One Nation leader Pauline Hanson lost a Federal Court appeal on Monday against a judgment finding she racially discriminated against Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi with a social media post telling her to pack bags and return to Pakistan.
The Full Federal Court unanimously dismissed the appeal launched by Pauline Hanson, leaving intact a 2024 ruling that found her response to a social media post breached section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. Justices Melissa Perry, Geoffrey Kennett, and Elizabeth Bennett rejected all seven grounds of the challenge, concluding that none of the grounds of appeal have been established.
The 2022 X Exchange and the Original Legal Findings
The legal battle stems from an online interaction on the platform formerly known as Twitter, now X, which unfolded in September 2022 on the day Queen Elizabeth II passed away. Greens deputy leader Mehreen Faruqi posted condolences to those who knew the monarch, adding that she cannot mourn the leader of a racist empire built on stolen lives, land and wealth of colonised peoples.
Senator Hanson replied with a pointed rebuke. According to court documents, the One Nation leader wrote that her attitude appalled and disgusted her, noting that she took citizenship, bought multiple homes, and secured a job in parliament after immigrating to Australia. The post concluded with the directive: It’s clear you’re not happy, so pack your bags and piss off back to Pakistan
.
In November 2024, Federal Court Justice Angus Stewart ruled that the remarks were seriously offensive, intimidating, and anti-Muslim or Islamophobic. The initial judgment found that the post portrayed Senator Faruqi as a second-class citizen who should keep quiet and show gratitude as a migrant. Furthermore, Justice Stewart determined that Senator Hanson’s platform likely empowered others to direct similar abuse toward the Greens senator.
Legal Arguments on Free Speech and Constitutional Limits
During the appeal hearings, senior counsel Sue Chrysanthou argued on behalf of Senator Hanson that the contested tweet was not driven by race, colour, or national origin, but rather a need to expose hypocrisy. The barrister contended that the One Nation leader was reacting to a public figure who criticized Australia while enjoying taxpayer-funded benefits as an elected official, adding that the remarks were typical of the robust argy-bargy expected among political figures on social media.
Senator Hanson’s legal team also maintained that section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act infringed upon the implied constitutional freedom of political communication.
Representing Senator Faruqi, barrister Jessie Taylor argued during the hearings that Senator Hanson failed to appreciate that accusing someone of hypocrisy based on their migrant status is itself racist. Ms Taylor noted that while Senator Hanson complained extensively about Australia, she held a fundamentally different attitude toward individuals with outsider status who dared to voice criticisms.
Reactions Outside Court and Next Steps in the High Court
Senator Faruqi attended Monday’s judgment in Sydney, while Senator Hanson did not make an appearance. Holding a hard copy of the federal ruling outside the courthouse, Senator Faruqi declared that the unanimous decision marked a victory against normalised hate speech.
“Today’s win is for every single person out there who has been told to go back where they came from … who has been made to feel their belonging in this country is conditional.”
Senator Mehreen Faruqi, via ABC News & Headlines – Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Senator Faruqi also asserted that One Nation’s rhetoric has harmed communities for decades because major political parties failed to stand up against it, adding that she would be pursuing legal costs.
Despite the dismissal, Senator Hanson indicated the legal fight may continue. In a public statement posted to X following the decision, she argued that public discussion in Australia has been silenced by restrictive rules. She revealed that her legal team is reviewing the decision with a view to commencing an appeal in the High Court of Australia, having sought advice from constitutional expert Bret Walker, SC, and looking to retain Perry Herzfeld, SC.
Related reading
Discover more from Archyworldys
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.