Australian politician slammed over Kanye praise
This is a sitting senator in the Australian parliament proudly announcing to his followers that his 'song of the week' is Kanye West's 'Heil Hitler.'
Yes, that song, the one featuring the voice of Adolf Hitler himself.
Let me say that again, because I never imagined I'd have to: An elected federal politician in 2025 has praised a song that glorifies history's greatest mass murderer.
Ralph Babet, who somehow believes this is just a matter of personal taste, has not only applauded a piece of Holocaust-themed propaganda, he's gone further.
In the same rant, he declared he'd rather spend time with neo-Nazis than with what he called 'mentally ill' and 'baby-killing' left-wing Australians.
Just when you think it can't get any worse, he adds that it was all 'tongue-in-cheek.' That he wouldn't really hang out with neo-Nazis because, well, they'd want to deport him for being brown.
And sure, he also claims he was just sharing a 'good song' by a 'great artist' and that attempts to label him a Nazi were 'f**ing bulls**t'.
Be that as it may, this isn't politics. This seems like moral vandalism with a Senate badge.
And the most terrifying part? This wasn't buried in some dark corner of the internet. It was posted on Instagram for all to see.
It was loud, proud, and unrepentant. This was a megaphone, not a mistake.
Let us not lose sight of what this moment represents. Adolf Hitler is not a vibe. He is not a meme.
His name does not belong on a Spotify playlist.
It belongs to the ashes of Auschwitz and Treblinka. It belongs to gas chambers, to mass graves, to tattooed arms and shattered families.
When you celebrate that name, when you call 'Heil Hitler' your favourite song, you are desecrating the memory of six million Jews and every Australian soldier who fought to defeat the regime that name represents.
And when you say you'd rather hang out with members of a neo-Nazi group than with your fellow Australians, you are not making a joke. You are not being edgy.
You are giving the ugliest people in this country a green light.
With songs like this being shared by a senator, you wonder whether the National Socialist Network even needs to promote themselves anymore.
There is a reason these words matter. Because when hate is amplified by power, it spreads faster. Louder. Deeper. The lines blur.
The fringe moves to the centre. And before long, what once shocked becomes routine.
I'm not interested in Senator Babet's denials of being a Nazi. That's irrelevant.
The issue is not his intent. The issue is the impact. His words will be quoted in extremist forums.
Clipped, reposted, celebrated. Kanye's video will become a calling card for white supremacists who now feel they have a friend in parliament.
And what does it say to Jewish Australians? That in 2025, they still have to hear something featuring the name 'Hitler' praised in the public square? That the horrors their grandparents survived are now a punchline for social media engagement?
Enough.
This is not just offensive. This is dangerous.
With these kind of acts, the National Socialist Network, which once had to operate on the fringes of society, doesn't need to market itself anymore.
He claims it was all 'tongue-in-cheek.' He says the neo-Nazis wouldn't want him anyway, because of his background. As if that somehow makes it better.
It doesn't.
You don't joke about Holocaust glorification. You don't wink at songs containing the symbols of mass extermination. You don't casually name-drop Hitler as part of your weekly vibe check.
If a schoolteacher praised this song, they'd be fired. If a corporate CEO did it, they'd be gone before lunch.
But a senator? Still seated. Still empowered.
And that tells us something terrifying: that the old lines—the moral boundaries that once held this country together—are being erased.
That we've grown numb to the rising temperature. This is not political correctness gone mad. This is not a matter of free speech.
That's why I'm calling on Clive Palmer to do what any decent leader would do: disendorse Ralph Babet and denounce this latest act, without spin, without delay.
Because if we allow a song called 'Heil Hitler' to be proudly promoted by someone sitting in our Senate, then we are not just failing the victims of the past—we are failing the future of this nation.
This is not a Jewish issue. This is not a left or right issue. This is an Australian issue.
Dr Dvir Abramovich is Chair of the Anti-Defamation Commission and the author of eight books
Senator Ralph Babet hits back
In a statement to news.com.au, Senator Babet insisted he was not a 'Nazi sympathiser', urging critics to 'read the lyrics of the song before they accuse me of being something I most certainly am not'.
'Kanye West's song, as is obvious to all who have listened to it, is not glorifying Nazis or Adolf Hitler,' he said, claiming the 'entire point of the song.. is that Hitler is bad'.
