The media already have the knives out for Pauline Hanson

Australian Senator-elect Pauline Hanson wants the following things:

  1. A royal commission into whether Islam is a religion or a political ideology.
  2. For no more mosques to be built and also to stop Muslim immigration into Australia.
  3. To abolish the Racial Discrimination Act.
  4. A referendum on changing the part of the constitution that protects the free practice of religion.

She says Australia is a Christian country and it’s time to take a look at the rise of Islam, and what is being preached inside mosques and Islamic schools.

…The One Nation party also wants to ban the burqa and the niquab in public, ban the building of mosques until an enquiry is held and to ban Halal certifications.

Pauline Hanson is returning from the political wilderness on the back of the above policies. There is a significant proportion of Australian voters who support her party. Not only (predictably) has she been tarred with the racist brush, media have also found other ways to attack her. In this latest article written by a male journalist,  incredibly sexist comments are made. The caricature that accompanies the article tells you all you need to know about the lack of balance in the article.



Whoever gains government in Australia will have to negotiate around the demands of the new force of angry men, led by that angriest of angry women Pauline Hanson.

With no clear winner in Saturday’s election and the counting of postal votes keeping the nation guessing, the leaders of the two main parties are trying to win over independents, who each have their own demands.

With Hanson, those demands include the abolition of the Family Court and a better custody deal for fathers, issues associated with men who believe they have been deprived of rights in family break-ups.

Sounds pretty good to me. As a male journalist you would think the writer would have some empathy for Dads wanting to be in their children’s lives. Instead, he has tarred Hanson and her party as a bunch of angry people.

Pauline Hanson’s One Nation is a male-dominated outfit.

Name me one political party anywhere that isn’t male-dominated. This is a sexist statement and nonsensical since there are no political parties dominated by women. Instead of focusing on policy the journalist is making this all about gender,  a red herring if ever I saw one.

Certainly it had women candidates: About a quarter of its total of 27 were women and half the eight Senate candidates were women.

However, men had the positions most likely to see victory. The party is expected to win two Senate slots in Queensland, one in NSW and possibly one in Western Australia.

Of the four possible One Nation senators, three would be men.

It seems, however, that neither Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull nor Labor leader Bill Shorten have rung her yet as the pair try to get the numbers for a government. Asked by Seven Network yesterday if Turnbull had called her yet, Hanson said: “No, I think he has lost my number.”

Asked if Shorten had been in contact, Hanson laughed and replied: “You’ve got to be kidding. At this point I am totally independent, maybe not like everybody else.”

Her likely Senate colleague Derryn Hinch, however, said he’s had a very long chat to Turnbull.

“I spent 50 minutes on the phone last night with the Prime Minister of Australia,” he said. “On Friday, I got a call from Bill Shorten wishing me well.

“So they were out there trying.”

Hanson, though, insists she is in charge of her own party.

Huh? What has been said anywhere in this article so far that suggests that she isn’t? Derryn Hinch talking to Turnbull? All it proves is that Turnbull is intimidated by Hanson. He will be forced to talk to her eventually because he needs her party’s support. I am sure that she will enjoy making him squirm.

“I don’t need to listen to anything. I know what the people are thinking and how they are feeling. So let’s get this country on track,” she told one TV interviewer at the weekend.

But Pauline Hanson’s One Nation is a blokes’ show, and the policies underline that.

Again with the sexism. Male politicians support policies that help women. Why the fuss about a female leading a party that has policies that benefit men? The writer seems to have conveniently forgotten the ban the burka policy, which is clearly a women’s rights issue. Why should Muslim women have less rights in Australia than non-Muslim women?

“The functions and operation of the Child Support Agency will be reviewed and extensive community consultation will occur to develop appropriate guidelines for operations,” One Nation’s policy list says.

“The punitive maintenance regime will be overhauled as a matter of urgency.”

One Nation demands would target the United Nations and the threat seen in its Agenda 21 sustainable development aims, matters of keen concern among marginalised men. “Bring back federalism and restore Australia’s constitution so that our economy is run for the benefit of Australians instead of the United Nations and unaccountable foreign bodies that have interfered and have choked our economy since the federal government handed power to the International Monetary Fund in 1944,” its economic policy says.

These are the products of seething, marginalised men, often middle-aged, who are seeking explanations for life not being optimal. And the demands will be in addition to those for royal commissions into Islam and climate change, and an end to halal certification.

What an appalling description of voters who do not support the United Nations. I am not a “seething marginalised middle-aged man” yet I don’t want unaccountable foreign bodies interfering and choking our economy.

…It is likely Hanson will return to Parliament for the first time in 18 years thanks to the votes of angry men, but there were women who also backed her. But it might be for what she represents, not for Hanson herself.

Well duh, that’s what educated voters do; they vote for policies not people.

On election night, met a One Nation supporter who was a gender and generation away from being an angry, ‘ middle-aged man. She was a 32-year-old young woman with a bright, positive outlook, and a good job she was good at.

“Will she get in?” she asked

She was pleased when told she would, but said, “I like her policies. It’s a pity she’s the leader because she’s a bit of a bogan.”



THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Huia

    Obviously Hansen does not fit with the media’s socialist agenda.
    Just like the media here…..oh wait a minute, its all the same media company aint it?

    • CD

      Like Trump, she’s basically on the right side of politics but also as mad as a meat axe. Also like Trump the MSM hates her.
      So I’m having second thoughts on both. The enemy of my enemy and all that…

      • Sailor Sam

        I don’t think she is mad, she is a genuine, true blue Australian who does not do the PC nonsense that exists throughout the MSM and chardonnay socialists.
        What she said 20 years ago has come true, just like what Enoch Powell predicted in the UK 60 odd years ago.

