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.
targeting Jewish Australians.
There it is. I’ll bet criticizing Isreal is considered anti-semetic too. Meanwhile Aboriginals still don’t have rights.
See, I am overall against any and all limits of free speech but…
Yeah. Context matters. And in current world context, good job Australia, hope outher countries take notes.
Literal hate crimes, I’m all for. A gesture with your arm gets you 12 months? That’s too much, regardless of its origin or meaning.
I’ll say, likely wasting my digital breath, I do not support any sort of Nazi bullshit or affiliates. But truly, outlawing gestures is a next level, knee jerk reaction to a problem they don’t know what else to do to solve.
Can Canada do this too?
Sending people to jail is a great way to make sure they don’t spend time embroiled in Nazi ideology on every level. Probably the best way to make sure someone never comes in contact with a single particle of Nazism, is to send them to prison.
(Can you tell I’m american?)
Yeah, but most of the people I imagine pulling a Nazi salute “as a joke like Elon (were so hilarious haha look at those [insertracialslur])” might be deterred from pulling their shitty “joke” if it actually means prison time automatically. It doesn’t matter if it’s just like a week. Try explaining to an employer why you didn’t attend the important meeting you had because you sat in jail for a week for a fascist “joke”.
I mean free speech is a deeply contradictory concept, which i largely support, however, people having the “right” to harm others as fascists mean to do is not a human right but a right of domination, which I am actively and deeply set against. And prison justice is just a “right” to harm others, only one that we are conditioned to live with.
It does create an opportunity for a little irony, which I can’t pass up.
But part of my criticism is not just “Nazis exist in prison” but “carcerial justice is just as fascistic as anything we associate with fascism” which never gets even thought about let alone discussed anywhere but the fringes of the prison abolition movement.
And things like prisons and police, the existence of many kinds of crime, particularly property crimes, need to be considered historically contingent, so that no matter how much we want to just delete all prisons they do serve as a solution to contradictions that arise within our society. So that the struggle to abolish carcerial punishment has to be simultaneously replaced with something better. Which is just and worth fighting for.
Getting rid of heil Hitler hand gestures in public might prevent the public proliferation of “signs” of fascism, the actual causes of it are institutional and function in cooperation with systems of institutional racism, Etc., and until those tendencies are abolished, and that is the worst expressions of class domination within capitalism, fascism will always be a problem to contend with.
In other words, we have fascism because we have prisons. Or rather, the underlying logic of fascism is just the underlying logic that justifies carcerial justice, taken to its natural conclusions.
So its not just irony, its like a double irony
“carcerial justice is just as fascistic as anything we associate with fascism” which never gets even thought about let alone discussed anywher
Yeah because it’s childish strawman. Of course it’s not the same to have to spend a day in a drunk tank because you lost control and were kicking off mirrors from cars as it is to be marched into a gaschamber.
That’s false equivalency.
Also, if you had ever picked up a single philosophy book, you’d know how much positive and negative freedoms and the right of the government to impose those on others is actually discussed. It’s like >95% of what philosophy has been going on about for the 1000 years.
Getting rid of heil Hitler hand gestures in public might prevent the public proliferation of “signs” of fascism, the actual causes of it are institutional and function in cooperation with systems of institutional racism,
Not really. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogue
In other words, we have fascism because we have prisons.
Fucking roflmao, literally. Well I didn’t drop to the floor but I did roll around giggling a bit on my chair. I would suggest reading “Leviathan” from Hobbes, but since I know you won’t, here’s a video sort of summarising Hobbes’ thoughts, by a professional philosopher called Alain de Botton and his channel “School of Life” POLITICAL THEORY - Thomas Hobbes
Alain de Botton omg and you thought I was funny.
Anyway you completely missed my point wrt false equivalence since both things are true. Its called nuance, dingus. I believe in the continual progress of human spirit, similar to Hegel’s formulation of freedom, but I’m a materialist and Marxist, not right wing liberal like Hobbes. Because believe it or not society has progressed since the 1680s when the ascendent English bourgeoisie seized control of the British empire and needed rational justification for their rule – which Thomas Hobbes Leviathan is. Its a piece of political philosophy, and certainly worth studying. I haven’t read it and might not, but I know others that have. I get the gist I don’t need Alain de Buttman’s watered down baby philosophy for online babies, please and thank you.
