This fellow was behaving in a way that is against our stated national values, is threatening to citizens and other residents of this country, and is against the law.
He is now facing the predictable legal consequences of breaking the law, ie had he consulted a lawyer or even looked into it himself beforehand he would’ve known that this would be the likely outcome.
You’re now inferring from this that legitimate political speech may be curtailed in the future despite there being no legal mechanism for this to happen.
Many on the far left like to claim that liberals will always defend the rights of fascists to be fascists, that’s sometimes unfair but this kind of nonsense is how liberals get that reputation. (‘Small l’ liberals of course)
Who watches the watchmen? The same legal mechanism that was used here could be used against someone protesting the destruction of the environment. We’ve already seen similar. Or the Israeli genocide. We’ve already seen a peaceful protestor lose an eye. She was presumably a citizen given she was a candidate for election.
I understand the paradox of tolerance. I also understand state overreach.
I think the police and courts have too much power to stifle legitimate protest already. This will be a reason to stifle it more.
1000 apologies, I read this, then read about the Pauline Hanson discrimination act stuff, then came back and got them confused. The cancellation of visas is always an option for any reason for the minister, I kind of think a committee or something would be better. I still think it’s worth throwing the book at Nazis in every instance where they can’t be ignored.
Let’s deconstruct this.
This fellow was behaving in a way that is against our stated national values, is threatening to citizens and other residents of this country, and is against the law.
He is now facing the predictable legal consequences of breaking the law, ie had he consulted a lawyer or even looked into it himself beforehand he would’ve known that this would be the likely outcome.
You’re now inferring from this that legitimate political speech may be curtailed in the future despite there being no legal mechanism for this to happen.
Many on the far left like to claim that liberals will always defend the rights of fascists to be fascists, that’s sometimes unfair but this kind of nonsense is how liberals get that reputation. (‘Small l’ liberals of course)
Who watches the watchmen? The same legal mechanism that was used here could be used against someone protesting the destruction of the environment. We’ve already seen similar. Or the Israeli genocide. We’ve already seen a peaceful protestor lose an eye. She was presumably a citizen given she was a candidate for election.
I understand the paradox of tolerance. I also understand state overreach.
I think the police and courts have too much power to stifle legitimate protest already. This will be a reason to stifle it more.
1000 apologies, I read this, then read about the Pauline Hanson discrimination act stuff, then came back and got them confused. The cancellation of visas is always an option for any reason for the minister, I kind of think a committee or something would be better. I still think it’s worth throwing the book at Nazis in every instance where they can’t be ignored.
Yes, but throw the book at all of them equally.
If he is prosecuted for hate speech, then remove his visa. Why are the “Aussies” getting off scot free. Why the double standard?
I used to think the Victoria laws banning swastikas etc was overkill. In this day and age, who’d be an actual nazi.