Robert Irwin, the 20-year-old son of the late Steve Irwin, is threatening legal action against Australian politician Pauline Hanson over a cartoon parody in her series “Pauline Hanson’s Please Explain.” The episode, which aired on June 13, featured a character resembling Irwin alongside characters from the beloved children’s show “Bluey.” The animated video, satirical in nature, criticized their involvement in a Queensland state tourism campaign and touched on various issues, including environmental concerns and healthcare.
Irwin, feeling misrepresented and unauthorized, has sent a cease and desist letter through his lawyer, Zoe Naylor. The letter claims that the cartoon is defamatory and involves deceptive use of his image. It asserts, “You are potentially liable to our client in respect of defamation, deceptive use of a person’s image, passing off and misleading and deceptive conduct.” Irwin demands that the video be taken down immediately, threatening legal action if Hanson fails to comply.
The video, which remains available on YouTube and has amassed over 200,000 views, sparked a mixed reaction among viewers. Some criticized Irwin for what they see as an overreaction to a satirical cartoon, with comments like “Crying because of a cartoon, grow up,” and “No Aussie humor anymore. Have a cup of concrete Irwin. Bloody hilarious.” Others have expressed support for Irwin, arguing that his likeness was used without permission and that he has every right to protect his image. One supporter wrote, “If he’s been used without permission, then he has every right to sue.”
Pauline Hanson has responded to Irwin’s demands by refusing to remove the video. She took to social media, stating, “I will not be removing the latest episode of Pauline Hanson’s Please Explain.” Hanson expressed hope that she and Irwin could eventually laugh about the incident and focus on contributing positively to Queensland’s future.
This clash between Irwin and Hanson underscores the tensions that can arise when public figures are parodied without their consent. As the legal process unfolds, it highlights the ongoing debate over the balance between satire and defamation, especially when it involves recognizable personalities.
