Melton residents protest Muslim immigration in August
Essential’s Peter Lewis described himself as “floored” by the result of the poll finding that 49% of respondents supported One Nation’s call for a ban on Muslim immigration. He says he had regarded Pauline Hanson as representing only a “marginalised rump, out of step with the views of mainstream, cosmopolitan Australia”.
But just as I was unsurprised by the return of One Nation to federal Parliament, I am unsurprised by the finding that Hanson’s call to ban Muslim immigration strikes a chord with a significant proportion of self-identified Coalition, ALP and Greens voters (I would also be unsurprised to find a broadly similar trend among Crikey readers). Anti-Muslim racism has long been the respectable dinner party racism — because (as we are tediously and endlessly told), it is not racism at all because Islam is a religion and not a race.
In attending far-right events over the past few years, I’ve been struck by how little distance there was between the racist rhetoric spouted from their platforms and the everyday vilification of Muslims undertaken by mainstream media and politicians.
The so-called patriots are not entirely wrong in their belief that they represent the “silent majority”. This level of support may not show up in the form of votes for One Nation (as disturbing as their return to Parliament may be). The major parties have taken enough of their concerns on board that their ideological fellow-travellers hardly need to migrate to the political fringe when they go to the ballot box.
It is interesting that the main reason cited in support of such a ban was Muslims alleged failure to integrate into Australian society. My own sense is that, in fact, the visible integration of Muslims is heightening the level of fear against us. “Failed” minorities may be regarded as a problem, but they are seldom seen as a threat.
The “failures” are safely isolated from the mainstream, where their ability to impose changes on “our” way of life is limited. However, the process of successful integration might enable the designated outsiders to invert the accepted hierarchy in which white, “mainstream” Australians always and forever set the terms and conditions under which people are tolerated within “our” society.
This helps to explain apparent contradictions: the election of Australia’s first female Muslim federal lower house MP as well as the return of Pauline Hanson, the Gold Logie award to a Muslim broadcaster as well as a poll suggesting that nearly half the population wants to ban any further immigration of his co-religionists.
A few token success stories are to be applauded as evidence of Australian tolerance — so long as we retain the right to say enough is enough. One small indicator what may be perceived as “failure to integrate” is the uptick in the number of people who question me about the reasons why I decline a glass of wine at social events. The questioning is never aggressive, but ordering a soft drink while others make their choice between red and white wine was a habit that had passed more or less without notice for years. Now it seems to generate a cooling of the mood, a sense of them and us.
Expressions of shock at the poll’s finding overlook the fact that Australia abandoned the principle of a non-discriminatory immigration policy in 2014 when the announcement of the special refugee intake from Syria and Iraq in response to the wave of sympathy to photographs of drowned toddler Alan Kurdi included a proviso that it would focus on “persecuted minorities”.
The fact that this includes persecuted Muslim minorities does not render it non-discriminatory. The head of the UNHCR’s office in Jordon noted in March that Australia’s preference for Christian refugees did not prioritise those most needy. Now Malcolm Turnbull’s announcement of an intake of refugees from Central America provides another means to decline further Muslim immigration while maintaining our threadbare claim to good international citizenship.
At least some of the 49% who supported a ban on Muslim immigration in the Essential poll last year probably lit a candle for Alan Kurdi. They might have voted for Waleed Aly to get a Gold Logie. And there is no particular cognitive dissonance involved. It’s all about who gets to stay in charge.
Dorothy Parker at “Loon Pond” [you can google it] reports daily on the rantings of the ‘reptiles’, those hate filled fanatics in the media, Murdoch publications in particular but not only, such as Bolt, Devine, Cater et al – far too many of them.
Every day several of these extremists are given forums that reach millions of Australians and every day they pontificate and obfuscate with their guiding theme being FUD about their chosen victims.
Xenophobia, racism, misogyny, class elitism and other nastiness in great smelly dollops into the eyes and ears of the public. Unrelenting.
Backed up by selective sensationalist hyperbolic misreporting.
As you say, I am ‘unsurprised’, by this poll result.
Quite.
I wonder if there’s actually been an uptick in questions addressed to you as to why you decline to drink wine, or whether you’re just more sensitive to it?
As an atheist of Northern European origin I’ve never received queries (or perhaps I don’t remember them?) why I decline to drink wine at social events. I just hate its taste. Given a choice I go for soft drink. Or water. Or nothing.
I can’t quite figure out why you went to the trouble of mentioning your Northern European origin, and then failed to consider that your Northern European appearance is exactly why you are not questioned about your teetotalism: people presume you don’t like the taste, are the designated driver, or are an alcoholic; not that you are (that much more frowned-upon thing) Muslim. Of course, you could be, but that is not the presumption, because people racialise Islam.
