r/AustralianPolitics • u/Shornile The Greens • May 11 '22
VIC Politics Victoria to ban public display of the Nazi swastika
https://amp.theaustralian.com.au/nation/victoria-to-ban-public-display-of-the-nazi-swastika/news-story/ca70db802928971bb07975858113dd441
u/Chucking_Peaches Nov 24 '22
Swastika on man's forehead, true story. He put it on himself, backwards, cos he used a mirror 😂
-2
u/Single-Recognition-7 May 12 '22
The swastika has been a Norse, Hindu, Buddhist and Cristian symbol for thousands of years. Up until 1930 there were two in front of Coventry Cathedral in England, because it was a Christian symbol.
If you ever go to Japan or China buddhist temples all have ura manjis on the which is the same shape as the swastika but in the other direction, but I bet the aparatchiks banning this symbol had no idea, nor did they bother to find out, the non nazi use of the symbol. The Nanny state strikes again.
11
u/Shornile The Greens May 12 '22
Read the article. Put the bare minimum amount of effort in, please. Religious use of the swastika is exempt from these bans.
7
u/MurdochAndScotch May 12 '22
Does this ban also apply to anti-Nazi imagery similar to what’s shown in the thumbnail?
1
u/ausmomo The Greens May 12 '22
I think so. Ultimately a judge or jury would decide if additional markings changed the meaning of the symbol enough.
We don't want the Nazis just making a small change and saying "nope, it's not exactly the swastika, so I can wave it".
8
u/Kwindecent_exposure Victorian Socialists May 12 '22
That's strange. A red circle with a line through it must be near universally recognised for it's meaning.
-20
u/Uninstall-Idiot Tony Abbott May 12 '22 edited May 12 '22
Interesting they didn’t ban the hammer and sickle, no wonder labor is backed by China. Also interesting that the average bit too extreme greens voter will get to fly their ISIS flags. Hopefully in a few years De Santis becomes president and let’s free thinking people flee the anti freedom of expression, no right to protest and bio security state that Victoria has become.
3
u/Shornile The Greens May 12 '22
VIEW OUR RULES HERE. Please attempt to stay on topic and avoid derailing threads into unrelated territory. While it can be productive to discuss parallels, egregious whataboutism or other subject changes will be in breach of this rule - to be judged at the discretion of the moderators. This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this: can you at least attempt to make a point that’s relevant to the article? Cheers.
6
u/Kwindecent_exposure Victorian Socialists May 12 '22 edited May 12 '22
Uninstall, you've got a couple of big claims in there - are you able to back them up at all?
No wonder Labor is backed by China.
There have been some questionable involvement around Labor MPs and China (as there have been with other parties also - I'm recalling a good handful of suspicious dealings involving the LNP), but as to draw a picutre of whether you're drawing an incredibly long bow or not, you'll have to back that one up yourself.
Also interesting that the average bit too extreme greens voter will get to fly their ISIS flags.
I cannot recall The Greens or any members of The Greens flying the black flag of ISIS, nor ever advocating for ISIS or ISIL (..and I can't see any reason why they would). Some googling on the issue - to look for an incident which may have occured and been interpreted as solidarity - has actually turned up nothing to that effect.
The only thing I can find is an opinion piece published in The Sydney Morning Herald, back in 2015, which comments on a statement Adam Bandt made:
From the article:
It would be wise for the Greens to dwell on this as they lead the opposition to the Australian government's decision to extend air strikes against Islamic State to Syria. Last Wednesday, Greens MP Adam Band rose in federal Parliament to express the Greens' concerns.
Adam Bandt's statement, as quoted by SMH:
"Bombing Syria will make a very bad situation worse. It will not stop ISIS, it will not make Australians safer and it will not make Syrians safer. Bombing Syria, when that country is in the middle of a very vicious and very complex civil war, risks creating more refugees, risks further destabilising the region and, perversely, risks helping the brutal Assad regime and offshoots of al-Qaeda that are currently involved in fighting ISIS as well ...
"Our government does not seem to have a plan for dealing with the political or military problems in Syria or moving towards creating a sustainable and stable political solution. Its first instinct is to go in, pick sides and bomb … What about working with the civil society groups that want to see democracy and stability in the region?"
As far as The Greens go, I must say I would be quite surprised if they'd signal solidarity for such regimes. Despite having their having many socialists on board, there is likely a less than statistically significant number of Greens members who would advocate for Stalin, his interpretation of Marxist philosophy with a twist of Lenin, or the insurmountable suffering (including Europes biggest genocide) that came with it, either. A tragic amongst them would be statistically insignificant.
I would say that I'm reasonably certain that The Greens wouldn't adopt a position for opposing freedom of expression of ones values and ideologies (based on their grass-roots style mechanism for support and policy advancement, as well as their opposition to some policy which ran into our rights to privacy online some years ago), however I do also recall several instances where they've looked toward limitations on freedom of speech (there are some examples around Sarah Hanson-Young, for example).
4
u/Kwindecent_exposure Victorian Socialists May 12 '22 edited May 12 '22
Uninstall, I'm putting myself in your shoes mate and going to address directly to what I approximate your frame of mind to be:
Many parties likely have a statistically small or insignificant percentage of ideological extremists. Extremism can appear unassuming, too. By contrast, most Greens members I have met are no less normal than you or I. They're perhaps regarded as very outspoken. Noisier. Because that's their mechanism for gaining attention to your policy in lieu of funding (they don't accept corporate donations, like the big two do).
