I'm not a fan of Nazis, so I'm glad there are repercussions. I'm not a fan of people expressing views, even when awful, having machinations of the state used against them.

He deserves it, but will the next person?

[–] dgriffith@aussie.zone 17 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I'm not a fan of people expressing views, even when awful, having machinations of the state used against them.

Welcome to the paradox of tolerance, enjoy your stay.

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 2 points 3 days ago

ain't a paradox when you frame it as a social contract.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Haha, yes. I think there's a difference between being intolerant if Nazi beliefs people facing equal punishment and singling out people that are not citizens for different treatment.

That is, of course, how the Nazis started out. Of course all Germans were to be treated equally. Guess who weren't considered real Germans.

Why are the police that approved the rally not facing repercussions? That's what if like to know.

[–] No1@aussie.zone 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Why are the police that approved the rally not facing repercussions? That’s what if like to know.

I read here that "Police said legal advice suggested blocking the rally was unlikely to succeed in court."

Whether that's for real or BS, I don't know. It does add weight to the claim that the police need more powers. Whether that is a good or bad thing, well, that article looks at the erosion of protest rights over time.

And keep in mind, that the Police will be able to apply their powers for any worthy protests/rallies/gatherings the same as they would with Nazi protests.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 1 points 3 days ago

Like the recent greens candidate who was actually a lawyer, protesting Palestinian genocide and lost her eye due to excessive police force.

[–] HalfEarthMedic@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Let's deconstruct this.

This fellow was behaving in a way that is against our stated national values, is threatening to citizens and other residents of this country, and is against the law.

He is now facing the predictable legal consequences of breaking the law, ie had he consulted a lawyer or even looked into it himself beforehand he would've known that this would be the likely outcome.

You're now inferring from this that legitimate political speech may be curtailed in the future despite there being no legal mechanism for this to happen.

Many on the far left like to claim that liberals will always defend the rights of fascists to be fascists, that's sometimes unfair but this kind of nonsense is how liberals get that reputation. ('Small l' liberals of course)

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Who watches the watchmen? The same legal mechanism that was used here could be used against someone protesting the destruction of the environment. We've already seen similar. Or the Israeli genocide. We've already seen a peaceful protestor lose an eye. She was presumably a citizen given she was a candidate for election.

I understand the paradox of tolerance. I also understand state overreach.

I think the police and courts have too much power to stifle legitimate protest already. This will be a reason to stifle it more.

[–] HalfEarthMedic@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

1000 apologies, I read this, then read about the Pauline Hanson discrimination act stuff, then came back and got them confused. The cancellation of visas is always an option for any reason for the minister, I kind of think a committee or something would be better. I still think it's worth throwing the book at Nazis in every instance where they can't be ignored.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 2 points 3 days ago

Yes, but throw the book at all of them equally.

If he is prosecuted for hate speech, then remove his visa. Why are the "Aussies" getting off scot free. Why the double standard?

I used to think the Victoria laws banning swastikas etc was overkill. In this day and age, who'd be an actual nazi.