Faruqi v Hanson: One Nation leader’s barrister says tweet ‘not nice’ but not racist as court hears closing arguments

Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi brought a racial discrimination case against Pauline Hanson (pictured) alleging she was subjected to racial vilification, abuse and discrimination over a tweet. Photograph: Bianca de Marchi/AAP

Pauline Hanson’s controversial tweet to fellow senator Mehreen Faruqi telling her to “piss off back to Pakistan” was “not nice” or “polite” but was not racist, her lawyer has told the federal court.

Faruqi has brought a racial discrimination case against Hanson in the federal court, alleging she was subjected to racial vilification, abuse and discrimination after Hanson tweeted in response to Faruqi critiquing colonisation on the day Queen Elizabeth II died.

Hanson has denied knowing Faruqi was Muslim until recently as she had not asked her religious status, did not notice her wearing Muslim garb in the Senate, and did not know 97% of the Pakistani population was Muslim.

Faruqi’s case against Hanson includes the argument that she was targeted because she was a Muslim migrant of colour. Her lawyers have told the court Hanson’s history of comments against Islam and migrants proved racial discrimination, as set out in section 18c of the Racial Discrimination Act. Faruqi’s counsel, Saul Holt, told the court that given Hanson sat in the Senate with Faruqi, knew Faruqi was from Pakistan and had an “intense interest in Islam, Muslims and particularly Muslims in power”, it stood to reason she knew Faruqi’s religious status in September 2022.

Hanson’s barrister, Kieran Smark, finalised his client’s defence on Thursday by saying the tweet was “not nice” and “not a polite tweet” and deliberately so, but wasn’t racist and instead utilised a “standard rhetorical device” to convey emotion.

Smark said Hanson did not want Faruqi to return to Pakistan, but “was angry, and she thought she had reason to be angry, and she wanted readers [of the tweet] to be aware of her anger and the reason why, or the reasons why”.

Hanson’s legal team argued her tweet was protected under implied freedom of speech and political communications and was a genuinely held opinion and fair comment.

Hanson gave evidence that she was “hurt, angry and offended” after she learned Faruqi had tweeted a criticism of colonialism on the day of the Queen’s death, with her legal team arguing she believed Faruqi was being hypocritical.

Smark told the court Faruqi’s tweet had broken “the well-understood convention” of not criticising people “within hours” of their death.

Smark argued Hanson was making the point that Faruqi had “received the benefits from Australia, from the system, which she was now, on the death of the Queen, attacking” and that her tweet was aimed at that, not at Faruqi’s Pakistani heritage.

Hanson’s team also argued that the Racial Discrimination Act which Faruqi used to bring her case against Hanson, particularly 18c and 18d, impeded on Hanson’s right to (an implied) freedom of speech and political communication.

The commonwealth attorney general intervened,arguing Hanson’s case did not meet the bar to question the constitutional validity of the act.

Craig Leneham, representing the commonwealth, told the court there was no impediment to political communication, as political communication did not need to include statements which could offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate a person or group of people on the basis of race, colour, nationality or ethnic group.

“Your honour can reduce it in perhaps simplified or ordinary terms to two propositions; the first is don’t engage in really seriously offensive conduct because of the person’s race,” Leneham said.

“The second proposition is, and if you do you better have a good reason for it. That’s not a particularly difficult set of concepts to absorb or apply.”

Leneham argued that was not the case with Hanson’s tweet.

“They just haven’t met that significant burden”.”

The court was adjourned and Stewart will return with his judgment at a date still to be set.