Comparing Craig Kelly controversy to plight of Myanmar’s Aung San Suu Kyi a bridge too far

Member for Hughes Craig Kelly in the House of Representatives at Parliament House on February 4. Picture: Sam Mooy/Getty Images

A prominent conservative commentator, albeit less prominent these days than he used to be, just this week claimed that the left is trying to silence maverick Liberal MP Craig Kelly the same way the military junta in Myanmar is seeking to silence the now arrested former leader Aung San Suu Kyi.

Talk about false equivalence. There really is no comparison. Kelly of course has been spruiking his alternative ways of combating coronavirus, which put him at odds with Australian medical experts and his Prime Minister.

Why is it false equivalence? One person has received more free media in the past two weeks than any other elected MP in this country, the other has been arrested in a bid to prevent her from running at upcoming elections.

One MP operates within a robust democracy and continues to be interviewed rather than silenced, the other has been put in isolation unable to speak to her people.

The problem with false equivalence is that it undermines both the cause it seeks to amplify and that which it uses as a point of comparison. It’s proponents don’t care about the latter effect, but they probably don’t realise the former as undermining their own cause.

The plight of Aung San Suu Kyi shouldn’t be demeaned with such a false comparison.

And the serious ways in which we can review the growing tendency to mock contrary views to the conventional wisdom, such as that of Kelly, isn’t benefited by false equivalence.

It simply adds to the mockery by the mainstream and the intelligentsia.

Unfortunately in modern politics and public policy debates, lazy over inflated false equivalence is becoming increasingly common. It is a technique that amplifies outrage and hence plays out perfectly for shock jocks on both sides.

It isn’t a technique only the conservative right uses by the way. Sections of the left engage in it as well, when they compare mavericks on the right to more extreme right wing figures from history for example, or indeed events that have shaped history for the worse.

Such comparisons when used need to be well established and contextualised.

In an era where clicks and eyeballs drawn to overstatement is increasingly common, and logic and rationality are waning, false equivalence grows. It thrives on stupidity and an inability to take a step back and make assessments free from rhetorical overload.

A commentator who engages in false equivalence is as bad as a politician who uses hate speech or a sportsperson who cheats to win. If you found yourself agreeing with that sentence I’m not sure you’ve taken in much of what was pointed out above.

Peter van Onselen is a professor of politics and public policy at the University of Western Australia and Griffith University.