Australian Politics Forum - Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech

MeisterEckhart

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16508
Gender: male

Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #105 - Feb 2^nd, 2026 at 11:29am

chimera wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2026 at 10:21am:

An example of Oz altering the constitution is the Australia Act 1986 which severed the last remaining constitutional links between Australia and the UK, eliminating the power of the British Parliament to legislate for Australia. The High Court has declared it won't apply s 74 for appeals to Privy Council.

The Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 (Cth) established the Queen's title in Australia as 'Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia'.
She was never crowned that way and the constitution is for 'the Queen' which in 1901 meant monarch of Great Britain. So the very centre of sovereignty is mutilated by a vote.

It's this kind of linguistic sleight of hand that many US presidents attempt. Like Nixon with his assertion that the US president has the power of France's Louis XIV, doled out every 4 years and led to his 'If the president does it, that means it's not illegal'...

Remind you of any other president?

Back to top

IP Logged

MeisterEckhart

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16508
Gender: male

Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #106 - Feb 2^nd, 2026 at 11:33am

chimera wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2026 at 11:27am:

The implied right of political free speech persists by common consent. It can be limited to the minimum such as statements of platforms yet the public demand protects it in general.

Yes, but free speech, in any definition that Australians would normally accept, is not immune to prohibitive legislation, as free speech is not a constitutional and 'inalienable' right under Australian law.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52334
At my desk.

Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #107 - Feb 2^nd, 2026 at 11:35am

MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2026 at 11:20am:

freediver wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2026 at 9:58am:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 2:23pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 1:57pm:

Quote:

They haven't banned guns at all because the 2nd Amendment exists.

Note the constitution does not say the government is not allowed to ban guns. It says the government is not allowed to infringe on the right to bear arms, which it clearly does. Drawing that line at a completely different point to where the constitution draws it does not prove that the constitution dictates policy. It proves that it is meaningless and that actual power rests with the whim of the public. If you actually paid attention, you would understand this, and I would not have to repeat it for you.

The American courts were quite right to decide that arms today are different from arms way back then, but the "technically correct" response was to say that the constitution leaves no wiggle room, so you will have to change the constitution. The expedient path they took was to decide that "the right to bears arms shall not be infringed" means something other than what it actually says. Who knows what it actually means now though? Not a complete ban? Only certain weapons? The choice is left to the whim of judges and or the democratic process.

That the Constitutional Amendments would likely become anachronistic over time was anticipated by Jefferson, who expected regular constitutional conventions every few decades to address any anachronisms.

But US governance didn't evolve the way Jefferson had hoped, and now the 2nd Amendment is interpreted as the right to bear arms, without regard to what a militia is, or what is meant by arms, which back in Jefferson's day meant muskets.

The Constitution not only dictates policy, it also prevents or causes to be struck down all legislation that can be adjudicated as contravening its amendments, and often even smothers national conversations on amendment repeal or reform.

Either that, or it gets "reinterpreted" to mean something other than what it says.

Are you saying that the constitution guarantees rights, or that it is flexible enough to allow those rights to be taken away as needed?

All amendments specifying an (inalienable) right persist in law the preservation of that right, even if any of its qualifications are disregarded over time, particularly when the language falls out of use, like 'militia'. It's the reason Jefferson expected the Constitution to be reviewed every few decades to eliminate accumulated anachronisms.

It was naivety on Jefferson's part that there could have been a commitment to regular constitutional conventions, given the social and political upheavals that usually accompany the constitutional amendment process.

Although amendment proposals have been (cynically) used to further political outcomes. Reagan used the idea of a new amendment to prohibit abortion in his campaign for reelection in 1984. After he won, the idea evaporated overnight from his political agenda.

Are you telling campfire yarns about Jefferson, or trying to make a point?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

chimera Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 14602 Armidale Gender:	Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech Reply #108 - Feb 2^nd, 2026 at 11:37am MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2026 at 11:29am: Remind you of any other president? Malcolm Fraser?
Back to top	IP Logged

MeisterEckhart

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16508
Gender: male

Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #109 - Feb 2^nd, 2026 at 11:39am

freediver wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2026 at 11:35am:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2026 at 11:20am:

freediver wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2026 at 9:58am:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 2:23pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 1:57pm:

Quote:

They haven't banned guns at all because the 2nd Amendment exists.

