Australian state begins legislating to ban the swastika

The "land of the free and the home of the brave" should follow the example..

At least in some red medieval states..

lol !!..

Good idea now, expand that to include the other Fascist flags used by Allies.

We see these groups just skirt the laws, they will use the "Bolgar" cross (Bulgarian) , the arrow cross, ( Hungary, the Red/Black (Ukraine), the NSB flag ( Netherland) the British union of Fascists flag, some we have seen prominently displayed recently.

Go all in or don't bother.

This seems like a clear violation of freedom of speech and is not to be commended.

In America,it not illegal,but people probably look down you as racist trash

Using or displaying Nazi flags or Nazi memorabilia bearing swastikas would be banned under the law.

Excellent idea.

Desert TortoiseToday  09:34 am JST

This seems like a clear violation of freedom of speech and is not to be commended.

Not a violation of free speech in Australia.

painkiller

Today 09:40 am JST

Using or displaying Nazi flags or Nazi memorabilia bearing swastikas would be banned under the law.

> Excellent idea.

So they switch to the British union of Fascists flag and symbols.

The Arrow cross, etc.... We forget that it just Germany was Nazi/Fascist and today these groups have a reputation of using less know flags like Bolgar cross or the Red/black.

The general public may not get it but those sympathetic to these groups know them well and those persecuted by these groups know these well.

It could end up being a game of Waka mole as seen in other places.

Germany is the best example as every time one symbol or flag was added to the banned list a new one was being used.

No No No those morons !

The Nazi swastika spirals in the opposite direction to the religious symbols.

Perhaps if they weren't so pathetically incompetent they might have noticed !

Truly ridiculous !

Is displaying swastikas a common occurrence in Oz?

Not a violation of free speech in Australia.

I would offer the counter argument that Australia does not honor free speech. In fact Australia has no guaranteed rights whatsoever. There is no written formal bill of rights. A few states have their own human rights laws but there are no national laws protecting the rights of free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of worship, freedom from warrantless searches, etc. One's rights in Australia are whatever the Parliament of the time deigns to give its citizens, or take away depending on how the political winds blow. Just like UK for that matter. Australia fancies themselves as this advanced democracy but their laws and the practices of their police often say otherwise.

How about the hammer and sickle, the prime symbol of intolerance, mass human suffering and death?

How about the hammer and sickle, the prime symbol of intolerance, mass human suffering and death?

What about it?

How about the hammer and sickle

This is a very good point. It’s interesting how this symbol doesn’t create the kind of visceral disgust the swastika does. The swastika, hammer and sickle and another, the Christian cross, symbolize ideas which have caused misery and death for millions.

I don’t agree with banning any of them. I don’t think it does any good.

The swastika should be the symbol for Australia because of the way the govt tramples on the rights of the people under the banner of public health. They even built concentration/prison camps for CoVid19 quarantine centers and for the unvaccinated. Who are the Nazis now?

Delirium.

Desert Tortoise....better brush up on the Australian Constitution {freedom of religion written into the original document }.

There's a trove of Superior Court decisions that have restated the rights of people and protected warrantless searches, but of course the Police like to chip away at these protections {see searches of people at music festivals based on a drug dog's opinion }

It usually goes like this

Police arrest breaking the established rules.....Local Court enforces Police action....Superior Court overturns it .

And yes the Covid "crisis " bought out the worst in Police and conservative politicians....BUT fines issued are being quashed in Courts each day.

Returning to Nazis.....who'd be a Nazi in Australia when we have great beaches, BBQ's and BEER !!!!

Another country finally ripe for the psychiatry’s. If you have a problem with a symbol, then just look into another direction or paint one you like by yourself. lol

Using or displaying Nazi flags or Nazi memorabilia bearing swastikas would be banned under the law.

The legislation would allow the use of the symbol for religious and education purposes. The swastika for Buddhist, Hindu, Jain and other faith communities is an ancient and sacred symbol.

Just in case you stopped at the headline.

Queensland and Tasmania states have foreshadowed similar laws, which would mean half Australia’s eight states and territories and most of the Australian population were banned from displaying Nazi symbols.

If they have a problem with rising nazi movements, they should address that by open discussion and information. Banning drawings is stupid and a step on another slippery slope.

BigYen

You don't understand the power of the symbol? Would-be dictators do. The swastika united and fuelled the Nazi movement in Europe. The hammer and sickle united and fuelled first the Communist Revolution in Russia, then its crusade throughout Eastern Europe and beyond. The flag of China with its red-and-yellow Communist symbolism is the symbol used by the CCP in China to demand and enforce loyalty from its people. Do not underestimate the power of the symbol.

So you want to ban the hammer and sickle and flag of china too? Or they get a special excemption? Any other drawings on your list? And do you really think all it takes is a symbol to persuade people to do something?

