Beyond political expression: what the Lattouf case reveals about racism
External contributor piece by Sharfah Mohamed and Sarah Ibrahim from The Racial Justice Centre
Pieces like this one are free to read, please consider becoming a paid subscriber so Cheek can continue paying writers for their insight and expertise.
It is now common knowledge in Australia that the Federal Court handed down its judgment in favour of Antoinette Lattouf in her high-profile unlawful termination case against the ABC. The Court held that the ABC unlawfully terminated Ms Lattouf’s employment for reasons including her political opinion opposing the Israeli military campaign in Gaza, in breach of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Less remarkably, the Court held that the ABC’s reasons did not include Ms Lattouf’s Lebanese race or national extraction.
The Lattouf case not only achieves historic victories. It also reveals failings of the legal system that must be overcome for the promotion of racial equality in this country.
The victories
It has been said that Gaza is a graveyard not only for tens of thousands of Palestinians but also for international law and the liberal ideals that underpin it – ideals centred on the protection of individual rights and freedoms, the rule of law and democratic governance.
Western liberal democracies are not simply turning a blind eye to Israel’s monumental destruction in Gaza, they are enabling it. These countries are parroting Israeli propaganda regarding self-defence, exporting arms, sharing intelligence, expressing selective outrage, firing and censoring journalists, disciplining and silencing academics, arresting and assaulting peaceful protestors and weaponising antisemitism against those who dare to challenge the dominant framing of the “Israel/Gaza war”.
Australia is no exception. The public figures floating in the public consciousness – journalists Antoinette Lattouf, Mary Kostakidis and Peter Lalor, artist Khaled Sabsabi, academic Randa Abdel-Fattah and lawyer Sarah Schwartz to name a few – scratch the surface of the suppression of Palestinians and their supporters.
Against this backdrop, the Lattouf case represents something much bigger than politics. It represents the power of strategic litigation in upholding the rule of law and challenging institutional complicity in the ongoing Palestinian genocide. It represents the pulling back of the curtains on the pressure from pro-Israel lobbyists plaguing institutions. It represents a David v Goliath-esque victory for people who believe that all human beings – including Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims – are worthy of equality, dignity and justice. Because there is only one word to describe a state of affairs that treats some lives as less worthy of grieving than others: racism.
The failings
Ms Lattouf claimed that her race and national extraction (not only political opinion) was operative in the ABC’s decision to terminate her employment. And rightly so. Ms Lattouf’s treatment is a textbook example of how racial (and gendered) hierarchies operate – in plain sight, under the guise of neutrality, wielding power not just to exclude, but to punish.
From the outset, Ms Lattouf was not seen through a neutral lens. She was not allowed to simply exist as a respected journalist. Instead, she was held to a different standard. She was surveilled, her every (virtual) move dissected. She was branded an “activist” by the former ABC Chair for reposting a Human Rights Watch report that the ABC itself covered. She was labelled “antisemitic” by the former ABC Managing Director for stating that Israel’s presence in the occupied Palestinian territory is illegal – consistent not only with the position of the International Court of Justice, but also that of the Federal Government.
She was expected to view Palestinian and Arab communities not with empathy or insight, but with indifference, or worse, disdain. When she refused to play this part, her impartiality was called into question, consistent with the racist fallacy that equates whiteness with neutrality, as if the experiences of white people do not shape how they see the world. She was cast as the problem despite the ABC’s blatant disregard for its contractual and statutory obligations. She was treated as disposable despite her calibre. Her sacking was leaked to the media to be paraded as a headline. To humiliate her. To make an example of her so that every other person of colour is reminded of their place in the racial hierarchy and warned not to step out of line. Finally, putting the nail in the coffin of this racialised series of events, her modest settlement offer was met with rejection, surely underpinned by racialised and gendered assumptions that she would simply accept her fate.