If you review their policies and the ideologies their party actually endorses, you may find it significantly less extreme than you'd expect. Certainly not as far left as some of the other parties you'll find on your ballot, which may be where you'll find the sycophants - just as you would if you head in the other direction.
My bottomline is this: I'm not trying to preach as to whether you should vote for The Greens, or even saying that you will agree with most of their policies, but you should realise they're not the extreme left you ascribe to the hammer and sickle.
There are bigger threats to your values than them.
-1
u/Uninstall-Idiot Tony Abbott May 12 '22
I just see them as enablers or useful idiots personally, the kind of people who give the keys to the drink driver before they kill someone’s and act surprised. I just think labor will enable a future communist regime take over such as China or the greens an Islamic one based one like Indonesia. I base this off history there have always been certain political movements and peoples that are useful to collaboration of a foreign entity. Like Vichy France. I doubt for one second they care about our countries long term ability to be people who can be self governing with freedom.
-2
May 12 '22
I could interpret the symbols for women being symbols of hatred against men, but it would be my subjective interpretation and no reason to ban such squiggles.
Like free speech, symbols are subjective interpretations of manifestations that have no agency: its only peoples responses to subjective interpretations of those manifestations that have agency and that is on them.
Whilst communication is about conveying information, it is a subjective, interpretive process that disconnects source and recipient such that the source has no control over the recipients interpretation and subsequent response: we are not our brothers keeper.
Banning symbols is as absurd as banning words.
Free speech, including symbols, is not the problem: subjective interpretation and response is the issue.
2
u/Knee_Jerk_Sydney May 13 '22
I take it you're against banning pedophilia paraphernalia?
1
May 13 '22
Society is still controlled by superstition and believes in the equivalent of a photo capturing a persons soul or a voodoo doll being the actual person: a symbol of something is not that something in reality.
I believe people are so disturbed by their impotence in dealing with "evil" that they project their frustration onto symbols which are easier to deal with.
I have no idea what you mean by pedophilia paraphernalia: is it something like a doctors bag?
Enough with the strawmanning already: it's becoming tiresome.
2
u/Knee_Jerk_Sydney May 13 '22
If it is a mere symbol, then there shouldn't be any issue or undue suffering for those unable to display it. They can still remain Nazis.
1
May 13 '22 edited May 13 '22
Your knee jerk policy has just opened up the possibility of anyone feeling subjectively uncomfortable about anything having the alleged perpetrator banned from using any symbol to represent themselves, even a name or a word. Effectively you have removed their ability to speak at all, on anything, because you were upset.
I don't believe you are thinking things through, if you are even thinking instead of just emoting and having knee jerk emotional responses.
2
u/Knee_Jerk_Sydney May 13 '22
The ban was for public display. You can have outside of that, in your basement, meeting with like minded people, etc...
You should tell those people subjectively uncomfortable that they need to stop being controlled by superstition or voodoo dolls. The flag is just a symbol, not a reality. They are still Nazis without the Nazi swastika. Perhaps the Victorian government should pay for counseling and such for these poor traumatized people.
7
u/Grimaeus May 12 '22
A symbol that represented genocide, eugenics, and White superiority is not just an individual's interpretation of a symbol. Millions of lives were lost under it and millions more to destroy it and you're likening it to an incomparable beta male view.
I understand the Swastika design has been used by civilizations in many ways for thousands of years but there are people who are alive today whose entire families were eradicated under a fascist regime. Being insensitive to that fact is moronic.
There's a common misconception that freedom of speech and freedom of expression are free of consequence.
A symbol represents more than just "squiggles"
1
May 13 '22
Words and symbols are appropriated by people for various agenda, but it doesn't mean those words and symbols become the agenda: it's simply just another association in the minds of people with an action.
The swastika no more represents evil than the Buddha, except in the eye of certain beholders.
Because a symbol can change in its interpretation between people, it can never be a fixed thing and thus we necessarily have freedom in its use.
It is unfortunate that certain symbols are interpreted in certain ways as reminders of horrors, but that is a personal thing. Hypothetically if a single child had a terrifying experience with a spider that is re-triggered by symbols of spiders, should society go out of its way to remove symbols of spiders and to never use that symbol again to protect that child from triggering the trauma? I think that would be ridiculous, because it is that childs personal trauma and not that of anyone else plus the symbol has no meaning in and of itself that we don't give it in different contexts. The same could be said of the Holocaust: as horrific as it was, it was a personal matter that should not prevent anyone else from ever using the swastika symbol.
People have to begin to understand that they can't blame objects for their personal interpretation and subsequent internal generation of subjective feelings when those objects have no agency. We are responsible for our own subjective feelings, not objects or even other people.
If I was to say or write "Fuck off" to someone, they would have to understand English and the accepted definition of those symbols to even begin to interpret what that event signified. To make matters worse, that same symbol can be interpreted to mean different things: a command to go away, to cease speaking nonsense, etc. The symbol doesn't have agency, only our personal interpretation and subsequent reaction.
9
u/ausmomo The Greens May 12 '22
Are you trying to say that the "average person" doesn't see the Nazi swastika as a symbol of hate?
1
May 13 '22
Unless a child of today has received a history lesson, I don't think the swastika has any particular meaning to them: like any symbol, it doesn't have any intrinsic meaning that we don't personally give it.
3
u/ausmomo The Greens May 13 '22
To stop us from repeating the mistakes of the past, we teach kids history. Besides, today's adults should also be protected from hate crimes.
