Australian lawmakers have banned the performance of the Nazi salute in public and outlawed the display or sale of Nazi hate symbols such as the swastika in landmark legislation that went into effect in the country Monday. The new laws also make the act of glorifying OR praising acts of terrorism a criminal offense.
The crime of publicly performing the Nazi salute or displaying the Nazi swastika is punishable by up to 12 months in prison, according to the Reuters news agency.
Mark Dreyfus, Australia’s Attorney-General, said in a press release Monday that the laws — the first of their kind in the country — sent “a clear message: there is no place in Australia for acts and symbols that glorify the horrors of the Holocaust and terrorist acts.”
I don’t think we should. I hate to say it, but I don’t trust our government (or any one, frankly) with the ability to ban speech. If the government can ban Nazis from speaking publicly, they can and will ban people who support other matters from speaking publicly. Ironically, the most probable example that comes to mind is banning pro-Palestine protests since many in the government already believe antizionists are genocidal.
It’s already happened in Germany and France.
This is false. There has been a crackdown on pro-Hamas groups.
Rule of thumb: If you want to organise a protest, a) don’t shout “gas the Jews”, and b) make sure to not invite people shouting “gas the Jews”. Or tolerate them at your protest.
There’s certainly been more and bigger pro-Palestine demonstrations than pro-Israeli ones. Differs from city to city, not because of differing legal standards but different local situations.
E.g. do you remember the feigned outrage when Berlin, quite a bit before the attack, outlawed Nakba protests? What the people complaining generally don’t notice are the reasons, and that is that in past years, they turned violent, and organisers had no argument as to why this time around would be different. They didn’t do their homework.
I agree, that is giving to much power to the government, which can change the definition of hate speech depending on who’s in charge. Stopping hate speech and nazi salutes are one of those things that shouldn’t be enforced by the government. It should be enforced by the threat of being punched in the face by an outstanding citizen.
That means one of three things: a) You legalise assault in general, which plays into the hand of Nazis, or b) you legalise assault on people committing hate speech, which incurs the same (purported) judgement issues, or c) you expect upstanding citizens to go to prison.
(Side note German law actually covers b) as self defence under the right circumstances)
Fair points. B seems like a fair enough choice if implemented the right way. It’s a complicated issue, for sure. In my opinion, catching an assault charge for punching someone using hate speech or Nazi saluting shouldn’t be a thing, or at least the punishment should be lowered. This depends on how serious the assault was, too. Some people do die from one punch, and I don’t think we need to make murdering bigots legal. If I heard someone had an assault charge from such an altercation, I would view it as a badge of honor, though.