Tony Abbott Backs Pauline Hanson’s High Court Bid in Racial Vilification Case
Tony Abbott has thrown his political weight behind Pauline Hanson as she seeks to take her ongoing legal battle over racial vilification to the High Court of Australia. The move escalates a high-profile free speech clash that has dominated headlines since a landmark 2024 Federal Court judgment found Pauline Hanson breached section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act by telling Mehreen Faruqi to “piss off back to Pakistan.”
The controversy stems from an exchange on the social media platform X, formerly Twitter, in September 2022 on the day Queen Elizabeth II passed away. Mehreen Faruqi posted that she could not mourn the leader of a “racist empire built on stolen lives, land and wealth of colonised people.” Pauline Hanson fired back in a reply stating, “When you immigrated to Australia you took every advantage of this country,” before adding, “It’s clear you’re not happy, so pack your bags and piss off back to Pakistan.”
The Legal Battle and Failed Appeals
In November 2024, Justice Angus Stewart ruled that the post was “anti-Muslim or Islamophobic” and amounted to a serious form of racism. Pauline Hanson launched an appeal, arguing through her legal team that section 18C should not apply to political communication because it is protected under the Australian Constitution. However, in July 2026, the Full Court of the Federal Court dismissed the appeal entirely.
According to ABC News, the three Federal Court judges found that none of the appeal grounds were established and described the primary court ruling as sound. The court agreed that the tweet directly targeted immigrants, people of colour, and Muslims. Following the dismissal, Mehreen Faruqi celebrated the outcome outside the court, declaring that “justice has prevailed” and that the ruling serves as a vital pushback against rising far-right rhetoric in Australia, as reported by SBS News.
Political Fallout and Free Speech Debates
With Tony Abbott now publicly backing the bid to challenge the interpretation of free speech and political communication in the High Court, the legal saga has reignited fierce debate across the political spectrum. Proponents of the appeal argue that restrictions under the Racial Discrimination Act infringe upon robust political discourse, while civil rights advocates maintain that racial vilification laws are essential for protecting marginalized communities from targeted abuse.
As Pauline Hanson prepares her application for the High Court, the case stands as a critical test of where Australian law draws the line between protected political expression and unlawful racial discrimination. The outcome will likely shape the boundaries of public discourse and online commentary for years to come.
