Lead: A pivotal moment in Australia’s evolving jurisprudence on free expression and race has arrived as the country’s highest court agrees to hear Pauline Hanson’s appeal of a landmark ruling that found her comments about Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi were racially discriminatory.
The decision follows an established legal trajectory rooted in constitutional principles and public discourse. In November 2024, Justice Angus Stewart delivered a judgment finding that Hanson's social media post—responding to Faruqi’s tweet following Queen Elizabeth II’s death—constituted a violation of Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act (RDA). The judge concluded that the statement portrayed Faruqi as a 'second-class citizen' who had taken advantage of Australia through immigration, asserting she should be grateful for what she has and keep quiet—an analysis deemed by Stewart to be exclusionary and racist.
Background: A Spark from Public Discourse
The incident originated in late September 2022 during national mourning over the passing of Queen Elizabeth II. At that time, Mehreen Faruqi, then a Greens senator, issued a tweet expressing condolences while also critiquing British colonialism—specifically referencing how historical empires were built on stolen land, wealth, and lives of colonised peoples. Her statement read: 'Condolences to those who knew the Queen. I cannot mourn the leader of a racist empire built on stolen lives, land and wealth of colonised peoples. We are reminded of the urgency of Treaty with First Nations, justice & reparations for British colonies & becoming a republic.'
Pauline Hanson, leader of One Nation—a political party known for its conservative and nationalist platform—responded within hours via social media. In her post, she wrote: '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 – PH.'
The Legal Challenge: Racial Discrimination Under Section 18C
In November 2024, Justice Angus Stewart delivered an authoritative judgment that found Hanson's remarks violated the spirit and letter of Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act (RDA). The judge determined that Faruqi was being depicted as someone who had 'taken advantage' of Australia—a characterization that implicitly ranked her below other citizens—and further labeled her with a directive to return to Pakistan.
Stewart identified the phrase ‘pack your bags and piss off back to Pakistan’ as a variant of the widely recognized racist trope known as 'go back to where you came from.' He emphasized this expression is not merely offensive but constitutes a form of racial vilification, particularly when used in public discourse by figures holding significant influence. According to Stewart, such language operates within established patterns of racism historically associated with dehumanization and exclusionary ideologies.
The judge rejected Hanson’s argument—presented during oral submissions—that Faruqi's critique of British colonialism justified her response. In doing so, he concluded that no legitimate context or fair comment defense applied because the tweet was neither balanced nor factual; rather, it constituted an angry personal attack aimed at discrediting both Faruqi personally and her political views.
Unanimous Upholding: Federal Court Affirms Racial Discrimination Finding
In July 2025, the full federal court issued a unanimous decision affirming Justice Stewart’s findings. The three judges—Melissa Perry, Geoffrey Kennett, and Elizabeth Bennett—all agreed with the conclusion that Hanson's statement breached Section 18C of the RDA. Their judgment emphasized consistency in legal interpretation across jurisdictions and affirmed that public figures must not use speech to promote racial stereotypes or incite hostility against individuals based on their ethnicity, religion, or national origin.
The appellate panel noted that while political debate is protected under Australia’s constitutional framework—including the implied freedom of political communication—the protection does not extend beyond lawful expression. When statements cross into vilification, especially when they rely upon dehumanizing tropes linked to race or nationality, such conduct falls outside acceptable bounds of discourse.
Appeal Granted: High Court Agrees to Hear Case
On Thursday, November 5, 2026, the Australian High Court granted special leave for Pauline Hanson to appeal this decision. This marks a significant procedural step in what could become one of the most closely watched cases on free speech and racial equity in modern Australian legal history.
The high court will now examine two central questions: first, whether Hanson’s statement indeed violated Section 18C of the RDA; second, whether her right under the implied freedom of political communication was sufficiently protected despite such expression being deemed racially discriminatory. These inquiries are not merely about individual conduct but reflect broader debates over how democratic societies balance public debate with anti-racist protections.
Political Reactions and Public Sentiment
Hanson welcomed the decision through social media platforms, stating: 'This case has always been bigger than me and bigger than one tweet.' She added that Australians must be able to speak their minds, question government policies, and disagree without fear—emphasizing concerns she believes are currently under threat due to legislative measures like Labor’s Digital Duty of Care Bill.
In her post, Hanson criticized what she described as a growing trend in digital governance where lawful political discourse may face suppression. Her remarks suggest an underlying concern about online regulation potentially curbing open debate on sensitive topics such as race, immigration, or national identity.
Meanwhile, Mehreen Faruqi responded with resolve: 'Bring it on,' she declared in a public statement released Thursday. 'This has been a long, hard road walked alongside everyone who has been targeted by racism. We won’t be backing down now.' She affirmed that the highest court in Australia must ultimately determine once and for all that people of colour, migrants, and Muslims are protected from racial vilification—and that legal systems should serve to safeguard dignity rather than enable hate speech.
Government Stance and Legal Context
A spokesperson for the federal attorney general, Michelle Rowland, reiterated the government’s unwavering commitment to Section 18C as essential to maintaining social cohesion across diverse communities. The statement emphasized: 'Section 18C is more important to Australia's social cohesion than ever,' adding that there remains no place for racism or racial hatred within Australian society.
The RDA was enacted in 1975 with a clear mandate to prevent discrimination based on race, colour, descent, or national origin. Since its implementation, it has been invoked in numerous cases involving public figures and media personalities—particularly when expressions are found to incite hostility toward specific groups. This case stands out due to the prominence of both parties involved—their political affiliations—and the high visibility of their exchange during an emotionally charged period following royal mourning events.
Implications Beyond Individual Cases
If Hanson’s appeal succeeds—or if the High Court ultimately upholds the federal court's decision—it could set precedent for how Australian courts interpret boundaries between protected political speech and prohibited racial vilification. Such a ruling may influence future legal standards on social media conduct, especially regarding responses to politically sensitive content involving historical or cultural narratives about colonialism and migration.
The outcome will also have implications for public figures who respond to criticism from minority voices—particularly those that challenge dominant national histories or institutions such as monarchy or imperial legacies. It raises questions about whether expressions of dissent can be legally justified even when they contain offensive language targeting specific identities.
Path Forward: A Case in the Crosshairs of Democracy
This case is not just an isolated incident—it reflects broader tensions within Australian society between free expression and anti-racist protections, especially during periods marked by intense political and emotional discourse. As digital platforms amplify debate across borders, legal frameworks must evolve to ensure both robust democratic dialogue and equitable treatment for all citizens regardless of background.
The High Court’s upcoming decision will likely become a reference point for future cases involving public figures, social media speech, and racial sensitivity. It may also prompt further legislative or policy reviews on how online communication interacts with existing laws designed to protect vulnerable communities from hate-based expressions.
For now, the case remains under judicial review—with no final outcome yet announced. However, its trajectory underscores an enduring principle: in any democracy that values inclusion, justice, and equality, even heated political exchanges must be evaluated not only by their content but by their impact on societal harmony and human dignity.