The Sick Rush to Politicise the Haines Attack

“Blame Hanson. Find Evidence Later. The Sick Rush to Politicise the Haines Attack”

Blame Hanson. Find Evidence Later.

Nation First exposes the rush to weaponise the Haines attack against Pauline Hanson, conservative voices and men before investigators established a motive.

Helen Haines had barely reached hospital before her suffering became ammunition against Pauline Hanson, One Nation, conservative commentators and men generally. The accusations practically outran the investigation. Political opponents were being handed responsibility for an alleged crime without evidence connecting them to it.

• Politicians and commentators blamed One Nation without evidence linking it to the alleged attack on Helen Haines.

• Hanson’s cartoons became a convenient target while the motive remained unknown.

• Claims about male violence shifted attention towards collective blame.

• Police are reportedly examining whether a family dispute and possible psychotic episode explain the alleged targeting.

• Haines deserves justice, not a smear campaign conducted in her name.

Blaming One Nation Without Evidence

Labor MP for Macarthur Mike Freelander singled out “the disparaging and hateful rhetoric from fringe parties like One Nation”. ABC presenter Rafael Epstein asked whether One Nation amplified dangerous rhetoric. Victorian Premier Ben Carroll agreed its rhetoric could be dangerous.

But where was their evidence linking One Nation to what happened in Wangaratta?

The ABC advertised Carroll’s interview as “Premier calls out One Nation after attack on Helen Haines”. Its summary also said Carroll claimed misogyny contributed to the attack. A premier was offering an explanation while police were still investigating the motive.

Political commentator Niki Savva brought One Nation’s Please Explain cartoons into it on ABC News Daily. Discussing political rhetoric and cartoons targeting Andrew Hastie and Jacqui Lambie, she said such behaviour gave “all the maddies licence to think that it’s OK to abuse politicians”.

Crikey politics editor Bernard Keane acknowledged the motive was unknown, then singled out Hanson as the country’s foremost contributor to a darker political atmosphere anyway. He highlighted the attack occurring on the day she defended the Lambie cartoon. As if putting two events beside each other in a hardly-read blog establishes that one caused the other. What it does do, though, is plant a politically convenient suspicion in the minds of the silly and the Left (but I repeat myself).

Enter Exhibit A as proof of such left-wing nonsense. The Socialist Alliance’s Sue Bolton and Sarah Hathway warned against weaponising the attack, then dragged in right-wing influencers, the manosphere and One Nation as those to blame.

From Political Rhetoric to Collective Blame

Cheek Media chief Hannah Ferguson supplied another ready-made explanation. On the Seven Network’s Sunrise, she said the attack spoke to “a bigger issue of male violence against women in Australia”. But identifying the gender of the accused and victim establishes neither motive nor collective responsibility. Men across Australia do not owe an explanation for an individual’s alleged crime. Treating their gender as the explanation is a red herring.

Ferguson’s own posturing deserves particular scrutiny. After Charlie Kirk’s killing, she asked: “Must we condemn every act of political violence?” and then suggested it was sometimes OK. Someone who entertains that notion should examine their own words before prescribing better behaviour to everyone else.

The Evidence Points Elsewhere

Meanwhile, Haines’ alleged attacker, Brendan Nugent, has a documented background that includes anti-logging activism, climate campaigning, left-wing agitation, and even political support for Helen Haines. Yet somehow Hanson is to blame. Or conservatives on social media. Or all Australian men.

The Australian reports that investigators are examining a family-related motive: whether Nugent experienced a psychotic episode and targeted Haines as a substitute for a relative amid hostility towards his father and stepmother, her longstanding friends.

So, a political grievance against One Nation is not evidence. A dislike of conservative commentary online is not evidence. And being male is not evidence of a shared culpability.

Helen Haines deserves justice. Pauline Hanson, conservative Australians and Australian men in general deserve to be spared a smear campaign conducted in her name.

---

Republished with thanks to Nation First.

---

ODM Daily Commentary

Let’s be honest: the rush to blame Pauline Hanson for the attack on Helen Haines was disgusting. It was a smear campaign dressed up as moral concern. And it revealed more about the accusers than it did about the alleged attacker.

The article from Nation First exposes the hypocrisy. Helen Haines had barely reached hospital before politicians and commentators were pointing fingers. Labor MP Mike Freelander blamed “the disparaging and hateful rhetoric from fringe parties like One Nation.” ABC presenter Rafael Epstein asked whether One Nation amplified dangerous rhetoric. Victorian Premier Ben Carroll agreed. Niki Savva brought One Nation’s cartoons into it. Bernard Keane singled out Hanson as the country’s foremost contributor to a darker political atmosphere. Hannah Ferguson blamed “male violence against women.”

But where was the evidence? There was none. The alleged attacker, Brendan Nugent, had a documented background that included anti-logging activism, climate campaigning, left-wing agitation, and even political support for Helen Haines. Police are reportedly examining whether a family dispute and possible psychotic episode explain the alleged targeting. Yet somehow Hanson was to blame. Or conservatives. Or all Australian men.

The article rightly calls out the double standard. Hannah Ferguson, who blamed male violence, had previously asked after Charlie Kirk’s killing: “Must we condemn every act of political violence?” and suggested it was sometimes OK. That is the hypocrisy of the Left. They condemn violence when it suits their narrative. They excuse it when it doesn’t.

The comment section is scathing. One reader calls it “derangement syndrome.” Another says the blame is always on “old white blokes.”

So here is the challenge: demand evidence before accusation. Refuse to participate in smear campaigns. And defend the innocent—including Pauline Hanson and Australian men—from collective blame.

Blame Hanson. Find evidence later. That is the Left’s playbook. And it is despicable.

---

Keywords: Helen Haines, Pauline Hanson, One Nation, Wangaratta, Brendan Nugent, political violence, smear campaign, collective blame, male violence, Mike Freelander, Rafael Epstein, Ben Carroll, Niki Savva, Bernard Keane, Crikey, Socialist Alliance, Sue Bolton, Sarah Hathway, Hannah Ferguson, Cheek Media, Sunrise, Charlie Kirk, The Australian, psychotic episode, family dispute, Nation First, evidence, justice