One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has vowed to continue her legal battle after the Full Federal Court unanimously dismissed her appeal against a landmark ruling that found she unlawfully racially vilified Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi.

The judgment represents another significant legal setback for Senator Hanson, who has argued throughout the proceedings that her comments formed part of legitimate political debate and should be protected by Australia’s constitutional freedom of political communication. Instead, the Full Court upheld the earlier Federal Court decision that concluded her remarks breached Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, reinforcing the limits of political speech when it crosses into unlawful racial discrimination.

The case arose from an exchange on social media in September 2022 following the death of Queen Elizabeth II. Senator Mehreen Faruqi, who was born in Pakistan before migrating to Australia and later becoming an Australian citizen, posted that while she offered condolences to those mourning the Queen, she could not grieve “the leader of a racist empire built on stolen lives, land and wealth of colonised peoples”.

Senator Hanson responded publicly with a message that included the words telling Senator Faruqi to “pack your bags and piss off back to Pakistan”. That post quickly became the centrepiece of a legal dispute that has now lasted almost four years.

In November 2024, Federal Court Justice Angus Stewart ruled that the post conveyed a strong racist message and amounted to unlawful conduct under Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. The judge found the statement would be reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate people because of their race or national origin.

Justice Stewart also concluded that the language reflected a well-known racist trope suggesting migrants are perpetual outsiders who should “go back” to another country, regardless of their Australian citizenship or contribution to public life. Those findings became the foundation of Senator Hanson’s subsequent appeal.

Appearing before the Full Federal Court, Senator Hanson’s legal team argued the original decision should be overturned. Among the key arguments advanced was that Section 18C should not apply to political communication because such speech receives constitutional protection through Australia’s implied freedom of political communication.

Her lawyers also challenged aspects of the trial judge’s interpretation of the legislation and disputed findings about the meaning that an ordinary reader would have taken from the social media post.

However, a three-judge bench unanimously rejected those submissions.

Justice Melissa Perry delivered the judgment on behalf of the Full Court, confirming the appeal had failed and leaving the original findings intact. The court also rejected arguments that constitutional protections prevented the application of Australia’s racial discrimination laws in the circumstances of the case.

Following the ruling, Senator Faruqi welcomed the outcome, describing it as an important victory that extended beyond the two politicians involved.

Speaking outside court, she said the unanimous judgment demonstrated that “justice has prevailed” and argued the decision reaffirmed that racist and Islamophobic conduct would not be excused simply because it occurred during political debate.

Senator Faruqi has consistently maintained throughout the proceedings that the comments directed at her represented one of the most recognisable forms of racist abuse experienced by migrants and people from minority backgrounds in Australia.

Senator Hanson, meanwhile, indicated she has no intention of ending the legal fight.

She said she intends to seek special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia, Australia’s highest judicial authority. Such an appeal is not automatic. Instead, the High Court must first determine whether the case raises legal questions of sufficient public importance to justify hearing the matter.

If special leave is refused, the Federal Court judgment will remain the final determination of the dispute.

The litigation has become one of the most closely watched free speech cases in recent Australian political history because it sits at the intersection of constitutional law, anti-discrimination legislation and political expression.

Supporters of Senator Hanson have argued the case demonstrates an overly restrictive approach to political speech and that elected representatives should have greater freedom to express controversial opinions without legal sanction.

Others argue the decision reinforces an important principle that public debate does not provide immunity from laws designed to protect Australians against racial discrimination and hate speech.

Australia’s implied freedom of political communication differs from the broad constitutional free speech protections found in countries such as the United States. Rather than creating an individual right to unrestricted speech, the Australian doctrine operates primarily as a limitation on legislative power, protecting political communication only where necessary for Australia’s system of representative government.

That distinction has played a central role throughout the litigation, with the courts concluding that the operation of Section 18C remains constitutionally valid in these circumstances.

Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act makes it unlawful to engage in public conduct reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person because of race, colour, national or ethnic origin.

The legislation has been politically contentious for many years, attracting criticism from some conservative politicians who argue it restricts freedom of expression, while supporters contend it provides essential protection against racial abuse and discrimination.

The Hanson-Faruqi proceedings have once again brought those competing perspectives into national focus.

The dispute has also highlighted how social media exchanges between politicians can evolve into major constitutional and legal battles. What began as a single post responding to comments about Queen Elizabeth II ultimately produced years of litigation, extensive legal submissions and multiple Federal Court hearings.

The Federal Court has published an online file for the appeal, reflecting the substantial public interest in the proceedings and providing access to judgments and court documents associated with the case.

While the legal findings concern the specific circumstances surrounding Senator Hanson’s remarks, the judgment is expected to be examined closely by constitutional lawyers, politicians and advocacy groups because of its broader implications for the relationship between political speech and Australia’s anti-discrimination laws.

Attention will now turn to whether the High Court agrees to hear the case.

If Senator Hanson files an application for special leave, Australia’s highest court will first determine whether the appeal raises issues of legal significance extending beyond the immediate dispute between the two senators. Only a small proportion of special leave applications are ultimately granted.

Until then, the unanimous Full Federal Court decision stands as the latest and most authoritative judicial ruling in one of Australia’s highest-profile racial discrimination cases involving elected federal parliamentarians.