A prominent pro-Palestine protester racially and religiously vilified Jewish people when he chanted “All Zionists are terrorists” at a Melbourne rally, a Victorian tribunal has ruled.

Hash Tayeh, who has flagged an appeal to Thursday’s ruling, was found to have breached the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act with his comments in March last year.

Menachem Vorchheimer brought the case in the Victorian civil and administrative tribunal (Vcat).

“The notion of being labelled 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 said as part of his application.

“I felt dehumanised. I felt like the lowest of the low. I no longer feel safe going into the Melbourne CBD given I am identifiably Jewish.

“I also generally avoid public gatherings where there [is] a chance of counter protests for fear of being attacked or vilified.”

The Melbourne man submitted that “Zionists” was used at the rally as a codeword for Jewish people.

But Tayeh, the founder of burger chain Burgertory, submitted there was no evidence that this was the case, and that protesters had made clear the distinction between Zionists and Jews.

He said that “Zionists” was used and understood by ordinary rally participants to refer only to supporters of the current regime in Israel and the actions of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) after 7 October 2023.

_{Sign up: AU Breaking News email}

Judge My Anh Tran agreed that “Zionist” did not mean Jew, and found that it was capable of a range of meanings. But Tran found there was likely to have been a very strong association between Zionists and Jewish people in the minds of ordinary rally participants.

The use of the word “all” by Tayeh strengthened this association, Tran found.

“I have also found that the use of antisemitic tropes and Holocaust themes at the rally had the tendency to enhance the strength of the association between Zionists and Jewish people.

“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.”

Vorchheimer had to establish that ordinary rally participants were incited to experience hatred against Jewish people “on the ground of” their race or religious belief or activity.

He did not need to prove that Tayeh intended for rally participants to experience this “hatred”, as the motivation only became relevant when considering if the protester had a defence for the comments, Tran said in her ruling.

The act allowed defences for certain conduct, which would otherwise be considered a breach.

These defences included if the comments were made while engaged reasonably and in good faith in a matter that was in the public interest, or for a genuine religious or artistic purpose.

Tayeh claimed that his good faith purpose in initiating the chant was to protest against the actions of the current Israeli regime after 7 October 2023.

“However, I find the chant was intended by Mr Tayeh to be directed against, at a minimum, all supporters of the continued existence of Israel as a Jewish state,” Tran found, in ruling that Tayeh did not have a defence for the comments.

“The purpose of the chant thus extended well beyond his claimed purpose of protesting the actions of the current Israeli regime after 7 October.”

Tran said: “I have concluded that 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.”

Vorchheimer asked Vcat to make orders preventing Tayeh from engaging in similar conduct in the future; requiring him to publicly acknowledge the ruling and apologise for his actions; and requiring him to pay $20,000 to a charity of Vorchheimer’s choosing.

Tran will hold a hearing at a later date to decide what consequences, if any, should be imposed.