They came at dawn on Anzac Day, to mock a commemoration sacred to many Australians, and particularly to reject the idea of being welcomed to this country.
If you have experience of political meetings, you should be familiar with this particular variety of disruption: a person who stands up to tell everyone that they don’t understand what’s really going on and demands that everyone confronts the grim reality they have uncovered.
In the old days these people might have talked about the “false consciousness” of their audience, borrowing from Marx; today they are more likely to say that they have been “red-pilled”, in a turn of phrase from The Matrix.
Anzac Day dawn service at the Shrine of Remembrance in Melbourne.Credit: Simon Schluter
But in recent years at council meetings, and again during this election campaign, this kind of disruption has taken a troubling turn. The person who aggressively insists that a meeting about public broadcasting at a library or about refugees at a church should turn its attention to the “real issue” – what stealing a corflute means for political integrity; the “correlation” between immigration and crime – is accompanied by a camera and sometimes a crew.
Instead of a plea to be heard, their presence becomes performative; it is about feeding the self-righteous rage of another audience, online.
The consequences for a democracy in which opportunities for open exchange between politicians and the public are already elusive could be profound. When Daniel Jones, who posts footage of himself online wielding knives, guns and rocket launchers, accosted Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in a Melbourne hotel, again accompanied by someone filming, attention immediately turned to the question of security.
This is not a spurious concern. While Jones and others have caused no physical harm and have not displayed any intent to cause physical harm to Albanese and other MPs, their ability to track down and approach the politicians highlighted the potential for serious harm.
Threats against politicians in Australia have soared of late, and it was in the similarly febrile atmosphere that surrounded Brexit in Britain that a man with far-right views claimed the life of Jo Cox, an MP about to meet her constituents in the time-honoured manner.
But is it really desirable – or indeed possible – for every public event in an election period to be given a police cordon? Do we want to become a society where council meetings require us to pass through security checks, or are only conducted remotely?
We must also consider the extent to which overt policing actually contributes to a narrative these agitators have pursued and which grew more prevalent during Victoria’s COVID lockdowns: that our liberal democracy is a sham, window dressing behind which lies a creeping dictatorship.
These are complex issues without simple solutions.
In the wake of the dawn service disruption, which involved a familiar cast of male far-right figures, it was notable that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton spoke up for the Welcome to Country and acknowledgment of Indigenous service in the armed forces. The Age disagreed with Dutton’s previous opposition to the Voice to parliament and intention not to stand beside the Aboriginal flag at press conferences, but commends his swift defence of Welcome to Country ceremonies today. He also rightly pointed out that many Australians fought against the Nazis.
“Welcome to Country is an important part of official ceremonies and it should be respected and I don’t agree with the booing and I don’t agree in our democracy that people can’t accept the views of others,” he told reporters in a short doorstop interview after an Anzac Day event in his home seat of Dickson.
During an election campaign generally dismissed as uninspiring, the disruptive methods favoured by the far right stand out. As the political class grows increasingly insular, the agitators’ claim to represent the working class is harder to contest.
Yet it must be contested. At a time when our society is working hard to address the representation of women and of minorities and consider serious questions about immigration, the rise of a movement devoted to a combative definition of masculinity and Australian nationhood, and to the narrative of a white race under threat, requires a considered and concerted response.
What we saw in the Kew Library in response to far-right activist Matt Trihey’s filmed appearance was not heartening. A shouting match punctuated by screams which leads to a woman attempting to strike him in the face cannot be the answer.
But in a society that values the right to protest and to speak, we have to identify the way in which Trihey and others like him are gaming the public space. For him to say, as he did while leaving the library meeting, that “I hope I haven’t spoiled your evening, guys. I just want answers on who’s going to act on crime” glosses over his aggressive, hectoring approach and what, if anything, he would consider a satisfactory “answer”.
At dawn on Anzac Day, we saw what this approach looks like when applied to a moment that is meant to be about coming together in respect and dignified silence. It is an affront to decency and to the esteem in which the community holds its history. But after the broken silence, we must find a way to commit to and build ways of talking to one another that promote mutual respect.
It is the view of this publication that there are cracks appearing in our society. Unless we can rediscover our currently endangered ability to disagree, debate and discuss issues respectfully, that problem will not improve.
Get a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up for our Opinion newsletter.