Recently I have put online a number of articles, some written by me, some to which I merely add comments:
From Paris to Adelaide https://main.cse-initiative.eu/?p=1963
Greece and the Global South https://main.cse-initiative.eu/?p=1873
Στα ελληνικά
1. Από το Παρίσι στην Αδελαϊδα
https://main.cse-initiative.eu/?p=1967
2. Η Ελλάδα και ο Παγκόσμιος Νότος
https://main.cse-initiative.eu/?p=1969
The next one is not online:
https://cairnsnews.org/2026/10/20/helen-haines-mhr-in-critical-condition-after-being-hit-by-a-car/
By George Christensen
Indi MHR Helen Haines hit by car in front of her electorate office in alleged targeted attack
Political violence must be condemned. It must also be understood. Asking why people threaten politicians does not excuse the threats, any more than investigating the causes of crime excuses criminals.
The latest reported total number of threats against public office holders rose from 951 to 1,067, an increase of 116, or 12.2 percent. These figures encompass reports of harassment, nuisance, offensive behaviour and threats. They are not just a tally of physical attacks. Nonetheless, the longer-term increase is substantial: the AFP reported 555 incidents in 2021–22, compared with 1,067 in 2025–26. That is an increase of 512, a near doubling, in just four years.
That demands a serious explanation. What has happened to the relationship between Australians and their political representatives and government officials?
The AFP’s own threat assessment identifies economic pressures, including inflation, interest rates and living costs, among factors capable of driving threatening behaviour. Are Australians becoming increasingly hostile because they believe politicians ignore their problems? Has trust deteriorated because people feel that decisions affecting their homes, livelihoods and communities are imposed without meaningful consent?
One X commentator identifying as an Indi local described the alleged attack on Haines as horrifying, but outlined how local farmers confronting solar, wind, battery and transmission developments felt abandoned by their representative. That comment doesn’t establish the driver’s motive, but it does raise a legitimate question: do affected Australians believe their representatives are listening and delivering results?
People can condemn violence while demanding answers about land, livelihoods and government decisions. Peaceful grievances do not become illegitimate because somebody commits a dreadful act.
Nor should conservatives accept collective blame for the alleged Haines attack, as left-wing agitators online and commentators in the mainstream media have already begun to ascribe. Even Albanese and other politicians are dog-whistling this line when they talk about lowering the temperature of political debate and the like.
Anyone proposing to blame One Nation or ardent conservatives in general for this incident is engaging in dangerous rhetoric themselves: they are trying to criminalise an entire political movement. The voting patterns and concerns of the alleged attacker do not make any political party or movement guilty of any offence, otherwise, by the same standards, all Muslims would stand condemned by the actions of one Islamist terrorist.
What of heated political rhetoric, though?
Well, at Queensland Labor’s conference on 30 August, Albanese described hard-right populists as peddling politics that was “dangerous, divisive, and downright dishonest”, before discussing One Nation. The following day, Attorney-General Michelle Rowland associated elements of One Nation with extremist and neo-Nazi views. As a proponent of free speech, I have no qualms with politicians using tough language to criticise their opponents, but their own language must also be examined when they demand that everyone else lower the temperature.
And the insinuation that right-wingers are the sole purveyors of violence in Australia is demonstrably false. I have personal experience of political intimidation from the Left.
On the Sunday after the 2022 federal election, I went to Brisbane’s Breakfast Creek Hotel with then One Nation state MP Stephen Andrew. A horde of unionists were there celebrating Albanese’s victory. While we were peacefully enjoying XXXX Bitter off the wood keg in the front bar, an angry unionist confronted me and wanted a fight. The harassment became serious enough that security had to be called.
Stephen and I moved to the restaurant area at the back. Several more angry unionists confronted us there, also wanting a fight. And why? Because of our conservative politics. Eventually, I left the pub earlier than I had planned in order to avoid an altercation.
Years earlier, at a town hall meeting in Bowen, I recall a Greens supporter laying hands on my wife and telling her our children would suffer because of me. My office also received a steady stream of threats of violence, including death threats, pretty much entirely from people outside my electorate.
Those experiences are why I reject any suggestion that intimidation belongs exclusively to one political camp. No politician’s wife deserves to be harassed. A One Nation representative deserves to enjoy dinner without being threatened. Helen Haines deserves to go about her work in safety.
Political leaders must condemn violence consistently, police must establish the facts of the alleged Haines attack, and elected representatives must take peaceful grievances seriously. Australians should never have to choose between their safety and their right to participate in politics.
Police investigating the attack this morning advised the alleged driver had undergone a mental health check but no results have been released.
