Andrew L. Urban
A Melbourne magistrate has ruled prosecutors must prove former Burgertory boss Hash Tayeh had intent to “insult or offend” when he chanted “all Zionists are terrorists” in public. Well, blow me down, Magistrate Malcolm Thomas, obviously wanted to prove the substance of my recent post about common sense (Dec 10, 2025) … So I guess I could get away with yelling “All Magistrates are fools…” as long as I claimed it wasn’t meant to be insulting?
As I wrote in that post, “Perhaps we need Common Sense Ombudsmen/women in our courts. As someone once said, knowledge counts but common sense matters.”
Common sense tells us that uttering that phrase – ‘all Zionists are terrorists’ – is in itself proof of intent to insult or offend. Can anyone offer an interpretation that contradicts that? I will refrain from (sarcastic) criticism of the Magistrate’s decision.
Tayeh faces five charges under section 17(1)(c) of the Summary Offences Act over chants allegedly made at pro-Palestinian demonstrations in 2024.
As if it helped, Magistrate Thomas went on to dig a deeper hole: “A general intent to use the words as insulting words may be inferred from the words spoken and the context (including whether they are spoken as a form of political communication) in which those words are uttered,” the ruling states.
The court found that words must go beyond a mere difference of opinion on controversial political issues and be “contrary to contemporary standards of public good order” to fall foul of the law. A difference of opinion?
Magistrate Thomas held that while the offence does not require proof that anyone was actually insulted, it does require proof the accused intended to use the words in an insulting way.
This is a good example of the many steps that led to the Bondi massacre; step by step, paver by paver, Western tolerance, in a court of law no less, that emboldens radical Islamists.