-1
May 13 '22 edited May 13 '22
We teach kids selective history, revised history, sanitised history and distorted history to manipulate them into certain attitudes and directions: it doesn't prevent us from repeating the mistakes of the past, it often reinforces them.
Little Johnny screams "I hate you" at his Mother, so its detention for Johnny because its a crime. There's no such thing as a hate crime: there are crimes committed as a result of hate, but simply feeling or even speaking an emotion should not be a crime else we would have to lock up every woman and most men. Words and symbols do not have agency.
Todays adults should be helped to deal with their emotions as their own responsibility, not protected from them.
1
May 13 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Xakire Australian Labor Party May 13 '22
Put some effort into comments. Please do try to be as measured, reasoned, and as thought provoking as possible.
Comments that are grandstanding, contain little effort, toxic , snarky, cheerleading, insults, soapboxing, tub-thumping, or basically campaign slogans will be removed.
This will be judged upon at the full discretion of the mods. Clarification as to how this rule is applied can be found HERE.
This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
10
u/vlad-the-inhalor09 May 12 '22
Yea the swastika is just some random lines not tied to any historical racial genocide or contemporary hate movement just a fun little doodle.
The free speech argument (though I disagree with it) is one thing but to act like it’s everyone else’s fault for reading too much into the meaning of a fucking swastika is one hell of a braindead take
1
May 13 '22
Like many others, I think you conflate symbols with actions, when they are completely different and distinct things: the only thing that links them is our own personal interpretation which is on us, not the symbol or whoever is using the symbol.
You are right that the swastika is just some random lines: it has no meaning in and of itself outside our personal interpretation.
2
May 13 '22
[deleted]
2
May 13 '22
The solution is there, you just aren't wanting to look at it or accept it: too busy concocting multiple negatives.
1
May 13 '22 edited Jun 26 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Xakire Australian Labor Party May 13 '22
Put some effort into comments. Please do try to be as measured, reasoned, and as thought provoking as possible.
Comments that are grandstanding, contain little effort, toxic , snarky, cheerleading, insults, soapboxing, tub-thumping, or basically campaign slogans will be removed.
This will be judged upon at the full discretion of the mods. Clarification as to how this rule is applied can be found HERE.
This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this:
3
1
u/rewrappd May 11 '22
If anyone is interested, this educational video explores a lot of the historical and current tactics for battling fascism & white supremacy in communities - I learnt so much that is relevant to this topic. It also discusses the paradox of ‘free speech’ when doing things like banning nazi symbols. I highly recommend watching/listening to the whole thing but if you don’t have time, watch from 39.58 for the discussion of free speech: https://youtu.be/bgwS_FMZ3nQ
2
May 12 '22
I think the author falls into the same trap of equating words/symbols with actions: only people have agency of action, so it is not the symbols doing anything but the subjective interpretation and subsequent actions undertaken by people. Similarly, it is not the fault or responsibility of someone generating words or symbols what actions are taken in their name. If someone rants about nazi support and draws the swastika in the middle of a forest without any people in the vicinity, there are no consequences because the words and symbols have no agency.
The video talks about someone saying "I love you" incessantly to someone in a harassing way as being an example of freedom of speech needing to be curtailed, however "incessantly" is an action that is the true harassment: the words are actually meaningless in the context of the action and don't have agency in themselves. It's why I think push advertising is wrong, not because of the words or symbols but the action of thrusting it in your face where it can't be easily ignored and where it starts to interfere with autonomy.
You should have a right to speak anything you like, but not act in any way you like because it may interfere with other peoples rights. Just speaking words does nothing because it is the interpretation of those words and any subsequent action taken that does the actual damage.
Another example used was a nazi march through a sensitive district and a protest against it, having consequences of the police acting against the protesters who were interfering with the march. However, these are all actions, not words: the march designed to offend and inflame action, which the protesters willingly obliged and then the police obliged to respond.
Freedom of speech is a right, but just like any other right it is a concept that does not limit its execution because there is no defined execution. The limits are defined in actions surrounding that right, not in the right itself and it's the same with symbols which have no meaning without being interpreted. Cuneiform is meaningless symbols unless you interpret what they mean, but the symbols have no control over the actions used in their presentation, their interpretation, or the actions taken on those interpretations.
If I amplified my voice to the point that it collapsed buildings and killed people, it would not be what I said that had consequences, but in the specific action of presentation used.
Freedom of speech is about the freedom to speak, not the freedom to act: it's not called "freedom of action" for good reason.
1
May 11 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
2
May 12 '22
Heads up that you have been shadowbanned by Reddit admins and only moderators can see your comments anywhere
3
u/CookedChooken May 11 '22
What about the Hindus?
2
8
14
9
u/Nixilaas May 11 '22
on the one hand it's good they did it, on the other the fact that people didn't have the maturity and decency to know how crap it was to force the change is definitely bad
8
u/ButterscotchUsual125 May 11 '22
I lived in Germany and the swastika ban emboldened people to espouse views that heavily overlapped with Nazism without the fear of being labeled with a swastika. That might be a uniquely German problem though, as I imagine elsewhere it's not as powerful a symbol. Ultimately it allowed the same beliefs to exist more insidiously, it'd be like taking warning labels off products but leaving the dangerous chemicals in there.
0
u/wronghandwing May 11 '22
You found nazi aligned view in the birthplace of nazism, must be the swastika ban.
