Australia on Thursday passed anti-hate crime laws under which a Nazi salute in public, among other similar offences, will be punishable by a mandatory jail sentence.

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.

  • Kalcifer@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    1·
    11 hours 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.

    • ArchRecord@lemm.eeEnglish
      1·
      46 minutes ago

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

      (referencing your other comment for consolidation purposes)

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

      So what we’ve established is that:

      1. You are intolerant of their views…
      2. …and won’t socially accept them…
      3. …but if given the choice to force them to stop the behavior, you are no longer willing to not tolerate them, at that extent.

      Your stance is categorically "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."

      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?