‘Hanson’s conduct badly erodes the fairness and acceptance which has for so long been part of modern Australia.’Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAP Tom McIlroy It is remarkable just how little reaction the latest incendiary video released by Pauline Hanson attracted this week.

Drawing generously from a campaign commercial released by Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, earlier this year, Hanson’s ad for next month’s Victorian state election shows a family of supposedly inner-city Melbourne progressives who come out to each other as secret conservatives.

Perhaps the least surprising element is the inclusion of a series of racist tropes – including a young African man wielding a machete and a Middle Eastern-looking bloke wearing an explosives vest. Derogatory depictions of Indians and Indigenous Australians are included for good measure.

Despite One Nation leading in the polls and Hanson moving steadily up rankings of the country’s preferred prime minister, the video complete with the slogan “Take Victoria Back”, barelyed beyond social media.

After 30 years of offensive statements and stunts about race and religion, maybe Hanson and One Nation have lost some of their ability to shock.

It was one of those statements that landed Hanson in the federal court in 2024 where she was found to have breached the Racial Discrimination Act In August, Hanson flagged she would ask the high court of Australia to overturn the ruling that found that she had racially discriminated against Greens senator Mehreen Faruqi by telling her to “piss off back to Pakistan”.

The dispute dates back to early September 2022 and the death of Queen Elizabeth II. Responding to the news, Faruqi wrote on social media that she could not “mourn the leader of a racist empire built on stolen lives, land and wealth of colonised peoples”.

Matching the opportunism, Hanson replied that Faruqi’s attitude was appalling and disgusting, sharing the post with her legion of followers.

“When you immigrated to Australia you took every advantage of this country,” she wrote. “You took citizenship, bought multiple homes, and a job in a parliament. It’s clear you’re not happy, so pack your bags and piss off back to Pakistan.”Faruqi took legal action against Hanson over the comments, and in November 2024 the One Nation leader was found to have breached section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. The provision makes it unlawful for someone to act in a way that is reasonably likely to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” someone because of their race or ethnicity.

Long a cause célèbre for champions of free speech, debate about changing 18C consumed the Liberal party during the Abbott and Turnbull governments. The following provision of the act, section 18D, outlines a series of exemptions designed to protect freedom of speech, including by ensuring that artistic works, scientific debate and fair comment on matters of public interest are exempt, providing they are said or done reasonably and in good faith.

In Hanson’s case, the court deemed the comments were anti-Muslim or Islamophobic, even as Hanson argued she did not know Faruqi was a Muslim, something the judge found “overwhelmingly” improbable.

Hanson’s initial appeal failed as the full federal court found her comments were offensive, insulting, humiliating and intimidating to Faruqi, as well as migrants to Australia, Australians of relatively recent migrant heritage, and to Muslims.

The Human Rights Commission argues section 18C fills an important gap in legal protection for those affected by racial hatred and vilification, noting courts have held that for conduct to be covered, it must involve “profound and serious” effects and not “mere slights”.

Former prime minister Tony Abbott and the constitutional law expert Anne Twomey are among those advocating for the court to take up Hanson’s appeal in the case, though for different reasons. Twomey has called the federal court decision contradictory and “muddy” in parts. She warned that important constitutional issues related to 18C have not been given proper analysis Hanson has indicated her appeal is based on the fact that the high court has never ruled on whether section 18C is constitutionally valid, arguing it burdens political speech and the free flow of information between citizens of the country and representatives they elect to make laws.

While revisiting the controversy will be painful and expensive, including for Faruqi herself, the question should be settled by the court. Free speech is a bedrock of our political system, but it is badly misused by Hanson.

Possible appeal aside, Hanson’s comments about Faruqi appear plainly designed to offend, insult and ridicule, just like so many of her recent stunts and rhetoric. Worse, Hanson’s conduct badly erodes the fairness and acceptance which has for so long been part of modern Australia.

The standard for protected political communication should be a lot higher than juvenile statements based on someone’s race or nationality, even before you consider how unbecoming such speech is for a political leader who aspires to become prime minister. It is notable how often some other politicians avoid directly criticising Hanson, plainly for fear of alienating her supporters.

Hanson and One Nation are the most skilled practitioners today of this powerful strain of politics, using AI videos and inflammatory social media posts to whip up anger and animus for electoral gain. Migrants and multicultural communities should have adequate protection against such behaviour.

Given One Nation’s position in the polls, the Victorian campaign will serve as a preview of the next federal election, coinciding with a three-way race by the major parties to cut immigration, harnessing voters’ anger over the high cost of living and growing population pressures.

Whatever the outcome of Hanson’s high court action and the future of section 18C, conduct like last weekend’s video shouldn’t be considered normal for a political party claiming to be part of the mainstream. Tom McIlroy is Guardian Australia’s political editor