Thread by @Consortiumnews

Journalist @antoinette_news who was sacked by Australia's national broadcaster for posting on social media about #Gaza will have her unlawful dismissal claim heard in the federal court today. The proceedings will be live-streamed here on YouTube:
youtube.com/live/a8RorBeAi… x.com/antoinette_new…

@antoinette_news Proceedings in progress. Lattouf's lawyer asserts that she was not sacked because of a standard ABC policy, but an alleged special direction to her, not to post anything on her private social media account about Israel-Gaza, after a series of complaints from the pro-Israel lobby.

@antoinette_news Court briefly adjourned to find seats for the many members of the public still standing.

@antoinette_news Lattouf's lawyer names the ABC staff involved in her dismissal, including former network director Ita Buttrose, David Anderson, Benjamin Latimer, Christopher Oliver-Taylor. He adds those outside the ABC who conducted "a spectacular campaign" to have her fired.

@antoinette_news Lattouf lawyer outlines her political opinions on Israel-Palestine& history as a presenter for the ABC. Her work there had nothing to do with Israel-Palestine and her performance had been rated as excellent. He speaks of a campaign launched by a group called Lawyers for Israel.

Complaints lodged against Lattouf had nothing to do with what she said on air, but about the choice of presenter, given her known political opinions. Reference was made to a comment she made about about a hateful chant that was alleged to have been uttered at a Sydney protest. The general complaint was that she was not impartial.

Lattouf's lawyer: ABC guidelines refer to what is broadcast; not in relation to who is hired. Mr Latimer: "There has been no breach of our editorial protocols". Mr Anderson (initially): "She has done nothing wrong" re ABC's social media policy, but then changed his mind after conducting a personal investigation into her social media history.

Lattouf lawyer: Anderson concludes Lattouf should never have been hired, given "her position on the Israel-Gaza war" & that she had called for ethical reporting on the issue. He takes the position of the lobbyists, that the network should not hire people with these views. Calls this "an Antoinette problem" - despite having been advised that she had done nothing wrong.

Lattouf's lawyer: Director Ita Buttrose objected to Anderson's plan for a "managed exit". Asked why she "couldn't come down with flu". Expressed fear there would be blowback, given the advice was she had done nothing wrong. Nothing was done until Lattouf posted a statement by Human Rights Watch concerning Israel's use of starvation as a weapon of war. Management waited for a perceived mis-step on her behalf.

@antoinette_news Lattouf's lawyer: She was on a 5 day contract. She was taken off air on the 3rd day...

Court temporarily adjourned.

Lattouf's lawyer: ABC management was stuck with a dilemma, between concern about her opinions and fear of blowback. Blame was laid on a Mr Ahern, who had hired her. Complaints kept pouring in. On the Wednesday of her 1-week hire, ABC says "someone discovered" an Instagram post (pictured below) by Lattouf which triggered her removal.

Lattouf lawyer: ABC reported twice this week about the collective punishment of Gazans. The day before and day after Lattouf's post of the HRW report. "Starvation as a tool of war" was unique to her post, but how could this reporting justify dismissal? Mr Anderson said it defied a specific instruction to her, and "may have breached" ABC guidelines. She was summarily dismissed without due process. The ABC is running with "an incompetence defence".

Lattouf's lawyer: it seems there has been discrimination on the basis of her race & Lebanese national extraction. The ABC says her case will fail because there is no Lebanese race & she can not prove these were reasons for removal. It is for the ABC to disprove these reasons.

Lattouf lawyer: We will explore the matter of discrimination in cross-examination. Lawyer for the ABC interrupts to say the pleading does not concern discrimination. Judge disagrees. ABC lawyer says the case is not about whether Lattouf would have been fired if of a different race.

Lattouf lawyer: Ms Lattouf's HRW post was used as a pretext for an already existing plan to dismiss her. The ABC evidence should not be believed. It is a lawyer's construct, riddled with inconsistencies. It is implausible that Mr Anderson could have believed she had breached a specific instruction or ABC policy. The ABC reported on the same issue that week in a manner that was indistinguishable. Mr Anderson does not even specify when or who gave a specific direction to Lattouf not to post about Israel-Palestine on her personal SM account. A supervisor, Ms Green, had told a group meeting that she had not directed, only advised Lattouf. It was known that no direction had been given, so how could Mr Oliver-Tayor have held that belief? It is a belief that it is irrational, given the content of Lattouf's post & advice given by the senior content manager.

