Andrew L. Urban.
What an exposé! Chris Merritt shows how a judge’s own words provide a rare and distressing insight into how this judge perceives the great public policy issue of our time: antisemitism and hatred of Israel. The judge’s ruling determined that Mohammed Farhat should not be subject to an extended supervision order when he completes his prison sentence for offences committed in a Jewish suburb of Sydney.
Farhat, who has a Hezbollah tattoo on his neck, burned a car and vandalised property with anti-Israel slogans.
My first thought on reading Merritt’s column today (August 21, 2026) was that this NSW Supreme Court judge, Justice Desmond Fagan, isn’t aware never mind ashamed of his bigotry and considers his Jew-hating attitude normal enough to reference it in a judgement, falsities and all. Will he recuse himself from trials involving Jews?
For example:
Par 161 of the judge’s reasons: “Whatever the judgment others might make of right and wrong in the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, it is understandable that people of Lebanese Shia Muslim heritage would follow closely the military conflict that commenced in late September 2024 and that they would have sympathy for Hezbollah.”
“Yes, you read that correctly,” adds Merritt. “This judge believes it is understandable that people will sympathise with Hezbollah if they are Shia Muslims with a Lebanese heritage.”
Par 116: “It may be reasonably inferred that the results of polling Australian respondents reflect humanitarian reaction to Israel’s genocide of the Gazans since 7 October 2023.”
To be clear, South Africa’s accusation of genocide is still before the ICJ, the only tribunal empowered to decide this question under the Genocide Convention. There has been no finding on the merits of South Africa’s assertion – a point that has been made clear by the ICJ itself.
There’s another point about Fagan’s judgment that deserves scrutiny, writes Merritt: “At paragraph 106, he reproduces part of the definition of antisemitism that has been drawn up by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance and proceeds to denounce it.
“He writes that the drafting is “inept” and “the core text is verbose and imprecise”. It is, he writes at paragraph 113, “a parasitic rejection of protest against Israel”.
“At paragraph 114 he says many submissions to a Senate committee “criticised the IHRA definition on the ground that it conflates political criticism of Israel with antisemitism”.
It is worth pointing out, says Merritt, that the IHRA definition received only a passing mention by an expert witness and the judge recognised, at paragraph 117, that the crown’s case did not tender that definition.
My second thought was “how many other judges….?”
