Unlike the corporate-owned press, Green Left Weekly has never been supportive of Pauline Hanson or her racist politics. Quite the opposite — we have actively built opposition to the kind of racist scapegoating that Hanson peddles.
This newspaper opposed Hanson's proposal to refuse asylum to refugees if they protest, and we oppose it now that it's Prime Minister John Howard and Opposition leader Kim Beazley's policy.
We opposed her proposal to destroy Abstudy, and we opposed it when Howard all but did so, just as we opposed the de-funding of the Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander Commission when it was Hanson's policy and when it became Howard's policy.
When the Murdoch and Fairfax press gave Hanson uncritical reportage, and condemned any who dared to protest outside her meetings, we saluted those who protested against her and the inaction of the mainstream "political establishment" against her racism.
We took this line because we believe that Hansonism can be, and will be, defeated politically — through open, mass opposition to the blame-refugees-and-Aborigines politics that she represents.
We do not believe that Hansonism can be, or should be, defeated by bureaucratic and undemocratic manouevring.
On June 5, Pauline Hanson and former One Nation director David Ettridge were served with summonses for fraud. They will appear in Brisbane's magistrates' court on July 31. The offence carries a 10-year jail term — under federal election regulations, Hanson will be disqualified from sitting in the senate if convicted, regardless of what penalty is actually awarded.
The fraud charges are related to a 1999 Supreme Court decision that One Nation was fraudulently registered as a political party — following which Hanson repaid $500,000 to the Queensland Electoral Commission.
Hanson attempted to get leave to appeal the decision, when she was informed that if she did, she would not be able to stand in the federal election. She abandoned the appeal.
This deregistration was based on irregularities in the membership records of One Nation.
Under the One Nation constitution, members had to be nominated and seconded by an existing member. The Supreme Court found that the "members" whose details were supplied to the electoral commission had not undergone this process, and were therefore not actually members of One Nation.
One of the issues in registering One Nation was the initial desire by Hanson, Ettridge and former One Nation director David Oldfield, to set up an undemocratic constitution for the party.
Now, it is the informed opinion of this newspaper that to join an undemocratic party is foolish — whether that party is openly undemocratic like One Nation, or surreptitiously undemocratic like the ALP (anyone say branch stacking?) or the Liberals ("mean", "tricky" and "out of touch"?).
But, if a party provides its members with the constitution and people still join it — why should anyone then have the power to deny that party, and its members, the same status as other parties?
There has been a worrying trend over the last decade for governments to install increased hurdles for small parties to jump in order to be officially registered as a political party.
Carried out in the name of "democracy", these changes, including increased costs to register, increased paperwork and increased numbers of members willing to have their details scrutinised by state agencies, have made it harder for smaller and poorer parties to get registration.
Without registration, a party cannot get its name printed on a ballot paper next to the name of its candidate. Nor is it eligible to receive electoral funding, a system already thoroughly skewed towards the major parties.
John Howard has claimed that the fraud charges against Hanson are not politically motivated. It appears clear, however, that they result from breaches of electoral registration. The timing of the charges raises questions about the underlying motives of the police.
This is not the way to beat Hanson. Firstly, to support the use of electoral regulations against a small party will also empower the government to use such regulations against all small parties. This could make it very difficult for parties unfamiliar with the political process to contest elections in future.
Secondly, it does not tackle the politics of frustration that Hanson feeds off. Howard, Beazley, Packer and Murdoch know this very well.
Their anti-Hanson campaign — supported by the Australian police force — is aimed at cowing a divisive and uncontrollable individual, while leaving her politics of hate and working-class division intact.
We don't want Hanson — but neither do we want Bob Katter, Graeme Campbell or David Oldfield. And the only way to make sure that doesn't happen is to organise a left-wing, anti-corporate political alternative. And you won't see the Australian supporting that.