The officers issued him an official warning after determining his actions were not racially motivated.
Why the fuck do neo-nazis get to march through Ballarat (or any other place, really)?
Because Victoria Police will turn up to escort them.
They’re “escorting” them because they’re on shift. If they weren’t working they’d just be in the march.
Some of those who work forces…
I’m not Australian, but…
If you let the baddies march, you can identify them later and tie them to the hate-crimes when they happen.
If I was the government, I would absolutely let people show me who they are. I’d rather know what I’m up against, how many, and who amonsgt them I can dig dirt up on
I… don’t even know where to start with this.
Also, this has fuckall to do with Australia. Fascists are marching everywhere. Do we really need a repeat of 1933-1945 before we learn our history lesson?
Interesting. So, do you think that if something becomes illegal, it simply goes away?
So, for example…lets take something I feel is a natural. Homosexuality. If suddenly homosexuality suddenly became punishable by death by everyone in the world would it vanish? Would all people just be straight? No.
People are all wired differently.
Instead of repressing who people are, we should seek to understand what fears people have, what brings them comfort, educate them, highlight the ways in which we are similair as people. We should fight fascism not with oppression but inclusion.
Facists gain power by division. It’s “us” vs “them”
They lose power when “us” is all there is.
Anyway. My original point is that I would rather see the wolf for what it is and watch it, than allow it to hide amongst the flock, undetected
I normally try to engage at eye level and not be condescending. But if this following bit comes across as condescending, then that is with full intent.
I cannot possibly express in words how utterly naïve the notion of ‘fighting fascism with inclusion’ is. I’ve been around for long enough to see that it doesn’t work. Neo-Nazis haven’t been around since yesterday. The whole inclusion shtick has been tried, over and over and over. And what’s happened? They’ve become more emboldened and more omnipresent. Some 30 years ago there were massive Neo-Nazi marches and violent incidents in Germany, when Neo-Nazis set fire to asylum seeker housing in several places. Back then there were many shocked faces, and outrage, and yet we had the same voices urging calm and to engage them at eye level and not oppress them. Did it work? Fuck no.
And that whole idea of sunlight being the best disinfectant… yeah nah.
The only way to fight fascism is to make unequivocally clear that it has no place in modern society. None whatsoever.
And since you brought homosexuality into the mix, there is a key difference here: being a fascist is a choice - being homosexual is not. You are born with your sexuality, you can’t choose to be not homosexual. But you can choose to not be a fascist. However, in spite of all attempts at inclusion and meeting these people at eye level over decades, more and more of them decide they want to be fascists. How much longer would you like to try for?
I understand your frustration, and also the need to come across as condescending. You’re probably the downvote on my comment. You want to punish me, don’t you?
See, that feeling you are feeling… that frustration. It isn’t unique to you.
The primary driver in fascism is emotion. Fear, anger, frustration. Stong human emotion that lead to feeling like other people are lesser than yourself. The bad guy. The evil one. The ones that must be stopped.
Those strong feelings and the desire to shush the words of the other are exactly the kinds of things that lead to extremes.
Having strong feelings toward other people are as natural and normal as homosexuality.
When I say inclusion, I’m not talking about inviting the Nazi to roast the Jew at dinner. I’m talking about inviting everyone, Jew, Christian, Atheist, Hindu, Muslim, everyone, to dinner and giving each a timer to talk.
It sounds hokey as fuck, but we need to learn to love each other as we love ourselves. Only then, can Nazi’s cease to exist. If you repress people, it only makes the hate stronger.
Anyway, there is a portion of the population that is incapable of what I mentioned above. For them, there is no cure. For them, they must be watched. If -and only if- they cause harm to others, then they need to be jailed to protect everyone else. But… I believe they’re (thankfully) rare. For everyone else, there’s hope
I understand your frustration, and also the need to come across as condescending. You’re probably the downvote on my comment. You want to punish me, don’t you?
I did not downvote you, and I don’t want to punish you, so there is no need to give me a lecture.
If -and only if- they cause harm to others, then they need to be jailed to protect everyone else.
