The Guardian thought it had Pauline Hanson. It ran the Socceroos star Awer Mabil calling her monoculture argument "bullshit", framed as the diverse national team putting the One Nation leader in her place. Then its own readers got hold of the comment section, and started kicking their own goals.
What Pauline Hanson actually said about the Socceroos
Hanson used the national team as her example on purpose. Following her National Press Club address in June, she said the Socceroos "represent my vision" of a monocultural Australia, describing people of different backgrounds uniting under one flag.
That's the distinction she's drawn from the start. Australia is multiracial, people from everywhere, and she has no problem with that. Her argument is that they unite under one flag, one anthem and one set of rules, which is monoculture, not multiculturalism.
Video: Pauline Hanson's Please Explain / YouTube. Senator Pauline Hanson lays out her case for a monocultural Australia in the Senate, the speech in which she named the Socceroos, many backgrounds under one flag, as her example.
The Guardian and Awer Mabil swung back
Mabil, who was born in a Kenyan refugee camp to South Sudanese parents, migrated to Australia as a child and was named the 2023 Young Australian of the Year, wasn't having it. Speaking at Adelaide airport after the team's World Cup exit to Egypt, he said the suggestion Australia isn't multicultural was "just all bullshit".
"Australia is very inclusive, includes everybody. That's what the Socceroos is," he said. "If anybody's trying to divide that, then they're probably not Australian themselves."
Multicultural Affairs Minister Anne Aly piled on, saying that without multiculturalism "there would be no soccer, there would be no Socceroos."
Why the response described a monoculture
Here's the problem. Every word of that is an argument for Hanson, not against her.
Mabil describing "one inclusive Australia that includes everybody" under one badge is describing exactly what Hanson called monoculture: many races, one nation. Aly's line confuses two different things.
The team's diversity comes from immigration and a multiracial society, which Hanson supports. It has nothing to do with multiculturalism the policy, the government funding of separate, parallel cultures. Nobody built the Socceroos by keeping players in separate cultural teams. They built it by putting everyone in the same jersey. That's the point.
Mabil made the case even more neatly without meaning to, telling reporters multiculturalism "brings other flavours to the table instead of just one thing." But flavours on the table are the multiracial part again, the food and the diversity Hanson openly backs. It says nothing about whether the state should fund and entrench separate cultures.
Veteran midfielder Jackson Irvine put it another way, calling the team "a reflection of modern Australia." A diverse Australia reflected in one team, under one flag, is the monoculture, not the alternative to it.
Then the Guardian's own readers turned on it
The comment section under the Guardian's own post did what the article wouldn't. Reader after reader, many of them clearly not One Nation voters, spelled out the distinction the paper had missed.
"'Many journeys, one jersey' is simply another way of saying people from different backgrounds should unite under one shared Australian culture. How is that materially different from the monocultural ideal you're criticising?" wrote Shea Rule.
"The Socceroos are the perfect example of a successful monoculture. It doesn't matter how you look, where you're from or how you speak, once you accept the jumper your aim is to make the team the best it can be. Now exchange jumper for flag and swap Socceroos for country, and you have monoculture," said Judy Charles.
"It's a multiracial country, Pauline doesn't dispute that. But to be Australians and live as one, it needs to be monoculture. One flag, one set of rules, one nation," added Liss Jones.
The most liked comment on the thread wasn't a defence of the article. "So many people miss the point. One nation, with one law and values, filled with people from around the world," wrote Sean ter Rahe.
One Nation's response
One Nation didn't back away.
"Monoculture is unifying and welcoming, not divisive and exclusionary," a party spokesperson said. "One Nation did not politicise the Socceroos. We have only responded to the politicisation that others started."
The same point, one more time
This is now a pattern. Every time someone sets out to humiliate Hanson over monoculture, they end up describing it and calling it something else. The ABC did it with a question about food. Anne Aly did it in defence of a taxpayer funded office. Now Awer Mabil and the Guardian have done it with the Socceroos.
The distinction isn't hard. Multiracial means people from everywhere. Monoculture means they unite under one flag, one language and one set of laws.
We explained the whole thing here, including the countries already running the model and what multiculturalism costs the budget. Federally, One Nation says it would scrap the multiculturalism minister and the office that funds the policy. The team Mabil is so proud of is the argument for it. He just couldn't see it, and neither could the paper that put him on the front page.
