Australia bans Nazi salutes, swastikas

Australia went full-Nazi in 2020. Can’t bear to look at itself now.

 

Slippery slope.

 

First step to tyranny is to stop discussion. Disappointed in folks in government, not everything in life needs to be written down. This is a prime example.

 

Not a fan.

Here is the full law that I believe is being referenced. I don't see anything in it that speaks of outlawing symbolism of terrorist groups as some articles indicate.

Some of the carve outs like, "reasonable excuse" seem to be laughably broad.

Here is the conclusion from the Explanatory Memorendum:

Was Australia's national security of public order at risk?

The bill's author is Michaelia Cash, a Senator from the Liberal Party of Australia.

 

What is there to “discuss” with Nazis? An ideology committed to both mass murder and the destruction of freedom?

The constitution makes it so the U:S. government can’t outlaw symbols and speech in the opaque. But a Nazi is still an enemy of freedom, it is an ideology fundamentally at odds with our way of life. I’d say an organized group aligning themselves with Nazism could and should be treated like enemy combatants, effectively by adopting that ideology they are declaring themselves enemies, and i don’t think that statement is remotely controversial. I’d say the same of a hypothetical Islamic group sporting ISIS symbology. Again, this is an organization the U.S. is committed to destroy. So anyone declaring allegiance to that can and should be considered both an enemy and a threat.

 

Speech and symbols are not "threats", prosecuting them are and giving the government power to classify groups of people based on "enemy" or "threat" rational is extremely dangerous. You should have the freedom to be stupid.

 

That's not what this law is about though. You don't have to be part of an "organized group" to be considered in violation of this law. So this comes down to individual liberties. If we're being honest, we all know there are different levels of racists, anti-Semites, Nazis and jihadists. I've known several racist people in my past who would make racist jokes, but they would never do any actual harm to a human being.

All of this is thought based, at the root. So this gets into thought policing, which is a very slippery slope and left open to interpretation by imperfect people. Banning symbols is not going to stop people from hating others and it's not going to curb violence. If anything, it will incense people who hate and drive them to become more immersed in their hatred.

Notwithstanding the obvious that when Nazis, white supremacists or terrorists display their symbols and flags, they make identification of such individuals much easier for law enforcement and the public as a whole. If a true crime really takes place, that could make a big difference in locating the perpetrators. Just another reason why it's a bad idea to try to make everybody conform.

 

I would say the dozen or so countries that have similar bans are pretty low on the "slipping toward tyranny" scale, and I'm not sure what the 'discussion' is. While I'm not really sure a ban is good policy or all that effective at curbing far-right ideology, lets not make the stakes overly dramatic either.

 

The constitution as written likely precludes the U.S. from doing this, but I don’t think the government of Australia is acting “dangerously” either. Germany has banned the Swastika and Nazi symbology since not long after WWII, as have several other European nations. Yet, they are still strong democracies.

At worst, it’s probably just a pointless exercise, as it’s not like eliminating the symbols means there aren’t those who would still ascribe to the ideology. Our own domestic neo-Nazi movement went through a 2000’s rebranding to the “alt right” to try and be more appealing compared to the old skinhead movement. Seems like it’s mostly just yokels, idiots, and trolls who would actually still wave actual Nazi flags. So yeah, they have the freedom to be stupid. I just don’t think it’s much of a threat to democracy either way if Nazism were rejected more soundly rather than given platforms (such as when they were invited to public college campuses years back). ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

I would say at best this prevents the spectacle of a big public Nazi rally Nuremburg style, so you can take it or leave it as to whether that's good or bad for tyranny to flourish.

 

I heard Tucker Carlson just canceled his summer vacation to Sydney.

 

I agree it sounds innocent, but those folks that are tyrannical that get into power can abuse it. A Hitler, for example, was extremely charismatic, promised reforms and gave the people a cause. It's easy to say not a problem when your belly is full, you have $ and your free of major life disruptions like war. But put a moron in gov, let people get emotional and leave loopholes like this, and watch your freedoms erode one by one. It may take 10, 50, or 500 years for this to happen, or never. But why take the chance? What does it solve other than feelings?

 

Well, as presumably “Nazi” now describes anyone and everyone (it even describes countries that are fighting actual Nazis) I say keep the communications open!

 

I mean, taking this example in its limited form, we all should agree with you. I think some of us can’t help but think of the larger significance of a process that leads to this particular banning. As you alluded to, we can demonstrate this by looking at different ways that freedom of speech is granted in different countries. Here is the French version passed in August of 1789:

10. No one is to be disquieted because of his opinions, even religious, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.
11. Free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Consequently, every citizen may speak, write, and print freely subject to responsibility for the abuse of such liberty in the cases determined by law.

Here is the US version passed a month later:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Economist Mike Munger has characterized the difference between the two as such: France said "Don't break the law," but the U.S. said "Don't make the law." Indeed, France’s version seems to put the power in the hands of government. That’s the important point. If someone told me I could not watch American Idol, I wouldn’t care, because I’ve never once thought about watching it anyway. But if they followed it up with, we will let you know of any further viewing restrictions as we deem necessary, I’d be a bit more alarmed. The issue is that when the government feels like the ideas/symbols/words are a problem, they can just make them illegal. It doesn’t really seem like much of a protection in this light.

 

Germany has banned Nazi symbolism (with certain exceptions), which modern neo Nazis have evaded in part by displaying Confederate flags, for obvious reasons.

Swastikas may be banned in Berlin, but Confederate flags still fly.

Alongside MAGA hats and Trump 2020 banners, Reich flags and Brandenburg eagles, the American South’s battle flag has been raised high during Germany’s anti-lockdown demonstrations — the most recent of which took place in Dresden in early March.

It’s appeared in the window of an apartment complex and in advertisements for an annual Christmas carnival. The flag has also reportedly been seen in Berlin’s bars.

Perhaps its presence in Germany simply represents how the Confederate battle flag has become an international meme of the contemporary far right. The Stars and Bars could exist as just another image decontextualized and propagated through the internet’s airless corridors like, say, Che Guevara. German Neo-Nazi websites do sell “Südstaaten” — or Southern — gear, along with Ansgar Aryan and Thor Steinar merch.

https://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/germanys-nostalgia-antebellum-american-south/

 

Recommended read …

 

Back in the 60's a hotel was built on a leased pier in Galveston Texas. A few guests in the hotel thought it would be fun to fish from the balconies in their rooms. With the intention of stopping the illegal fishing the hotel management placed signs in each hotel room prohibiting fishing from the balcony.

It had the opposite effect and incidents of fishing from balconies increased after the signs were hung. The signs gave the hotel's guests an idea that had not occurred to them before reading the prohibition. The decision was made to remove the signs and fishing from balconies dramatically declined.

A picture of The Flagship Hotel after it was damaged by Hurricane Ike in 2008 and subsequently closed.

 

I would just wait for the guy above me to start reeling in his catch then gaff the line and steal his fish.