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.”


Do you want:

  • ad-free access?
  • access to our very popular daily crossword?
  • access to Incite Politics magazine articles?

Silver subscriptions and above go in the draw to win a $500 prize to be drawn at the end of March.

Not yet one of our awesome subscribers? Click Here and join us.

If you agree with me that’s nice but what I really want to achieve is to make you question the status quo. Look between the lines, do your own research. Do not be a passive observer in this game we call life.