Dutton, Trump, Sherry Sufi: Facts the first casualty of media elite’s war

There is a great and pernicious divide in Australia. It is not between the eastern seaboard and the western plains, or between the rich and poor, city and country, black and white, or even between established citizens and refugees. The divide is between the political/media class and the mainstream.

There is a gulf between those who consider themselves superior to the masses and want to use the nation’s status to parade their post-material concerns, and those who do the work and raise the families that make the nation what it is.

In this election we are seeing the chasm open up, like a parting of the seas, as the media elites and their preferred left-of-centre politicians seek to determine what issues should be decisive. They lecture and hector the mainstream. Worse, they try to dictate what facts can even be discussed. They seek to silence dissent. They have compiled an informal list of unmentionables, facts that should not be uttered: the truths whose name we dare not speak.

One of these, as we saw this week, is the lack of education and employment prospects for many refugees who are settled in Australia. Never mind that Labor’s own policy documents say a third of humanitarian migrants “speak little or no English” and that refugees “show higher levels of unemployment”. Never mind, either, that government studies show one in every 10 refugee men and one in every five women has never been to school. Apparently we should not mention such things because it will incite the ignorant masses.

“The cynicism and dishonesty with which the Coalition government is seeking to create and fan irrational fears about people seeking asylum is as shameful as it is absurd,” The Age thundered in an editorial. “(Immigration Minister Peter Dutton) knows full well that demonising refugees, belittling them as humans and rejecting their potential contribution to Australia will always create just the sort of feral outbreak and evocation of Pauline Hanson that we saw following his comments,” The Sydney Morning Herald screamed.

Australians are not fearful; nor are they monochromatic or prone to demonising people. Press gallery journalists talked about “toxic” politics and “dog whistles” and “scaremongering” and even “arsehattery”. Dutton and Malcolm Turnbull said look at the facts.

The mainstream saw confected outrage on the television news, with Bill Shorten and others saying refugees and migrants had been insulted, while media celebrities joined in to trumpet their moral virtue. Back in their lounge rooms, mainstream voters must have shrugged their shoulders and wondered what planet these people live on.

We are talking about the “permanent oppositional moral political community” — so named by one of their ilk, Robert Manne. It is populated by progressive politicians, academics and activists; most journalists, certainly from the public broadcasters, Fairfax Media and the Canberra press gallery, defer to this group or aspire to membership.

Untrammelled by concerns about power bills, job security, mortgage stress or school fees, these elites choose to focus on saving: saving the planet, saving the refugees and saving the ABC. They love to talk about how Australia will be viewed overseas. They shudder at the thought of continental sophisticates thinking poorly of their nation. And they fear the Brits will think we haven’t changed since Clive James and Germaine Greer fled.

Bill Leak brilliantly exposed their conceit last year in a prescient cartoon about how the Europeans, confronted by tragedy and chaos, decided they, too, needed to stop the boats. Leak drew a couple at a Parisian cafe reading about the boats being stopped. “It makes me feel ashamed to be European,” says a bloke in a beret. Waving her Gitanes, his companion replies, “What will the Australians think?”

It is all about moral vanity, public gesture and the politics of identity. Certain facts or views will disrupt the picture these people have of themselves. It is difficult for them to display their tolerance and sophistication except by condemning those who don’t measure up. They look to take offence and public shaming becomes virtue signalling.

This week, Dutton and the facts were sacrificed so thousands of others could display their superiority. Intelligent debate about a real issue was thrown overboard.

Other topics are marshalled just as assiduously.

Don’t mention that owing to Australia emitting just 1.3 per cent of global emissions, there is nothing our carbon tax, or direct action, can do to save the planet. You will be shouted down as a “denier”.

Don’t oppose gay marriage, you’ll be homophobic.

Mention that terrorists who shot defenceless innocents on our streets were Islamist extremists and you are as likely as not to be accused of Islamophobia. Quickly, our politicians become disinclined to utter these salient facts.

The political/media class chooses its villains and its victims. It fights Islamist terrorism with hashtags such as #Illridewithyou or #bringbackourgirls. It is all about the vibe of the thing.

We see the same in the US where Donald Trump is despised by this same clique. Their disdain fuels his popularity. There might be plenty to dislike but his critics shouldn’t get to choose their facts.

Trump, for instance, is constantly derided for provocative statements about building a wall on the Mexican border. The reality, of course, is that such a wall already, effectively, exists. Just look at the fortifications in border cities such as Brownsville and El Paso. His hare-brained scheme is to extend or reinforce it and send the bill south — yet how the commentators rant about a wall that is already there.

When the Prime Minister vis­ited Fremantle this week and his team stiff-armed the local Liberal candidate, we were led to believe he must be quite an outlier.

Pakistani-born Sherry Sufi ordinarily might be a media favourite but he was condemned for his views on gay marriage and reconciliation. Chase down his apparent sins and you find his views are unremarkable.

“Redefining marriage comes with further implications for the society at large,” he wrote a few years ago, suggesting others might push for polygamy. “Doing so once on the basis of gender inevitably sets a precedent inviting the advocacy of further redefinition on the basis of quantity.”

He also publicly opposed constitutional recognition for indigenous Australians, labelling it “a divisive, political move”.

Agree or disagree, these are legitimate views and deserve to be heard. On both issues, his party believes every Australian should have a free vote. My hunch is that more mainstream Australians would disagree with Sufi than agree. But, for certain, an overwhelming majority would back his right to hold and express such views without being shouted down or forced into silence by those who say they know better.

Still, he has quit, falling, no doubt, into the great divide.