Summary
Australia has enacted strict anti-hate crime laws, mandating jail sentences for public Nazi salutes and other hate-related offenses.
Punishments range from 12 months for lesser crimes to six years for terrorism-related hate offenses.
The legislation follows a rise in antisemitic attacks, including synagogue vandalism and a foiled bombing plot targeting Jewish Australians.
The law builds on state-level bans, with prior convictions for individuals performing Nazi salutes in public spaces, including at sporting events and courthouses.
What you want is the government to enforce what you think the standards should be.
What you will get is the government enforcing what the government thinks the standards should be.
I disagree with the fundamental premise of your argument, and I cite the results of the last election is the foundation of my own.
This argument boils down to “You want the government to do a good thing, but bad people can abuse the government to do the opposite.” Sure, that happens sometimes.
But following your logic, I guess all laws shouldn’t exist then. After all, if we give the government the ability to do anything against any citizen, they might use it in a bad way! This argument is fundamentally unworkable, because it doesn’t just apply to enforcing rules regarding speech, it applies to all rules.
Yes, I believe the government should enforce the standards I believe are correct. No, I do not believe that simply by enforcing such standards the power is magically granted for them to use it incorrectly, in a way that they wouldn’t be capable of had my preferred regulation not been implemented. Whether Nazis are or aren’t allowed speech won’t stop a bad government from simply censoring acceptable speech, if the government is acting in bad faith. They will do so regardless of if anti-Nazi speech regulations were in place prior.
Should we never attempt to implement any positive policy if it grants power that could theoretically be abused?
You’re not following my logic.
That conclusion does not arise from my arguments.
I am saying that the law should be objective. “The speed limit is 35mph” is an objective law. Yes, it can be abusively enforced, by allowing some people to go 55, while stopping others at 36.
Contrast, “Disturbing the peace”, a purely subjective law. Cops apply that law to do pretty much anything they want, to anyone they want, at any time they want, with zero consequences. The only objective factor is your presence in public: It’s pretty hard to argue you were disturbing the peace from the comfort of your own home.
Concepts as nebulous and vague as the ones we are talking about here are as broadly and subjectively enforced as “disturbing the peace”. The Nazis could claim you are in violation of your laws if you support “pedophiles” (by which they mean “trans”). Or supporting “enemy invaders” (by which they mean “immigrants”). Even mentioning “Luigi” could qualify as a violation.
Never give the government a power that you would not give to the Nazis.
Nazism, however, can be more objectively defined than single-word terms, as you’ve used here.
For instance, if someone says the words “Heil Hitler” while raising their hands in a traditional Nazi salute, there isn’t exactly room for a fascist to go “weeeeelllll but you saying ‘black lives matter’ with your fist up is the same thing, actually,” if the law explicitly states that saying the exact words “Heil Hitler” while raising your hand in that salute is the specific thing required to get you imprisoned. Laws can be more objectively defined than “pedophiles,” “supporting enemy invaders,” or “Nazis.”
Nazis simply ignore the law. Trump is quite literally doing it right now, He’s passing executive orders he doesn’t actually have the legal capacity to enforce, which is then leading to things like congresspeople being prevented from entering buildings they have a right to enter, or databases being given to people without legally required security credentials. They don’t care what the law was, they care what it will be once they’re done screwing with it.
Whether or not you pass a law prohibiting explicit behaviors that are categorically harmful to society will not change whether or not they are then capable of manipulating the laws to do what they wanted to do to you regardless.
It will, however, heavily reduce the chances of them coming into power, and having the ability to misuse any laws or power they may have in the first place
And yes, it obviously does. You stated that we should not censor Nazis because Nazis in power later on could use that law to suppress others. The same logic applies to any other regulation or prohibition. We shouldn’t pass gun control legislation because it’s possible someone uses it to take the good people’s guns away. We shouldn’t imprison people for rape because someone could redefine what rape means to mean non-married people having sex. We shouldn’t jail pedophiles because they could redefine trans people as pedophiles simply for existing.
It’s the same logic all the way down. There is nothing different when it comes to imprisonment for Nazi-aligned speech/actions, or other dangerous speech/actions. All of them can be prohibited to an extent, even though there’s a possibility that the power dynamic could then be reversed later on by the same group of people being prohibited.
Look, I’m not going to keep going on this because I think it’s clear neither of us are changing our stances. Send a reply if you want, I’ll gladly read it, and give it some thought, but I’m done trying to continue a conversation if you think we shouldn’t try to stop Nazis because Nazis could possibly get in power and stop us instead. That applies to any regulation against any group that could possibly come into power, and I would encourage you to look back at the examples I provided, stop, and think about just how different the logic really is to the idea of censoring Nazis, because I think you’ll find it is, in fact, not different at all.
Then “HH” isn’t a violation. “88” isn’t a violation. They avoid the specific phrases, speak their hatred in any other terms not explicitly listed.
They laugh at the pointlessness of your law, then someone - maybe you, maybe them - expands that law to cover more and more hateful words. Then one of you takes the next step, and allows the government to decide an unlisted word is hateful.
No, it won’t. All you are doing is granting them powers to use against you when they do come into power.
Do you even understand the concept of fascism? It is an authoritarian ideal. Fascists thrive on the exercise of political power over others. They need the power to oppress, to subjugate. They need you to become oppressive. They need you to exercise your power to suppress them, so that when they do manage to get elected, you have set that precedent for them to use against you.
The way you destroy the Nazis is by ensuring your society values liberal ideals, and summarily rejects authoritarianism in all its forms. You can’t out-auth a fascist without becoming a fascist yourself.