By political reporter Dan Conifer
Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party has copied slabs of text from the internet for some of its policies — including from Wikipedia.
Ms Hanson will this year return to Federal Parliament as a senator for Queensland after nearly two decades in the political wilderness.
During the campaign, Ms Hanson called for a ban on Muslim immigration to Australia, a royal commission into Islam and a ban on new mosques.
One Nation picked up nearly one in 10 Senate votes in Queensland.
The party claims it could also win Senate seats in several other states.
But chunks of the party’s policies on halal certification, sustainable development and medicinal cannabis have been copied off the internet.
Halal policy lifted from right-wing, anti-Islam groups
One part of One Nation’s policy on halal food — which links the religious blessing to terrorism financing — has been lifted from Frontpage Magazine — a right-wing American “battle tank, geared to fight a war” against the political left.
Another section of the halal certification policy comes from the website of the Q Society — an anti-Islamic group which organised for controversial Dutch MP Geert Wilders to visit Australia in 2012.
Position on Agenda 21 lifted from 5yo pamphlet
Part of One Nation's position on the Agenda 21 international sustainable development agreement is almost identical to a five-year-old pamphlet from US group The John Birch Society.
PM: Calls For Lehrmann To Pay Legal Costs, Rebel Wilson Memoir Allegations Redacted
The QuickyWhat Happened When Marian Keyes Couldn’t Write
No Filter
Top Comments
Surely there are meatier stories out there than about someone's plagiarism? It is pretty much standard practice these days with the internet.
1) To the person "guest" who thinks women are sheep and just follow other women I have news for you, we are thinking, intelligent humans who make our own minds up. Hanson is detrimental to the social fabric of society, for women, for men, for diversity, for intelligence, for sustainability, for social cohesion. Women don't support other women just because they are women - that is sexist and demeaning.
2) I don't care about her education level, as mentioned there are plenty of university educated bigots, that are cunning and dominate public policy (Safe Schools, national curriculum, funding for low socio economic people). I am not elitist and I care more about the dangerous links Hanson has not whether she can articulate or develop her own policies. Although the author makes a reference to Wikipedia being her one of her sources I consider the other sites way more troublesome. Ill informed is one thing, down right hate sites are another.
3) Why do so many men write on mm that obviously either show clear bias against women, have sexist views, or MRA agenda? I am curious why they are allowed to perpetuate stereotypes? Surely the email tree has been recognised and we can moderate them out of making demeaning comments? That is why we have moderation, right? Or is a site that says it targets women and mothers as an audience, obliged to contain women-hating bigotry? I have been on generally male dominated sites for technical things and I can tell you women are not there making sexist remarks against men!
I agree with your first two points, but regarding your third I think it's a good idea that these sexist men have their say (unless it's downright hate speech and/or violent) - it's important that everyone be allowed to share their view, and hopefully be educated by the replies that will no doubt follow it. Most likely they'll be keyboard warriors who ignore or fight back against any feedback, but others may learn better.
I am not against opinions. I am against organised campaigns to detract, dictate debates. I enjoy sharing of information and I have noticed a distinct anti women sentiment. Most men don't have this opinion so it is coming directly from the email trees that operate to hijack genuine opinions.
Sometimes I comment because I firmly believe in something.
Sometimes it's because I see someone say something stupid and I want to fight back against it.
Sometimes people will make blindingly awful arguments and I will comment so that they have to defend their position.
Going back to your original comment (part 3), I could certainly argue that even though this is a feminist website it should be obliged to cut out any man hating bigotry, as well as not be perpetuating stereotypes.
It's most obvious in a lot of the domestic violence articles. The stereotype is women are victims, men are perpetrators. Fully 1/3 of all victims are ignored, simply because they are men.
1) totally agree with you. I think your issue is with women who say things like there is a special place in hell for women who don't support other women in politics (re Clinton). Or, closer to home, write a response to Tanya Plibs MM piece http://www.mamamia.com.au/w...
2) totally agree with you.
3) ask the men why they comment, but be aware if you are new here a few regulars get instantly aggressive about men commenting. Not all, not many, but some.
I just want to understand if the negative media attacks on Hanson are warranted or are they driven by sexism?