Is Peter Dutton evil?

I have, until now, held the view that only two of Australia’s political leaders deserved the epithet “evil”: Joh Bjelke-Peterson (aka “the Flying Peanut”, who did quite a bit of good when he first got in), and John Howard (although he did a great act of good in introducing gun control laws – that have subsequently been watered down). I recently heard, however, a view that Peter Dutton, currently Australia’s Minister for Home Affairs, is evil.

Is he?

Well, he is certainly authoritarian and ultra-conservative: as examples of this, he is against Equal Marriage and tried to silence supporters, showed sexist misogyny when angry at a female journalist, made offensive comments (see here and here) about immigrants, has been described as a menace to multiculturalism, has been caught out lying and making derogatory remarks about refugees, is a key supporter of Australia’s inhumane refugee policy, and has pushed for greater powers – at the expense of the civil liberties (specifically, privacy and the transparency pillar of good governance) of Australians.

The latter aspects are of particular concern to me. The great American George C. Marshal, who provided the logistics brain that probably enabled World War (part) Two to be won and was instrumental in the rebuilding of Europe thereafter, once said “Governments which systematically disregard the rights of their own people are not likely to respect the rights of other nations and other people and are likely to seek their objectives by coercion and force”. In Peter Dutton’s case, he seems to have had disregard for both the rights of other people (seeking asylum is NOT a crime: it is provided for in Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - whichalso dates back to World War [part] Two, and was a reaction to the appalling rejection of Jewish refugees that forced them back into the Holocaust), and of Australians (particularly privacy).

So . . . Mr Dutton seems to be not a nice person (I consider him homophobic, transphobic and xenophobic), is clearly power-hungry, and is what I would consider an extremely dangerous politician.

But is he evil?

Not all dangerous politicians necessarily are evil – for instance, I consider Tony Abbott someone who could be described as wanting to be evil (in the ultra-conservative, misogynistic John Howard sense of suppressing minorities), but he lacks the skills to effectively be that (spoiler and homophobic / transphobic misogynist though he is).

People who are evil are not necessarily personally offensive or unpleasant – a point made by Madeline Albright in her book “Fascism: A Warning” (Harper, 2018, ISBN-13: 978-0062856524, Amazon), and Hannah Arendt had famously written about “the banality of evil” (but see also this challenge to that).

The key point here is, I consider, that people who are evil (this point was brought out at the Nuremberg Trials, by Gustave Gilbert – see here) lack empathy.

Peter Dutton has consistently shown (note links above about remarks about refugees, asylum seekers, women and multiculturalism) a lack of empathy for people in difficult or different circumstances; that, combined with his attacks on the human rights of Australians and others, makes me inclined towards thinking the person I heard commenting that Dutton is evil has a point that is worth considering.

Is he evil? Well, I consider his actions are evil, but in this era of the USA’s 45^th President, I am also mindful of the Goldwater rule, which says such strong pronouncements should not be made from afar. There are exceptions to that, as I haven’t met Hitler, for instance, but have no trouble categorising him as evil because of his profoundly evil actions – just as I also consider Howard and Bjelke-Peterson’s actions have earned that description - notwithstanding the fact that they also did good (I also consider the USA’s 45^th President merits the description “evil” because of the harm to the fabric of US society and the world order he has committed, is committing and is likely to continue committing).

I am terrified of the prospect of Dutton becoming Prime Minister (it would be, in my opinion, comparable to Pence taking over from the 45th US President), but there have been small signs of improvement (such as apologies) and some checks by others in the neoliberal party, so, for the moment, I’ll continue watching how much irreparable harm Dutton’s actions do to the fabric of Australian society and the world order, and continue to assess this notion. 

Postscript 
I've just found that the person I heard is not alone. Some other articles on this topic can be found at:

• https://newmatilda.com/2016/05/25/the-banality-of-peter-dutton/, which is a brilliant analysis of the problems, including "the spreading fungus of thoughtless evil" and the systemic issues (such as self deception) which lie behind both Dutton, and others like him - I THOROUGHLY recommend reading this article (and follow the links), and consider that thoughtlessness the article examines lies behind MANY of our current problems (including what are, in my opinion, the sexual assaults of airport security, and the poor construction of Australian houses, and the blind acceptance of excessive economic profit targets and the concept that growth is essential); 
• https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/aug/19/the-banality-of-evil-arendt;
• https://newmatilda.com/2016/05/22/its-ok-to-compare-australia-in-2016-with-nazi-germany-and-heres-why/; 
• http://www.julianburnside.com.au/peter-dutton/; and
• https://www.greenleft.org.au/content/why-peter-dutton-such-evil-bastard.

Postscript the second
I just came across this, showing a more nuanced articulation of issues: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-11/peter-dutton-calls-out-china-foreign-interference-cyber-hacks/11595750. Is he changing for the better? I still disagree with his politics, mind you, but this could be a step towards either Peter Dutton as a better human being (or showing a side of him that wasn't in public).

Postscript the third

See this, which has brought me to answer the titular question with "yes".