On February 27, 2026, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) delivered a landmark ruling that has reignited debate over the boundaries of protest, hate speech, and the distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism in Australia and beyond. The tribunal found Hash Tayeh, a prominent pro-Palestinian activist and founder of the Burgertory restaurant chain, guilty of violating Victoria’s hate speech laws with a chant at a Melbourne rally nearly a year earlier. The case, which has drawn attention from legal experts, activists, and community leaders, is now set to influence similar discussions in other countries grappling with the same issues.
The controversy centers on a pro-Palestine rally held on March 23, 2025, in Melbourne’s bustling central business district. During the event, Tayeh led a chant of “All Zionists are terrorists,” a slogan that, according to the tribunal, crossed the line from political protest into unlawful vilification. The case was brought by Menachem Vorchheimer, a Jewish man who described the experience as deeply traumatizing. “The notion of being labeled the derogatory term of ‘terrorist’ for something I have no responsibility for, and for that to be seen as normal, is gut-wrenching and soul-destroying to me,” Vorchheimer stated in his application, as reported by The Guardian. He added, “I felt dehumanized. I felt like the lowest of the low. I no longer feel safe going into the Melbourne CBD, given I am identifiably Jewish.”
Vorchheimer’s complaint was not an isolated action. It came as part of a series of legal efforts, including a previously withdrawn case against former Greens leader Adam Bandt, all aimed at challenging what he and others see as the normalization of antisemitic rhetoric in public discourse. His requests to the tribunal were clear: he sought an order preventing Tayeh from engaging in similar conduct in the future, a public apology, and a $20,000 payment to a charity of his choosing.
Judge My Anh Tran, presiding over the case, was tasked with untangling the contentious debate over language and intent. Tayeh argued that “Zionist” and “Jew” are distinct terms and that his chant targeted only those supporting the current Israeli regime and its actions after October 7, 2023. He insisted that ordinary rally participants understood this distinction. However, Tran’s ruling, as cited by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), found otherwise. “There was an observable antisemitic and pro-violent presence at the rally,” she wrote. “I do not accept that they can be excluded from consideration. Their conduct at this and previous rallies was open and expected. The Act requires consideration of the audience to whom the conduct was actually directed.”
Tran acknowledged that “Zionist” can carry a range of meanings, but she found that the use of “all” in the chant, coupled with the rally’s context, created a strong association between Zionists and Jewish people in the minds of most attendees. Furthermore, the presence of antisemitic tropes and Holocaust themes at the rally, as noted in her decision, only heightened this association and the likelihood of inciting hatred. “I have also found that the accusation of being a terrorist was one which was inherently likely to incite strong emotions such as hatred and that, if anything, its use in a chant and the rally context enhanced its tendency to do so,” Tran wrote in her findings.
The tribunal’s decision was not based on Tayeh’s intent but on the effect of his words. As Tran explained, Vorchheimer only needed to establish that ordinary rally participants were incited to experience hatred against Jewish people on the grounds of their race or religious beliefs. The law, Victoria’s Racial and Religious Tolerance Act of 2001, allows for certain defenses—such as good faith engagement in the public interest or for genuine religious or artistic purposes—but Tran ruled that Tayeh’s actions exceeded those protections. “The purpose of the chant thus extended well beyond his claimed purpose of protesting the actions of the current Israeli regime after 7 October,” she stated. “The natural and ordinary effect of thousands of people united in chanting ‘All Zionists are terrorists’ … would be to tip many rally participants over the threshold into hatred directed towards Jewish people.”
Tayeh, who had already faced four criminal charges for similar public comments two weeks prior to the March 23 rally, has indicated his intention to appeal the ruling. Another VCAT hearing is scheduled for March 25, 2026, to determine what consequences, if any, should be imposed. Under Victoria’s laws, inciting religious or racial hatred can lead to penalties of up to three years in prison—a fact that underscores the seriousness with which authorities are treating such offenses.
This case in Melbourne is not occurring in a vacuum. On February 8, 2026, across the globe in Birmingham, UK, the “Activist Independent Movement” (AIM) launched the “Anti-Zionist Movement” (AZM) at a high-profile event. British activist and suspended NHS doctor Dr. Rahmeh Aladwan declared that more than seven million Palestinians worldwide deserve to “go home” to “every inch of Palestine.” She went further, proclaiming, “Israel is temporary and will ultimately disappear. We will never recognize Israel or its identity.”
At the same event, Sami Al-Soos, UK coordinator for “Sailing for Gaza” and spokesperson for the Global Sumud Flotilla, articulated a principle that has become a rallying cry for many activists: “From the [Jordan] River to the [Mediterranean] Sea, Palestine will be free.” Al-Soos also accused Israelis of killing, torturing, imprisoning, and stealing land, and notably, he said that in Palestine, Israelis are referred to as “Jewish” rather than “Zionists.” This blurring of terms—whether intentional or not—mirrors the very issues at the heart of the Melbourne tribunal’s findings.
Footage of the Birmingham event, posted to the Crispin Flintoff Show YouTube channel on February 17, 2026, has sparked debate in the UK about the limits of acceptable speech, the responsibilities of public figures, and the difference between political activism and hate speech. The international context is clear: as pro-Palestinian activism grows more vocal in response to ongoing conflict and humanitarian crises, so too does concern about the rhetoric used and its potential to fuel prejudice or violence.
The Melbourne tribunal’s ruling, with its careful parsing of language and context, may serve as a touchstone for similar legal and ethical debates worldwide. As societies wrestle with the balance between free expression and protection from vilification, the outcomes of such cases will likely shape public discourse for years to come.
The next hearing in Tayeh’s case is set for March 25, 2026, where the consequences of his actions—and the broader implications for protest and speech—will come into sharper focus.