Summary

Australia has enacted strict anti-hate crime laws, mandating jail sentences for public Nazi salutes and other hate-related offenses.

Punishments range from 12 months for lesser crimes to six years for terrorism-related hate offenses.

The legislation follows a rise in antisemitic attacks, including synagogue vandalism and a foiled bombing plot targeting Jewish Australians.

The law builds on state-level bans, with prior convictions for individuals performing Nazi salutes in public spaces, including at sporting events and courthouses.

    • OpenPassageways@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      Do we really want to mandate jail time though? It seems like maybe fines would be effective? I’m not in favor of inventing more ways to fill up for-profit prisons with non-violent offenders.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago
      • What you want is the government to enforce what you think the standards should be.

      • What you will get is the government enforcing what the government thinks the standards should be.

      I disagree with the fundamental premise of your argument, and I cite the results of the last election is the foundation of my own.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          But following your logic,

          You’re not following my logic.

          I guess all laws shouldn’t exist then.

          That conclusion does not arise from my arguments.

          After all, if we give the government the ability to do anything against any citizen, they might use it in a bad way!

          I am saying that the law should be objective. “The speed limit is 35mph” is an objective law. Yes, it can be abusively enforced, by allowing some people to go 55, while stopping others at 36.

          Contrast, “Disturbing the peace”, a purely subjective law. Cops apply that law to do pretty much anything they want, to anyone they want, at any time they want, with zero consequences. The only objective factor is your presence in public: It’s pretty hard to argue you were disturbing the peace from the comfort of your own home.

          Concepts as nebulous and vague as the ones we are talking about here are as broadly and subjectively enforced as “disturbing the peace”. The Nazis could claim you are in violation of your laws if you support “pedophiles” (by which they mean “trans”). Or supporting “enemy invaders” (by which they mean “immigrants”). Even mentioning “Luigi” could qualify as a violation.

          Never give the government a power that you would not give to the Nazis.

            • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              For instance, if someone says the words “Heil Hitler” while raising their hands in a traditional Nazi salute, there isn’t exactly room for a fascist to go "weeeeelllll

              Then “HH” isn’t a violation. “88” isn’t a violation. They avoid the specific phrases, speak their hatred in any other terms not explicitly listed.

              They laugh at the pointlessness of your law, then someone - maybe you, maybe them - expands that law to cover more and more hateful words. Then one of you takes the next step, and allows the government to decide an unlisted word is hateful.

              It will, however, heavily reduce the chances of them coming into power,

              No, it won’t. All you are doing is granting them powers to use against you when they do come into power.

              Do you even understand the concept of fascism? It is an authoritarian ideal. Fascists thrive on the exercise of political power over others. They need the power to oppress, to subjugate. They need you to become oppressive. They need you to exercise your power to suppress them, so that when they do manage to get elected, you have set that precedent for them to use against you.

              The way you destroy the Nazis is by ensuring your society values liberal ideals, and summarily rejects authoritarianism in all its forms. You can’t out-auth a fascist without becoming a fascist yourself.

    • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      […] regulations are how we enforce social tolerance in a manner that isn’t just “I don’t like you, please stop, but also I won’t do anything to you if you keep doing it.” […]

      I think a more forceful alternative could be being something like “I wont allow you into my place of business”. I think one could also encounter issues with finding employment, or one could lose their current employment. Social repercussions like that can be quite powerful imo. I think the type of tolerance that’s damaging is the complacent/quiet type where one simply lets them be without protest.

        • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          […] Truly, the “more forceful alternative.”

          I only meant more forceful than your only stated possibility:

          I don’t like you, please stop, but also I won’t do anything to you if you keep doing it.

            • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              […] not only does imprisonment do [social shunning] […]

              I don’t agree that this is necessarily true. For example, what of the case of a tyrannical government? Society may be accepting of a behavior, yet the behavior may be an imprisonable offense. Therefore something being an imprisonable offense doesn’t necessitate that it be a socially shunned behavior (by the majority).

            • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              […] Especially when you consider that businesses look out for what will make them the most profit, not what’s socially right/wrong. If the Nazis had more money than the non-Nazis, then substantially less businesses would do anything to stop them […]

              Hm. Your statement “If the Nazis had more money than the non-Nazis” is an important distinction; however, I think it also crucially depends on the distribution of nazis throughout the populace (assuming the society in question in governed by a majoritarian democratic system). The statement “If the Nazis had more money than the non-Nazis”, I think, infers the potential of monopolistic behavior in that ownership of the market becomes consolidated in the hands of those who are nazi-sympathetic. In this case, assuming the nazis were a minority of the populace, the government would step in as it must prevent monopolistic market behavior to ensure fair market competition [1]; however, if the nazis were a majority of the populace, I fear the argument is moot as they likely would be the ones creating the laws in the first place [2], assuming they had a monopoly on power (as if they didn’t, it’s plausible that the minority with a monopoly on power would revolt), and I think it would be plausible that they would create a market regulating body that is favorable to nazi-sympathetic entities.

              References
              1. “Capitalism”. Wikipedia. Published: 2025-02-08T16:40Z. Accessed: 2025-02-08T22:13Z. URI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism.
                • ¶1.

                  […] The defining characteristics of capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, [competitive markets], price systems, recognition of property rights, self-interest, [economic freedom], work ethic, [consumer sovereignty], decentralized decision-making, profit motive, a financial infrastructure of money and investment that makes possible credit and debt, entrepreneurship, commodification, voluntary exchange, wage labor, production of commodities and services, and a strong emphasis on innovation and economic growth. […]

              2. “Majoritarianism”. Wikipedia. Published: 2025-01-15T01:23Z. Accessed: 2025-02-08T22:19Z. URI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majoritarianism.
                • ¶1.

                  Majoritarianism is a political philosophy or ideology with an agenda asserting that a majority, whether based on a religion, language, social class, or other category of the population, is entitled to a certain degree of primacy in society, and has the right to make decisions that affect the society. […]

    • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Furthermore, and this is something you’ll probably see brought up a lot when using that talking point, there is a paradox of tolerance that cannot be avoided when it comes to issues like Nazism. Nazi rhetoric is inherently discriminatory and intolerant. If you allow it to flourish, it kills off all other forms of tolerance until only itself is left. If you don’t tolerate Nazi rhetoric, it doesn’t come to fruition and destroy other forms of tolerance.

      Any ideology that actively preaches intolerance towards non-intolerant groups must not be tolerated, otherwise tolerance elsewhere is destroyed.

      I would like to clarify that I am not advocating for tolerance. It’s quite the contrary. I am advocating for very vocal intolerance of these groups and their behaviors. It is simply my belief that governmental force is not a necessary means to this end, not to mention that it is incompatible with the ideas of liberalism [1], which I personally espouse.

      References
      1. Title: “Liberalism”. Wikipedia. Published: 2025-02-02T19:43Z. Accessed: 2025-02-08T05:47Z. URI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism.
        • ¶1

          […] Liberals espouse various and often mutually warring views depending on their understanding of these principles but generally support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion.

          • Policing speech is incompatible with the freedom of speech.
        • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          […] If your ideology allows Nazis to face no legal consequences for being Nazis, while you simultaneously state that you don’t believe they should be tolerated, then you hold mutually contradictory views. […]

          I think you’ve made a fair point. I think, in this case, it depends on how you are defining freedom of speech [1.1]. Freedom of speech doesn’t negate one’s freedom of association [1.2]; it simply states that one should be free to express themselves without fear of censorship [2]. Censorship requires active suppression of speech [3[4]]; I argue that if one chooses to not associate with someone, they aren’t actively suppressing their speech. So, more to your point, allowing the nazis to express their opinions is an exercise of freedom speech. Being intolerable of nazis is an exercise of freedom of association (eg choosing to not associate with them) and freedom of speech (eg vocalizing one’s distaste of them).

          All that being said, this makes me consider whether, philosophically, one’s political positions also apply to how one personally behaves. I think it could be said that one’s political philosophies derive from one’s personal morals.

          References
          1. Title: “Liberalism”. Publisher: Wikipedia. Published: 2025-02-02T19:43Z. Accessed: 2025-02-08T01:53Z. URI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism.
            1. ¶1.