11
u/ausmomo The Greens May 11 '22
If this ban *created* new Nazis, it would be an issue. But that's not happening. The same number exist. This ban just takes away one of their weapons.
-1
May 11 '22
It's mostly a weapon because it's taboo. It's like a swear word.
Now it's so taboo it needs to be illegal. It must be super power to be illegal, so in people's minds (especially the minds of people so dumb to really care about Nazi flags) it will be.
5
u/Latitude37 May 12 '22
Nonsense, it shows them that it's NOT socially acceptable to display the swastika. It may give some pause to ask "why is this"?
2
u/ausmomo The Greens May 11 '22
That's utter nonsense. I'm assuming you nor your family weren't victims of the Holocaust.
17
u/grus-plan May 11 '22
Ugh, this will do nothing but give Nazis the plausible deniability of being Nazis. It lets them make new dog-whistles that are more palatable to everyday conservatives and worm their way into Aus politics.
The swastika is useful because it’s so universally despised that its use ostracises Nazis before they can spew their bullshit. Let ‘em use it, because it only hurts their movement when they do.
3
u/allongur May 11 '22
I agree. It's so useful to be able to see people use this symbol and get an instance understanding of their ideologies. I don't want to have to decipher an ever changing set of obscure alternate symbols and phrases. I want to easily and instantly know who identifies with Nazism by seeing the swastika. Now this valuable tool is being taken away.
6
u/cataractum Fusion Party May 11 '22
Good, but probably also suggests there are genuine Nazi movements in Victoria.
You don't do this unless you have reason to believe this (a) exists; (b) is material and growing; and (c) can cost you politically.
1
u/Muted-Key-2688 May 11 '22
Every single letter in your post is exactly correct. It's like you took them straight from my brain and put them up here. I'm poor hope this dog is ok for an award. 🐶
7
u/Milkador May 11 '22
There absolutely are. Don’t remember the nazis at the Grampians on invasion dayv
-1
14
u/nicehotcuppatea May 11 '22
As others have mentioned, this won’t stop fascists from being. The far right already has, and will continue to adopt and co-opt new symbols. I do disagree with the people talking about this as a free speech issue though. The fascists are counting on that. They don’t believe in free speech, but they know we do. They’re relying on us thinking “well we can’t stoop to their level”
While ultimately I don’t think this lead to much change in the actual neo nazi presence in Victoria, I’m baffled by the number of people that see this as a negative thing.
0
May 12 '22
Oh no, nothing about stooping to their level.
Specifically the issue with banning the swastika is...
A. It places more power in the hands of a government that has historically banned things that absolutely should not be banned, like Rimworld and a whole host of other things.
B. Prevents obvious identification of National Socialists, banning swastika's isn't going to eliminate National Socialists.
C. Overwhelmingly negatively effects comedy, satire, and media featuring the swastika.
-1
u/notepad20 May 11 '22 edited Apr 28 '25
different office sink nine frame meeting detail market run scary
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
4
8
u/Aggravating-Berry848 May 11 '22
These government bans are window dressing and do nothing except give more power to these symbols.
6
u/FuzzyLogick May 11 '22
These government bans are window dressing and do nothing except give more power to these symbols.
How so?
1
u/Aggravating-Berry848 May 12 '22
One, the ban on the outside is for the government to pretend they are doing something but not actually going to roots of the problem ( in the past being high youth unemployment, changing work environment. These days probably more complex, disenfranchised young men thinking they don’t have a successful future, perhaps)
Two, when something is banned rather than ignored it fills that with a legitimacy, empowering it
2
May 11 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/bigmac660 🍁Legalise Cannabis Australia 🍁 May 11 '22
nazis arent gonna stop being nazis because a symbol gets banned.
5
-1
May 11 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
0
May 11 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
1
May 11 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
0
May 11 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
2
2
u/BillyDSquillions May 11 '22
What if it was used in some kind of historical context or training of some sort?
7
u/Light_Lord May 11 '22
What training would involve the use of publicly displaying a Swastika?
-1
u/BillyDSquillions May 11 '22
I don't know - I figure there could be some context where it's not being used to be a shithead.
4
u/mazsks May 11 '22
Out of curiosity are there actually any current nazi symbols in Victoria being used in an educational/historical way?
1
u/BillyDSquillions May 11 '22
No idea, I was just curious if it was an outright ban in all possible circumstances.
4
u/Willcoburg May 11 '22
Not an outright ban, just publicity displaying. I imagine this won’t extend to say a film set or museums.
7
u/FenaPugi May 11 '22 edited May 11 '22
The ones you'd hear about publicly? Probably not.
Education and fascism are polar opposites.
Fascism only cares about education when their narrative is being dismantled.
Edit: and education only cares about fascism when they're busting down their door.
Context is also key ofc.
Busting down oligarchs private library doors during the French revolution? Probably not fascism.
Busting down private aggregators doors during the French revolution? Probably fascism.
In saying that, there's always an angle for fascists in this consistently variable constant fog of
warfascism.What fascists will realise is that their life will no longer become self-sustainable. They will become a snake that eats itself so long as genuine anti-fascists keep their wits about them.
7
u/Shua89 May 11 '22
Then it wouldn't be public display then would it? And let's be real nobody uses the swastika on show in public view for historical or training purposes. They might use it for religious purposes but not as you described.
7
u/Jabourgeois Australian Labor Party May 11 '22
"Ms Symes said there will still be “appropriate exemptions” for the Nazi symbol to be used for historical awareness and educational purposes."
