FreethoughtJournal.com

Exposing the dishonesty of politicians who vilify mass migration protesters

The March for Australia rallies on August 31 exposed a troubling pattern of arrogant dishonesty among politicians—most notably from Labor, though not exclusively. While dishonesty in Australian public discourse is nothing new, it must be confronted rather than ignored.

However, before looking at what politicians have said, it’s worth mentioning the media.

Media misrepresentation: is it anti-migrant or anti-mass-migration?

Some media outlets, such as news.com.au, claimed that "much of the rhetoric on the March for Australia site is anti-migrant". This misrepresents the event’s official messaging. The March for Australia website and flyers clearly opposed mass migration—not migrants themselves—focusing on concerns about scale rather than race or ethnicity.

The flyers listed various reasons for opposing mass migration: impacts on culture, wages, traffic, housing, water supply, the environment, hospitals, crime, and community cohesion. While cultural and economic effects were central, specific ethnic groups were only mentioned concerning rapid demographic change, not as targets of racial hostility.

Labeling the event as simply “anti-migrant” rather than a critique of immigration levels is inaccurate.

Acknowledging the extremist element without overgeneralising

For balance, it's important to recognise that some aspects of the event and its organisers are deeply troubling. The Guardian reported that the March for Australia website had previously referenced “remigration”, a white nationalist concept advocating the mass deportation of non-European populations from Western nations. Some rally organisers around the country had posted content aligned with white nationalist views, and in at least one instance, shared pro-Nazi or pro-Hitler material. And, of course, the presence of shameless neo-Nazis was disturbing.

These associations warrant scrutiny and condemnation. However, they do not erase the broader reality that the official purpose of the march was opposition to mass migration policies on various grounds.

Opposing immigration policy is not racism

A crucial distinction must be made: opposing current immigration levels or policies is not inherently equivalent to opposing immigrants themselves. Conflating the two not only misrepresents the motivations of many participants, but also damages the quality of public discourse. It is both possible and necessary to critique harmful ideologies while still engaging honestly with genuine policy concerns.

Some politicians provide a glimpse of fairness

A few political leaders responded reasonably. For example, federal opposition leader Sussan Ley and Queensland deputy premier Jarrod Bleijie both acknowledged the right to protest, while making clear that violence, racism, intimidation, or incitement to hatred have no place in civil discourse. Their comments struck an appropriate balance: defending democratic freedoms while condemning genuinely harmful conduct.

At least some leaders are willing to recognise the obvious—that it is possible to oppose mass migration policies without being driven by racism.

Labor's blanket vilification: prejudice masquerading as moral clarity

In stark contrast, the federal Labor government took an arrogant, dismissive and dishonest stance, broadly condemning the marches and their participants.

A government-issued statement suggested the event was inherently hateful and would cause some Australians to feel unsafe. Federal senator for Queensland Murray Watt went further, saying: “We don’t support rallies like this that are about spreading hate and that are about dividing our community.” He also stated, “We absolutely condemn the March for Australia.” His unequivocal stance left no room for nuance or acknowledgment of legitimate concerns. Such sweeping condemnation is not only intellectually lazy—it’s prejudiced.

Minister for multicultural affairs Dr Anne Aly described the event as “far-right activism grounded in racism and ethnocentrism”, asserting it had “no place in modern Australia”. She characterized protesters as people who “seek to divide” and “intimidate migrant communities”.

Home affairs and immigration Minister Tony Burke echoed these sentiments, calling the march “un-Australian” and stating, “There is no place in our country for people who seek to divide and undermine our social cohesion.” He added: “We stand with modern Australia against these rallies—nothing could be less Australian.”

These comments make Labor’s position clear: they are not just condemning any fringe element that may have latched onto the protests—they are condemning the rallies in their entirety, and by extension, all who participated.

This sweeping condemnation is profoundly undemocratic—far less Australian than the act of protest itself.

Victorian premier falsely imputes guilt by association

Victorian Labor premier Jacinta Allan toed the party line in her remarks at the Premier’s Multicultural Gala Dinner the day before the rallies.

If you ground children in respect, values and understanding – you get a big reward as a society. The reward is this: when those children see on the news that there was something called a March for Australia, they’ll know straight away it’s not a very Australian march at all. It just won’t look like the Australia they know. Because Australia isn’t a place where we spread hate and fear about foreigners. Australia is a nation of foreigners. Just like the song says: from all the lands on earth we come. And Australia isn’t a place where we walk with Nazis. Australia is a place that went to war with Nazis.

It’s appropriate to reaffirm Australia's proud multiculturalism, built on immigration, and to make clear that hate-based ideologies—particularly those tied to racial supremacy or fascism—have no place in civil society. Any individuals at the March for Australia rallies who were explicitly aligned with neo-Nazism, carried fascist symbols, or promoted xenophobic slogans, deserved to be condemned.

But by describing the entire march as "not a very Australian march at all", she implied that everyone involved—regardless of motive—was complicit in hatred and fearmongering.

While Victoria has the strongest racial vilification laws in the country—they do not prevent known neo-Nazis from attending public rallies. Yet instead of drawing a distinction between extremists and everyday Australians, she arguably either illegitimised the presence of ordinary Australians at a rally or blamed ordinary Australians for the Nazi presence when she said, "Australia isn’t a place where we walk with Nazis". Why not instead call out Nazis for hijacking legitimate democracy?