You do not understand that by the time they’re causing harm to others, it’s too late. By then you’ve let them do their thing long enough that they feel strengthened, emboldened and justified. And that time has passed. It passed when they invaded the Capitol on 6th January 2021. It passed when the Neonazi ploughed his car into the crowds in Charlottesville. It passed when Neonazis firebombed asylum seeker homes in Germany 30 years ago. Fascists and Nazis are actively doing harm, everywhere in the world. This is what they’re here for. And society has failed to stop them. They’re here to stay now.
I’m not lecturing you, I apologize if it seemed that way. What I was trying to do is allow you to recognize that your own biases, to help explain why people jump on the fascist boat
I’m not gonna continue arguing, because it seems like you’re upset. I just hope that you can remember thenold adage: you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar
‘Here is why you are objectively wrong.’
'I’m sorry you feel that way. ’
Stop talking.
You are just as entitled to your opinion as I am, and I won’t be silenced by you, or anyone else for that matter.
You can stomp your feet and whine all you want to. I wouldn’t even try to stop you even if I could. You know why?
Just because I disagree with you, doesn’t mean I wouldn’t defend your right to disagree with me. Hate me if you want to, it’s your right as a human being to feel however it is that you will feel
I’m almost certain how aware of it, but you haven’t addressed the intolerance paradox.
For me the line needs to be crossed. As soon as that happens, action can be taken. But guilty-by-association isn’t enough (and that’s how I see marching)
If someone makes a legit threat (or commits a crime) against another person, then something should be done to address that (what that something is needs to be proportional and preferably reform-based)
Like what’s happening to Trump and the Jan 6th crowd. The peeps involved are being handed sentences. Evidence against the baddies need to be properly collected so that they can be brought to justice in a civilized way.
You need a visual on them for that to happen. Let them march, identify them, and keep track of their behaviour. They’re fine… until they step out of line. And if they do, you know who they are, how many, etc.
I can understand why people misunderstand me and my meaning. I look at things with empathy, a love of freedom, a deep desire for open discussions, autonomy, and belief in taking action against others only when it’s truly justifiable (such as cases of physical threat, or impending threat)
Sure ok but you haven’t actually addressed the paradox of tolerance.
It’s great that you love freedom, autonomy, and open discussions, but what if there is a group of people intent on using this inclusivity to promulgate their agenda, which is intolerance?
To say the same thing another way, these ideals are based on the premise that everyone is acting in good faith, but some are not.
As you say you need to wait until people step out of line. Modern society has determined that the “line” is somewhere before assembling in overtly intolerant groups. A parade of Nazism is already out of line.
You’re right, but we have to be careful. We can’t rely on what society deems acceptable as the total and reasonable truth. That’s how Nazism rises in the first place.
Idk if you saw that post about Ignaz Semmelweis, who proposed that docs should wash their hands (and was so mocked that he ended up having a break-down and died after a beating in the asylum). Society at the time couldn’t accept his radical new idea. There are so many times in history (Galileo spending his last years under house arrest because heliocentrism was considered heresy) where people were persecuted for having ideas that went against society
I have a mixed bag of beliefs that are frankly half-baked, which is why I’m happy to have these kinds of debates
But what I’m getting at is that I dislike repressing people and ideas just because the status quo says you should repress them- even if that means undesirable idiologies creep in. We need to examine them closely, in an open minded way that isn’t immediately crushing because we can miss opportunities for growth
I’m liberal. I believe in autonomy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. I am against genocide, racism, sexism, and all that
However- we have to let them speak and argue against them. We need to be pushing back against things like book removals, and pushing for funding of schools. It’s exhausting, and considerably more difficult, but I think it’s a better way to go
Imagine if, at these marches, you and I had a big screen which displayed the horrors of concentration camps. The images of fingernail marks embedded in the metal of the gas chambers. Images of the disease. Excerpts from the wretched experiments.
Maybe it’s naive, but I believe we would sway enough of those people marching that to weaken their cause.