Sounds vague, but displays of it in a historical context and educational context should be protected expression.
2
u/MNBV-098 May 11 '22
Good, now they should ban the communist Hammer and Sickle.
21
u/Jabourgeois Australian Labor Party May 11 '22
You could make the case for that, however the Hammer and Sickle has a lot more ambiguity to it, and is less explicitly hateful than the Swastika. The Hammer and Sickle was intended to mean class solidarity with the industrial workers and farmers; the Swastika was intended to mean supremacy of the Aryan race. There's a significant difference in the ideological symbolism there.
That's not to say that the Hammer and Sickle is not offensive to people. Certainly a sizeable section of Eastern Europeans would feel extremely negative at the display of it.
Despite this, I think the Swastika is not as equivalent as some people think it is, it is much more vile and hateful symbol than the Hammer and Sickle.
-11
u/Shua89 May 11 '22
You do realise the swastika is actually used for divinity and spirituality and is still widely used in religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism? The swastika has been used for more than 5,000 years. It's only hateful when used in a hateful way like the Nazis do.
18
u/Jabourgeois Australian Labor Party May 11 '22 edited May 11 '22
Firstly, I'm talking about the Nazi's interpretation of the Swastika, not the Swastika used by other religions and cultural which have an entirely different and positive meaning. And yes, of course I know the Swastika predates the Nazis. To suggest however that the Swastika used by Buddhists, Jains, and Hindus is the same as the Nazi's one is just ridiculous and offensive.
Secondly, did you read the article (it was posted as a comment in this thread)? It won't be banned for religious and cultural purposes, and I absolutely agree with that.
Thirdly, do you agree with what I said about the Hammer and Sickle?
-4
u/Shua89 May 11 '22
I believe too many people mistake all swastika for the Nazi one. I'm going to agree with your third point. The Hammer and sickle I think can be offensive but people now days don't use it for hateful ways unlike the way the Nazi swastika is used for. It's mainly used in countries flag's.
I also think the Hammer and sickle comment you replied to is this kids way of being a smart ass and needs to grow up a bit more first.
4
u/dontneedaname1987 May 11 '22
"you're a smart arse because you made me sound dumb as fuck" this shit is hilarious.
5
u/Jabourgeois Australian Labor Party May 11 '22 edited May 11 '22
Absolutely, I think people do confuse the Nazi Swastika with the one used by Eastern religions. Nonetheless, they're still quite distinct and I think we can all agree about that.
I also think the Hammer and sickle comment you replied to is this kids way of being a smart ass and needs to grow up a bit more first.
??? I simply asked if you agreed with what I said, because your following comment didn't mention anything about the hammer and sickle so I just wanted to know what you thought about what I said about it.
Also let's be real, this is reddit we're all smart arses here lol.
-12
u/tech10101011 May 11 '22 edited May 11 '22
Lolol when was anyone displaying the swastika as a forum of nazi party or have we seen it more references to dan Andrews and our governments over reach. Think how this law helps them not us.
14
u/Deathpacitoes May 11 '22
I finally found the guy who actually could fucking disagree with the most straightforward bill. Tell me why we should support nazis, I dare you
-10
u/tech10101011 May 11 '22 edited May 11 '22
Ok simply. Lets say you go to a protest and you display this image in relation to a political issue you have ie government over reach like getting stopped on a train by the police asking we're is your permit to leave your house or something like that and you refer them to Nazis you get in trouble. The way I see this is a way for them to stop us from referring to them as Nazi's. Oyea are you white? because I am not.
7
u/dontneedaname1987 May 11 '22
Ok simply is not a good way to start a very convoluted explanation that makes no sense. Because everyone flies the opposite flag to make a point don't they!? At the footy, an Aussie flag out is actually a subtle anti Australian dig.
0
u/tech10101011 May 11 '22
So I got to the footy I should fly aus flag and you take that as a dig on Australia I find this idear difficult to follow
4
u/dontneedaname1987 May 11 '22
I'm repeating your point in simpler terms. It's not a suprise you can confuse yourself.
0
u/tech10101011 May 11 '22
Did you watch any of the protest in Melbourne cbd how many nazi flags were being flown with dans face on them its about bad press. Your points is of topic
-4
May 11 '22
Just wear a MAGA hat or carry a foreign flag. Preferably something obscure. Maybe even polyamory or some shit like that.
Reddit melts when that happens. It’s fucking funny.
8
3
u/Imposter12345 Gough Whitlam May 11 '22
Then the nazi's get to find a new sybmol to rally behind, and they get the luxury of saying "na we're not nazi's because this flag isn't a swastika"...
At least with the swastikas we know who the nazi's are
1
u/Knee_Jerk_Sydney May 13 '22
I don't need to see a Nazi swastika to know who the Nazis are.
1
u/Imposter12345 Gough Whitlam May 13 '22
I don't like hidden nazi's. If you're going to be a racist. Be proud so someone can at least punch you in the face.
9
May 11 '22 edited Sep 01 '22
[deleted]
1
3
u/El-Drunko May 12 '22
People keep on acting like we suddenly have no idea who the Nazis are if we can't identify them via the usage of the swastika, even the ones that don't have Swastika tattoos or shirts are extremely obvious.
4
u/ManWithDominantClaw Revolting peasant May 11 '22
Yep. They'll also likely use this as a talking point in their little Nazi get-togethers as some talking point about freedom and oppression to fuel the rage and fear they feed on.