              […] Liberals espouse various and often mutually warring views depending on their understanding of these principles but generally support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, [freedom of speech], freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion. […]

            • Liberalism espouses freedom of speech.
            1. ¶1.

              […] Liberals espouse various and often mutually warring views depending on their understanding of these principles but generally support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, [freedom of assembly], and freedom of religion. […]

            • Liberalism espouses freedom of association.
          2. Title: “Freedom of speech”. Publisher: Wikipedia. Published: 2025-02-03T14:50. Accessed: 2025-02-08T01:55Z. URI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech.

            Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. […]

          3. Word: “Censorship”. Publisher: Merriam-Webster. Accessed: 2025-02-08T01:56Z. URI: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship.
            • §“noun”

          4. Word: “Censor”. Publisher: Merriam-Webster. Accessed: 2025-02-08T01:57Z. URI: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring.
            • §“verb”

        • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          […] If your ideology allows Nazis to face no legal consequences for being Nazis, while you simultaneously state that you don’t believe they should be tolerated, then you hold mutually contradictory views. […]

          This is a loaded statement — it depends on what you mean by “being Nazis”.

            • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              […] If you don’t support imprisoning people who hold these views that directly lead to the death of many innocent people, the taking over of people’s land/homes, the destruction of democratic systems, and the elimination of entire races of people from populations, then you are inherently tolerating their beliefs.

              To me, it feels like you are conflating some things here: I draw a distinction between how I try to conduct myself (and, by extension, how I think society should conduct itself), and how I think a government should conduct itself. Any common overlap, while it may theoretically draw from the same core personal beliefs, is more of a coincidence in practice, imo. Yes, I think that society should not socially tolerate any of these behaviors, and I think that society should take an active position to socially oppose them; but I don’t believe that a government should take action unless the well-being of an individual is actively under threat.

              I could be wrong in my interpretation, but all of your examples seem to simply a be a difference of opinion (no matter how abhorrent and unpalatable an opinion may be). I don’t believe that one should be legally punished for a difference of opinion. The only one that may have some legal ground, in my opinion, as I currently understand your examples, is

              Supporting dictatorship, authoritarianism, or totalitarianism as a concept or goal

              but that would depend on how you are defining “support”.

        • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          […] If saying they shouldn’t be stopped using the force of law isn’t tolerating the behavior more than saying we should stop them using the force of law, then I don’t know what is. […]

          Yes, I agree that not using governmental force would be more legally tolerant — as you mentioned above:

          Saying we shouldn’t police those behaviors is actively stating that you want to tolerate them, just via legal means rather than solely social ones.

            • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              […] So, what is your reasoning for why they should be shunned socially, but not legally? Why is it more beneficial to allow them to say specifically what they say, as opposed to preventing that by force?

              It may depend on what you mean by “beneficial”, but, generally, I’m not necessarily arguing that not imprisoning those espousing nazi-rhetoric would be more “positive” than the alternative, I simply fear the risks of going the route of governmental force outweigh the benefits. I fear tyrannical overreach, and I think a liberal approach, while not perfect, may be the best means to stave off this outcome. But, at least we have experiments like Australia, which can be examined from a distance.

              Philosophically, the question becomes rather uncomfortable for me to answer; I personally don’t feel that I can be certain that my views are moral, so I tend to prefer the option that ensures the largest amount of ideological freedom. I understand that the paradox of tolerance is a threat to that idea, and it should be resisted, but I’m simply not convinced that imprisonment is the best antidote.

            • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              […] I don’t think Nazis should be able to say the things that make them Nazis, and I’ll be mean to them about it and hope businesses shun them, but I won’t actually stop them from doing that. […]

              I think this begs the question — is it certain that social intolerance wont prevent, or is likely to not prevent these ideologies from accelerating in adoption?

        • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          […] If you don’t think their views should be tolerated, you should support actions that prevent their views from being held and spread. […]

          I support social actions that prevent their views from being held and spread.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          You can’t out-auth a fascist without becoming a fascist.

          If you’re going to do something like jail subversive elements, you best make sure you can’t be considered a subversive element yourself.

        • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you think the current government (USA) is fascist. If so, would you mind describing exactly why you think that? Do note that I’m not disputing your claim — I’m simply curious what your rationale is.