Last month, when Zali Steggall accused Peter Dutton of racism, Sky News reported that the opposition leader was seeking legal advice. Presumably he chose not to pursue it. Truth is one of the few solid defences available under defamation law.
“For too long, we see policies that are inherently racist and they’re designed to foster fear and hatred of a minority group,” Steggall said at the time. “And the fear of the consequences of calling out means that the policy itself doesn’t get examined and called out, and that’s just bullying and intimidation.”
Race has been the one constant of Dutton’s political career. His greatest successes have all been the result of fear. There is little he won’t say. He will accuse refugees of wearing designer clothing and making up accounts of abuse. He says they will take Australians’ jobs. He will say African gangs have overrun the streets of Melbourne. He mixes in vague warnings about paedophiles and terrorists.
In November 2016, he said the country made a mistake offering asylum to Lebanese Muslims. His frustration was with Malcolm Fraser, who had become a critic of the Liberal Party’s barbarism on refugees. “The reality is Malcolm Fraser did make mistakes in bringing some people in, in the 1970s, and we’re seeing that today.”
Three days later, he claimed a majority of people charged with terrorism offences in Australia were Lebanese Muslims. He said this was “the advice I have”. This is a favourite strategy of Dutton’s: he is always once removed from the appalling thing he is saying. He’s agreeing with someone he spoke to, or relaying something he was told. Wilson Tuckey can say the 1967 referendum was a mistake and he can say he doesn’t disagree.
Dutton says he apologised for his comments about Lebanese Muslims. They were made “in the thrust of it”, where he does his grubbiest work. “Well, look, there are a couple of left-wing journalists who are obsessed on this issue,” he said this week. “So it’s not something I’m going to further comment on. I had a conversation. And I had that discussion. I’m not going to betray that conversation with a senior person, who it was in the community at the time. The Sydney Morning Herald can obsess about that all they like.”
This is Dutton’s other favourite strategy. There is always an unnamed figure who says it’s all okay. When he was lying about the Voice, he was quoting an “Aunty” he met “recently at a function”. Now he has a “senior person” whose confidence he cannot betray.
Other Muslim leaders say they have no idea what he’s talking about. He never spoke to them. Perhaps this is racism’s natural extension. If you’ve built your entire career on the fabrication of prejudice, why would you expect anyone to ask for detail now?
1 Comment
Last month, when Zali Steggall accused Peter Dutton of racism, Sky News reported that the opposition leader was seeking legal advice. Presumably he chose not to pursue it. Truth is one of the few solid defences available under defamation law.
“For too long, we see policies that are inherently racist and they’re designed to foster fear and hatred of a minority group,” Steggall said at the time. “And the fear of the consequences of calling out means that the policy itself doesn’t get examined and called out, and that’s just bullying and intimidation.”
Race has been the one constant of Dutton’s political career. His greatest successes have all been the result of fear. There is little he won’t say. He will accuse refugees of wearing designer clothing and making up accounts of abuse. He says they will take Australians’ jobs. He will say African gangs have overrun the streets of Melbourne. He mixes in vague warnings about paedophiles and terrorists.
In November 2016, he said the country made a mistake offering asylum to Lebanese Muslims. His frustration was with Malcolm Fraser, who had become a critic of the Liberal Party’s barbarism on refugees. “The reality is Malcolm Fraser did make mistakes in bringing some people in, in the 1970s, and we’re seeing that today.”
Three days later, he claimed a majority of people charged with terrorism offences in Australia were Lebanese Muslims. He said this was “the advice I have”. This is a favourite strategy of Dutton’s: he is always once removed from the appalling thing he is saying. He’s agreeing with someone he spoke to, or relaying something he was told. Wilson Tuckey can say the 1967 referendum was a mistake and he can say he doesn’t disagree.
Dutton says he apologised for his comments about Lebanese Muslims. They were made “in the thrust of it”, where he does his grubbiest work. “Well, look, there are a couple of left-wing journalists who are obsessed on this issue,” he said this week. “So it’s not something I’m going to further comment on. I had a conversation. And I had that discussion. I’m not going to betray that conversation with a senior person, who it was in the community at the time. The Sydney Morning Herald can obsess about that all they like.”
This is Dutton’s other favourite strategy. There is always an unnamed figure who says it’s all okay. When he was lying about the Voice, he was quoting an “Aunty” he met “recently at a function”. Now he has a “senior person” whose confidence he cannot betray.
Other Muslim leaders say they have no idea what he’s talking about. He never spoke to them. Perhaps this is racism’s natural extension. If you’ve built your entire career on the fabrication of prejudice, why would you expect anyone to ask for detail now?