Just yelling at them to shut up, or arresting them when half of them don’t even think it was real isn’t gonna work. It’ll just strengthen the cause and send them underground
I think the thing being talked about a lot less is how the neo-nazi’s who were marching weren’t stopped from what the article says.
They clearly knew from reprimanding the kid that it wasn’t right so…what were they doing other than that?
Right, why isn’t the article about the police stopping the literal neo-nazis marching in front of them instead of them traumatizing some kid?
Less than a year since introducing the law and it’s already been made useless. “oh there was nothing racial about the Nazi salute during a Nazi rally”, fucking acab.
He’s a 15yr old kid!
Can you only be racist at 18?
Likewise being a teen doesn’t change the bullshit excuse by the courts.
honestly seems more to be a case of 15 yo being an edgy idiot. hoe he learnt his lesson, fine him next time
Wrong and wrong…
If you really think there’s no different between 15 and 18, then give a 15yr old alcohol, give them a licence and let them vote.
They’re a kid that a group of Nazi fuckwits marched past and they reacted with a Nazi salute, that it.
Oh yes I remember all the times as a 15 year old I jokingly saluted neo Nazis. Classic childhood stuff, if this were 1935 Germany.
This kid should be made to undergo some sort of community service or opportunity to learn and reflect on their actions. Not given a free pass and dismissal of racism.
Oh for fuck sake, teens do stupid thing, we all did stupid things as teens without thinking about the consequences, get a grip.
Yes they do and there should be some punishment, so they learn. Otherwise Tim will jump around on another kindergarten roof until it gives way and he falls in again, but this time someone might get hurt. Speaking from experience.
A few hours community service will do the trick.
Shitting your pants being taken for questioning and given an official warning… That’s not exactly getting away with it.
And for the 50th time; they’re 15 years old, had not other issues, wasn’t known to the police and wasn’t part of the group.
Criminalizing opinions is fucking stupid.
Yeah okay mate.
Go simp for neonazis elsewhere.
Learn the difference between opinions and actions.
Sorry, my mistake. Criminalizing expressing opinions in public is fucking stupid.
You have to be a special kind of uneducated to think that throwing the Nazi salute or displaying Nazi symbolics is merely ‘expressing an opinion’.
lolok
They give a warning to a kid who saluted actual Nazis during a Nazi demonstration… What happened to the actual fucking Nazis demonstrating?
I dislike nazis and would never do the nazi salute. I wish that other people wouldn’t do the nazi salute either. But some people are still going to do it. So the question because what do we do with those people. Do we a) Do nothing. Ignore them. b) Fine them c) Something else…
I see a lot of discussion over whether a or b is the best option, but I’d like to see more of what’s in category c. Is there anything that could change their mind? Can we send them to a counseling session? Get them to help out in a jewish community centre?
Stopping someone doing the salute is okay, but changing their mind is even better.
Imagine living in a police state.
Nazi Germany was, among other things, a police state.
Imagine that.
Gotta become the Nazis to protect yourself from the Nazis, right? What’s that quote?
"Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster… for when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”—Friedrich Nietzsche
You people really are ultra-keen on another era of fascism, aren’t you?
Read and understand the paradox of tolerance before you continue simping for fascists. When they get into power, they won’t browse Lemmy and check who’s been good to them. They’ll take your freedom, your human rights, no matter how much you fought for theirs.
Democracy is pretty much the only form of governance that can be used to dismantle itself. That’s what happened in 1933. It’s happening again. So it has to defend itself, and the first line of defense should be to not tolerate fascism. It’s really not that hard. So next time, before you google a fancy Nietzsche quote, maybe go to Wikipedia instead and start in 1933, see how the fascist state came about that later brought war and genocide to the world.
I said nothing about being tolerant only not criminalizing it.
How you know it’s a failed rule is the Neo Nazis are still marching and the only who got in trouble is some random 15 year old.
Actually police states are a good thing
Sir, that is an unauthorized opinion. You’re under arrest.
