Mr Bazzi feels vindicated after he was originally found to have defamed Defence Minister Peter Dutton over comments he made about pregnant rape victims on Nauru. Source: Shane Bazzi (Twitter)
After last year being ordered by a Federal Court judge to pay $35,000 in damages to Defence Minister Peter Dutton for calling him a “rape apologist” on Twitter, refugee advocate Shane Bazzi feels vindicated today following a successful appeal.
The now-deleted tweet, posted in February 2021, linked to a news story containing quotes from Mr Dutton (then the Home Affairs Minister) over female asylum seekers at the Nauru Australian Immigration Detention Centre.
Mr Bazzi said the legal proceedings impacted his life in “a big way” and that it had been “devastating” for him, a solidarity fund was promptly set up for him to assist with costs and quality of living.
The Chuffed crowdfund raised just under $10,000.
The attributed quotes from Mr Dutton implied some of the pregnant rape victims were “trying it on” by seeking abortions in Australia, comments that were widely condemned as “vile” and “offensive”.
“Let’s be serious about this,” he said at the time.
“There are people who have claimed that they’ve been raped and came to Australia because they couldn’t get an abortion on Nauru.
“They arrived in Australia and then decided they were not going to have an abortion.
“They have the baby here and the moment they step off the plane their lawyers lodge papers in the Federal Court, which injuncts us from sending them back.”
Mr Bazzi then tweeted about the story, and argued he was exercising fair comment and honest opinion when Mr Dutton initiated defamation proceedings.
Victory! ✊? https://t.co/sfZtKkDYUs
— Shane Bazzi (@shanebazzi) May 17, 2022
Federal Court Justice Richard White found the tweet contained the defamatory imputation that Mr Dutton “excuses rape”.
But today, the Full Court of the Federal Court (a three-judge panel) overturned that decision.
“When that material is read with Mr Bazzi’s six words, the reader would conclude that the tweet was suggesting that Mr Dutton was sceptical about claims of rape and in that was an apologist,” they said in the judgment.
“But that is very different from imputing that he excuses rape itself.”
In summary, the judges said that it was insufficient to describe the tweet as “offensive and derogatory”, and that Mr Dutton’s legal onus to establish a reader reasonably understanding the imputation had failed.