'The song begins with Kanye West confessing that he is filled with rage and anger. Worse, he is hopelessly addicted to drugs. Then he admits … 'I'm the villain.' It's in THAT context he sings 'Heil Hitler' … not to acknowledge Hitler's desire to kill Jews but in the sense that Hitler, in our culture, has come to mean the devil,' he claimed.
'And Kanye fears that he himself, filled with insatiable rage and his mind screwed up by drugs, has become the devil. Or, if you will, Hitler. He's saying I'm angry, I'm completely messed up in the head. I'm basically Hitler. The reaction to my admission that I liked the song demonstrates how many people in this country flick their mouth to outrage before engaging their brain into first gear.'
Mr Babet added that 'people should be free to listen to whatever they want'.
'I won't be apologising for liking Kanye's song because the song neither endorses Hitler nor promotes Nazis. Far from it. The song, as I have said, depicts Hitler and the Nazis as the personification of evil. That so many people ran to outraged over a song they have either not bothered to listen to or completely failed to understand says a great deal more about them than it says about me.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Australian
an hour ago
- The Australian
Information technology can solve many of nation's problems
As Australians, we grow up thinking of ourselves as a relatively young country. After all, when most of us grew up, the second line of our national anthem even declared that we were 'young and free'. In reality, though, we are middle-aged among all the nations of the world. Look at a political world map from 1901, when Australia's constitutional system of government was established, and the list of nations that have come and gone across all the inhabited continents is striking. Australians live every day with the legacy of decisions made in the 19th century about how we govern ourselves. We just probably don't notice because we are so used to it. Some of those legacies – and how we had to move beyond them – have left us reminders even today. For example, how we had to build a single national rail gauge, leaving us Australia's longest rail platform in Albury where passengers between NSW and Victoria had to swap trains because the tracks were different in the two states! Other examples persist, not only consuming enormous bureaucratic effort in all governments but also having real impacts on the lives of Australians. Think of the cross-border recognition of vocational training qualifications and trade certificates, drivers' licences with different restrictions, specific business regulations such as health and safety, employment obligations, or car registration requiring different roadworthiness assessments. The National Competition Policy reforms of the early 1990s addressed scores of examples. But it has proven to be a game of whack-a-mole – as one problem is fixed, new state-based regulation seems to pop up presenting more challenges. Governments have tried in the past to fix these inconsistencies top down through national agreements. But there is another way to think about some of these problems – by focusing on the data and the technology that can turn it into actionable information. One of the best examples is how our three tiers of government pay for and manage infrastructure. Community requirements for infrastructure, and the associated costs, have exploded with population growth and changes in the way we live. Think about cars. In 1921, two decades after federation, there were fewer than 100,000 cars registered in Australia. Today, there are about 22 million. Upgrading roads is both a necessity and very politically popular. But when it comes to the cost, it can become very complicated. The Bruce Highway in Queensland is a great case in point. The federal and Queensland governments have invested tens of billions of dollars in upgrading the road in the past decade. But the highway itself runs through 11 local council areas. The responsibility for the maintenance of the highway and the roads and infrastructure joining and around it is shared between three tiers of government. Does anyone driving along the highway know or care? Do they know or care if they are paying for it through their federal taxes, state fees, levies and taxes of local rates? Probably not. But they will certainly notice if the driving experience in one part of their journey is wildly different to another. Governments could try to get together to discuss how they most effectively navigate the constitutional division of powers and responsibility for every type and piece of infrastructure. Or they could take a look at the investment already made in information technology that can deliver more value. For example, almost all of the councils the Bruce runs through are using the same asset management system to schedule their work on road assets. Imagine if all that data from all the councils was combined by the Queensland or federal government so decisions about where money was most urgently needed was based on a complete understanding. How much more efficiently would money be spent? How much better and more consistent – not to say safe – would the experience of travelling along the highway become? This is not a specific criticism of the management of the Bruce today. The same applies to hundreds of asset types that are paid for by one tier of government, managed by another, but used by people who are residents of a council, and a state but think of themselves as Australians. We have the technology. Thinking a little differently about how we can use it might just open up a whole new way to advance Australia fair – and fairly. Ed Chung is CEO of TechnologyOne.
