A Free Speech Defence of Hanson's Film, and a Rejection of the Cult of No-Offence, By Tom North

Whether you love Pauline Hanson, hate her, or simply enjoy a cheeky cartoon, one thing should be obvious: a democracy that cannot tolerate satire is a democracy in trouble.

The decision to ban the screening of A Super Progressive Movie inside Parliament House is not simply an administrative call. It is an unmistakable cultural signal. It tells Australians that their Parliament — the building that belongs to all of us — now operates under a new philosophy: free speech is acceptable only when it offends the "right" people.

A drag performance in the committee room? Fine. A politically charged smoking ceremony? Routine. But an animated parody poking fun at modern progressivism? Suddenly, that's a threat to "parts of the Australian community."
Apparently, satire must now pass an ideological purity test.

The Cult of No-Offence

Every society needs guardrails against genuine incitement, but the modern offence-culture goes far beyond protection. It elevates hurt feelings into a form of political power — a kind of public veto over expression. It creates an atmosphere where the fear of offending anyone at all is treated as a higher value than open debate, dissent, or humour.

This "cult of no-offence" has two predictable outcomes:

1.It infantilises the public, treating citizens as so fragile that even cartoons must be vetted by bureaucrats.

2.It empowers gatekeepers, who then decide whose voices matter and whose satire is "unacceptable."

And here's the obvious asymmetry:
The Left is allowed to offend conservatives every single day.
They can mock religion, mock patriotism, mock tradition, mock average Australians, and that is considered healthy democratic discourse.

But when the political class gets lampooned?
When progressive orthodoxy is parodied?
When cultural dogmas are questioned?
Suddenly we get bureaucratic panic and letters warning about "potential offence."

Democracy Requires Thick Skin

The entire point of satire — from Shakespeare to The Chaser — is to offend. To ridicule power, hypocrisy, and political absurdity. It is one of the most effective tools for social commentary in a free society.

If Parliament can't handle a cartoon, then the problem isn't the cartoon.
The problem is Parliament.

A Senate that can withstand fierce debate, policy clashes, and national crises ought to be able to withstand drawings on a screen. If elected representatives and public servants are genuinely distressed by fictional characters poking fun at them, then perhaps they are in the wrong line of work.

Consistency or Nothing

If Parliament House truly wants a no-offence policy, then be consistent:

• Ban all political satire.
• Ban all activist displays.
• Ban all ideological art and performances.
• Ban smoking ceremonies, drag shows, and anything else that might offend some Australians.

But they won't, because this has nothing to do with neutrality. It's about protecting one set of cultural sensibilities while dismissing others outright.

The Bigger Picture

This incident fits a broader pattern that many Australians have noticed:

• Conservative speech is policed.
• Progressive speech is celebrated.
• Political satire is allowed only if it punches in the "approved direction."

When a government institution starts deciding which jokes the public is allowed to hear, that is not progress — it is fragility disguised as principle.

And in this case, the irony is almost too perfect:
A satirical film mocking cancel culture gets… cancelled!

Why This Film Matters

Whether or not one agrees with Pauline Hanson's politics is irrelevant. The principle at stake is universal: a democratic nation cannot allow political expression to be filtered through an offence-avoidance bureaucracy.

Australians are not children.
We can watch a cartoon.
We can laugh, criticise, debate, or ignore it.
That's what free people do.

If the guardians of Parliament can't handle a joke, maybe the joke is on them.