Sam,
I’m not teetotal. I just don’t like wine. Or beer. I once got queried at a social when I added orange juice to a very good expensive wine in order to make it drinkable for me. The only comments I have received otherwise at social events is regarding my choice of vegetarianism. I was once lectured by two Christians that according to the Bible eating meat is mandated by the Bible. And usually being a vegetarian is no problem, except for one occasion when I was served ham in a dish at a restaurant. And a Muslim in my party received exactly the same dish with ham too. I don’t know who was more upset.
My only point was – it may not a statistically significant result thinking that there’s been an uptick in comments about declining to drink wine as an indication that there’s been an increase in anti-Muslim sentiment. Memory is notoriously fallible and is often modified to suit a narrative.
I take opinion polls with a grain of salt particularly when they’re dealing with ethnic discrimination. There was the famous 1934 LaPiere study on discrimination in which a pair of Chinese-Americans attempted to obtain accommodation at 66 hotels and meals at 184 cafes and restaurants, and were rejected in 1 hotel and by none of the restaurants or cafes (receiving good service in almost half). In a follow up a questionnaire was sent out to the same establishments asking if they would accept members of ‘the Chinese race’ as guests. Of the 128 who replied, 92% answered ‘no’.
People might express xenophobic attitudes in an anonymous poll, but in real life situations they probably won’t (not to say that they mightn’t still have hidden racist opinions – sort of like Atticus Finch in ‘Go Set a Watchman’)
Maybe your meat loving Christian friends should give their lecture to some Seventh Day Adventist vegetarians instead who have garnered entirely the opposite view from the very same book. Which is entirely the problem with the religion thing, any one can read anything they want into the vague and self contradictory holy books and then claim they have a divine right to do whatever it is they want.
FWIW Shakira, I voice strong opinions on other forums that the ‘muslim terrorist’ malarkey is a tenth order issue. Sure it exists, but the chances of being taken by a shark exceed the chances of being the victim of a muslim terrorist by a wide margin. Why the hysteria, when the great terrorism in Australia, the one that claims a life every week, is domestic violence?
Oh but that’s ok, those terrorists are generally white males.
It doesn’t help much, but hey, it’s better than siding with the haters.
Haters? The ones that hate men?
I am surprised by the results of the poll. And digusted. It is clearly time that those who care step up to argue the case for an immigration policy that ignores the religion of applicants. The case has to be put, though, without abuse. There is a risk that if the people who are expressing these views cop abuse they will shift further to the right.
On ABC news at noon today there was a rather amusing piece about those 33% of Greens voters who supported the bacon Muslims. Apparently no one could believe it (Essential even did the poll twice, because they didn’t). So the ABC’s panicked reporters went out onto to the streets of Melbourne to find our typical Greens voters, who were all (predictably) totally horrified.
But I wasn’t, nor surprised by any of it. It’s not an opinion I share, but there is general growing hostility to immigration into this county, much of it fueled by the Greens themselves. Our cities are too crowded and population pressure is stoking overdevelopment they say, our fragile continent just can’t cope with people and their needs… The party doesn’t (directly) call for cuts in numbers, but their own campaigning on environmental issues directly suggests it, and goes into the mix as supporting anti-immigration sentiment.
Also, a large proportion of Greens votes are simply protest voters who don’t like the two major parties. In the 2013 election, a huge chunk of the Greens vote outside of their central Melbourne heartland simply vanished, and PUP’s rose proportionally. These people will just go to anyone perceived as anti-mainstream. Why be surprised that they are also bigots?
“ban on” not “bacon! Sorry, damn predictive txt-ing…
😀 Very Freudian slip-of-the-predictive text, that one!
Really???
Strange comment Teddy – somewhat at odds with the actual results in both your examples.
Lets look at the ER poll “Support for ban on Muslim immigration”
Greens 34%
ALP 40%
Others 58%
LNP 60%
Hmm, the Greens were least likely to support a ban.
In your terms they are actually the least “bigoted’ group.
Now lets look at Australian Electoral Office results for National Metro and Non-Metro first preference votes for the ALP and Greens in this last election – you know the one we just had, the ‘current’ situation more or less that is the background for the ER poll.
Metro
ALP 37.52% a swing of 1.24%
Greens 11.71% a swing of 1.69%
Non-Metro
ALP 30.34% a swing of 1.46%
Greens 8.18% a swing of 1.42%
[And the Greens performance in this category in NSW and Vic. was slightly above this national result]
Seems that whatever alleged ‘loss of non-metro votes’ you can assign to the Greens can equally validly be assigned to the ALP.
In point of fact both did slightly to moderately well in both categories