Judge asks for clarification on the statutes relevant to this case. Lawyer for Lattouf, ABC could have asserted that presenters must not express at any time in their life controversial opinions that would illicit complaints from the community. That would be a hopeless demand. It defends its position on a presumed right, an amorphous expectation that its presenters should appear impartial at all times, even in their own time.

Lattouf lawyer: ABC asserts that she was dismissed because of Mr Oliver-Taylor's perception that she had breached the "Antoinette rule". To impose an idiosyncratic rule on an employee & fire that employee for breach of that idiosyncratic rule is prohibited. The same would apply if a rule only applied to female staff.

Lattouf lawyer: A dismissal for perceived partiality is effectively a dismissal on the basis of political opinion.

Lattouf lawyer: let us assume that senior ABC management was agnostic on the matter of Israel-Palestine and did not harbour hostility towards Lattouf's position, the evidence shows it would still be culpable of dismissing her on the basis of her political opinions.

Lattouf lawyer: How do we get to a 30-page affidavit from a member of ABC management for a period of 3 days, when most of the communications were in writing? This is because such affidavits attempt to carefully constructed narrative. And yet such affidavits do not address critical issues.

Lattouf lawyer: What is not clear is how Mr Oliver-Taylor constructed a 31-page affidavit that doesn't include Lattouf's allegedly offending post or any information about how or if he actually saw it. The editorial content manager said there was no breach, which is a matter of great significance, but did he not address this critical point.

Lattouf lawyer: This case involves important issues, including freedom of expression. Ms Lattouf was targeted and successfully ousted because of her political opinions. Such illiberal conduct is prohibited in Australia & reflected in international covenants.

Lattouf seeks relief for several reasons. This has severely impacted upon her life. She has received death threats & has suffered significant distress & humiliation. The ABC has decided to to accept this.

Court adjourned until 2.15pm AEDT.

Lattouf will be called now by her lawyer. Some modifications are outlined to her complaint before she appears. One concerns a reinstatement request which is withdrawn but is still relevant to her case, in relation to the hurt & distress she was caused by her removal from an influential position from an institution she believed in.

Lattouf lawyer: "I call Ms Antoinette Lattouf". Sworn in. Turning to paragraphs 41 & 75 of Lattouf's affidavit the 1st for minor modification, the 2nd for elaboration, concerning the proliferation of news about her sacking.

ABC lawyer cross-examination of Lattouf: You were one of the founders of Media Diversity Association (MDA), where you were described as "a passionate journalist". Correct?

Yes.

That involves posting on social media?

In part.

Anyone can share?

Yes

You were openly sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians & critical of Israel and you advocated for that position.

I wouldn't agree with that framing.

ABC lawyer: is this an Instagram post you made about the plight of Palestinians?

Yes

And you posted about the conduct of Israel?

Yes

Did you relay this post from Human Rights Watch? Do you know it's a private organisation & one of the 1st NGO to publicly accuse Israel of apartheid?

Objection from AL lawyer: The content of Ms Lattouf's personal SM posts is irrelevant. These views ought to have been known by ABC. What we are concerned with are the reasons why she was fired.

Lattouf asked to exit the courtroom. ABC lawyer speaking about the discovery of Lattouf's social media history. The re-posting of the HRW post is relevant to a sector of the Australian community not viewing that organisation as impartial.

Judge: Why is that relevant?

ABC lawyer: She know that posting HRW material would be controversial.

Lattouf lawyer: there is no evidence that anyone thought posting HRW material was controversial. What's relevant is the actions of the decision-makers against her. They said she had done nothing wrong.

Judge: I can't rule yet that this line of questioning is inadmissible, but will hear your objections later.

Lattouf re-admitted to courtroom. Were you aware HRW statements were controversial among certain members of the Australian community who did not share the view that Israel is guilty of apartheid?

