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.”

  • jimbolauski@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    You’re moving the goal posts he said he would lose his job.

    I’ve seen no one say they lost their jobs.

    Not only did he lose his job he went to jail.

    • ABCDE@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      No, it says “may” (as I already stated) and “likely”, not that he did. So that’s unconfirmed and… No other examples.

        • ABCDE@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year 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?

            • ABCDE@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year 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
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year 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
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year 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
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year 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?