I would offer the counter argument that Australia does not honor free speech. In fact Australia has no guaranteed rights whatsoever. There is no written formal bill of rights. A few states have their own human rights laws but there are no national laws protecting the rights of free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of worship, freedom from warrantless searches, etc. One's rights in Australia are whatever the Parliament of the time deigns to give its citizens, or take away depending on how the political winds blow. Just like UK for that matter. Australia fancies themselves as this advanced democracy but their laws and the practices of their police often say otherwise.

From an American, completely devoid of irony. Physician, heal thyself.

Great news. But apparently the upper house will only pass the bill if they attach an amendment that allow sporting players to opt out of wearing the rainbow colours or pride uniform promoting The Rainbow community while under contract with both club and the Administrative bodies.

Kyo wa heiwa dayo ne

Today 10:22 am JST

No No No those morons !

> The Nazi swastika spirals in the opposite direction to the religious symbols.

> Perhaps if they weren't so pathetically incompetent they might have noticed !

> Truly ridiculous

Actually No No No it depends on the religion, the sect and the intended mean.

Here is one simple example:

The word swastika comes from Sanskrit: स्वस्तिक, romanized: svastika, meaning "conducive to well-being".[ In Hinduism, the right-facing symbol (clockwise) (卐) is called swastika, symbolizing surya ("sun"), prosperity and good luck, while the left-facing symbol (counter-clockwise) (卍) is called sauwastika, symbolising night or tantric aspects of Kali.

This was the simplest from Wiki but there are more reasons and situations.

Now as far as I know the German version was set on it's points and not squared like most religious versions.

So it is a little more complicated than just left or right direction.

Sven Asai

Today 11:58 am JST

Another country finally ripe for the psychiatry’s. If you have a problem with a symbol, then just look into another direction or paint one you like by yourself. lol

Nothing is ever that simple.

I watched a documentary where a British ethnic Indian man was trying to explain to so Jewish Brits the difference and the long history and meaning.

They even went to India, and in the end the Jewish people were still unconvinced and still adamant that the Hindu,etc... should stop using it and remove it from everywhere.

They went along but from the start had no intention of accepting the 1+ billion people that see it differently, the Jewish group felt their feelings trumped those of billions Hindus, etc...

So that is how things are

How about the hammer and sickle, the prime symbol of intolerance, mass human suffering and death?

While communist regimes may cause human suffering, the ideal was equality. The nazis believed in racial purity. I think there is a huge difference between the symbols.

This seems like a clear violation of freedom of speech and is not to be commended.

Would banning the displaying of flags featuring photos of naked people also be a violation of freedom of speech? Let's face it, freedom of expression is restricted everywhere, and often for good reasons.

BigYen

Precious few hammer and sickle flags around these days, buddy. Right-wing extremism is the danger, Communism is so 20th century except for China and a couple of others. As for the flag of China, we’re not at war yet, it’s their internationally-recognised national flag, and no-one’s parading the streets of Western democracies trying to convert the locals to Chinese-style Communism. You respond to where the threat is, and the major threat is from Fascists, neo or otherwise.

Actually, I do not see many people parading Nazi flags around, trying to convert people. If anything, I would say Communist symbols are more prevalent at university campuses etc. Be that as it may, who is this overlord who gets to decide which pictures are allowed at any given moment? Are you asking for a ministry of truth?

There's a trove of Superior Court decisions that have restated the rights of people and protected warrantless searches, but of course the Police like to chip away at these protections {see searches of people at music festivals based on a drug dog's opinion }

Legal precedent is no substitute for a formal, written bill of rights or similar document. As we have just seen in the US with respect to abortion rights, legal precedent can be overturned and rights taken away. In the case of Australia banning the swastika, that is a clear violation of free speech. No I am not a Nazi. My parents and uncles fought the Axis powers and we have no love for any of that, but as is attributed to Voltaire, I may disapprove with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it. There is no excuse for limiting free speech and nations that do are edging into tyranny.

2BigYen, tell us then how is the Australian Parliament banning the Swastika any different than your notional "Ministry of Truth"? It is an inherently weak society that considers political symbols so threatening they ban them. Mature well adjusted people do not need to ban offensive symbols. Rather than ban symbols the correct path is to offer the counter argument to the ideology the symbol represents. The truth is in fact a far more powerful refutation of Nazi ideology than any ban.

I'd rather have public discussion of controversial images than banning.

Right and wrong aren't always so clear.

According to wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika, the swastika is on a diagonal and religious symbols are not. There are religious symbols spinning in both directions and some have extra flourishes on the ends.

Infringing on the rights of the non-Nazi groups to show their religious symbol is a terrible thing too.

DesertTortoise: Mate, No bill of right, it sure is working great, How that second amendment of your going, Children still getting mass murdered at school on any day ? How is that going ???? Do your children wear kevlar uniforms to school. ? that freedom ??? Bill of Wrongs more like it.

If they are so afraid of fascism that they must do something like this, to avoid screaming HYPOCRISY, they should ban that blue six pointed star thing as well because there is no difference between the two philosophies other than who the victims are.