I esteem HRW as a reputable organisation. It's hard to guess opinions within sectors of the community.

ABC lawyer referencing a 2023 Instagram post by Lattouf, asking whether she knew that certain sectors of the community would find words expressed there controversial?

Lattouf: I didn't given it much thought. I focus on facts.

ABC lawyer: You caused words to be published about ethnic cleansing, knowing you would be associated with those views?

Lattouf: I disagree with the framing. I was conveying information.

ABC lawyer: And here, where you relay statements about cutting off food being a war crime? Did you confirm in a video that this a war crime?

Lattouf: I frame these statements as facts.

ABC lawyer challenging more SM posts on the basis of them being controversial. Lattouf defends the role of journalists to deliver facts, irrespective of a certain community's feeling about what is reported.

ABC lawyer: did you claim Israel was guilty of indiscriminate killing & war crimes?

Lattouf: there is plenty of evidence

Lattouf lawyer: We will happily concede that certain members were not happy with what was being reported.

ABC lawyer: were you aware statements you made or re-posted on social were controversial?

Lattouf: If it's evidence-based, factual and fair, I will share it.

ABC lawyer: more questions about controversial posts.

Lattouf: I don't consider whether facts are controversial.

Lattouf lawyer: ABC already agreed that Ms Lattouf's posts were insufficient reason for dismissal.

ABC lawyer: refers to a satirical post by Lattouf

Lattouf: This was in response to awful fantail. I was being a bit cheeky...

ABC lawyer: what was threatening about that fanmail?

Lattouf: That comment in isolation...

ABC lawyer: what was threatening about that fanmail?

Lattouf lawyer: my client is being interrupted & not allowed to fully respond.

Judge agrees.

ABC lawyer: Did you make statements about the necessity of journalists to maintain a principle of impartiality?

Lattouf: yes, but it depends on the context.

ABC lawyer: Do you write that facts don't require "impartiality or both-siding"?

Lattouf: You don't need to both-side when facts are overwhelming.

ABC lawyer continues to challenge Lattouf on statements that might be perceived as controversial.

Lattouf cities international law as a defence for giving the impression that some statement are perceived as incontrovertible by some, yet disbelieved by others.

ABC lawyer plays Lattouf lawyer calling for ethical journalism about Gaza, the murder of journalists & general suppression of reporting.

Lattouf video: If journalists don't want to acknowledge the murder of children... f*** them."

ABC lawyer: Did these words you published reflect your view? Did you say that an independent journalist I can express my opinions freely & no one can fire me?

Lattouf: Yes, as an independent you are employed by different employers so you are not beholden to any on of them?

ABC: Did you hold this view at the time you were fired by the ABC?

Lattouf: Yes

ABC to Lattouf: Did you say you would resist efforts to silence you from reporting on Gaza, because many innocent lives where at stake?

Judge: When was this?
Lattouf: In an email around the 18 or 19 December 2023.

ABC: After a conversation with Elizabeth Green?

Lattouf: Yes

ABC to Lattouf: You told 'Women's Agenda' that efforts to silence you would not stop you reporting?

Lattouf: It's all there in writing. I said I would continue to report without fear or favour because so many innocent lives were at risk.

ABC quizzing Lattouf about Instagram stories she posted on Dec 19 2023, one of which cites Gaza as "the worst humanitarian crisis in modern times". Asks her if she was aware certain members if the community would find this controversial and not believe it?

Lattouf: I feel I have answered this question multiple times. I posted factual information.

ABC distinguishing between posts & stories on Instagram, in that stories disappear but posts remain permanently. Questioning about stories...

Judge asks if Instagram can be accessed by any member of the public & Lattouf replies yes.

ABC verifies that her posts can be accessed by followers or by searching for her name.

Lattouf: Correct

ABC: you posted 3 stories before the HRW post?

Lattouf: Yes.

ABC: So your video was in the context of these stories?

Lattouf: Yes
ABC: At the risk of labouring the point... all of this could be seen together?

Lattouf (looking weary): Yes.

ABC: I wonder if this wouldn't be a convenient time...

Court adjourned until 10.15am AEDT tomorrow.