Aa
  • Read, Watch, Listen
  • TJI Series
  • Community Action
  • Events
  • Zedi
Follow us and continue the conversation
  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • FaceBook
  • X
  • YouTube
Test yourself with the TJI Quiz!

Adjust size of text

Aa

Follow us and continue the conversation

  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • FaceBook
  • X
  • YouTube

Your saved articles

You haven't saved any articles

What are you looking for?

Original reporting, insightful analysis and diverse views, delivered straight to your inbox

  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • FaceBook
  • X
  • YouTube
Your support fuels our mission to inform, entertain and inspire.

The Jewish Independent is bound by the Standards of Practice of the Australian Press Council. If you believe the Standards may have been breached, you may approach The Jewish Independent or make a complaint to the Australian Press Council in writing at www.presscouncil.org.au. The Council may also be contacted on 1800 025 712.

  • Our Story
  • Contact us
  • Our Team
  • Support us
  • Guidelines
  • Pitch your idea
  • Republishing us
  • Community Action
  • Our Awards
  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • FaceBook
  • X
  • YouTube
Aboriginal FlagTorres Strait Islanders Flag

The Jewish Independent acknowledges Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the Traditional Owners and Custodians of Country throughout Australia. We pay our respects to Elders past and present, and strive to honour their rich history of storytelling in our work and mission.

© The Jewish Independent 2026All Rights Reserved
Website design and development by Your Creative, MelbourneTerms & ConditionsPrivacy Policy
HomeRead, Watch, ListenAustralia
AnalysisAustralia

Tribunal draws a line on anti-Zionist hate speech

In ruling 'All Zionists are terrorists' unlawful, VCAT held there is held there is 'no right to a catchy rally slogan' likely to incite hatred.
Jeremie Bracka
Print this
Hash Tayeh Palestinian rally

Palestinian-Australian activist Hash Tayeh at the rally last year which led to his indictment for hate speech (Recep Sakar/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Published: 6 March 2026

Last updated: 12 March 2026

As both the federal government and states across the country pass laws cracking down on hate speech, there’s been much debate about where to draw the line on what can and can’t be said.

A Victorian tribunal has drawn that line in a landmark decision. The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) has found chanting “all Zionists are terrorists” at a Melbourne rally amounted to unlawful racial and religious vilification.

In the case, called Vorchheimer vs Tayeh, Vice President Judge Tran held that initiating the chant at a pro-Palestinian protest breached parts of Victoria’s Racial and Religious Tolerance Act.

The detailed ruling sheds light on how some judges are approaching these complicated questions. Here’s what it said.

Hash Tayeh outside the tribunal which ruled his shouting 'all Zionists are terrorists' at a rally constituted hate speech (Recep Sakar/Anadolu via Getty Images)
Hash Tayeh outside the tribunal which ruled his shouting 'all Zionists are terrorists' at a rally constituted hate speech (Recep Sakar/Anadolu via Getty Images)

What the tribunal found

The tribunal was not asked to rule on Zionism or Israel’s military actions. Its task was narrower: whether leading the chant “all Zionists are terrorists” at a large Melbourne rally was likely to incite “hatred, serious contempt, revulsion or severe ridicule” against Jewish people on racial or religious grounds.

Judge Tran focused on three words.

The first was “terrorists”. She described this as “one of the most extremely negative labels it is possible to attach to a person”, someone “against whom violent action is justified” and whom it is “societally acceptable to hate”.

The next word was “Zionists”. The tribunal accepted “Zionist does not mean Jew”. But it found the term carries “a deep connection with Jewish people” in historical and statistical terms.

Evidence to the tribunal showed most Australian Jews identify as Zionist in some form. Judge Tran concluded there was likely a “very strong association” between Zionists and Jewish people in the minds of rally participants.

And finally, the word “all”. The word carried “the spectre of de-individuation, a hallmark of racism”. There was “no permission for shades of grey or human complexity”.

In assessing legality, the tribunal considered the full rally context, including Holocaust imagery and antisemitic tropes on placards. Although the signs did not explicitly name Jews, the tribunal found repeated Nazi and Holocaust references strengthened the association between “Zionists” and Jewish identity in the minds of participants.

The tribunal also noted an “observable antisemitic and pro-violent presence” at the rally. In that setting, chanting “all Zionists are terrorists” did not operate as abstract political critique. Its “natural and ordinary effect” was to “tip many rally participants over the threshold into hatred directed towards Jewish people”.

Political vs personal

The tribunal stressed that the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act is not concerned with outlawing criticism.