No motive has yet been given however Helen Haines supports Teals voting mainly along Greens agenda and is a climate cataclysm cultist hence she could have been targeted because of widespread environmental destruction of valuable farmland and native forests in Victoria caused by reckless renewables. – Ed
22nd October 2026
This was posted this morning by Morgan Begg of the Institute of Public Affairs in Canberra:
“There is no obvious link between (Brendan Nugent’s beliefs) and what took place. ” “There is no actual evidence that the attack was motivated by politics or ideology.”
Response” What is obvious to me is that a person who does not want to find evidence will not find evidence. And looking for personal links will not necessarily help detect idological links.
Comment from W.Hall at the Cairns News.org site:
Readers of “Cairns News.org” seem to be more adept at linking what is linkable than frequenters of the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) in Canberra.
What is the IPA “view”? Reactive mode, implicitly defending through mentioning (and then “opposing”).
“The horrific attack on Helen Haines this week shocked many because violence has thankfully never been a feature of Australia’s political tradition.
A range of theories have been put forward to explain why Brendan Nugent allegedly repeatedly drove into Haines, with the most credible explanation (at the time of writing) suggesting a combination of mental illness and drug use, with a personal connection between the alleged assailant and the victim possibly providing the motive.
But there is no actual evidence that the attack was motivated by politics or ideology. According to this social media posts, Nugent has apparently held a grab bag of eclectic left of centre beliefs, and there is no obvious link between them and what took place.”
Request to Morgan Begg
Begging you, Morgan, broaden your terms of reference.
W.H.
In Relation to “From Paris to Adelaide” (and might I add that in late 1971 I myself moved, precisely, from Paris to Adelaide, and in Adelaide joined the Australian Labor Party (for a few months).
In late October 2026 I received this e-mail from Sotiris Hadzimanolis the editor of the Greek-Australian newspaper Neos Kosmos.
Καλημέρα σας,
Ποιος είναι ο συντάκτης του άρθρου; Το στείλατε για δημοσίευση στην εφημερίδα μας;
Με εκτίμηση,
Σωτήρης Χατζημανώλης
(Good morning, Who wrote this article? Did you send it for publication in our newspaper? Sincerely, Sotiris Hadzimanolis)
Imagining, in my enthusiasm, that some of my thoughts were finally going to get an airing on (by my modest standards) a relatively high-circulation outlet, I was pleased about this.
But alas, Sotiris was just “fishing”, as became evident in something he immediately then published at “Neos Kosmos.”
Here is an extract:
Ένα από τα πιο έντονα θέματα του φόρουμ ήταν η αυξανόμενη απήχηση του One Nation, ακόμη και μεταξύ ψηφοφόρων με μεταναστευτικό υπόβαθρο. Οι υποψήφιοι κλήθηκαν να εξηγήσουν πώς ερμηνεύουν την τάση αυτή, τι αποκαλύπτει για την εμπιστοσύνη των πολιτών στα παραδοσιακά κόμματα και ποιες θα μπορούσαν να είναι οι συνέπειες για την πολυπολιτισμική κοινωνία της Βικτώριας.
Να σημειώσουμε εδώ ότι ο Νέος Κόσμος είχε προσκαλέσει και το Ένα Έθνος (One Nation) αλλά δεν υπήρξε ανταπόκριση εκ μέρους της παράταξης.
Η ανεξάρτητη υποψήφια στο Malvern, Christina Zigouras, συνέδεσε την ενίσχυση του One Nation με το αίσθημα απογοήτευσης που, όπως είπε, επικρατεί σε τμήματα της κοινωνίας. Κατά την εκτίμησή της, αρκετοί πολίτες αισθάνονται ότι έχουν εγκαταλειφθεί, απομονωθεί ή αγνοηθεί από τα κόμματα που παραδοσιακά διεκδικούν την ψήφο τους.
“One of the most prominent topics at the forum was the growing appeal of One Nation, even amongst voters with an immigrant background. The candidates were asked to explain how they interpreted this trend, what it reveals about citizens’ trust in the traditional parties, and what the consequences might be for Victoria’s multicultural society.
It should be noted here that Neos Kosmos had also invited One Nation, but there was no response from the party.
Christina Zigouras, the independent candidate in Malvern, linked the rise of One Nation to a sense of disillusionment which, she said, prevails in sections of society. In her view, many citizens feel they have been abandoned, marginalized or ignored by the parties that traditionally seek their vote.”
So it is not only Sotiris Hadzimanolis who doesn’t want certain ideas to get a hearing. “One Nation” doesn’t either. But there is a difference. Hadzimanolis evidently wants to impose “diversity” (selectively). “One Nation” wants to impose unity. Each wants to ignore the other.
It seems that for me Christina Zigouras is the only possible interlocutor. Though to be honest I talk to “One Nation” also because they seem more genuinely interested in what I say.
Are they potentially interested in the Ioannis Capodistrias story also?