They Had Their Villains Ready

Helen Haines had barely reached hospital before her suffering became ammunition against Pauline Hanson, One Nation, conservative commentators and men generally. The accusations practically outran the investigation. Political opponents were being handed responsibility for an alleged crime without evidence connecting them to it.

Labor MP for Macarthur Mike Freelander singled out “the disparaging and hateful rhetoric from fringe parties like One Nation”⁠. ABC presenter Rafael Epstein asked whether One Nation amplified dangerous rhetoric. Victorian Premier Ben Carroll agreed its rhetoric could be dangerous.

But where was their evidence linking One Nation to what happened in Wangaratta?

The ABC advertised Carroll’s interview as “Premier calls out One Nation after attack on Helen Haines”⁠. Its summary also said Carroll claimed misogyny contributed to the attack. A premier was offering an explanation while police were still investigating the motive.

Political commentator Niki Savva brought One Nation’s Please Explain cartoons into it on ABC News Daily⁠. Discussing political rhetoric and cartoons targeting Andrew Hastie and Jacqui Lambie, she said such behaviour gave “all the maddies licence to think that it’s OK to abuse politicians”.

Crikey politics editor Bernard Keane⁠ acknowledged the motive was unknown, then singled out Hanson as the country’s foremost contributor to a darker political atmosphere anyway. He highlighted the attack occurring on the day she defended the Lambie cartoon. As if putting two events beside each other in a hardly-read blog establishes that one caused the other. What it does do, though, is plant a politically convenient suspicion in the minds of the stupid and the Left (but I repeat myself).

Enter Exhibit A as proof of such left-wing stupidity. The Socialist Alliance’s Sue Bolton and Sarah Hathway warned against weaponising the attack⁠, then dragged in right-wing influencers, the manosphere and One Nation as those to blame.

Cheek Media chief Hannah Ferguson supplied another ready-made explanation. On the Seven Network’s Sunrise⁠, she said the attack spoke to “a bigger issue of male violence against women in Australia”. But identifying the gender of the accused and victim establishes neither motive nor collective responsibility. Men across Australia do not owe an explanation for an individual’s alleged crime. Treating their gender as the explanation is a red herring.

Ferguson’s own posturing deserve particular scrutiny. After Charlie Kirk’s killing, she asked⁠: “Must we condemn every act of political violence?” and then suggested it was sometimes OK. Someone who entertains that notion should examine their own words before prescribing better behaviour to everyone else.

Meanwhile, Haines‘ alleged attacker, Brendan Nugent, has a documented background⁠ that includes anti-logging activism, climate campaigning, left-wing agitation, and even political support for Helen Haines. Yet somehow Hanson is to blame. Or conservatives on social media. Or all Australian men.

Today, The Australian is reporting that investigators are examining a family-related motive⁠: whether Nugent experienced a psychotic episode and targeted Haines as a substitute for a relative amid hostility towards his father and stepmother, her longstanding friends.

So, a political grievance against One Nation is not evidence. A dislike of conservative commentary online is not evidence. And being male is not evidence of a shared culpability.

Helen Haines deserves justice. Pauline Hanson, conservative Australians and Australian men in general deserve to be spared a smear campaign conducted in her name.

“Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it.”
― Jonathan Swift