Australia bans Nazi salute, swastika, other hate symbols in public as antisemitism spikes
cbsnews.com
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
Does a person on parole who was sent back to jail because he lost his job for being late count?
https://reason.com/2022/07/06/blocking-a-highway-is-not-a-legitimate-or-effective-form-of-protest/
How about not being able to get to the emergency room.
https://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/manitoba-man-trapped-in-convoy-protest-while-trying-to-drive-his-sister-to-emergency-room-1.5775033
How about going into labor and being stuck. https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/woman-reportedly-goes-into-labor-while-stuck-in-traffic-after-protesters-shut-down-i-80-in-berkeley/
"May". They don't know that he did.
You're moving the goal posts he said he would lose his job.
Not only did he lose his job he went to jail.
No, it says "may" (as I already stated) and "likely", not that he did. So that's unconfirmed and... No other examples.
I can tell you didn't read the article, he went to jail.
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?
FTA
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?