One of the side effects of the conflict between Israel and Hamas has been to bring out into the open the opponents of Israel in various Western countries, including Australia.

It is hardly surprising that some Muslim members of Western societies, again including Australia, are sympathetic to their counterparts in the Palestinian territories. But what might be thought more puzzling is the presence of non-Muslim sections of those societies who have taken up the Palestinian cause and become apologists for Hamas. In the case of Australia this view is just one of a set of doctrines held by a segment of society that I termed, in a Spectator Australia article of some years ago, the ‘ten per cent’ – a group that roughly corresponded to the Greens electoral vote and the Greens-influenced edge of Labor, although the Teal vote might now have to be added to these numbers.

It should be noted, however, that the influence of this group is considerably greater than the proportion of their vote at elections. They dominate the staff of universities and most cultural institutions. Most significantly their views are largely reflected in the publications of the ABC, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Melbourne Age, the Guardian, the Saturday Paper, the Monthly, the New Daily and Crikey. Their influence is also reflected in the conduct of the boards of many public and private corporations who, while not necessarily holding the same opinions, are reluctant to incur the hostility of this vociferous and highly-organised section of the community.

One strain running through the doctrines of the ten per cent is a repudiation of Western civilisation and this partly explains their adoption of the Palestinian cause and their hostility to Israel. Although they reject Western civilisation in general, there is a particular antipathy towards the role of Britain and its empire, including its role in the foundation of Australia.

There are, as in the case of the Roman empire and its numerous successors, many unattractive aspects of these regimes but it might be thought that, in the case of Canada, Australia, the United States and even India, Britain had established a legacy of parliamentary democracy that stands up relatively well in the modern world. It is interesting that in the constant criticisms of colonialism nothing seems to be heard about the devastation wreaked on the native populations of South and Central America by the Spanish empire, the appalling regime instituted by the Belgians in the Congo or the extraordinarily repressive French regimes in Algeria and Indochina.

In some kind of extension of their obsession with colonialism, the ten per cent are determined to depict Australia as a deeply racist society, even though the history of the post-war years has been the acceptance of huge numbers of immigrants from almost every part of the globe and the almost complete absence of any conflicts between these groups and the Anglo-Celtic inhabitants who comprised most of Australian society prior to these new arrivals.

On the domestic front the ten per cent, who are almost invariably quite affluent, have no need to concern themselves with sordid questions of economic policy. They place no value on the mining sector and this kind of view may be reflected in a Lowy Institute poll of last year that indicated that more than half of the electorate supported the reduction of coal exports and the banning of new coal mines – this in a country that is the world’s largest coal-exporter and where export earnings from mining exceeded all other sectors of the economy.

Because the ten per cent largely live close to the centre of the country’s largest cities, they are in no danger of encountering a migrant, whether legal or illegal. Which is no doubt why they can effectively support a policy of open borders, with general entry for illegal immigrants who are not prepared to be part of the authorised programs for immigration and refugee quotas that have always existed in Australia.

Although they are keen to maximise their vote in elections, the ten per cent in fact have no commitment to the system of parliamentary democracy.

They are strong proponents of a bill of rights at both the state and federal level because they believe that many social, economic and political decisions will be better dealt with by unelected judges rather than by elected parliamentarians, despite the latter being accountable to the electorate in a way that courts are not.

For the same reason they consider that international agencies, like the United Nations, should be able to impose their view of Australian conditions on an elected Australian government.

The quasi-religious fervour with which the ten per cent hold these views has resulted in a complete intolerance for any contrary opinions.

In the spirit of the Inquisition the truth lies in their doctrines and any alternatives proffered, being in error, have no right to be heard and must in fact be supressed. This kind of mentality is reflected in the federal government’s Combating Misinformation and Disinformation Bill which was released as a draft earlier this year. This would effectively enable the Australian Communications and Media Authority to supervise social media platforms, such as Google and Facebook, to prevent the posting of what is described as ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’.

Because contributions to public debate on political, social and economic issues are essentially matters of opinion, the Bill represents a serious attack on freedom of speech by providing for the suppression of opinions on controversial questions. But for the ten per cent, who believe that all views contrary to their own should be eradicated, the Bill is a highly desirable proposal.

Although it has been much more prominent in recent weeks, there is nothing new in the ten per cent’s adoption of the Palestinian cause and their hostility to the existence of Israel in the Middle East.

As already noted, this reflects their rejection of Western civilisation and also their disdain for so much of Australian history and culture as a product of that civilisation.