I’ve read thousands of pages of philosophy. You’ve watched thousands of hours of vaush and destiny. We are not the same. Come back when you’re capable of making a point or having an adult discussion. I’ll be here.
Actually if you could point to the place in the book where he argues definitively for carcerial justice over other forms, effectively addressing arguments that have come since from intellectuals like Michel Foucault and Angela Davis, as well as the abolition movement more broadly, that would be super helpful to a big dumb idiot like me a hurr durr
Oh you’re laughing at it because he’s so familiar to you because it’s the most “hardcore” philosophy you’ve ever engaged with? Yeah, I assumed as much.
That’s why I assumed you wouldn’t read “Leviathan” and from all your writing it’s clear you never have previously. Or even listened to a summary. Perhaps had those playing in the background, pretending like you’ve been listening to them.
The way you can’t distinguish a thought from the philosopher who brought it up shows that you larp as being read instead of being read.
I don’t need Alain de Buttman’s watered down baby philosophy for online babies, please and thank you.
Oh you most certainly do. It would definitely improve your skill on larping as a philosopher if you had the ability to pay any attention.
I’ve read thousands of pages of philosophy.
Thanks. That got rid of some phlegm. THOUSANDS of pages you say. Wow. That must be like… at least a half a dozen books. :D
We’ll continue the conversation when you understand how asinine your earlier garbage is. If you weren’t an egoistical teenager who’s all about what other’s perceive for them to have read and done and actually put import on understanding the things people say to you, you would at least skim what the Leviathan is about so you’d know what point I was making. But the fact you’re incapable of even understanding that means that I’m simply not interested in anything you have to say as you have zero intellectual curiosity. That sort of youthful egoism is fine, as long as it’s driven by actual intellect.
Yours isn’t.
Your previous comment. It looks a bit like how ridiculous it looks to you to now look illustrations of what people in the late 19th century thought the 21st century would look like. Firemen with flappy wings and whatnot. It’s utterly ridiculous because you know that would be the absolute worst way to go about flying. Either the wings would have to be absolutely massive or go really fast and still they’d be much worse than most other options we have for personal flying we can already achieve, like the jetpacks. The reason I’m saying this is that is what it looks like to me when reading your “arguments”. I can see how someone ignorant of political theory might formulate a naive theory like that, but the theory itself is utterly ridiculous and wouldn’t work because of facts you do not seem to know.
If you have even the tiniest bit of intellectual curiosity, you’ll look up what the Leviathan is about (while remembering to distinguish between an author and an idea) and then you’ll see why your earlier assertions are laughably naive.
Why are you so rude and mean? I actually have an interest in philosophy, which you apparently do too? But I don’t use it to like make people feel stupid. I’m nobody. I’m just like a guy with a job and a family that reads hard books. I’m proud of what little intellectual accomplishment I’ve made, and I encourage others to study. But dude I don’t fucking care about reading Leviathan! I’ll read books by people who have read it, but not Alain de Botton because he is a turd, but despite a good measure of intellectual curiosity, more than most in my life at least, it isn’t something that will come up for me. I’m glad you got so much out of it. made it into your whole identity maybe, but it hasn’t come up for me in the way that will lead me to read it, at least not yet! All I can say if on my very long reading list, it isn’t on there and I don’t see that changing this year.
This book is so important and crucial to your point yet you can’t point to a single line or paragraph to support your non existent arguments, which amount to “ur dum”. Why not demonstrate how great a book it is by quoting a passage that is relevant? L
I’ve read more than 6 philosophy books in the last 6 months. You are strawmanning me, because I’m not who you have delusionally convinced yourself that I am. Its completely unnecessary and not at all about the topic at hand.
I’m neutral and you’re reading into it.
If you find it offensive that I caught on about you actually not having the authority which you pretend to have on the subject, then the “hostility” is from your own non-acceptance of your ignorance, not me calling out your hypocrisy. If you don’t pretend to be an expert falsely, people can’t shame you for falsely pretending to be an expert, can they?
But dude I don’t fucking care about reading Leviathan!
Then don’t make statements like
“carcerial justice is just as fascistic as anything we associate with fascism” which never gets even thought about let alone discussed anywhere
Because it DOES GET DISCUSSED, you just “don’t fucking care” to read the discussion.