Wait no not like that
If we dont let our enemies have freedom of expression why should we have it. If he was explicitly calling for violence arrest him but an offensive hand guesture is just hurt feelings.
Oh woe is me, society is ruined when racists can’t freely spread hate.
Fuck off wanker.
First they came for the xyz, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a xyz.
And yes i get the historical context behind that funny how u can apply it to everyone.
“I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise.” - Karl Popper
Banning certain kinds of speech doesn’t prevent the thought behind it. The speech will continue, it just won’t be where you can police it.
And those things are very much not happening. Neo Nazis incidents are increasing in this country, so they’re not being kept in check and rational argument is irrelevant when racism is irrational.
Also let’s add the rest of your quote in
But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.
they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
Which is nolonger words and as im sure u would agree with that.
We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
That doesnt sound like use it to me that sounds like well let em have their speach but retain the right to supress them via bigger stick deplomacy. What does he mean by supress them? supress the ideology? people are gonna go speach regardless of if the speach is illegal. Or does he mean arrest anyone explicitly calling for violence (thats where i draw the line)? Or does he mean put em all in a train to poland?
Wait a minute, do you mean to tell me that the guy everyone is always smugly quoting in support of broad censorship might have had more nuanced views? Thanks a lot, you just made the world more complicated and pretty much ruined my entire week.
Countering fascism by rational argument and keeping it in check by public opinion has been tried. It hasn’t worked.
But you obviously don’t get the historical context - because most of the people the Nazis came for never came back alive.
They weren’t handing out slaps on the wrists. When they knocked, they were there to take lives.
Why on earth you think that we ought to give such people a voice in society is bewildering.
I beleive very strongly in equality, even for evil fuckers. I also believe its our juty to ignore them and encorage others to do the same.
The problem with engaging Nazis and other hate groups like this is that they never plan on stopping at merely voicing their opinion. Violence against someone else, their target demographic, is their endgame.
They aren’t like you and me, who want what’s best for society but are guided by different philosophies. If they want power, it is only to abuse against their target group. Otherwise they are far more interested in recruiting people willing to do violence against their target groups.
We can encourage people to move on all we like, but hate groups are actually quite devious in how they operate. They actually pull a page or two from the cult playbook. One of the first things they train/manipulate their recruits to do is ignore external opinions. That makes pulling them out of the hate group BS almost impossible with words alone.
Hate groups aren’t honest actors, and shouldn’t be engaged with as though they are.
Imo nobody wants whats best for society people only want whats best for themselves thats just natural selection, cooperation comes about as a product of mutual benefit hence we live in a reletivly safe and reasonable society. The more society aligns with interests of the individual the heigher the incentive for the individual to want the beat for society. Thats why democracy is such a good system.
I know they don’t plan to stop at voicing opinions but the second they step over the line and enact violence ship em off to prison or ideally rehabilitation.
I know they don’t plan to stop at voicing opinions but the second they step over the line and enact violence ship em off to prison or ideally rehabilitation.
The problem there is that by the time violence started actually happening in Nazi Germany, there was no one willing or able to do anything about it.
If you let a hate movement get big, they’re going to have thousands of people willing to commit these crimes, and they’ll happen every other day.
Even if you take the extremes of Naziism out of the equation, that’s a family home firebombed, a school shot up or a church massacred before you do anything about one individual.
If you’re only taking direct action against individuals who directly cause violence after the fact, you put the targeted group in a very desperate position. You’re letting the people who are recruiting often people with mental health issues or challenges to do their violence go scott free to continue recruiting more people to do violence.
That’s going to add up to a lot of firebombed homes and massacred churches, and a targeted group that frankly does not feel safe in that community. Infact they may turn desperate and in turn towards violence. That’s how, taking an extreme example, groups like Hamas come to be.
I know they don’t plan to stop at voicing opinions but the second they step over the line and enact violence
The second that happens, it’s too late.
How do I know? Because that second has already passed.
Ask Europe how well ignoring the Nazis in 1939 worked out for them. If we just leave them alone I’m sure it’ll all work out.
