Mark Latham, the former federal Labor leader and One Nation MP, faces yet another substantial legal bill after being found guilty of vilifying and sexually harassing a fellow member of parliament. The New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal has ordered Latham to pay Sydney MP Alex Greenwich the maximum penalty of $100,000 for a tweet that incited hatred based on Greenwich's sexuality.
The tribunal's decision, handed down on Thursday, stated that the primary tweet was so obnoxious that most media outlets refrained from repeating it. 'This reticence by media outlets, usually hungry to print the comments of high-profile politicians, also bespeaks a 'line having been crossed' from acceptable commentary to unacceptable vilification,' the tribunal said.
The tweet was previously found by the Federal Court to be defamatory, resulting in an order for Latham to pay $140,000 in legal costs. Latham's tweet was a response to a news article quoting Greenwich describing him as a 'disgusting human being'. The online spat between the two politicians followed violent protests outside a church in Sydney's southwest in March 2023, where Latham was giving a pre-election speech. Approximately 250 mostly male counter-protesters violently attacked police and 15 LGBTQI protesters.
The tribunal imposed the maximum penalty due to the extreme abuse Greenwich received and the severe impacts he suffered. Staffers for Greenwich testified that his electorate office was inundated with hate mail after the incident, including messages 'talking of throwing homosexuals off the cliff'. A psychologist testified that Greenwich met the criteria for a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the attacks.
'Mr Latham's comments sought to reduce my identity to a sex act and then imply I am a danger to children,' Greenwich said in evidence. 'Mr Latham's comments have impacted my ability to attend large gatherings out of fear that people will ask me questions about Mr Latham or engage in violence against me.'
The tribunal did not order Latham to produce an apology, stating it would be pointless given it would likely not be genuine. Latham was also accused of showing a lack of respect for the integrity of the proceedings, contributing to the order to pay Greenwich's legal costs. 'Some of these comments about the tribunal and the proceedings may have 'fed' continuation of the barrage of responses online,' the tribunal said.
Latham showed no signs of contrition after the judgment, posting on X that it was a 'woke, leftwing political judgement' and describing the proceedings as a 'Mad Hatter's Tea Party'. He claimed one of the tribunal members was a prominent transgender activist who was hostile towards him and said he would appeal the decision.
The upper house MP had argued he was not responsible for the vilification inflicted by others on Greenwich because their prejudice pre-dated the feud between the pair. The tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the 'avalanche' of abuse Greenwich received after the incident was much greater than he had previously experienced, including during the marriage equality debate. 'A respondent cannot escape unlawful vilification simply because they enflamed the emotions of a group of people known to have prejudiced views,' the tribunal said.
Greenwich welcomed the decision, calling it a landmark ruling for LGBTQIA+ rights in the state. 'This decision sends a clear message: public figures are not above the law, and online platforms are not a space for unlawful vilification,' the member for Sydney said in a statement. 'The tribunal has made clear that the law does not require anyone to endure unlawful vilification or sexual harassment.'
Latham was ordered to remove any material from his social media that vilifies Greenwich on the basis of his homosexuality and to refrain from making any more unlawfully vilifying statements.
