Rule 1: Don’t be intimidated. Rule 2: Don’t forget Rule 1

Over 2 years ago, in July 2024, in the midst of Israel’s genocidal assault on a captive people, a self-described ‘proud Zionist’ launched legal proceedings against me in the Australian Human Rights Commission – a requirement under Australian law before filing in the Federal Court under Racial Discrimination legislation when AHRC mediation fails.

The Applicant was the newly appointed CEO of the Zionist Federation of Australia. The ZFA held a press conference to announce commencement of legal proceedings, and its Chair, Jeremy Leibler – a prominent surname over generations in Israel Lobby leadership and stewardship of legacy Jewish organisations in Australia – made clear the action was intended to send ‘a very strong message’ to Australians that such ‘hate’ speech will not be tolerated.

I had shared a clip of one of Nasrallah’s last speeches, on X, with a comment that he was giving the Israeli government some of its own medicine. The post was clear and constituted a criticism of the conduct of the Israeli government. My transgression? I had dared equate the threat of a listed terrorist, with the genocidal conduct of the state of Israel. This had to be punished. 

I am entitled to both share the speech of the leader of a major party to the conflict and to express a view. It constitutes what is commonly understood as political expression but of a shade unwelcome inside the Overton Window. Worse still, it was made by a well-known journalist and former anchor of SBS World News, and made on the platform declared by both Netanyahu and the ADL as the biggest front in Israel’s war, and one where it was losing: social media.

Concern with my work had not started with this post. This post however was seized on I believe in the hope my perceived transgression might meet the higher threshold for support of terrorism. A second mere Retweet of a post by Richard Medhurst who posted the same Nasrallah clip with no comment of his own, formed the second of 2 Posts at the centre of the allegation I breached S.18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. Medhurst was arrested in the UK 3 weeks after legal action was filed against me. An extraordinary coincidence.

Failing to secure unequivocal capitulation to their demands I delete, desist and apologise (an apology provided in January 2025 for their hurt was qualified: their views about Nasrallah’s comments and motivation could not be a barrier to reporting them), they filed in the Federal Court in May 2025.

The action was launched to bully me into genuflection – to silence political expression and to chill speech by creating a legal precedent and fear of being targeted with bankrupting law-fare. If Palestinians must leave or die, the rest of us must submit or be crushed.

The 2 years and two months of lawfare ended last week with their comprehensive defeat when they withdrew with

• No apology
• No deletions
• No impact on my past or future commentary
• No confidentiality
• No non-disparagement
• No handing over of my personal comms other than my own words – no disclosure of what others have said nor their identities in Discovery.

I made clear from the beginning, the very best and only thing on the table for them from me, is for each party to walk away bearing their own costs. That did not change as legal costs skyrocketed. This completely took the wind from their sails. Iron Dome gone.

With Iron Dome disabled, they had to confront the unlikelihood of success of their remaining arsenal: sad sack much abused mantras – ‘Blood libel, Antisemitism trope, Holocaust Denial!’ – and gaslighting galore, against the enormous damage they faced at trial where I would reveal further matters contained in the leaked ‘Creatives’ WhatsApp Chat, a small taste of which was included in my Defence, and following receipt of their Discovery and our issuing of Production Subpoenas to a raft of individuals over a week ago.

My arsenal also included public support, a smart and fearless legal team, and the financial resources to stand my ground.

S.18C of the RDA makes it an offence to offend someone, based on protected characteristics. The purpose of this article is not to discuss its merits per se, on which there are conflicting views. The point is it does not protect political ideology. What makes this type of case extraordinary, is that the courts are being used to attempt to gain legal protection for Zionism – an attempt that will ultimately fail categorically as more and more judgements are handed down, in particular if and when there is a Full Bench decision. However, in the meantime, Australians must be prepared to lose the roof over their head defending themselves against accusations of antisemitism to protect their right to political speech.