Jesus fucking Christ, this is like the joke about the people voting for the Lepoards eating People’s Faces party, except they’re actually lining up to have their faces eaten.
deleted by creator
These are the motherfuckers who want to take X/Y/Z away and we are speaking out against them. Jesus, man.
The Third Reich started with exactly that ‘offensive hand gesture’.
It culminated in war and mass murder. Learn your fucking history.
So i draw the line before war, mass murder, and violance u obviously draw it before free expression.
By the time things get to “war, mass murder, and violance”, it is far too late to draw lines. Nobody is in a position to stop them at that point.
“war, mass murder, and violance” is the end goal of the Nazis and other hate groups. They are not content with merely voicing their opinion. They are not up for debating societal ideals. The only reason they might be handing out flyers on a street corner is so they can recruit people willing to Molotov synagogues or other gathering places of their targets.
They are not honest participants in political debate or have any real interest in politics besides gaining and retaining power they can abuse for their own ends.
They are not just voicing an opinion. They are always gearing up for violence.
Since you’re so eager to grant free expression to fascists, you probably don’t realise that if they get into power, the first thing they will take a way from you is free expression. And they won’t stop there.
Go figure.
The ideology of neo-liberalism is so fucking cursed. You don’t even understand how your own ideology functions and how you shut down leftists and allow fascism to grow.
Because there are limits to freedom of expression when it infringes on other people’s rights.
For example, if I walk up to someone and tell them I’ll kill them if they don’t give me all their money, that’s outside the limits of free expression - it’s a threat of violence, and hence that makes it a robbery. That is a reasonable limit of freedom of expression in a democratic society.
The same applies if, given mutually shared background and context, the threat is only implied. For example, if I walked into a bank and gave the teller a bag and a note saying “You’d better put all the money into the bag right now!”, that is still robbery even though the there is no explicitly written threat, because it is implied from the context. The message sender (me in that example) and receiver (the teller) know how it will be interpreted even though the threat is left unsaid. Even if that particular bank robber has never hurt anyone, they rely on actual force used by past bank robbers to reinforce their message. Criminalising such robberies that rely on implicit threats is still a reasonable limit of freedom of expression in a democratic society.
Sometimes, no words are required at all; there are situations where a combination of clothing and actions / gestures also send a threatening message that both the message sender and the message receiver know are threatening. Dressing up in neo-nazi garb and throwing Nazi salutes is equivalent to shouting “If you aren’t white, this place is not safe for you now”. The people sending that message know that is the message - that is, in fact, why they choose to do it. The people receiving the message also know that. And the message is reinforced by occasional actual violence by neo-Nazis (even if not everyone sending the message actually has been violent). The only real difference from the bank robber making the implicit threat is that the threat is implied by actions instead of words. Criminalising symbols and gestures that send an implicit threat to people is a reasonable limit of freedom of expression in a democratic society (less so if the gesture is only used ironically to call someone a Nazi, but given the rise of actual neo-Nazis I think the law is reasonable, and there are plenty of other ways to criticise authoritarian politicians that should not be illegalised).
Because there are limits to freedom of expression when it infringes on other people’s rights.
Did u read my second sentence?
I’m not deffending explicit threats in any way.
A threat is only as strong as u are to back it up. Hence ur bank example is either irrellevent i.e. no credibble backing or if they have a weapon (credible enforcement) then thats the crime not not the speach.
The issue of implicit threats is its completely subjective hence literature is classifed as an art not a science. Whos the judge of how words and context get interpreted sounds very authoritarian to me.
If u think of it in a more abstract way whats the difference between the government restricting how im physicly allowed to move my own limbs and the government telling somone they can’t get an abortion? How can u possibly justify restricting my fucking body?
Heres the hot take u can get mad at: What sort of a weak motherfucker do u have to be to feel threatened by a hand gesture? Go live on the ukrainian russian border or try being a muslim in china. There are fatter far eviler fish to fry than some insecure neo nazi ahirbag making a hand geature. Lets stop the current genocides before we start arresting people for thought crime cos they might potentialy one day start a genicide of their own.
