One Nation senator Pauline Hanson told a white senator to “go back to New Zealand” years before she tweeted that Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi, a Muslim, should “piss off back to Pakistan”, the federal court has heard.
The court also heard Hanson had targeted Faruqi, “a brown, Muslim, migrant senator”, with “a personal racist attack based on a response to a political tweet”.
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 on the day Queen Elizabeth II died.
Both Faruqi and Hanson’s legal teams began presenting final submissions to Justice Angus Stewart on Wednesday. Faruqi’s counsel, Saul Holt, argued Hanson targeted Faruqi because of her migrant status.
Hanson’s counsel opened the day by playing a video of a televised debate segment Hanson had with former senator Derryn Hinch in 2018, where Hanson told Hinch to “go back to New Zealand” and “come back when you get some manners” as proof Hanson had told a white migrant to go back to where they came from.
In the segment, Hanson had been arguing an unidentified person could “pack your bags and get on the next plane out of the country, that’s where you belong” which prompted Hinch to argue “that’s your usual thing, to every migrant – get out of the country. I have been an Australian citizen since 1980, that sort of argument is purile, stupid and …”
Hanson interrupted with “well go back to New Zealand Derryn and pick up some manners Derryn, and then come back when you’ve got some manners.”
Hanson’s legal team said the exchange was relevant to the question of whether or not Hanson had ever told a white person to go back to where they came from, after Faruqi’s counsel presented multiple examples of her criticising migrants of colour.
“The words published here [piss off back to Pakistan], were … a version of a well-known anti migrant racist phrase ‘go back to where you came from’. And they were plainly targeted at … a brown Muslim migrant senator.
“And they were said by Pauline Hanson, Senator Hanson, a high profile purveyor of hateful speech against people who have those characteristics, like Senator Faruqi.”
Holt said that the entirety of Hanson’s tweet which read – “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” – was aimed at Faruqi’s migrant status.
after newsletter promotion
Holt said the affect of those words on Faruqi was clear.
“Senator Faruqi explained, when I asked about how this compared to other periods of distress that she’s had [she said] I was distressed for three years (that was in the context of the abortion debate that she was engaged in New South Wales), but I’ve never experienced the stress of sleepless nights or waking up in distress or throwing up or having extreme trauma. When I was thinking about this, and what happened and literally jumping out of a moving car.
“So I’ve never experienced that in my life ever.”
Hanson’s counsel have argued that Hanson’s tweet was fair comment, which Holt rejected. Holt argued that political status or success did not make someone immune to the effects of racism.
“For someone like Senator Faruqi, who’s come from a position of being the first Muslim woman in parliament, from a background of obvious disadvantage as a member of a minority, the likelihood is in truth that an effect on her of that sort of speech is going to be much more substantial” Holt said.
“She’s already a minority, she’s already different. She’s already likely to be feeling as she’s explained, excluded or not legitimate.”
Hanson’s team argued Hanson’s tweet was fair comment, particularly given the timing of Faruqi’s original comment, which came “just hours” after the Queen’s death.
Kieran Smark SC, acting for Hanson, said she expressed a genuinely held opinion, which should fall under implied freedom of speech protections.
Smark said that Hanson, who had been accused by Faruqi’s counsel of “playing the player and not the ball” was engaging in modern politics, as had Faruqi.
“Politics has involved assailing one’s opponents, insulting one’s opponents, offending one’s opponents, as part of the persuasive process and effectively so,” Smark said.
“… 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, which were clearly ones on which Senator Faruqi and Senator Hanson were separately removed, but also just as part of the political process.”
Final submissions will continue on Thursday.