Note the constitution does not say the government is not allowed to ban guns. It says the government is not allowed to infringe on the right to bear arms, which it clearly does. Drawing that line at a completely different point to where the constitution draws it does not prove that the constitution dictates policy. It proves that it is meaningless and that actual power rests with the whim of the public. If you actually paid attention, you would understand this, and I would not have to repeat it for you.

The American courts were quite right to decide that arms today are different from arms way back then, but the "technically correct" response was to say that the constitution leaves no wiggle room, so you will have to change the constitution. The expedient path they took was to decide that "the right to bears arms shall not be infringed" means something other than what it actually says. Who knows what it actually means now though? Not a complete ban? Only certain weapons? The choice is left to the whim of judges and or the democratic process.

That the Constitutional Amendments would likely become anachronistic over time was anticipated by Jefferson, who expected regular constitutional conventions every few decades to address any anachronisms.

But US governance didn't evolve the way Jefferson had hoped, and now the 2nd Amendment is interpreted as the right to bear arms, without regard to what a militia is, or what is meant by arms, which back in Jefferson's day meant muskets.

The Constitution not only dictates policy, it also prevents or causes to be struck down all legislation that can be adjudicated as contravening its amendments, and often even smothers national conversations on amendment repeal or reform.

Either that, or it gets "reinterpreted" to mean something other than what it says.

Are you saying that the constitution guarantees rights, or that it is flexible enough to allow those rights to be taken away as needed?

All amendments specifying an (inalienable) right persist in law the preservation of that right, even if any of its qualifications are disregarded over time, particularly when the language falls out of use, like 'militia'. It's the reason Jefferson expected the Constitution to be reviewed every few decades to eliminate accumulated anachronisms.

It was naivety on Jefferson's part that there could have been a commitment to regular constitutional conventions, given the social and political upheavals that usually accompany the constitutional amendment process.

Although amendment proposals have been (cynically) used to further political outcomes. Reagan used the idea of a new amendment to prohibit abortion in his campaign for reelection in 1984. After he won, the idea evaporated overnight from his political agenda.

Are you telling campfire yarns about Jefferson, or trying to make a point?

Your effete petulance indicates you're not immune from the effects of self-embarrassment, then.

No inalienable right of any Amendment defining one has ever disappeared over time.

Back to top

IP Logged

MeisterEckhart Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 16508 Gender:	Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech Reply #110 - Feb 2^nd, 2026 at 11:41am chimera wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2026 at 11:37am: MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2026 at 11:29am: Remind you of any other president? Malcolm Fraser? More like Gough Whitlam. 'It's time'.
Back to top	IP Logged

chimera

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 14602
Armidale
Gender: male

Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #111 - Feb 2^nd, 2026 at 11:41am

MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2026 at 11:33am:

free speech, in any definition that Australians would normally accept, is not immune to prohibitive legislation, as free speech is not a constitutional and 'inalienable' right under Australian law.

Of course, it's asserted as common law. But if it was constitutional it could still be reduced as the Australia Act and Title Act demonstrate.

Back to top

IP Logged

MeisterEckhart

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16508
Gender: male

Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #112 - Feb 2^nd, 2026 at 11:55am

chimera wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2026 at 11:41am:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2026 at 11:33am:

free speech, in any definition that Australians would normally accept, is not immune to prohibitive legislation, as free speech is not a constitutional and 'inalienable' right under Australian law.

Of course, it's asserted as common law. But if it was constitutional it could still be reduced as the Australia Act and Title Act demonstrate.

Whitlam's and Hawke's sleights of hand worked because nobody cared, and nothing changed for ordinary Australians.

The Queen was still enthroned as monarch under Australian law. The Crown became the 'crown' of Australia, even if there wasn't one physically for the metonym to settle on.

Back to top

IP Logged

chimera Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 14602 Armidale Gender:	Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech Reply #113 - Feb 2^nd, 2026 at 12:19pm Yes it's the popular will that controls pollies > judges. There was a general support for Oz being 1/2 yankee independent with a foot in each camp. People grumble about rights to speech but are OK with less of it when it means reduced aggro,
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52334
At my desk.

Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #114 - Feb 2^nd, 2026 at 12:32pm

MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2026 at 11:39am:

freediver wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2026 at 11:35am:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2026 at 11:20am:

freediver wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2026 at 9:58am:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 2:23pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 1:57pm:

Quote:

They haven't banned guns at all because the 2nd Amendment exists.

