Mark Latham is telling everyone who will listen that he is allowed to call out 'anti-white racism', and that Osman Faruqi's defamation claim is stifling legitimate free speech.
Here's the thing. Faruqi isn't suing Latham for his accusations of 'anti-white racism'. He's actually suing Latham for suggesting that he encourages terrorism.
It all started when Faruqi, political editor at Junkee, exchanged some tweets with Yassmin Abdel-Magied about the dual citizenship blow up in Parliament. Faruqi wrote 'The white people are getting f****ed Yas..' and she replied '...Look, they wanted people to go back to where they came from ... and didn't realise it included them too?".
Latham took offence and accused Faruqi of being an anti-white racist during his TV show. Had he stopped there, there probably wouldn't have been a defamation case. But he didn't. He went further and claimed that Faruqi and Abdel-Magied were 'effectively encouraging the terrorists in this political environment to do their worst'.
Faruqi has sued, not over Latham's claim of 'anti-white racism', but over the accusation of encouraging terrorists. The defamations alleged against Latham don't mention 'anti-white racism'.
Full credit to Latham, he's controlling the media coverage of the case impressively. Everyone's talking about the 'anti-white racism' case. He's even raising money for a defence fund, with support from Andrew Bolt.
Both Latham and Bolt describe the case as being about 'anti-white racism', which isn't right. Neither mentions the terrorism part, which is actually the sole basis for Faruqi's claim. Maybe people should be calling for a closer look at the basis on which Latham and his friends are raising money for his defence. Because if you think this case is about anti-white racism, you're wrong.
We do not disclaim anything about this article. We're quite proud of it really.