Hasheam Tayeh, who said the phrase in question, argued he was engaging in political protest. But the tribunal held there is “no right to a catchy rally slogan” if it is inherently likely to incite hatred.

The chant was not confined to criticising the Israeli government after October 7 2023. It was directed, at a minimum, against “all supporters of the continued existence of Israel as a Jewish state”, the court found.

Given the tribunal’s finding that the vast majority of Australian Jews identify as Zionist in some form, the chant was therefore likely to stir hostility toward a group closely associated with Jewish identity.

The political protest defence therefore failed because the conduct was not shown to be reasonable and in good faith. The boundary is clear: speech may attack ideas, but not stir hostility against people because of who they are.

Why this matters nationally

The Victorian tribunal has drawn a clear doctrinal line. Labelling an undifferentiated group closely associated with Jewish identity as “terrorists” can amount to unlawful vilification.

Although decided by a Victorian tribunal rather than a superior court, the reasoning is likely to resonate nationally.

Most Australian jurisdictions prohibit racial vilification. At the federal level, section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act sets a lower threshold: conduct reasonably likely to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” on racial grounds.

The decision comes amid a sharp rise in antisemitic incidents across Australia since late 2023, with community bodies reporting record levels of threats, vandalism and intimidation.

The Bondi terror attack, which targeted a Hanukkah gathering, intensified national concern about extremist rhetoric and community safety.

Against that backdrop, courts are increasingly being asked to distinguish protest from incitement.

Words in real life

But the decision contrasts with the Federal Court ruling last year in a case called Wertheim v Haddad.

In this case, the court, which is superior in the court hierarchy to the Victorian tirbunal, found certain lectures by preacher William Haddad conveyed antisemitic imputations, including claims that Jews control the media and politicians and that “the Jewish people are filthy”.

Yet other remarks criticising Israel and “Zionists” were treated as political commentary.

In the Victorian case, Judge Tran did not treat “Zionist” as an abstract ideological label. She examined how it functioned in social and historical context, including the antisemitic atmosphere in which the chant was delivered.

One approach parses language semantically. The other asks how it lands in real life.

In a climate where extremist rhetoric has intersected with real-world violence including reports that alleged Bondi attacker Naveed Akram was allegedly a follower of preacher Haddad, context is not theoretical. It can matter.

Context with consequences

The ruling will feed into the ongoing debate about how Australia regulates hate speech. It shows existing laws can address coded vilification, not only explicit slurs.

At the same time, the tribunal was careful: criticism of Israel is not unlawful, nor is opposition to Zionism automatically hate speech.

The legal line is crossed when rhetoric assigns a heinous criminal identity to an entire class of people closely associated with a racial or religious group, in circumstances where hatred is the likely result.

In a polarised environment, that boundary will remain contested. But this decision signals that courts will look beyond labels and ask how language operates in context. And in the real world, context can have consequences.

Correction: a previous version of this article incorrectly attributed the case to a court. It was in fact heard in a tribunal. The text has been amended to reflect this.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

You might also like
  • ‘Israel is systemically eliminating Palestinian collective life’:  B’Tselem
    Deborah Stone
  • Tame apologises – but with little grace
    Deborah Stone
  • Confronting Richard Flanagan and the myth of the Israel lobby
    Mary Garden
logomark.67a07ee3
We believe in the free flow of information

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, by using our Creative Commons licence

You might also like

    ANNIKA WELLS PRESSER
    Israel Hamas WarNewsAustralia

    No action to stop Hezbollah ally beaming antisemitic and anti-Israel content into Australia

    Michael Visontay
    Commissioner Virginia Bell
    Royal CommissionAnalysisAustralia

    Now is the time for the Royal Commission to deliver, not be politicised

    Dean Sherr 2
    Royal Commission final
    Royal CommissionNewsAustralia

    Strategies for cohesion final focus of Royal Commission hearings

    Peter Kohn 1

About the author

Jeremie Bracka

Jeremie Bracka

Dr Jeremie M Bracka is an Australian-Israeli human rights lawyer, Jewish comedian and academic at RMIT University (Melbourne). He lectures in constitutional law, human rights law, international law and transitional justice.

More from the author

Australia

Court decision fails to understand when ‘Fuk Israel’ becomes antisemitic

ReflectionLifestyle

From Caulfield to Colombia, we went to collect the baby

AnalysisAustralia

Beyond lone wolves: collective antisemitism enabled the Bondi massacre

Comments

No comments on this article yet. Be the first to add your thoughts.