Hanson ‘no shrinking violet’ on Islam: court

Appearing on Thursday at the Federal Court proceeding between the two senators, Senator Hanson’s legal representative Kieran Smark SC delivered the defence’s closing statement. It comes as Senator Hanson’s initial affidavit was made publicly available.

The case has hinged on duelling interpretations of the Racial Discrimination Act.

Senator Hanson alleged that a tweet she sent to the deputy Greens leader following the death of Queen Elizabeth II, was a defence of the Monarchy after Senator Faruqi labelled it a “racist empire”.

“The Queen was the only monarch of Australia during my life. Like many Australians, I saw her as a sign of constancy,” Senator Hanson said in her January affidavit.

“Senator Faruqi did not even have the respect to wait a day before viciously insulting her.

“I wanted to stand up for an institution that Senator Faruqi had decided to attack.”

Throughout the trial, Senator Hanson has contended her initial remark was never intended to be racist, stating in the same document that “if you - a migrant or someone born here - are not happy in this country, you should go and find a country that suits you”.

Mr Smark provided further confidence to Senator Hanson’s testimony, arguing that Senator Hanson’s contentious stance on Islam and Muslim immigration was to her favour in establishing a lack of wrongdoing, given Senator Faruqi’s practice of Islam is not mentioned in the tweet.

“(Senator Hanson) is not a shrinking violet on that topic. That is, if she’s got something to say about Islam, she’ll say it,” Mr Smark said. “So then (the topic’s) absence from the tweet is notable.”

“What got her going, to use the vernacular, was the … timing of the tweet.

“There’s the engine of anger and disgust for Senator Hanson that actuated the sending of this message, colour would seem to be the last thing on her mind.”

Mr Smirk declared that the use of the remark, which has been conflated throughout the case with the dog whistle ‘go back where you came from’, was a “device to illustrate the strength of the feeling she was having”. The silk argued that politicians were expected to use emotion as a political device.

Senator Hanson faced accusations of lying under oath on Tuesday for claiming she did not know Senator Faruqi was a Muslim.

Senator Faruqi’s legal representation vowed to submit a claim that Senator Hanson knowingly lied.

“It never entered my mind if she was (a Muslim) or not,” Senator Hanson said during the cross-examination. “It was irrelevant.”

On Wednesday, closing remarks began with Senator Faruqi’s legal representative KC Saul Holt calling Senator Hanson’s remark “classical racial hatred”.

“The words published (in her tweet) were a version of a well-known, anti-migrant, racist phrase ‘go back to where you came from’,” he said.

“Being told … not to bite the hand that feeds you is really to be told to shut up and stop engaging in controversial speech because you’re a migrant.”

Senator Hanson’s lawyer Kieran Smark SC will continue his closing statements on Thursday after arguing Senator Hanson has “no liability” towards the Greens deputy leader.

Senator Faruqi sued Senator Hanson after she was “offended and insulted” by an online remark. Following the death of Queen Elizabeth II, Senator Faruqi tweeted in protest of the “racist empire built” by the British monarchy. Senator Hanson replied telling her to “piss off back to Pakistan”.

SC Sue Chrysanthou, representing Senator Hanson, told the court on Monday that Senator Faruqi “intended to elicit a reaction” when she made her initial comments.

Ms Chrysanthou posited that the Greens senator was “a hypocrite and only against certain forms of racism”.

On Wednesday the Federal Court released a cache of tendered documents to the public, including nine accepted lay-affidavits, Senator Faruqi’s affidavit, and more than 800 pages of hate messages Senator Faruqi says she received following Senator Hanson’s remarks.

In her affidavit, Senator Faruqi detailed feeling “small, othered and isolated” by Senator Hanson’s attack.

“I’ve worked in many places in my professional engineering career including consulting firms, local government and a large university. Most of them were dominated by white men, but none of them were anything like parliaments, where I am so marginalised, so invalidated and made to feel so small,” Senator Faruqi said in the document, lodged last October.

“There are days where I will spend hours in the chamber in Canberra with this aggressor sitting right across the room from me. It’s difficult for me to go in there every day, to sit there and do my job.

“I have a physiological reaction to going into the chamber to sit in close proximity to someone who has caused so much upheaval and distress in my life.”

The court documents also detail public statements made by Senator Hanson that Senator Faruqi believes illustrate a history of racial insensitivity. Spanning Senator Hanson’s political career, remarks come as recent as mid-April, with Senator Hanson’s response to the Wakeley stabbing tendered after it was raised during Tuesday’s cross-examination.

During Senator Hanson’s time on the witness stand, Mr Holt presented her with these historic statements.

“I suggest that the reason that you told Senator Faruqi to pack her bags and piss off back to Pakistan, at least a reason that you did that, was because she was from Pakistan,” Mr Holt said.

“No,” Senator Hanson replied.

When questioned on her claim that Muslim Australians celebrated the 9/11 hijackings, or her belief in a potential invasion of the Australian government by Muslims, she alleged she could not recall whether she made the statements or had believed them.

Senator Hanson said she had historically pushed for a curb in the immigration of white foreigners and had not specifically targeted ethnic minorities.

Senator Hanson’s defence on Wednesday lodged a 2018 media appearance in which she told then-senator Derryn Hinch to “pack (his) bags and get on the next plane out of the country” back to New Zealand as evidence of this standpoint.

Senator Hanson alleged she did not remember creating the hashtag #prayformuslimban or advocating for a total Muslim ban.

She told the court her official Twitter account, @PaulineHansonOz, had no statement guaranteed to have been her own and her staffers had only begun to run tweets by her “in the last four months” despite the assertion in her online bio “my tweets are signed -PH”.

Senator Hanson did not attend the final day of proceedings, but Mehreen Faruqi and her husband Omar Faruqi sat in.

The court also heard submissions from lawyers representing the Commonwealth seeking to affirm that a section of Senator Hanson’s defence, that the Racial Discrimination Act conflicted with the Constitution, was false. Senator Hanson alleges that a number of clauses in the Act place an unconstitutional burden on political communication.

Following the conclusion of the Attorney-General’s submissions, Justice Angus Stewart will retire to draft his judgement.

Senator Faruqi’s sought damages include a $150,000 donation from Senator Hanson to the Sweatshop Literacy Movement, Senator Hanson’s enrolment in anti-racism training and a public apology.