Note the constitution does not say the government is not allowed to ban guns. It says the government is not allowed to infringe on the right to bear arms, which it clearly does. Drawing that line at a completely different point to where the constitution draws it does not prove that the constitution dictates policy. It proves that it is meaningless and that actual power rests with the whim of the public. If you actually paid attention, you would understand this, and I would not have to repeat it for you.

The American courts were quite right to decide that arms today are different from arms way back then, but the "technically correct" response was to say that the constitution leaves no wiggle room, so you will have to change the constitution. The expedient path they took was to decide that "the right to bears arms shall not be infringed" means something other than what it actually says. Who knows what it actually means now though? Not a complete ban? Only certain weapons? The choice is left to the whim of judges and or the democratic process.

That the Constitutional Amendments would likely become anachronistic over time was anticipated by Jefferson, who expected regular constitutional conventions every few decades to address any anachronisms.

But US governance didn't evolve the way Jefferson had hoped, and now the 2nd Amendment is interpreted as the right to bear arms, without regard to what a militia is, or what is meant by arms, which back in Jefferson's day meant muskets.

The Constitution not only dictates policy, it also prevents or causes to be struck down all legislation that can be adjudicated as contravening its amendments, and often even smothers national conversations on amendment repeal or reform.

Either that, or it gets "reinterpreted" to mean something other than what it says.

Are you saying that the constitution guarantees rights, or that it is flexible enough to allow those rights to be taken away as needed?

All amendments specifying an (inalienable) right persist in law the preservation of that right, even if any of its qualifications are disregarded over time, particularly when the language falls out of use, like 'militia'. It's the reason Jefferson expected the Constitution to be reviewed every few decades to eliminate accumulated anachronisms.

It was naivety on Jefferson's part that there could have been a commitment to regular constitutional conventions, given the social and political upheavals that usually accompany the constitutional amendment process.

Although amendment proposals have been (cynically) used to further political outcomes. Reagan used the idea of a new amendment to prohibit abortion in his campaign for reelection in 1984. After he won, the idea evaporated overnight from his political agenda.

Are you telling campfire yarns about Jefferson, or trying to make a point?

Your effete petulance indicates you're not immune from the effects of self-embarrassment, then.

No inalienable right of any Amendment defining one has ever disappeared over time.

Are you saying that the right of Americans to bear arms has not been infringed? Or just moving the goalposts?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Gnads

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 32882
Gender: male

Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #115 - Feb 2^nd, 2026 at 1:10pm

Bobby. wrote on Jan 28^th, 2026 at 1:59pm:

Video:

James Glissan

Description
I'm James Glissan, an Australian lawyer bringing clarity and honesty to the legal system.
On this channel, I break down General Australian Law, Criminal & Traffic Law, and your Rights with Police and other Authorities. My goal is to explain complex legal topics simply so you don't get screwed by the system.

Disclaimer: Content is for education only, not legal advice.

Jan 27, 2026

THE UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTH: these new “hate speech” and risk-based laws don’t just target extremists – they quietly change the legal rules that apply to you.
In this video, I break down, in plain English, the 10 ways these new laws actually affect your life, your speech, your messages, your associations and even where you can live and travel as an Australian, as well as how they CAN be reversed.

Most people think this is just “tough on hate” politics. It’s not.
These laws:

Shift us from punishment after a crime… to intervention before you’ve done anything
Put risk ahead of proof
Expand Australia’s reach beyond our borders
Hand more power to ministers and agencies, and less to courts and judges
Create a two-tier system for speech, depending on who you are and what you believe

I’ll show you:

Why you never had a constitutional right to free speech or free association in Australia.
How these laws turn your “freedoms” into permissions that can be taken away.
The 10 specific changes that matter for ordinary people, not just lawyers and politicians.
How this can affect journalists, activists, community groups, religious organisations and online communities.
What it would actually take to roll these laws back or have them repealed.

If you want to understand the system you live under – not the sales pitch – this video is for you.

That's exactly what is happening in Australia & now entrenched in the UK.

It's why they call their PM 2 Tier Kier.

It's a disgrace .... and the LNP, more so the Libs have made themselves even less likely to come out of the political wilderness in opposition because they voted for Albosleases Hate Speech & Gun Law Bill.

