Hanson v Faruqi and the Fight Over Section 18C, Explained

One Nation was leading the polls on 9 October 2026 as Pauline Hanson prepared to ask the High Court of Australia to overturn the ruling that she racially discriminated against Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi.

On 9 October 2026 Guardian Australia argued the case, Hanson v Faruqi, needs to be settled by the court, however painful and expensive that proves to be. Guardian Australia put it bluntly. Offensive tirades on race and religion should not be the norm in Australian politics.

The dispute began with a social media exchange in early September 2022 after the death of Queen Elizabeth II. Faruqi wrote she could not "mourn the leader of a racist empire built on stolen lives, land and wealth of colonised peoples". Hanson replied telling her to "pack your bags and piss off back to Pakistan".

In November 2024 Hanson was found to have breached section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act over that "piss off back to Pakistan" comment. Section 18C makes it unlawful to do an act reasonably likely to "offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate" someone because of race or ethnicity. Section 18D provides a narrow defence for artistic works, scientific debate and fair comment on matters of public interest, if done reasonably and in good faith. Think of 18C as the ban and 18D as the limited exception.

In the Hanson-Faruqi case, the court described Hanson's comments as anti-Muslim or Islamophobic. Hanson argued she did not know Faruqi was a Muslim.

In practical terms, those two sections are the whole fight. It is a narrow factual dispute with wide legal consequence.

In August before the 9 October commentary, Hanson flagged she would ask the High Court to overturn that ruling. That announcement was an intention to seek review only. No decision had been granted and no hearing listed.

The Victorian campaign video

Hanson released a video ad in the week of 9 October 2026 for the Victorian state election scheduled for the next month, using the slogan "Take Victoria Back". The AI-generated video was reportedly played at the party's Victorian campaign launch on the weekend before 9 October 2026. Guardian Australia

The video included depictions of a young African man wielding a machete, a Middle Eastern-looking man wearing an explosives vest, and derogatory depictions of Indians and Indigenous Australians. It drew from a campaign commercial released by Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu earlier in 2026.

The Guardian published a commentary titled "One Nation's AI video is vile and tired" on 9 October 2026.

In Canberra terms, the press gallery has seen cleaner campaign launches.

The Faruqi-Hanson history did not stop in 2022. In November 2025, Faruqi condemned Hanson's burqa stunt in the Australian parliament, describing it as 'pathetic'. Faruqi held the position of Deputy Greens leader in November 2025. Guardian Australia

Why a High Court test matters

The broader context here is straightforward for anyone who works the federal round. Section 18C cases rarely get a final answer. They settle, they exhaust the parties, they stall on appeal. A High Court ruling would fix the meaning of key phrases practitioners argue about daily. What counts as due to race or ethnicity. What counts as reasonable and in good faith under 18D. Where political speech ends and racial vilification begins.

In my view, Canberra should want that clarity even if the process is ugly. The alternative is the current arrangement. Senators trade insults, lawyers send letters, the Federal Parliament leaves the statute untouched, and the courts are asked to clean up after Question Time and social media. That helps no one except those who fundraise off the fight.

Looking at what this means for the next month, the incentives are obvious. A party leading the polls has little reason to dampen a fight that mobilises its base. A High Court challenge keeps Hanson in the headlines through a state campaign built around "Take Victoria Back". It also puts Labor, the Coalition and the Greens in a bind. Condemn the video and face accusations of censorship. Stay quiet and face accusations of complicity. For crossbench staffers, the lesson is practical. Keep records, test exemptions early, and assume anything posted will be read back in court three years later.