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.”

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

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

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