The ABC conceded (following significant public backlash) that Ms Lattouf is of Lebanese, Middle Eastern and Arab race and national extraction, however it maintained that Ms Lattouf’s termination was not motivated to any degree by her race or national extraction. The Court agreed, disposing of Ms Lattouf’s race discrimination claim in eight short paragraphs.
This begs the questions: Why did senior management of the ABC consider it relevant to circulate information as to Ms Lattouf’s Lebanese race during the decision-making process? How did senior management of the ABC so readily form the view that Ms Lattouf “comes with a perception of bias”? Did Ms Lattouf need to furnish direct evidence of explicit racism to satisfy the Court that her Lebanese identity contributed to the ABC’s decision?
The Court’s treatment of Ms Lattouf’s race discrimination claim reflects the reluctance of Australian courts and tribunals to draw inferences and make findings of racism in the absence of its most explicit forms. This prevailing judicial approach is at odds with the covert, subtle and nuanced way that workplace racism tends to operate. This is made plain by the mismatch between the prevalence of workplace racism and the dearth of successful claims of workplace racism. This mismatch underscores the critical role of race scholarship in informing judicial decision-making on racism.
Beyond evidentiary issues, this case reveals a gaping hole in the legal protections established under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) (Racial Discrimination Act). Mirroring the circumstances that played out in this case, there has been a surge across Australia in discrimination against both Palestinians and those who stand against the violent onslaught Palestinians are being subjected to. This trend is reflected in the Racial Justice Centre’s own casework.
While the Racial Discrimination Act was enacted to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination in Australia, it does not robustly protect people against discrimination because of their association with a racial group or issue. This is deeply problematic as racist tropes that frame Palestinians as ‘terrorists’, ‘anti-Semitic’ and ‘undemocratic’ create a “chilly climate” that targets not only Palestinians but also their supporters.
It is for these reasons that, despite the momentous victories, the Lattouf case demonstrates that the pursuit of racial equality in this country still has a long way to go.
About the authors
Sarah Ibrahim
Sarah Ibrahim is an Egyptian-Australian lawyer and human rights advocate. Sarah is the founder of the Racial Justice Centre, Australia’s only national community legal service dedicated solely to advancing racial justice. With over 15 years’ legal experience, she also leads Central Lawyers, a Sydney-based commercial law firm. In her capacity as Principal of Central Lawyers, Sarah filed the initial claim against the ABC on behalf of Antoinette Lattouf.
Sharfah Mohamed
Sharfah Mohamed is a Sri Lankan-Australian lawyer at the Racial Justice Centre. Prior to her role at the Racial Justice Centre, she was an Associate at international law firm, Clifford Chance. Sharfah has over five years’ experience across the public, private and non-profit sectors. She is also an alumnus of the prestigious New Colombo Plan Scholarship and a previous finalist of Lawyers Weekly’s 30 Under 30 Awards.
You can support the work of The Racial Justice Centre by making a tax-deductible donation HERE. Currently, RJC are fundraising to hire a full-time senior solicitor. This will be a game changer for the advancement of racial justice, as the centre currently only operate 2 days per week.
Sources
Lattouf v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (No 2) [2025] FCA 669 (Lattouf case).
Francesca Albanese, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 – From economy of occupation to economy of genocide (Advance unedited version), UN Doc A/HRC/59/23 (16 June 2025).
Senator The Hon. Penny Wong, ‘Senate Question Time responses on Middle East policy’ (Media release, 8 August 2023).
Steven Roberts and Elisabeth Mortenson, ‘Challenging the White = Neutral Framework in Psychology’ (2023) 18(3) Perspectives on Psychological Science 597.
Beth Gaze, ‘Has the Racial Discrimination Act Contributed to Eliminating Discrimination? Analysing the Litigation Track Record 20002-2004’ (2005) 11(1) Australian Journal of Human Rights 6.
Yasmeen Abu-Laban and Abigail Bakan, ‘Anti-Palestinian Racism and Racial Gaslighting’ (2022) 93(3) The Political Quarterly 508, 508.
Absolutely brilliant article, thank you so much! And have followed The Racial Justice Centre