the court, which found it overwhelmingly probable she knew exactly who she was targeting.
- Her legal team's argument that section 18C unconstitutionally silences political speech failed to move the Federal Court, leaving the discrimination finding firmly intact.
- Faruqi sat in the courtroom to hear the outcome; Hanson responded from X, framing her loss as a threat to ordinary Australians' freedom to speak their minds.
- With costs still to be decided and a High Court appeal flagged, the case is far from closed — and the constitutional question about where discrimination law ends and political speech begins may yet be tested at the summit of Australian justice.
In a Sydney courtroom, a years-long legal contest between two senators reached another turning point — one rooted in the oldest of human tensions: the boundary between free expression and the dignity owed to those targeted by words wielded as weapons. Australia's Federal Court upheld a finding that One Nation leader Pauline Hanson racially discriminated against Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi when she publicly told her to return to Pakistan, a message sent the day a queen died and a colonial reckoning briefly surfaced in public life. The ruling affirms that the reach of the Racial Discrimination Act extends even into the arena of political speech, though Hanson has signaled she will carry the question to the nation's highest court, where the Constitution itself may be asked to weigh in.
When Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi posted on X that she could not mourn Queen Elizabeth II — describing the British Empire as built on stolen lives and land — One Nation leader Pauline Hanson replied by telling her to leave the country, invoking her Pakistani heritage in terms a court would later find carried anti-Muslim undertones. That exchange in September 2022 set in motion a legal contest that reached another milestone on Monday, when Sydney's Federal Court upheld the original ruling that Hanson had breached section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.
Hanson's appeal rested on two main arguments: that political speech deserves constitutional protection from discrimination law, and that she had not known Faruqi was Muslim. Both were rejected. The court found it overwhelmingly probable she was aware of Faruqi's religious background, and declined to carve out a constitutional exemption for political expression. The original judgment had also noted that Hanson's large social media following amplified the post, potentially encouraging a wider wave of similar attacks.
Faruqi attended the hearing in person. Hanson did not appear, instead posting on X that she was disappointed and intended to seek a High Court appeal. In her statement, she cast the case as a free speech issue, arguing that laws like section 18C silence ordinary Australians and create a chilling effect on public debate. A decision on legal costs was reserved, and the prospect of a High Court challenge means the constitutional question — where the line falls between protected political speech and unlawful racial discrimination — may yet be put to Australia's highest judicial authority.
Pauline Hanson's attempt to overturn a racial discrimination ruling has failed. On Monday in Sydney's Federal Court, Justice Melissa Perry upheld a November 2024 judgment that found the One Nation leader had breached Australia's Racial Discrimination Act when she told Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi to "piss off back to Pakistan" on social media.
The dispute began in September 2022, the day Queen Elizabeth II died. Senator Faruqi had posted on X that she could not mourn the British monarch, describing the empire as built on "stolen lives, land and wealth of colonized people." Hanson replied with a message attacking Faruqi's character and telling her to leave the country. The tweet drew on Faruqi's Pakistani heritage and, as the original court found, carried anti-Muslim undertones.
When Hanson appealed the judgment, her legal team argued that section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act should not apply to political speech, which they contended deserves constitutional protection. The Federal Court rejected this argument. Justice Angus Stewart, in the original ruling, had determined that Hanson's post was "anti-Muslim or Islamophobic" in nature. He also found it significant that Hanson's large social media following amplified the message, potentially encouraging others to post similar attacks.
Hanson's defense rested partly on the claim that she did not know Senator Faruqi was Muslim. Justice Stewart dismissed this, ruling it "overwhelmingly probable" that Hanson was aware of Faruqi's religious background. The original judgment ordered Hanson to delete the offending tweet. A decision on legal costs from Monday's hearing was reserved.
Senator Faruqi attended the appeal hearing in person. Hanson did not appear in court but responded via X, saying she was "disappointed" by the outcome. She signaled her intention to pursue the matter further, stating she would review the decision "with a view to commencing an appeal in the High Court of Australia."
In her statement, Hanson framed the case as part of a broader concern about free speech. She argued that laws like section 18C have created a chilling effect on public discourse, preventing "ordinary people" from expressing views for fear of causing offense to what she called "a small part of our society." She wrote that Australians need "the courage, and the freedom, to say what we think on issues that are important to us all," and that some opinions may be unpopular without being invalid. The case now moves toward potential High Court proceedings, where the constitutional question about political speech and discrimination law may be tested again.
Notable Quotes
Your attitude appals 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.— Pauline Hanson, in the tweet at the center of the case
We all need to have the courage, and the freedom, to say what we think on issues that are important to us all.— Pauline Hanson, in her response to the appeal judgment
Want the full story?
Read the original at ABC News & Headlines – Australian Broadcasting Corporation ↗
Media & Entertainment