        • CD

          Not arguing with any of that – as I said, her politics are basically sound and she will end up on the right side of history. It does not help however that she is a moron. Trump is certainly not a moron and Powell was an intellectual.

          • localnews

            It makes you wonder about the rest if the morons are making the most sense?

        • kenbeth

          she is not mad.. have been to see her talk when in oz had to walk through a lot of people abusing us as racist as we walked into the town hall.. i would not comment until you have actually seen her speaking.. not edited media clips..

  • Greg M

    If Pauline were to set up a New Zealand branch she may knock Winston off his perch. A lot of her parties policy makes a whole lot of sense to a whole lot of people who have had enough of the PC nonsense leading the country in a direction they don’t want it to go in. Good on her.

  • Sailor Sam

    During post election live TV coverage, once it became clear that she had won at least one senate seat, she was interviewed by Channel7.
    Towards the end of the interview, Channel7 simultaneously brought on an muslim candidate from Western Sydney who invited Pauline Hanson for a meal, stating that Halal food was good.
    Pauline Hanson refused saying she does not do Halal and terminated the live interview.
    I thought at the time that it was a cheap hit job by Channel7.
    Personally I like her, she is straight up in her demands, which resonate with a lot of people.
    As I stated a weeks ago, my elderly mother-in-law and her friends all voted for her, because they remember what she said 20 years ago about unbridled immigration of people who would undermine Australia’s way of life.
    They see the results today, just as Hanson predicted.

    • Muzman349

      Should have taken them up on it and asked for roast pork.

      • Raibert

        Or maybe taken her own pork along, explaining she could not eat their food due to her beliefs. Would then have put it on them to be understanding of her culture. As if….

  • The Fat Man

    So the media that people do not trust are against her.

    Where can I vote for her????

  • jaundiced

    The fact that the party is male dominated is no different from other parties. A quarter of candidates being female is not 50/50, but how does this compare with other parties? There is a 32 year old who votes for her – this is news?
    Also, I’m getting a bit sick of middle aged males being tarnished with the fact that they are middle aged males. Seething and marginalised too.
    Yes, I’m seething – got that bit right!

  • Bombastic

    So in Australia it was the “votes of angry men” and in Britain it was the “votes of selfish oldies”. Do these journalists get to see the ballot papers? Or are they just having a good old fashioned prejudiced guess?

  • Seriously?

    She reflects things that a sector of the community thinks but do not articulate. I don’t mind that she is involved in politics, but it would be a poor outcome if she had influence disproportionate to her support.

    I’d say much the same for the Greens here. They have a view, it is good that it gets heard, but I would not like green hands on the levers of power.

  • AF

    SB : a big thanks for pointing out bias and sexism against men that is prevalent in the media. Too often when men try to point it out, it is dismissed as “check your privilege” or “you must be emancipated” or on the basis of “but you are a white male, you don’t understand”. For too long men have been quiet on this issue and it is nice to see women standing up against such casual and seemingly acceptable sexism. Please keep up the good work! There is no place for sexism or racism, any which way you choose to cut it.

  • Mick Ie

    Farage/Johnson, Trump and now Hanson.
    Slowly but surely the right are breaking ground and making their voices heard. Slowly but surely they are reclaiming their democratic rights against ideological minded, minorities whose whole intent is to force their viewpoint on the rest of the World.
    Regardless of their lack of success to date, they have still not come to the realisation they will never work.
    John Key and National need to acknowledging that NZ are facing the same issues as England, U.S and Australia and their voters are making it quite clear they have had enough of being dictated too.
    As we all watch the worm begin to turn, what stance is National prepared to take on behalf of the centrist/right voters which make up the majority of National supporters, come 2017?

    • jaundiced

      In true seething, marginalised middle aged male form, I like Farage/Johnson. I even like Hanson, but have to concede that she is not a particularly convincing or articulate advocate for her cause.
      However, I do not at all relish the idea of Trump as the most powerful man in the world. As much as I dislike Clinton, I’d sleep easier at night somehow….

      • Raibert

        I keep seeing the US President described as the most powerful man in the world, however have also seen the Russian Leader described this way. Lean towards accepting Putin as more powerful than Obama as Putin can do almost as he likes while Obama is controlled by the Senate and Congress.

    • one for the road

      Farage and Johnson are puffed headed turncoats, their beliefs gained traction yet at the critical moment they pull back and turn away from the hard task of implementing what they pushed for – it wouldve been ok if they declared their weakness (good thinkers, bad implementers) before hand, but they didnt! They just jumped ship at the critical moment.

  • Old Man, Torbay.

    Not until now, having seen the pic above, did I realize that she is a female Ferengi.
    As Ferengi are brilliant and devious traders, she would be an asset to PM Turnbull.

  • cows4me

    The media are brainwashed parrots that screech on demand. They no longer think for themselves and like parrots know only those point of views their masters want them to screech. It’s all about the years of conditioning, they must not stray from the group, no wonder they become more irrelevant by the day.

  • Observer

    It’s amazing how voters who support ‘non-progressive/non-left wing’ policies get demonised as ‘angry’ and unhinged. Meanwhile, leftists who violently attack politicians who support non-progressive policies are seen as acting reasonably. Classic liberal fascism. It also supports the recent finding that the research showing conservatives are more authoritarian was based on a coding error. The research actually found that leftists are more authoritarian.

  • one for the road

    Turnbull has nothing to lose by talking to Hansen, and even forming a govt withher party, but he has everything to lose by not getting her support..

  • Keyser Soze

    Your honour I present exhibit one in the inquiry into the death of objective, balanced journalism.