Sydney Muslim cleric revels in being ‘deliberately provocative’ and must be restrained by law, court hears | Australia news

A Muslim cleric accused of a series of antisemitic slurs during lectures at a Sydney prayer centre must be restrained by law from making similar statements in the future because he has refused to apologise and revels in being “deliberately provocative and inflammatory”, the federal court has been told.

Wissam Haddad – whose legal first name is William but who is also known as Abu Ousayd – is being sued by two senior members of Australia’s peak Jewish body, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ), over a series of lectures he gave in Bankstown in November 2023 – subsequently broadcast online – in which he is alleged to have maligned Jewish people.

Haddad allegedly breached section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which prohibits offensive behaviour based on race or ethnic origin.

In his speeches, he quoted from the Qur’an and hadith, and described Jewish people as “mischievous”, “treacherous” and “vile”. His defence has argued the lectures were given for an educational purpose, and that they could not be found to have breached section 18C because they were not public, but rather addressed to a private Muslim audience.

Peter Braham SC, appearing for senior ECAJ members Peter Wertheim and Robert Goot, argued in closing submissions the court had the power to, and must, impose a restraint on Haddad making further incendiary speeches.

Braham argued Haddad had continued to post antisemitic tropes online after the case had been filed before the court.

“He plainly will – unless restrained – continue to do it, unconcerned by the seriousness of these proceedings or the offence … he knew he had caused,” Braham told Justice Angus Stewart.

Sign up for Guardian Australia’s breaking news email

Braham said other speeches made subsequently had been designed to “taunt” Christians, Hindus and Muslims, using language and tropes that were “deliberately provocative and inflammatory”.

“If you look at his conduct over time, it’s quite plain he does mean to cause offence,” Braham said.

He said a court-mandated apology would not suffice: “An ordered apology’s a useless thing.

“He should be ordered to not repeat the conduct.”

The ECAJ applicants, Wertheim and Goot, are seeking an injunction that Haddad’s five offending sermons be removed from the internet, and an order that he refrain from publishing similar speeches in future.

They are also seeking publication of a “corrective notice” on Haddad’s prayer centre’s social media pages, and to be awarded the legal costs of bringing their action. They have not sought damages or compensation.

Andrew Boe, appearing for Haddad, said the claim against Haddad must fail at the first hurdle, because it was not a public speech, but rather a private address.

“He was directing his speeches at his own people.”

Boe said the fact Haddad knew the lectures were to be subsequently uploaded online did not change their essential character: that they were intended for a Muslim audience of his followers and congregants.

“He knew it was being recorded and he understood … that the recordings were to be placed on two specific sites associated with the centre, so that those who may have an interest – within his community – would be able to access those recordings.”

Boe argued members of Australia’s Jewish community – including those who have brought the court action – were only made aware of the speeches through the reportage of the lectures in the mainstream media.

Boe earlier told the court it was unlikely a Jewish person would have discovered the speeches, to then be offended by them, if the recordings had not been amplified by mainstream media.

“It would be analogous to a person of a prudish sensitivity seeking out pornography on the web and then complaining about being offended by it,” Boe told the court.

Boe argued there must be room, in a democratic society, for “the confronting, the challenging, even the shocking”. He said Haddad’s speeches – in particular those titled The Jews of Al Madina – were concerned with historical events recorded in Islamic scripture, and his interpretations.

Earlier this week, Haddad posted a video online, telling followers he did not accept the authority of Australia’s secular courts.

“We disbelieve in these courts, these are the houses of the Taghut,” he said, using an Islamic concept that describes the worship of anyone or anything other than Allah. In modern contexts, the term is used to dismiss a non-Muslim power as anti-Islamic, tyrannical, or illegitimate.

Closing submissions continue. The hearing is expected to conclude on Friday.