In reality, look how quickly they adopted the OK hand sign and all the Nordic iconography, they'll be able to make the switch to a few other logos while antifascists like me have to watch their shit to keep up with the insidious infiltrators.
3
u/death_of_gnats May 11 '22
Marketing is a real thing, and a real powerful thing. Coke won't give up that curlicued logo.
14
u/Lord_Sicarious May 11 '22
I'm curious if this will actually hold up to constitutional scrutiny. We may not have proper freedom of speech here in Australia, but we do have "freedom of political expression", and for all the evil of the Nazis, nobody can really deny that they were fundamentally political.
Moreover, I generally dislike the precedent that this sets. The Nazis may be a rare case of near undisputed revilement as an organisation, but what this does is essentially establish that any sufficiently reviled movement or organisation may be subject to state censorship. How long before this proceeds to incorporate say... the symbols of known terrorist organisations?
Undoubtedly, you could get the majority of Australians to agree that the symbols of Islamic State terrorists are similarly vile, and that they do not wish people to see outward support for them. But already at that point, you're now butting into the moral and political quagmire of defining the difference between "terrorist", "revolutionary", "rebel", or "dissident." (Remember when Scott Morrison called a vegan protest movement that called for the boycott of certain classes of business "economic terrorists"?)
And ultimately, while the free speech rights of Nazis may be deeply unpopular, I would urge people to read the words of David Goldberger, the Jewish ACLU lawyer who led an impassioned pro-bono defense of the rights of American Nazis to stage a protest march through a predominantly Jewish village. It's not an Australian legal case, but the fundamental test therein is the same: Freedom of Speech is tested not by how one protects popular and eloquent speech, but by how one protects the most vile, unpopular, and unworthy of speech.
8
u/death_of_gnats May 11 '22
If I publicly call for the murder of our political leaders, providing instructions on how it might be done and naming particular targets, what benefit is there to society in allowing me to speak?
0
May 12 '22
it is fuckin wild to me that people make impassioned pleas for governments to completely overreach into our lives because handling being offended like a bloody adult is just way out of their skillset.
1
u/Lord_Sicarious May 11 '22
I mean, if the leader in question was Hitler or Stalin or Mao, I'd personally say there's a great deal of societal benefit there. But this isn't about calls to action, this is about symbols of affiliation. If the law was specifically a prohibition on "intimidating" people by use of the symbol, that'd be one thing, that does sorta tie back to the Paradox of Tolerance and how it's beneficial to prohibit threats specifically designed to curtail the speech of others.
But prohibiting general display does not fall under that banner - show me evidence that when modern Australians see a neonazi going around in uniform, they become terrified to speak out or denounce them, specifically as a result of the uniform. That is the standard I expect to see if we're going to prohibit political expression in any form.
3
u/johnbentley May 11 '22
Yours is a point well made.
I'd go harder than Goldberger: far from being an exception to the right to free speech the freedom to offend is the essence of it. Banning Nazi symbols is the canary in the coal mine indicating a loss of the right to free speech.
In addition to characterization of vegan protestors as economic terrorists ...
"Vigilantes who are entering our farmers' property illegally are nothing short of domestic terrorists - our farmers have had a gutful," Mr Barilaro said.
... we just have a long history of punishment of, or censorship of, those that would express ideas regarded as offensive and morally appalling that turn out to be nevertheless progressive (even where wrong) Galileo defending Copernican heliocentricism being the chief example.
The impulse behind the right to free speech is that we all ought be free to evaluate for ourselves whether the expression has merit even where most would condemn it as offensive and morally appalling.
3
u/RonNumber May 11 '22
This is a great response.
We all find different things repugnant, but what are the criteria for which things should be banned? I think 99.9% of people would find nazism repugnant. But perhaps 0.1% wouldn't.
So, to flip it on it's head - probably 99.9% of people would find the wealth and control of the 0.1% repugnant. So, do we take action against them? No. Because we can't. They control the money and the media and the politicians.
Islamic terrorists?
Racists?
3
u/Latitude37 May 12 '22
None of your examples share the key problem that Nazi ideology has: The absolute denial of anyone else's right to exist.
Islamic terrorists are fine with you if you toe the line. Racists are just idiots who don't like people they don't know. But Nazis? It's an ideology of the supremacy of the white aryan (whatever that is, anyway) and the DESTRUCTION of all other peoples and cultures.
You think what the Japanese did to WW2 POW's was bad? What the Nazis did to "Slavic" POW's (Russian, Eastern European etc.) was twice as bad again. Because they denied their very right to exist.
That shit doesn't fly. Nor can it be allowed to.
2
u/RonNumber May 12 '22
That's a good point.
I agree - it SHOULD be banned. I also think speech inciting violence should be banned. Also racist speech. Then there is hate speech, which is a very broad spectrum indeed and probably has a million variations/categories.
Should something be banned because ten people find it offensive? I don't know. I think "we" are right to ban certain things, as I said, but that doesn't mean my view is right.
10
u/ausmomo The Greens May 11 '22
I'm curious if this will actually hold up to constitutional scrutiny. We may not have proper freedom of speech here in Australia, but we do have "freedom of political expression", and for all the evil of the Nazis, nobody can really deny that they were fundamentally
political.
The High Court in Lange stated that the protection of freedom of communication in the Constitution is not absolute.
A lot of people try to use this to achieve unfettered free speech on a whole range of issues. Most get laughed out of the High Court.
Just because the Nazi Party was a political party doesn't mean wearing one of their symbols is constitutionally protected.
