The full transcript of the decision - worth a read:
https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/5c6481bee4b0196eea4045eaInteresting that the decision of vilification is clearly tied to making unsubstantiated claims:
Quote:Consideration
Broadly, the Tribunal accepts that the purpose of the discussion in question was to have a debate about the size of the Australian Muslim population, the levels of Muslim migration and whether an increase in the level of either increases the likelihood of future terrorist attacks in Australia. Further, the Tribunal accepts that to have a public discussion on such matters was in the public interest. Finally we accept the Respondents were acting in good faith without malice and not for an improper purpose.
However, we cannot accept that the remarks of Ms Kruger were “reasonable”. She expressed the view that the size of Australia’s Muslim population meant there should be no further Muslim migration irrespective of any other matter. This appears to be unsupported by any evidence or material placed before the Tribunal.
The principal difficulty we have with Ms Kruger’s comments is that she suggests that 500,000 “Australian Muslims” is too many and that, in and of itself, such a number of Muslims living in Australia poses a safety threat to persons in Australia. Consistently with this proposition, Ms Kruger concludes that all Muslim migration should be stopped because any addition to the number of Muslims in Australia increases the risk of terrorist attacks.
Thereby, Ms Kruger goes further than Mr Andrew Bolt, who accepts in his article that “truly, the number of Muslims in the country does not tell the full story”. Mr Andrew Bolt points out that Germany, whilst having possibly more Muslims than France, may have escaped the same level of terrorism as France “perhaps because many of its Muslims came from Turkey, more westernised than the North African countries’’ which are the source of most Muslims in France.
Accordingly, the point of Mr Andrew Bolt’s article is that it is the form of the Muslim migration, not the mere fact of Muslim migration, which is of particular importance. It is, as he put it, the “open door” policy of Muslim migration that may contribute to terrorist attacks. Ultimately, Ms Kruger, on the other hand, was putting forward a stereotype in suggesting that it was the size of the Muslim population in Australia per se which leads to terrorist attacks.
In our view, Ms Kruger could have expressed her comments in a more measured manner to avoid a finding of vilification. For example, she could have referred to the need for Australia to engage in greater security checking of people wishing to migrate to Australia who may happen to be Muslims and the need to prevent a drift towards radicalisation amongst Muslims currently in Australia, rather than simply stating that 500,000 Muslims represents an unacceptable safety risk which justifies stopping all Muslim migration.
It may have been possible for either of the other commentators – Ms Lisa Wilkinson or Mr David Campbell – to make this comment and then seek to have Ms Kruger agree with that. This also would have likely prevented the broadcast amounting to the vilification of Muslims in Australia. Unfortunately, while Mr Campbell appeared to disagree with Ms Kruger, Ms Kruger’s public remarks were still preserved and amounted to a stereotypical attack on all Muslims in Australia.
Basically, simply saying 500 000 muslims is too many and that this fact in and of itself somehow means there is an unacceptable security risk - is "unreasonable" and "unmeasured" -
BECAUSE it is a completely unsubstantiated statement - and therefore vilification.