ABC News
5 hours ago
- ABC News
Bigger properties occupied by smaller households in major housing mismatch, Cotality finds
In a reminder of how broken housing affordability and access is, new analysis highlights a major mismatch between the size of Australian homes and the number of people living in them. While the vast bulk of Australian housing is built for larger families, property research firm Cotality has found more than 60 per cent of households are made up of just one or two people. It reveals a misalignment between "who lives in our homes and the kinds of homes we're building", Cotality's head of head of Australian research Eliza Owen said in the report. "Of the lone-person households in Australia, the data suggests around 40 per cent are aged 65 and over," Ms Owen said. "The highest share of households is two people, but the highest share of housing has three bedrooms. "While there's nothing wrong with more bedrooms than people in a dwelling, there could be some inefficiencies in the way housing is being allocated," Ms Owen said. "After all, a 'traditional' family of four may have more need for a three-bedroom dwelling than a household of two people." The report cited data from the 2021 Census, which showed there were more two-person family households in three-bedroom dwellings (about 1.3 million), than three or four-person family households (about 1.1 million). Ms Owen has suggested a way to fix the "efficiency question", which she knows is not politically appealing — send a price signal. "Governments could make it more expensive to have more housing than you need, and cheaper to live in smaller housing," she wrote in her research note. She said that logic often leads to calls for tax reform including abolishing stamp duty to cheaper to move between housing, replacing it with a broad-based land tax (which raises costs the more land you own). "These options are both politically difficult as it would involve moving from a tax that applies to a small amount of voters each year who purchase property to one that will tax two thirds of voters (property owners)," she noted. Independent housing researcher Cameron Kusher, speaking to The Business in July, argued high transaction costs, namely stamp duty, discourage moving to a "better sized property" and can lead to people purchasing larger homes than they need to begin with. "People just feel like if I can get a better and bigger home sooner, that's a better outcome," he said. "If we look at what is being built, it's usually very large houses, four or five bedrooms, taking up most of the land on these new housing sites," Mr Kusher said. "A lot of it comes down to how much a piece of a property, [and] how much the land and the house, costs. "I think a lot of people are building bigger homes, thinking 'I'll spend a little bit more up-front and my family will grow into this home'. "It might just be a couple grandkids, or they're planning to have a couple of kids." He noted the effects of rapidly increasing property prices, which can leave people priced out of re-entering the market, and the fact that larger properties can be more likely to appreciate in value at a faster pace. Cotality's Ms Owen said other policy options to encourage people to move into appropriately sized homes could include reforming pension asset tests to include the value of the family home. "Strides are already being taken on the supply side to establish well-located apartments in our larger cities, that can accommodate smaller households. "But shifting demand through tax reform could help the take-up of these new homes." The government has accepted it is not on track to meet the target to build 1.2 million homes in five years, but Treasurer Jim Chalmers has stood by the ambition, despite Treasury advice it would not be met. In another recent note, Ms Owen questioned the focus of state and federal governments on speeding up building approvals to boost housing supply, warning that the construction industry simply cannot keep pace. "With completion times already above average and construction costs elevated, it seems an odd time to be incentivising more dwelling approvals and commencements," she said. Cameron Kusher argued past experience could be a guide on how to approach today's housing problems and ease the construction crunch. "Maybe we need to go back to how things were 30 or 40 years ago, where you have smaller homes and you make them easy to renovate," he told The Business. "Over time, people can actually add bedrooms, bathrooms, car parks, verandahs and all these sorts of things to add value to the home.
ABC News
6 hours ago
- ABC News
John Menadue critiques Australia's media and our relationship with the United States
John Menadue has been at the heart of Australian public life for over fifty years, working for the Whitlam, Fraser and Hawke governments. He oversaw the effective end to Australia's White Australia Policy, was CEO of Qantas and set up the Centre for Policy Development. In the media he ran The Australian for Rupert Murdoch, launched the online weekly New Matilda and founded the influential public policy platform, Pearls and Irritations. Now aged ninety, John reflects on Australia's media, in particular its coverage of the war in Gaza, our attitudes to race relations, AUKUS, our relationship with the United States and how Australia is navigating its place in the world during a global power shift. Guest: John Menadue, Founder and Editor in Chief of Pearls and Irritations John Menadue, Founder and Editor in Chief of Pearls and Irritations Producer: Catherine Zengerer