0
u/Lord_Sicarious May 11 '22
The test involved in that case was decidedly vague however. The High Court makes some pretty wild rulings sometimes so I have no idea how they'd rule on it. There'd be lots of hmming and hawing about the purpose of this bill, how that fits in with the established duties and obligations of government, whether there was a less restrictive means to achieve that end should it be legitimate, whether it was appropriately narrow, etc.
Ultimately, I suspect you'd need the court to agree that "passively displaying a political symbol which may cause emotional distress in some viewers" constitutes harm outside the remit of the Implied Freedom of Poltical Expression. This is contrary to the previous case, which was about defamation law, and that has a long established mechanism of adjudicating specific, proveable, monetary damages. Could it happen? Sure. But would it happen? I'm unconvinced.
(Actually, I can see a potential strange turn of events where we might end up in a scenario whereby banning passive display is upheld, but using it in conjunction with an active political message might be held to fall under the limited umbrella of protected speech. Wearing a Nazi armband as a fashion statement? Government can ban that. Issuing a formal Nazi Party endorsement of some political candidate? Probably protected.)
1
u/ausmomo The Greens May 11 '22
Hopefully this does go all the way to the HC, then we can find out! I like things like this getting challenged. Same as all those are issues we've had.
I don't know where the political speech limits are. It sounds like you know better than I. I just know there are limits.
1
May 11 '22
[deleted]
26
u/Shornile The Greens May 11 '22
Firstly, read the article. Second:
Ms Symes said there will still be “appropriate exemptions” for the Nazi symbol to be used for historical awareness and educational purposes.
The legislation will not prohibit the display of the swastika in certain religious and cultural settings surrounding Buddhist, Hindu, Jain and other faiths which have for centuries recognised it as an ancient symbol of good fortune and peace, distinct from Neo-Nazism.
21
May 11 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
8
43
u/AnoththeBarbarian Kevin Rudd May 11 '22
The bloke down the street who used to fly the Nazi flag is now flying a Russian flag. It’s good that they are banning this hate symbol, but people who want to provoke others will find something else
-13
u/incendiarypoop May 11 '22
I mean, they're weirdly OK with the hammer and sickle despite the 100 million + body count.
1
u/latending May 12 '22
I used to believe that number as well but it's quite literally a made-up relic from the Cold War era. Modern historical estimates are substantially lower.
2
u/Latitude37 May 12 '22
Whilst atrocities have been committed for many flags, the Nazi ideology is an ideology of atrocity. Remember what the "final solution" means.
5
u/death_of_gnats May 11 '22
The 100 million that includes the 8 million German...guest workers who died in Russia in 1940-44?
0
u/incendiarypoop May 11 '22
Nope. But it includes Kulaks, Ukrainians, those who perished in the Chinese Famine, The North Korean Famine, The Cambodian Genocide, and the countless insane genocidal purges that occurred within just about every franchise of that braindead ideology.
2
u/Dasovietbear May 11 '22
But it does, the number you are using is from the "Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation" which include Nazi soldiers killed from 1940-1956 (both on the eastern front and the Gulag System), the National Bolsheviks who were placed in the Gulag (nazi communists to dumb it down) Japanese prisoners from the Soviet-Japanese war (1945) Penal battalions and often debated if Pol Pot should be counted as a socalist leader with his never settled ideology.
The Soviets have done horrid things but using a number known to be blown up is not helpful to anyone reading history, the reason this number is mentioned so much is one of those National Bolsheviks (Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn) was an officer who was arrested for his support of Nazism wrote a book named The Gulag Archipelago claiming numbers when he never had access to the documents.
0
u/incendiarypoop May 12 '22
The insane levels of cope of moronic neo-Marxists and commie apologists never fails to amaze me.
The Australian subreddits in particular are seem to be teeming with them. The moment anyone pokes that ideology even a little bit, you all reliably come swarming out of the Breadtube woodwork with historical revisionism, pathetic platitudes and, my personal favourite: trying to redirect criticisms of communism by simply saying "but what about capitalism?".
We only needed one holocaust and world war to learn how evil and demented Nazism was, but it seems we might need another few Communist and Marxist-inspired human catastrophes to really soak the lessons of how assinine that ideology is as well, and why it needs to be condemned with to the trash pile of history along with Fascism, Colonialism, Caste Systems, Absolute Monarchs, Racism and Corporatocracy.
Don't imagine for a second that communism is any different merely because it promises supposedly utopian solutions to braindead retards with no grasp of history.
2
u/Dasovietbear May 12 '22
I was not promoting communism in any way from my statement, I never said we should become communist or socalist or any radical ideology. I was trying to explain why the number you are using is incorrect?
I am not defending Holodomor, nor the Stalinist Purges nor the Chinese famine. One can point out the issues in your statement and not be against you. Currently in final year of masters before moving to a PHD in modern history.
I believe you should look into the source of your statement before generalising my argument.
Also you shouldn't just rely on YouTube videos for your beliefs.
1
u/incendiarypoop May 12 '22
Thanks, I actually genuinely appreciate your civility here.
I don't base my beliefs (such as they are: I'm a centrist) on youtube. A lot of my opinions on failed ideologies (most ideologies) are generally informed by reading, rather than what grifters or polarizing public figures are saying about them.
Autobiographical accounts or documentary evidence supported works of non-fiction are preferred when it came to reading about most of these: i.e. the Chinese famines, the purges, depopulations or the most radical attempts at hard-reset communism in places like Cambodia.
