> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://goodoil.news/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # ‘Kill Jews’ Nurses Try Absurd Legal Ploy - URL: https://goodoil.news/kill-jews-nurses-try-absurd-legal-ploy-2/ - Published: 2026-10-11T22:30:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-11T22:29:59.000Z - Description: Trying to use the High Court to delay their inevitable reckoning. - Author: Lushington Brady - Tags: AUS Politics, Law, Antisemitism Maybe we can call this the Albanese Defence: when you’re caught on video explicitly and unambiguously doing something, straight-up deny what the footage clearly shows. But the two Sydney Muslim nurses who bragged on video about killing Jews are taking another leaf from the Albanese government’s book: when there’s unambiguous evidence of Islamic malfeasance, try and get a legal gag on anyone seeing the video and believing their lyin’ eyes, which is what [Albanese’s eKaren](https://goodoil.news/ekaren-is-up-to-her-usual-tricks/) tried to do, when a Muslim stabbed a Sydney bishop on live webcam. It seems the theatre of the absurd is now the primary jurisdiction of the New South Wales legal system. We find our protagonists, **Sarah Abu Lebdeh** and **Ahmad Rashad Nadir**, retreating into the mists of constitutional litigation just as they were meant to face the music in the district court. How convenient. > [The trial of two](https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/sydney-nurses-trial-over-alleged-israeli-patient-threats-derailed-by-high-court-challenge/news-story/50df25b99dd51e43b9a4063ca5ee2dc5?ref=goodoil.news) former nurses who allegedly threatened to kill Israeli patients at Sydney’s Bankstown Hospital has been vacated for a second time, after the pair launched a constitutional challenge to the High Court. You almost have to admire the sheer audacity of the gambit. Having been caught on camera, that most inconvenient of witnesses, allegedly making rather colourful declarations about sending patients to the afterlife, they now pivot to the High Court. They intend to argue that their alleged threats somehow constitute ‘political communication’. One wonders if the Hippocratic Oath has been quietly replaced in their curriculum with the Hamas charter and a manual on constitutional obstructionism. The legal machinery, predictably, grinds to a halt. The various attorneys-general have been alerted, and until these luminaries of the law have had their fill of correspondence, the wheels of justice are effectively chocked. It is a slow, expensive charade, designed perhaps to exhaust the public’s memory until the original footage feels like a fever dream from a bygone era. The specifics of the incident, should our illustrious eKaren permit us to recall them, are chillingly direct. The video, captured while they were ostensibly being paid by the taxpayer to provide care, allegedly (a legalistic nicety the media have to observe while the trial grinds on) featured commentary that leaves very little to the imagination. > Mr Nadir allegedly said in the video: “You have no idea how many (Israeli people) come to this hospital … I send to Jahannam”, the Arabic translation for “hell”. Ms Abu Lebdeh is alleged to have said she would not treat Israeli patients but “kill them”. “It (Israel) is Palestine’s country, not your country, you piece of shit.” Apparently, the legal eagles representing our pair believe that threatening to murder Jews is a form of civic discourse protected by the spirit of the Australian Constitution. It is a breathtaking stretch of the imagination, even by the standards of glass-jawed Islam and our modern judiciary. The broader constitutional question – this ‘implied freedom of political communication’ – is becoming the ultimate ‘get out of jail free’ card for those who find the laws of a civilised society rather restrictive. It is a judge-made doctrine, concocted in 1992, which lacks the minor detail of ever having been put to a referendum of the people. It has since become a favourite weapon for activists looking to strike down the statutes of a sovereign parliament. > [It only protects](https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/even-if-the-bankstown-nurses-win-in-the-high-court-ultimate-success-could-be-illusory/news-story/1ab3b88cc673261253275eba7ab16708?ref=goodoil.news) communication on politics and governmental issues. Exactly what these nurses said is the key issue that is currently before the NSW District Court – and that needs to be left to the courts. The secondary issue is even more important: Will their plain words be characterised by a court as statements that somehow concerned politics and governmental matters? The absurdity is gob-smacking. If calling for the death of a patient on the basis of their national origin is considered ‘political communication’, then we have truly entered a post-civilisational state. The High Court now finds itself the arbiter of what constitutes ‘political speech’ versus, say, simple, unadulterated menace. While the lawyers sharpen their quills and the court dates are pushed further into the horizon, the rest of us are left to wonder whether the law exists to protect the citizenry from such behaviour, or to protect the perpetrators from the consequences of it. --- 💡 ****If you enjoyed this article please share it using the share buttons at the top or bottom of the article.**