901
submitted 10 months ago by Menu@slrpnk.net to c/world@lemmy.world

Australian lawmakers have banned the performance of the Nazi salute in public and outlawed the display or sale of Nazi hate symbols such as the swastika in landmark legislation that went into effect in the country Monday. The new laws also make the act of glorifying OR praising acts of terrorism a criminal offense.

The crime of publicly performing the Nazi salute or displaying the Nazi swastika is punishable by up to 12 months in prison, according to the Reuters news agency.

Mark Dreyfus, Australia's Attorney-General, said in a press release Monday that the laws — the first of their kind in the country — sent "a clear message: there is no place in Australia for acts and symbols that glorify the horrors of the Holocaust and terrorist acts."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] ABCDE@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

No, it says "may" (as I already stated) and "likely", not that he did. So that's unconfirmed and... No other examples.

[-] jimbolauski@lemm.ee 0 points 10 months ago

I can tell you didn't read the article, he went to jail.

[-] ABCDE@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

For the third time: "we do have a bystander who may have just lost his freedom"

May. Likely. Unless you have confirmation that this solitary person you found lost his job then no, it's not a valid concern.

Did you read it yourself?

[-] jimbolauski@lemm.ee 0 points 10 months ago

FTA

he was eventually arrested by Maryland State Troopers.

[-] ABCDE@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Yes, for what? Being aggressive to protestors? For being late to work? It doesn't actually say, so your original post with this link is making up the connection. Did you read the article yourself?

[-] jimbolauski@lemm.ee 0 points 10 months ago

So now you finally admit he went to jail.

He went to jail because protesters prevented him from leaving (kidnapping) and he fought with his kidnappers.

[-] ABCDE@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

He was arrested, he wasn't kidnapped, and no mention of the job. He was being confrontational as the article stated. Why do I need to "admit" what happened to him? It's in the article. No mention of his job, which you have been so insisted on. I'm very bored of this since you have shown no proof of anyone losing their jobs.

[-] jimbolauski@lemm.ee 0 points 10 months ago

He was prevented from leaving, that's kidnapping.

You finally admitted he was sent to jail, is it your claim that he still held his job while in jail?

[-] ABCDE@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

He was arrested, where did it say he went to jail? Or lost his job? It was also because of what looks like his confrontational attitude, not because of the protestors. So no actual examples of losing jobs, right.

[-] jimbolauski@lemm.ee 0 points 10 months ago

I get it now you're just dragging the goal posts over and over.

First you claimed that no one had ever said they lost their job. He clearly said that.

Is your new claim that he didn't go to jail when he was arrested, that parolees don't go to jail when there are arrested, that he didn't lose his job while he was in jail?

this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2024
901 points (98.7% liked)

World News

38977 readers
2076 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS