-
Michael J. Tyler
- February 12, 2025
On 12 February 2025, two nurses from Bankstown-Lidcombe Hospital in Sydney were suspended following the release of a video in which they made antisemitic remarks while wearing NSW Health uniforms. The video, shared by Israeli content creator Max Veifer, depicted the nurses expressing intentions to harm Israeli patients. This incident has ignited discussions about the legality of such conduct on social media and whether the nurses were deliberately entrapped for online engagement.
Legal and Ethical Implications of Hate Speech Online
The video in question shows the nurses, Ahmad “Rashad” Nadir and Sarah Abu Lebdeh, engaging in a conversation with Veifer. Upon learning of Veifer’s Israeli background, they allegedly made threatening comments towards Israeli patients. The footage was widely condemned, with NSW Health Minister Ryan Park stating that the nurses would never work for NSW Health again and apologising to the Jewish community. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese also denounced the remarks, labelling the video as “sickening and shameful.”
In response to a surge in antisemitic incidents, Australia has recently enacted stringent hate crime laws. These laws include mandatory minimum sentences for displaying hate symbols and committing terror offences. The legislation aims to address the increasing prevalence of hate speech and ensure that such actions are met with appropriate legal consequences.
Under Australian law, particularly the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, it is unlawful to commit acts that are likely to offend, insult, humiliate, or intimidate individuals based on race, colour, or national or ethnic origin. Additionally, Section 474.17 of the Criminal Code criminalises the use of a carriage service, such as the internet, in a manner that reasonable persons would regard as menacing, harassing, or offensive. Therefore, making antisemitic remarks on social media can be considered illegal and subject to legal action.
Did the Influencer Entrap the Nurses for Clicks?
A critical aspect of this case is whether Max Veifer intentionally entrapped the nurses to generate viral content. Entrapment, in a legal sense, usually refers to law enforcement coercing someone into committing a crime they would not have otherwise committed. While Veifer is not a law enforcement agent, ethical concerns arise if he deliberately baited the nurses into making offensive remarks for online exposure.
Some argue that the nurses should have exercised personal responsibility and professional integrity, regardless of any external provocation. Their willingness to make such comments, especially while wearing NSW Health uniforms, suggests accountability for their actions. However, others contend that Veifer’s approach was manipulative, deliberately seeking inflammatory content for social media traction.
Social media influencers often thrive on controversy, and this case raises concerns about the role of digital platforms in amplifying provocative content. If Veifer framed his questions in a way that encouraged antisemitic responses, he could be seen as exploiting the situation for engagement rather than fostering genuine discourse. However, this does not absolve the nurses of their remarks, as hate speech laws in Australia apply regardless of context.
The Nurses’ Apology
Following the backlash, Ahmad “Rashad” Nadir and Sarah Abu Lebdeh issued public apologies, expressing deep regret for their remarks. In a joint statement, they acknowledged the harm caused by their words and insisted that they did not intend to incite hatred or violence. They also stressed that their comments were made in the heat of the moment and did not reflect their true beliefs. Despite their apologies, the consequences of their actions have been severe, with their future in the medical profession now in jeopardy.
Conclusion
The incident involving the Sydney nurses underscores the importance of understanding the legal and ethical implications of online conduct. Engaging in hate speech or making threatening comments on social media is not only socially unacceptable but also carries potential legal consequences under Australian law. Additionally, the role of social media influencers in shaping narratives and potentially provoking controversial statements should be scrutinised. While individuals must be held accountable for their actions, the ethical responsibilities of those who facilitate or exploit such incidents for engagement should also be questioned. I look forward to hearing the full circumstances of this incident the how, and why this interaction occured.
Michael J. Tyler