Make no mistake: the context of premier Jacinta Allan’s speech shows that her condemnation was aimed at the entire event. The implication was clear: any participation in the rally, regardless of individual motive, was tantamount to endorsing hatred.

Allan and the broader Labor leadership were not willing to acknowledge that it’s possible to protest current immigration levels for non-racist reasons. They imply that the mere presence of extremists renders the entire event illegitimate, and everyone involved guilty by association.

Weak and cowardly enemies of democracy

Such a position, echoed across Labor messaging, is not only simplistic, irrational, dishonest and polarising—it is fundamentally anti-democratic. The effort to discredit an entire protest movement based on the presence of extremists is deeply corrosive to democratic debate.

It is both weak and illogical to suggest that neo-Nazi attendance at a protest renders the entire event—and all participants—morally compromised. To accept that premise is to surrender basic democratic principles to extremists, giving them the power to discredit any form of public dissent simply by showing up. That’s not leadership; it’s fear-driven avoidance masquerading as moral clarity.

It's troubling that Labor offered no significant public acknowledgment that many attendees had genuine, non-racist concerns. Not one prominent statement from Labor could be found on the internet making space for the possibility that any of the protesters were motivated by legitimate issues.

Such a uniformly hostile stance raises serious questions about the intellectual integrity and moral courage of those in leadership. If any Labor politicians privately disagreed with this narrative, their silence in the media speaks volumes. They lacked the conviction to speak up and challenge the party line.

But this kind of response wasn’t limited to Labor politicians.

If you take this away, what's left of free speech?

Victorian opposition leader Brad Battin also condemned the protests, citing concerns about what he described as “anti-Indian sentiment” in some of the promotional material. But this claim warrants closer scrutiny. The material in question, published on the March for Australia website, stated: “More Indians in 5 years than Greeks and Italians in 100”, referencing the rapid demographic change and its cultural impact. It also included a broader critique of Australia being treated as “an economic zone to be exploited by international finance”.

Equating this with anti-Indian sentiment misrepresents the argument. The point being raised is about the pace and scale of migration, not hostility toward a particular group. Discussing the cultural and economic implications of rapid demographic change is a valid area of public debate. To label such a basic level of conversation as inherently harmful is to be so over-sensitive as to leave no space for the public to practise freedom of speech in any practical way.

When politicians—Labor or otherwise—suggest that any call to reduce immigration is automatically an expression of hate or fear, they are not merely misrepresenting a policy view; they are actively silencing legitimate democratic expression. That is not leadership. It is a betrayal of the values of open debate, free speech, and democratic accountability.

Deceitful leaders are unfit for public office

Leaders who deliberately mischaracterise public dissent, smear large segments of the population as hateful, and refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of differing views are failing in their most basic duty to represent and respect the people. That failure makes them unfit for public office—not because of a specific policy stance, but due to contempt for truth and democracy.

Racism and fascism must be condemned without hesitation. But so too must political dishonesty. Democracy is undermined when valid concerns are dismissed as bigotry and citizens are slandered for participating in public debate. When politicians distort reality to control dissent, they don’t defeat extremism—they erode the trust and openness on which democracy depends.

Why have we learnt to tolerate lying politicians?

Australia has grown complacent, normalising blatant political dishonesty as mere “spin”. It's time to call it what it is - lying. Policitians who behave this way must be publicly shamed and voted out.

Politicians are not exempt from moral accountability. No political party, premier, minister, or opposition figure should be allowed to get away with shamelessly lying about public issues or recklessly defaming large segments of the population simply for exercising their democratic right to question government policy.

It should have been easy for politicians to make balanced, fair statements that acknowledge the full spectrum of views on immigration without condemning the innocent or condoning hate. For example:

In a vibrant democracy like ours, Australians hold a wide range of perspectives on immigration—from those advocating for more restrictive policies to those calling for greater openness. This diversity of opinion reflects our freedom to debate the future of our nation, and I respect the right of every Australian to participate in that conversation.

That said, let me be absolutely clear: while every citizen has the right to express their views, racism, white supremacy, and Nazi ideology have no place in Australia. These are not policy positions; they are direct assaults on the values that underpin our democracy—equality, dignity, and respect for all people.

Immigration policy should be shaped by facts, economic and social considerations, national security, and our commitment to human rights. We must make space for robust, respectful debate—including criticism of current immigration levels—without allowing it to become a vehicle for hatred or dehumanisation.

Australia’s identity has been deeply shaped by immigration. That doesn’t mean the system is perfect, nor that every concern is rooted in prejudice. But we must draw a clear line between legitimate policy debate and the rhetoric that divides us.

It's time to clear the political garbage

Too many politicians choose to whitewash immigration’s complexities, resort to falsehoods, undermine democracy, and vilify ordinary Australians exercising their democratic rights. By exaggerating racism in protests, they ironically fuel the fear and hate that they blame on ordinary protesters.

Australia must not tolerate such destructive leadership. Our future depends on genuine commitment to democratic values—qualities many politicians today lack due to their simplistic, polarising, arrogant, prejudiced and dishonest conduct.

-- James Brecknell, Sunday, August 31, 2025. Revised Tuesday, September 2, 2025.