Federal Court of Australia

Wertheim v Haddad (No 2) [2025] FCA 820

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    Pursuant to s 46PO(4)(b) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth), the second respondent, at its own expense and within 21 days of the date of this order, publish or arrange to be published, for a period of 30 days:

(a)    on its Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/madinadawahcentre), a post consisting of the images “Slide 1.png”, “Slide 2.png” and “Slide 3.png” (in that order), contained in the folder “Instagram & Facebook Post” on Exhibit PK-3 to the affidavit of Poppy Kambas affirmed on 7 July 2025 (Ex PK-3), accompanied by a caption consisting of the text set out in Annexure A to these orders, and cause this post to be designated a “featured” post;

(b)    a post on its Rumble page
(https://rumble.com/c/ALMADINADAWAHCENTRE) which includes:

(i)    the video file “Rumble Post.mp4”, contained in the folder “Rumble Post” on Ex PK-3;

(ii)    the thumbnail image “Rumble Thumbnail.jpg” contained in the folder ”Rumble Post” on Ex PK-3;

(iii)    the title “CORRECTIVE ORDER: NOTICE BY THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA”; and

(iv)    a “description” consisting of the text set out in Annexure A to these orders,

and cause this video to be designated a “featured” video.

2.    Pursuant to s 46PO(4)(b) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth), the first respondent, at his own expense and within 21 days of the date of this order, publish:

(a)    on his Instagram page (https://www.instagram.com/abu.ousayd/):

(i)    for a period of 30 days, a grid post consisting of the images “Slide 1.png”, “Slide 2.png” and “Slide 3.png” (in that order), contained in the folder “Instagram & Facebook Post” on Ex PK-3, accompanied by a caption consisting of the text set out in Annexure A to these orders, which grid post should be “pinned” to the top of his profile; and

(ii)    for a period of 24 hours, a Story post “sharing” the grid post referred to in order 2(c)(i) above, which should be saved as a Story Highlight for a period of 30 days;

(b)    for a period of 30 days, on his Soundcloud page (https://soundcloud.com/abuousaydofficial), a “track” which contains:

(i)    the audio file “Corrective Notice Audio.m4a” contained in the folder “Soundcloud Post” on Ex PK-3,

(ii)    as a thumbnail image, the image file “Corrective Notice – Thumbnail.png” contained in the folder “Soundcloud Post” on Ex PK-3; and

(iii)    as a caption, the text set out in Annexure A to these orders,

and cause this track to be a “Spotlight” track.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Annexure A

CORRECTIVE NOTICE

PUBLISHED BY ORDER OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Unlawful behaviour based on racial hatred by William Haddad and Al Madina Dawah Centre Incorporated

Following action by Peter Wertheim AM and Robert Goot AO SC, Jewish members of the Australian community and officeholders in the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the Federal Court of Australia has declared that William Haddad and Al Madina Dawah Centre Incorporated contravened section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) by making and publishing three lectures in a series titled “The Jews of Al Medina” which were reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate Jewish members of the Australian community and which were made and published because of the Jewish race or ethnic origin.

The lectures were made and published on the Al Madina Dawah Centre’s Rumble page in November 2023.

The Federal Court of Australia found that the speeches included numerous statements which, by disparaging the Jewish people as a whole and repeating racist stereotypes about them, contravened the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth).

The Federal Court of Australia ordered William Haddad and the Al Madina Dawah Centre to remove the offending speeches and not to repeat or continue such unlawful behaviour and to pay the applicants' costs of the proceeding.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

STEWART J:

1    On 1 July 2025, I made final orders in this proceeding and published my reasons for those orders: Wertheim v Haddad [2025] FCA 720 (J). These reasons assume familiarity with those reasons.

2    By orders 2 to 4 on that day, I reserved one aspect of the final relief for determination in due course. That aspect is the applicants’ prayer for relief in the form of requiring the respondents to publish notices on various social media platforms of the Court’s finding that they had contravened Pt IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth). I had resolved that a proper form of redress to be ordered in the case is that the respondents publish such corrective notices on their relevant social media accounts for a period of 30 days (J [275]). However, I was not satisfied with regard to the proposed specific requirements for such publication so I made provision for the parties to make further submissions on that question. Having received those submissions, and an affidavit of Poppy Kambas dated 7 July 2025 to which the respondents do not object, I am now in a position to deal with the question of the publication of notices.

3    The applicants now seek a slightly (and appropriately) differently worded notice to be published from the one initially proposed at trial and they seek different requirements in respect of such publication. The respondents accept the proposed wording of the notice and that the notice should be published on the relevant social media accounts broadly as provided for in the applicants’ proposed order. However, they take issue with the specific requirements that are directed at ensuring that the notices are given particular prominence on two of the relevant accounts, namely accounts on Facebook and Instagram. In that regard, the respondents submit that the “feature” and “pin” tools respectively on those platforms, which the applicants propose the respondents should be required to use in respect of the corrective notice, are tools usually used by entrepreneurs and individuals who sell products and offer services. They submit that to require the respondents to go beyond merely publishing and uploading the corrective notice as an ordinary post would go further than is appropriate for a redress measure as it would compel the respondents “to essentially ‘advertise’ and ‘promote’” the corrective notice. They submit that is particularly so in circumstances where the three offending lectures were never “directly” uploaded to Facebook or Instagram.

4    Ms Kambas’s affidavit details how an account holder on each of the relevant platforms can post material so that it does not disappear from view in a short period of time by being overtaken by subsequent postings or the ordinary mechanisms of the platform promoting fresh or different material. I am satisfied that the manner in which an account holder can “pin” a post to the top of their profile on Instagram and “feature” a post on Facebook is not onerous – it is not complicated or time consuming and it does not apparently require the payment of any service fee. I am also not persuaded that to require the respondents to “pin” and “feature” the corrective notices would be unduly burdensome from the perspective of dominating or cluttering their relevant accounts. Other posts will still be able to be made, and it is proposed that the notices are required to be published for only 30 days.

5    In short, the “pinning” and “featuring” of the posts will prevent them from disappearing from view in a short period of time, and it will prevent them from being deliberately buried by way of successive further posts. I do not regard it as disproportionate to the nature and extent of the wrong committed to require redress of that nature. I accept that “pinning” and “featuring” the corrective notice will amount to the respondents “promoting” the notice to an extent, but that is part of the objective – the respondents promoted the unlawful lectures and it is not disproportionate to require them to promote the corrective notice in the relatively constrained manner described above as an appropriate form of redress. It is also not to the point that the lectures were not “directly” posted to Instagram and Facebook as the links on those platforms to the lectures on YouTube and Rumble facilitated much the same thing, ie easy access for anyone interested in seeing the lectures. As Bromberg J noted in Eatock v Bolt (No 2) [2011] FCA 1180; 284 ALR 114 at [15] and [23], the publication of a corrective notice “serves a wider informational and educative purpose” part of which involves “informing those influenced by the contravening conduct of the wrongdoing involved”. That, by nature, contemplates some degree of promotion.

6    Ms Kambas has already prepared the relevant digital files for each of the proposed postings – they are exhibited in digital form to her affidavit. All the respondents will be required to do is upload them to the relevant accounts and “pin” or “feature” them as required and not delete them for 30 days.

7    For those reasons, I am satisfied that the revised orders on the publication of a corrective notice that are sought by the applicants should be made.

Associate:

Dated:    17 July 2025