Preparing evidence to defend against the breadth of the scope of allegations (not one of which was struck out by my judge) over 2 or more years, is what will destroy you, your health, financial position, your personal life and relationships. Two years of 24/7 gathering of evidence in a developing matter. Lining up not only representatives of the 2 groups I am alleged to have offended – Jews in Australia and Israelis in Australia – and fortunately there were many, but also evidence and witnesses across ‘relevant’ areas requiring witnesses here, in the US, UK and Israel: the conflation of Judaism and Zionism; antisemitism; genocide; apartheid; what happened on October 7; terrorism; as well as my alleged ‘conspiracy theories’, such as that a Lobby exists and exercises substantial power, Epstein may have operated in Israel’s interests etc etc.

I have published nothing that every Australian ought not be able to say. I did not breach 18c, having made no comment, ever, to disparage anyone who is Jewish because they are Jewish. 

A raft of aggregated posts was annexed to their Claim that ostensibly proved antisemitic motivation. A post sharing a review of the film Zone of Interest on Mondoweiss for example.

Anyone operating on X knows the conventions. Reposting a tweet by others is not necessarily an endorsement of its content, nor of every word in its content – otherwise my repost of Ben Gvir or Avi Yemeni would prove I am a Zionist.

The law-fare is aimed at silencing critics of Israel, part of national and international oppressive action and measures aimed at repression of legitimate speech to provide cover for the conduct of a state, and a defensive shield against any dent, no matter how minor, to the support of that state by our governments.

The Zionist claim would not have been abandoned had they felt it had merit and they did not stand to be badly bruised as well as being lumped with paying my costs.

Zionism has exposed itself irreparably to the world. The ZFA’s final pathetic attempt to smear me (while they beat a retreat) as operating in the ‘dark corners’ of the internet is to denigrate the most empowering democratic tool available to ordinary people – civic media – recognised by Netanyahu and then ADL as The Most Important Front in the War, not Gaza, and a front where they have comprehensively lost. It is another reason I was chosen.

They will never win this argument in the courts. One loss after another. In my case, they backed out instead. Long live NSW Supreme Court Justice Desmond Fagan, and Federal Court Justice Angus Stewart. My next task is to frame the photographs of these two gentlemen for a space earmarked for this purpose on my wall. Fagan’s unmistakable telegraph to the entire country – including to the tone-deaf genuflecting leadership of our institutions starting at the very top – could fill an entire wall.

Our current leadership is doing great damage to this country, conferring to one community special rights and ones that remove a fundamental right of every citizen. This is not only incongruous with democracy, it is fuelling enormous resentment, by insisting we collude in the oppression of our own conscience – the demand of every totalitarian state. All this, in a time of genocide. 

Zionism is making massive gains in societies throughout the west at an institutional level where a far wider net captures very large numbers of people in one swoop – in new legislation, in policies such as tying funding and Codes of Conduct to the IHRA definition, in education, in more funding and in general cementing exceptional treatment of the state of Israel and the adherents to Zionism amongst us. This is presenting a great challenge to civil society.

Increasing numbers of Jewish people however are dissociating themselves from Zionism which is endangering all Jewish people around the world by insisting Israel, its apartheid system and genocidal conduct, represents all Jews.

Zionists sought succour at the Antisemitism Royal Commission which they can pivot to political advantage to impact the entire country. Courts will not go along with it.

A humiliating withdrawal by them in my case is a blow to that ‘pride’ they keep referring to. Pride, the most heinous of the 7 Deadly Sins, the one from which all others including wrath and greed spring, and the basis of Dante’s unforgettable Inferno.

So pity The Age’s ‘Exclusives’ and their “Chief Reporter” Chip Homer Eugene Le Grand V, who hacked a path in the forest for Their Majesties The Lobby, and the Applicant, the newly appointed CEO of the ZFA, Alon Cassuto, who, in the words of my solicitor set out to launch his reputation destroying mine, and was instead left with egg on his face.

The full amount of funds contributed by the public to help me launch my defence will be donated to a charity providing medical care for the children of Gaza.

***

Mary originally published this piece on her Substack, here. Please support her work.