Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

Ben Carroll has called for an end to hateful political rhetoric, but his treatment of Pauline Hanson raises questions about how consistently he applies that standard.

It’s amazing how selective our politicians are when calling for the political debate to be toned down.

Take Victorian Premier Ben Carroll, who was out early yesterday morning condemning “hateful speech” following the shocking attack on independent federal MP Helen Haines.

A Call for Civility — With Conditions

He told ABC Radio:

“I think this act of violence is just unfathomable that it’s occurred in Australia, and we’ve got to stand up, call it out, and make sure that this is a turning point. That we don’t just have words, we put deeds.

“Let’s put an action plan together. Let’s look at online hate. Let’s look at misogyny. Let’s look at the targeting of female representatives.”

Fair.

Nobody should be threatened or attacked for entering public life.

And if this incident prompts a serious discussion about the treatment of female politicians, that discussion is worth having.

The Victorian Premier added,

“I’m firmly of the view – female politicians cop it a lot worse.”

He then offered examples of women who had been subjected to abuse: former Victorian premier Jacinta Allan and current Labor minister Anne Aly.

Both women, incidentally, are on his side of politics.

Now, I don’t doubt that Allan and Aly have been subject to all sorts of unconscionable abuse.

Now, I have no doubt that Allan and Aly have endured some appalling abuse. Carroll is perfectly entitled to cite two examples without producing an encyclopaedia of political victimhood.

But his plea for civility would carry rather more weight if he extended the same concern to women on the other side of the political fence.

Because anyone can demand kindness towards their friends. The interesting bit is whether you can summon the same compassion for your enemies.

That, after all, is where the whole exercise becomes difficult. And where leadership might actually be required.

Twisted Narratives and Victim-Blaming

So let’s talk about Pauline Hanson.

From what I have heard, there is no woman in this country who gets as many threats as the One Nation leader.

From everything I have heard, the One Nation leader is among the most frequently threatened women in Australian politics.

If Carroll is concerned about the targeting of female representatives, surely she deserves a mention.

So what about Pauline Hanson?

Well, here is how Carroll responded when asked about Hanson, having just urged politicians to tone down the rhetoric, particularly when discussing women.

“I do believe saying that there are no good Muslims is as racist as you can get, and that needs to be called out, as does her views around family violence.”

So, there you have it.

Having warned us about hateful speech, misogyny and the need to stop targeting female politicians, Carroll promptly described a female political opponent as racist in the strongest possible terms and accused her of holding objectionable views on family violence.

One can only assume the civility initiative comes with a fairly substantial terms-and-conditions document.

Outright Misrepresentation, Not Valid Criticism

And the problem is not merely that Carroll has chosen to attack Hanson while lecturing everyone else about the importance of civil discourse. It is that he has misrepresented what she actually said.

Hanson is not racist simply because Carroll says she is. Nor did she say what he claims she said.

Anyone who watched her interview with Sharri Markson, in which she made the comments Carroll was referring to, will know that Hanson was not declaring that there are no good Muslims.

She was questioning how one distinguishes between moderate Muslims and extremists.

People can disagree with her argument. They can challenge its premises, dispute its conclusions and explain why they think it is wrong. That is what political debate is for.

But there is a rather important difference between challenging someone’s argument and pretending they made an entirely different one.

I find it difficult to believe Carroll has not watched the interview. And I find it equally difficult to believe that, having watched it, he cannot understand the context of Hanson’s remarks.

Which leaves us with a rather awkward question: why misrepresent her?

Perhaps the rules of civility are simply more flexible when the target is a political opponent. Perhaps the demand for a less toxic debate is less about changing the culture than ensuring one’s own side gets to decide who deserves the benefit of the doubt.

Whatever the explanation, it is not a particularly convincing demonstration of leadership.

And it’s certainly not a demonstration of the restraint Carroll is asking everyone else to show.

Civility Cannot Be Reserved for Political Allies

If our leaders are serious about improving political debate, the standard cannot be that their side gets to be righteous while the other side gets to be reviled.

It cannot be that abuse is intolerable when directed at Labor women, but somehow less troubling when directed at Pauline Hanson.

And it cannot be that misrepresenting an opponent becomes acceptable simply because we dislike her politics.

Civility that extends only to your friends is not civility; it’s tribalism.

If Ben Carroll wants Australians to take seriously his call for a more respectful political culture, he might start by applying it to the woman he clearly finds it very hard to be respectful towards.

___

Republished with thanks to The James Macpherson Report. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.