One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has argued deputy Greens leader Mehreen Faruqi “intended to provoke” the public as she defends telling the senator to “piss off back to Pakistan” in the Federal Court.
Senator Faruqi’s legal representation labelled Senator Hanson a “prolific sayer of racist things” who provoked a “pile-on” against her in the opening statement of their racial discrimination bid before Sydney’s Federal Court.
Senators Hanson and Faruqi’s stoush began following the death of Queen Elizabeth II. On September 9, 2022 Senator Faruqi tweeted: “I cannot mourn the leader of a racist empire built on stolen lives, land and wealth of colonised peoples”.
Senator Hanson later responded to the tweet with the offending remark.
She reiterated the sentiment in parliament, contending that she would take the deputy Greens leader “to the airport and put (her) on a plane and wave (her) away”. While the statement was covered by parliamentary privilege, she would later withdraw it under threat of senate censure.
Senator Faruqi first took Senator Hanson to the Human Rights Commission over the tweet, before suing the One Nation leader.
The deputy Greens leader contended she had faced “a torrent of abusive (messages)” in the wake of Senator Hanson’s statement.
Senator Faruqi has accessed the parliamentary workplace support service for more than a year since Ms Hanson’s statement, the court was told on Monday.
“The tweet added to years and years of experiencing racist speech and racist acts … this was different. It came from a colleague, it came publicly and it unleashed, as she expected it would the moment she saw it, a torrent of abuse that made her doubt her place in Australia,” Senator Faruqi’s chief representative Saul Holt KC said.
“The tweet was making a brown, Muslim migrant into a lesser person.
“(It was) a message of exclusion, just on the face of the words used, from the nation delivered to a migrant … because she is a migrant.”
Mr Holt said the statement was also a trigger for “vicarious racism” that could negatively impact those of similar origin to Senator Faruqi.
Federal Court justice Angus Morkel Stewart is presiding over the five-day Federal Court hearing.
Senator Hanson has enlisted SC Sue Chrysanthou, known for representing former Attorney-General Christian Porter and Channel 10’s Lisa Wilkinson.
Senator Faruqi’s representation is led by Mr Holt, barrister Jessie Taylor and the firm Marque Lawyers.
Ms Chrysanthou told the court the evidence tendered by Senator Faruqi showed she had faced abuse over her comments from the media and public prior to Senator Hanson’s response.
“One might think, on reading [Senator Faruqi’s initial] tweet at the time and on the day it was posted, that it was intended to elicit a reaction,” she said.
“One might think just on reading that tweet that it was intended to provoke, that it was intended to offend, that it was intended to upset those who read it.”
Ms Chrysanthou told the court the “barrage of abuse” Senator Faruqi described started because of her own tweet, “not because of my client’s tweet”.
“If a person enters the fray in such a provocative way they expect and seek out a response,” Ms Chrysanthou said.
Ms Chrysanthou’s opening statement in defence of Senator Hanson also argued the One Nation founder was protected by freedom of speech and Senator Faruqi had sworn an oath of loyalty to the Queen when she was sworn into the senate.
On February 29 an interlocutory hearing determined the vast majority of evidence tendered by Senator Faruqi was admissible.
This included 93 statements by Senator Hanson intended to illustrate consistent racism.
Ms Chrysanthou argued in the hearing that the trial should not be a “Royal Commission” into Senator Hanson, and instead sharpen its focus on the events immediately related to the offending remark.
This “tendency material” included Senator Hanson’s submission of the “It’s okay to be white” bill, and her referring to Australia being “swamped by Asians” in her 1996 maiden speech.
Justice Stewart suggested the 93 statements by Hanson on the grounds of racist sentiment could be proof of a consistency of belief and a “tendency to make statements because of the race, colour, nationality or ethnic origin of the other person”. The statements were largely deemed admissible, excluding a number of media reports which could be found to be hearsay.
Also before the court is an online survey sourced by Marque Lawyers titled “How Does It Make You Feel?” which called for participants “to indicate your view” on the tweet by Senator Hanson.
The survey was viewed by 9430 people, and 776 filled it out. Nine of them had their Twitter accounts tendered as evidence in the form of “lay-affidavits”. Ms Taylor alleged that these affidavits would be a “drawing in technicolour (of) the real life experiences of racism of people in our community”.
Senator Faruqi’s sought damages include a $150,000 donation from Senator Hanson to the Sweatshop Literacy Movement, her enrolment in anti-racism training at her own cost, and her publishing an apology tweet.
Both senators have partially funded their legal fees through crowd-funding.