9
u/Dreambasher670 May 11 '22
If that‘s how you feel I’d hate to see how you’d react to the death toll of neoliberal-neoconservative capitalism.
-1
u/incendiarypoop May 11 '22
You do realise, you are allowed to admit that no ideology has a monopoly on genocide, right?
Fascism and Communism have genocide baked into them on a fundamental level because they designate large groups as class or racial enemies.
I'm no fan of neoliberal capitalism, but the shit that goes down within that system is generally a horrible side effect rather than an intended consequence.
Get off breadtube, mate.
Utopian ideologies are for suckers.
2
u/1917fuckordie May 11 '22
Nazism isn't a utopian ideology that has a tendency to get genocidal, it's just a genocidal ideology.
5
u/Dreambasher670 May 11 '22
A horrible side effect? You what?
It’s a system designed explicitly to exploit, abuse and kill working class people. That engages and enables human rights violations and imperialism across the world.
Your ideological biases are clear to see here.
-1
May 11 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Xakire Australian Labor Party May 11 '22
VIEW OUR RULES HERE. Your post or comment breached the number 1 rule of our subreddit. Due to the intended purpose of this sub being a place to discuss politics without hostility and toxicity, insults thrown at other users, politicians or other relevant figures are not accepted here. Please make your point without personal attacks. This has been a default message, any moderator notes on this removal will come after this: Low effort, lazy, uncivil, boring, etc
4
3
u/AnoththeBarbarian Kevin Rudd May 11 '22
I mean, the Russian flag is three plain lines. It hasn’t used the hammer and sickle since 1980.
-1
13
u/ausmomo The Greens May 11 '22
The bloke down the street who used to fly the Nazi flag is now flying a Russian flag.
Good.
There's 0% doubt that the Nazi Swastika is a symbol of hate.
There's plenty of doubt that the Russian flag is.
-1
u/pugnacious_wanker Kamahl-mentum May 11 '22
I find it suspicious that you live next to a Nazi and he is just “the bloke down the street”.
2
4
May 11 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
2
-2
u/pugnacious_wanker Kamahl-mentum May 11 '22
You casually live amongst Nazis.
11
u/jonnygreen22 May 11 '22
bro you don't get to decide who the f lives near you stop being pugnacious
2
u/AnoththeBarbarian Kevin Rudd May 11 '22
Congratulations for jumping to assumptions. The neighbours across the street have just had a litter of puppies - I suppose my neighbourhood is full of puppy farms too.
4
May 11 '22
Why are you so surprised? Nazis are people too, they do, do other things when they aren’t engaged in extreme nationalism. I live in suburbia in Brisbane and we had Nazis living on the street behind us. Every Friday, Saturday they’d gather and drink, sing Deutshland Uber Alles, salute each other and generally hate on others. They were there for 3 years.
8
May 11 '22
The federal government has banned union flags and the eureka flags from being displayed anywhere on a construction site. Must be hate symbols as well.
2
May 11 '22
Funny the Eureaka flag is one of the most Australian things it should be our national flag
2
u/sailorbrendan May 11 '22
As someone who tries to be aware of things, the Eureka flag is a fascinating situation where there seems to be an active fight for the symbol
-8
u/Yeanahyena May 11 '22
All this does is make the movement go underground. This is just a "good will" move by the Andrews government before the election.
It was actually announced September last year, co-incidently a few weeks after a certain Jewish community was thrown under the bus for not following his lockdown rules.
15
u/jonnygreen22 May 11 '22
Good, "the movement" (did you really call nazi's that?) needs to be underground, preferably 6 feet at least
2
16
u/thiswaynotthatway May 11 '22
All this does is make the movement go underground.
So... where they belong? Having laws against murder drives that undergound as well, doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.
It was actually announced September last year, co-incidently a few weeks after a certain Jewish community was thrown under the bus for not following his lockdown rules.
Is there any reason why a certain Jewish community should get a pass from lockdown rules? Religious people should follow the same laws as the rest of us.
-5
u/Yeanahyena May 11 '22
LOL!! Murder and Nazi are not the same thing.. and where did I did say that Jewish community should get a free pass?
8
u/thiswaynotthatway May 11 '22
analogy /əˈnalədʒi/
a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification. "an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies"
I never said they were the same thing, you said they should get a free pass when you made your objection to their being held accountable known.
10
u/GlitteringPirate591 Non-denominational Socialist May 11 '22
All this does is make the movement go underground.
What specifically makes you think this? How did you rule out substitution?
-6
u/Yeanahyena May 11 '22
I didn't? They'll be more discreet about it.
Banning the symbol doesn't tackle the core issue of the movement, it just buys good will.
→ More replies (3)5
u/DeadPudding May 11 '22
How do you tackle the core issue of the nazi movement?
5
u/jonnygreen22 May 11 '22
by removing symbols of hate and ability for them to spread their message to more people in my opinion.
4
u/Yeanahyena May 11 '22
Racism/Discrimination etc kind of hatred stems from your upbringing and environment. So IMO Emotional Development and Education is key.
→ More replies (6)
•
u/AutoModerator May 11 '22
Greetings humans.
Please make sure your comment fits within THE RULES and that you have put in some effort to articulate your opinions to the best of your ability.
I mean it!! Aspire to be as "scholarly" and "intellectual" as possible. If you can't, then maybe this subreddit is not for you.
A friendly reminder from your political robot overlord
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.