Just to alleviate the “you’re so mean” thing, the point here is very shortly that you can not have a society without some sort of a government. That probably sounds very authoritarian, because lots of people don’t use these words in the same context as they’re used in the philosophical discussion of politics. It’s because any society that comprises of more than three members will have some sort of rules. And those rules will then be enforced in some way. And that is the question they try to answer in these HUNDREDS OF YEARS OF PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSION that isn’t hidden anywhere and accessible to pretty much literally everyone in the world through the miracle of the internet, which you claim doesn’t exist.
They do explore the alternatives. Pretty much all of them. You should just start with Hobbes because he sort of started the conversation because it was around the time belief in the “divine right of kings” was already faltering. And since you “don’t fucking care about reading Leviathan”, you might put on the “baby philosophy” or whatever you called it (seems you’ve cleaned up your answer a bit) from de Botton and quickly listen to the cliffnotes on what he thought about it from a guy — who is making pop-philosophy videos, yes, but — who also is a professional philosopher and is objectively communicating their ideas rather skilfully. As that will save you time on reading the centuries of books on the matter as you can get the cliffnotes or sort of “previously on:” so that you can get to the book that you’re more interested in reading but which comments a lot on the earlier works which you may or may not have read.
Like 14 years ago or something I had just recently seen Slavoj Zizek, and I enjoyed his analysis (and honestly just his person.) So after watching some of his speeches and the The Pervert’s Guide to Cinema and The Pervert’s Guide to Cinema, I decided to pick up a book of his. It’s genuinely the only book I’ve ever just given up on, as back then I was nearly as read and it made so many references to specific ideas of specific earlier philosophers, that I spent like a few days getting through just the first pages as I had to teach my self so much stuff backwardly before really understanding what Slavoj was trying to say. I also tried reading it without doing that and it was fine, you can keep up the context somewhat, but I noticed after a chapter or two that I had gotten something wrong on a fundamental level and had been getting some tiny idea wrong for a few pages and it had coloured my read of it and I had to do it all again.
So, because Hobbes is one of the fundamental thinkers on the subject, despite his own personal political views, he does make good and fundamental points about society. They’re not too complex, so you honestly don’t need to read the entire book. Fucking read a wiki-article what do I care. I’m just trying to point out that because you’re trying to make spending a night in a drunk tank “as fascist” as marching people to a gas chamber, you don’t seem to have a too nuanced understanding of the necessities of certain control measures in a society.
Google “State of Nature” to start with idk.
Like idk how you’d expect me to politely inform you of just how wrong you were in that statement because it would require me to author a succinct reply that would still convey hundreds of years of philosophical ponderings which you thought didn’t even exist?
edit that wasn’t exactly that “shortly”. well, to me it was, but I gather other people perceive it differently sometimes
I sat on a jury recently and a large part of the case had to do with prison culture. It’s so incredibly sad how accurate this is.
My dad was a prison guard, I’ve thought about some of these dynamics a lot over the years.
Honestly what else is there to do? These people aren’t exactly going to change their minds, and letting them display hate in the name of free speech is only going to help them mobilize and elect more trumps in the world.
I don’t know we do it, but I think addressing the root causes as to why people are drawn to hate groups or hateful beliefs would be better. Eliminating the symptom doesn’t solve the problem.
Well I say it elsewhere, but we need to really start to rethink carcerial justice as a solution to social problems. It doesn’t help, it just compounds the contradictions that lead to problems like crime, fascism in the first place.
I understand we can’t just snap our fingers to make it go away. But The first step is discussion.
Fucking finally. Good shit Australia. Doing better than most. Watch Elmo throw a hissie fit. Pathetic
I hope he tests the waters there and Australia follows through.
Don’t kid yourself. Australia is also an oligarchy where corporations get most of what they want passed within days/weeks, with little to no debate, while popular or inconsequential policies are given months or years of debate (so the murdoch/oligarch propaganda machine can distract the public and tell them how to think).
There is no chance in hell either major party would imprison an American dictators right hand man. They’re both corporate whores at heart, with little/no virtue.
Agreed.
I’m so sick of this absolutist free speech bullshit that wants to make room for terrorist ideologies to hide.
There is no free speech absolutism. Dare to criticize him or make fun of him and you are banned and ostracized. It’s a Nazi enablement pure and simple.
It’s kinda weird to sort of start rolling back to where some type of conservatism is actually a good thing. I don’t want to identify as a conservative, but I definitely want to conserve institutions of justice and whatnot and not have them corrupted by right-wing crypto cucks.
