He represented himself with the assistance of translator Laurice​ Erian and argued that Herald Sun political editor Ellen Whinnett's​ front-page story had incited hatred of Muslims and Islam itself. The Herald Sun front page from November 30 2015. "When I saw this article I thought: 'Isn't there a law in Australia that stops this happening?'," Mr Sisalem told the tribunal. "Accusation, after accusation, after accusation, on the front page." Ms Whinnett's story, the tribunal was told, had been sparked by a Sky News political panel interview of Coalition front bencher Josh Frydenberg​ in the wake of the Paris terrorist attacks in November 2015.

Mr Frydenberg had told Sky News that: "I would say there is a problem within Islam." The next day, Ms Whinnett's report expanded on the theme, quoting "war hero" MP Andrew Hastie as saying Islam must "reform". "Modern Islam needs to cohere with the Australian way of life, our values and institutions. In so far as it doesn't, it needs reform," Mr Hastie said. Victorian MP Michael Sukkar was quoted as saying Islam contained "medieval teachings and practices". Ms Whinnett gave evidence to the tribunal that her story was a "significant and legitimate piece of political reporting" about "the tensions between the views of various members of the government".

Mr Sisalem disagreed, saying the story would "turn people against each other". "This is not about personal feelings, this is about personal safety," he said. "[It's] creating war against Islam." Mr Sisalem argued that by attacking Islam, the organisation was attacking all Muslims. "How can the religion exist without the people practising it? . . . don't go and incite hatred against me in the community because of my religion and my beliefs." Barrister Haroon​ Hassan, acting for HWT, told the court that Ms Whinnett was a senior and respected journalist and, "in my respectful submission, the article is no more than a robust piece of political reporting".

"At times people will disagree [with the media]," he said. But "mere disagreement, or even the taking of grave offence by an individual or group of individuals does not amount to vilification." Mr Sisalem was the subject of more robust reporting from News Corp earlier this year, when its tabloids reported on his battle at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to retain his disability support pension. Mr Sisalem's pension was cut because he was spending too much time outside Australia, and he was described in News Corp articles as "a jet-setting invalid pensioner" and a "poster-boy for asylum-seeker activists". VCAT member Julie Grainger​ said she wasn't being asked to decide whether the Herald Sun story was factual, but whether it breached religious vilification laws. "It's not relevant whether I think it was a balanced article or a fair article," Ms Grainger said.

"I am confined to looking at the wording . . . of the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act and making a finding of fact as to whether the article in question incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule in this case of people of the Muslim faith." She will hand down her finding at a later date. Follow us on Twitter

