Senator Pauline Hanson has had a big win in the High Court of Australia, as they have granted her special leave to appeal the Federal Court’s 2024 judgment that she racially vilified Senator Mehreen Faruqi.
By itself it is an important case because it is Senator v. Senator, but also because there are at least 2 other free speech cases before the High Court and possibly more over the next few years.
This week the High Court heard the case of whether the under-16s social media ban is unconstitutional, and Queensland’s new hate speech laws are almost certain to end up in the High Court if they aren’t struck down by a lower court first.
It is a risky game for Hanson because the High Court judgment will likely be sometime next year, only months before the federal election due by May 2028, and if Pauline Hanson loses, it will reinforce in many voter’s minds that Hanson is racist and divisive.
But even if Pauline Hanson wins in the High Court, it could backfire on a number of fronts.
Firstly, it is likely to confirm to recent immigrants that Pauline Hanson is not their biggest fan, and with 32% of Australians being born oversees, that is a big chunk of the voters to insult, again, before an election.
Secondly, Pauline Hanson likes to see herself as a free speech warrior with what she says, and she also defends her cartoon series trashing people. Although she did recently give a half-hearted apology to Jacqui Lambie for mocking her vaginal prolapse.
But Hanson has also criticised people for using the terms “From the River to the Sea” and “Globalise the Intifada” which have been criminalised under Queensland’s new hate speech laws.
Many legal experts expect Queensland’s new hate speech laws to be overturned by the High Court because they infringe on the implied freedom of political communication in the Australian constitution, which is also what Pauline Hanson’s barristers will be arguing, at least in part, in the High Court in her case.
The Senator Pauline Hanson v Senator Mehreen Faruqi case
In 2022 Senator Faruqi posted a tweet after the death of Queen Elizabeth II:
“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.”
Senator Hanson responded with a tweet of her own:
“Your attitude appalls [sic] 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.”
Senator Mehreen Faruqi instituted proceedings against Pauline Hanson in the Federal Court of Australia and won her case before a single judge and won again when Pauline Hanson appealed.
Hanson v Faruqi will now be heard by the High Court of Australia.
Pauline Hanson says case is in the public interest
The ABC reported (5/11/26):
In her submissions, Senator Hanson argued her case should be heard because the High Court had never tested the validity of certain sections of the racial discrimination legislation.
She argued the High Court had previously been divided over whether preventing offensive, insulting or humiliating communication was a legitimate purpose of the legislation, even if it was “likely to arouse significant anger, outrage, disgust or hatred”.
Because the matter concerned a dispute over political communication between two sitting Commonwealth senators, Senator Hanson argued her case was of public importance.
The court agreed, and on Thursday cleared the way for her case to be heard before the High Court. (Click here to read more)
Pauline Hanson posted on her “X” account (5/11/26):
I welcome the High Court’s decision to grant special leave to appeal in my section 18C case.
This case has always been bigger than me and bigger than one tweet. Australians must be able to speak their minds, question their government and disagree with each other without being frightened into silence.
That freedom is under attack, including through Labor’s Digital Duty of Care Bill and its threat to lawful debate online.
I look forward to putting our arguments to the Court about freedom of speech and the constitutional protection of political communication.
And I responded:
Hi Pauline, I am writing an article on your High Court matter and I would like to know if you support Queensland’s new hate speech laws that have banned phrases “From the River to the Sea” and “Globalise the Intifada”? (Click here to see on “X”)
Pauline Hanson didn’t respond. While Hanson is a big supporter of free speech, I haven’t been able to find any criticism or disagreement from her with Queensland’s hate speech laws.
I think Pauline Hanson and her One Nation Party are staying silent on Queensland’s new hate speech laws because she is a supporter of Israel and if she said publicly she supported Queensland’s hate speech laws she would be exposed as a hypocrite and if she said she didn’t support the hate speech laws she would upset Israel.
With the Hanson case, the under-16 case and Queensland’s hate speech laws all currently being tested in court, we could see a new boundary being set by the High Court on what we can and can’t say as far as free speech and political communication are concerned.
Admin: I’m an independent journalist, 100% crowdfunded by readers who donate each month. If you find my reporting of value and you’re not already a monthly supporter, please consider becoming one. Click here to see all the donation options.
Amounts from $3 to $100 a month, or whatever suits your budget, makes a real difference and supports the work I do as an independent journalist. There’s no lock-in, and you can cancel or adjust anytime.
A one-off donation or sharing my videos and articles also helps. Independent reporting only survives if enough people support it.
Please use Facebook, “X”, email and the other buttons below and help promote this article.
Kangaroo Court of Australia is independent media and is 100% crowdfunded by readers like yourself so please support on the links below. Click on the PayPal button below to donate or for other donation options click here to go to the Donations page.
Thank you for your support.
For the KCA t-shirt shop click here.
For the Fugitive Clothing t-shirt shop click here
Join the free email subscription below and you will be notified immediately I publish new articles which is normally twice a week.
Discover more from Kangaroo Court of Australia
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Senator Pauline Hanson
Let’s consign evil Pauline to the dustbin in ‘28
In your dreams and I’m no great supporter of Pauline Hanson!
We should ask whom is actually funding the divisive “I want the right to be an abusive divisive racist”, court challenge? Remember George Brandis? “You have a right to be a bigot?” And just what the hell vested interests does the billionaire cartel bankrolling, this now 3rd, multi million dollar court challenge. No doubt the, never to be mentioned, in “our completely compromised and corrupted media”, that de facto billionaire cartel owner and operator of One Nation. Hopefully by 2028 enough people will have opened their eyes and see just whom’s political vested interests, this One Nation political operation really only represents. And it sure as hell, certainly isn’t any of these politically ignorant, flag waving culture warrior supporters. Yes, let’s all hope this really blows up in the face of Hanson, but especially the never mentioned Trumpist MAGA bankrolling billionaire cartel, owner operator of One Nation. But no one will ever know, if the media go on refusing to give the real details, of just what the hell is really going on behind the dark shadowy secretive scenes, of this privately owned and operated “For profit” and intensionally divisive, toxic One Nation political party.
Who is paying Pauline Hanson’s costs?
Quite so. Why don’t you also ask who is funding Senator Faruqi’s legal costs? I for one would dearly love to know both.
Just walk away from anyone peddling race politics. Both participants, Farouq and Hanson are “publicly engage[ing] in conduct that is likely to ‘offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate’ based on race, colour or national or ethnic origin.”