Trump puts tariffs on Australia…
And Musk to block Starlink from Australia.
gosh, how we let the weird kid gather so much power…
He’s gonna get starlink to burn insects like with a magnifying glass. Maybe the Jewish space lasers were Nazi space lasers all along.
They’re projecting like always.
In their defense, that’s the only thing lasers know how to do.
Yeah. How about from 1948?
Good. I’m glad Australia drew a hard line.
A hard line angled up at about 45 degrees.
deleted by creator
Yeah its bad, but jail time for it?
It’s actually really easy to not be a nazi.
Now make it retroactive and with universal jurisdiction.
I know you’re joking, but we do not want retroactive laws
Retroactive laws are a horrible idea
*Unless applied in benefit
That’s true, then it can be good
That’s a bit too much. That’s a country with Gallipoli battles being matter of national myth, right? And they use it the way of praising WWI Ottomans as a worthy enemy. That’d be Young Turks, that’d be the genocide of Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks in those very years.
Jail for a salute seems a bit unbalanced.
The point is to jail people you disagree with by whatever means palatable to the general public. You can’t just run around jailing people, you have to have a reason.
Multiple front page Reddit articles about this as well. Look at the downvote ratio compared to discussions. Israel just pulling the strings as usual & everyone is falling for it, as they plan to take over Gaza & call you all Nazis for opposing it.
One year’s mandatory jail term for any “hate-related offenses” seems a bit far imo. Should be just a fine at least for first offense *on the lightest end, unless it’s some physical attack and stuff like that.
That’s basically a tax on not being rich enough to be a nazi, which… well.
Do you think the same about any traffic violation or all fines in general? We should throw people in the jail for a year, mnimum, because otherwise it’s just a tax on not being rich enough for the crime?
Come on now. I’m all for having tougher sentences on the high end for hate related offenses, but a mandatory minimum being year in jail for any such offense, even some dipshit doing a Nazi salute and nothing is else, is just too much. It’s like said, dipshit behaviour but hardly worth a year in jail. And it probably won’t solve the issue anyway. Just putting people in jail seldom does imo. Yanks have already tried that.
about any traffic violation or all fines in general?
Not all “legal offenses” are crimes. Legal systems have categories for a reason. Got caught loitering in the act? That can quite simply be solved by just have you go back to pick up your trash. Some things should not be punishable with jail, some others should, nazism clearly belongs in the later category.
And it probably won’t solve the issue anyway. Just putting people in jail seldom does imo. Yanks have already tried that.
Lemme let you in on a secret:
Yanks don’t send people to jail to “solve crime”. They don’t want to “solve crime”. They fill jails to have a cheap abusable workforce. They’ve even come out saying it openly out loud. Why do you think it’s black people or homeless people 90% of the time?
Not all “legal offenses” are crimes.
If that’s what you feel makes a difference for my argument, let me ask:
“Do you think the same about any crime in general? We should throw people in the jail for a year, mnimum, because otherwise it’s just a tax on not being rich enough for the crime?”
Yanks don’t send people to jail to “solve crime”. They don’t want to “solve crime”. They fill jails to have a cheap abusable workforce. They’ve even come out saying it openly out loud. Why do you think it’s black people or homeless people 90% of the time?
Do you think people behind this think this will solve hate? I just don’t think this sort of mandatory jail sentences will do any good. To me it makes a lot more sense to have a wider scale in punishments. This just feels like it’s reacting a bit panicky into what’s happening in the world with more to soothe people’s minds than to actually do something meaningful to change things.
You’re playing into the paradox of tolerance. Don’t do that.
It’s nothing to do with paradox of tolerance to think a year’s mandatory jail time for a year is pretty ridiculous for any “hate-related offenses”.
I’m against in general of just throwing people into the slammer and hoping that fixes the issues. Punishment should fit the crime and some dipshit doing some Nazi salute isn’t worth a year in goddamn prison. Give them a hefty fine for first time, sure, but a mandatory sentence of a year for any such offense, just seems too far.
Why stop at jail time? Why not execute them?
deleted by creator
Yes I’m suggesting on being more lenient than a mandatory jail sentence of a full year for any hate-related crimes. Some are serious enough to warrant it but mandatory sentence of a year for any is pretty damn far.
a paywall for a moral breach sounds like a horrendous idea
If you consider a fine just a paywall then do you feel like there should be jail sentence for all traffic violations too, for example? A bit ridiculous, imo.