Back to top

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais

IP Logged

Gnads

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 32882
Gender: male

Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #116 - Feb 2^nd, 2026 at 1:14pm

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 28^th, 2026 at 5:06pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 28^th, 2026 at 5:01pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 28^th, 2026 at 4:55pm:

As adults, I think we all have a pretty good idea of what would constitute hate speech and what wouldn't.

I've not seen any legislation that has an exact checklist of behaviours to describe dangerous driving, but I'm pretty sure I'd know if I was doing it or not.

Is this hate speech?

We have only 9 seconds of the 45 second video here:

Time stamp 21 - 30 seconds.

https://www.facebook.com/iwakeupwithtoday/videos/white-nationalist-brandan-kosch...

Brandan Koschel
Quote:

The hate speech laws were pushed by the Australian -
ahh the Jewish lobby groups
in Australia - they - they were behind it all - they were behind it all.

Not a lot of love in what he said, is there?

Why because he mentioned Jewish Lobby groups?

That is fairly tame speech in my opinion.

Nothing like "hate" speech.

Having an opinion or differing opinion is not hate speech.

Chanting "gas the Jews" or "Globalise the Intifada" is definitely hate speech.

Back to top

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais

IP Logged

Gnads

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 32882
Gender: male

Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #117 - Feb 2^nd, 2026 at 1:19pm

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28^th, 2026 at 7:08pm:

Setanta wrote on Jan 28^th, 2026 at 7:01pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28^th, 2026 at 6:50pm:

Setanta wrote on Jan 28^th, 2026 at 6:44pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28^th, 2026 at 6:38pm:

Setanta wrote on Jan 28^th, 2026 at 6:27pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28^th, 2026 at 6:23pm:

Setanta wrote on Jan 28^th, 2026 at 6:07pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28^th, 2026 at 1:52pm:

Setanta wrote on Jan 28^th, 2026 at 1:22pm:

“To sustain a representative democracy embodying the principles prescribed by the Constitution, freedom of public discussion of political and economic matters is essential: it would be a parody of democracy to confer on the people a power to choose their Parliament but to deny the freedom of public discussion from which the people derive their political judgments”.

That is a long walk from what Americans recognise as free speech latitude, by which many Australians assume they're also covered.

The right to openly and publicly disagree with a politician (or anyone) on political or economic matters doesn't cut it in the minds of free speech absolutists.

So what? I was replying to this...

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 28^th, 2026 at 9:08am:

Despite what many here believe, Australia has never had Freedom of Speech. It has always been subject to Government and legal whim. Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

Not what you assume I was responding to or what others think.

Pedantic.

The essence of what Australians believe about free speech is not whether or not we're free to debate political or economic issues... It's being free to say what we really think on almost anything - a right we do not have, but something many (maybe most) of us think we have.

As I said, so what? I was responding to what Bwyawn said. It's not pedantic, it's correct.

Pedantic doesn't mean or imply untrue or incorrect.

Brian's comment refers to a greater, more important point: Australians do not have the right to free speech in any form that most, if not all, of us would consider to be free speech.

Those old farts on the bench covered their arses by being 'for' free speech by claiming we had a constitutional right to freely dissent on issues of politics and the economy. Gutless, devious apparatchiks. They highlight the core of the problem - the establishment will not tolerate true free speech.

So you know what's in Bwyawn head now as well as "maybe most Australians".

Give it away. Brian was wrong as he so often is.

More pendantry.

You're not spined enough to concede that you'd be unlikely to find any ordinary Australian who defines freedom of speech as restricted to matters of politics or the economy.... Only old farts in wigs speaking for the establishment would pretend to believe that.

I have no need to concede anything, it is you who needs to concede that what I posted was correct. I must not be an ordinary Australian then, extraordinary perhaps? Don't project yourself onto everyone else in Australia. OK, I could be persuaded to concede you are a pigeon trying to play chess, the park is yours, I'm off.

I didn't say you were incorrect, I said you were pedantic.

Given your epithet for Brian, I'm guessing your response is emotional, which would explain why you leapt to pedantry.

It's not hard to imagine that people from an expressive culture would likely have an opinion about freedom of speech that extends beyond matters of politics and the economy.

You're off, eh! 'Storming' out to avoid conceding... Of course you're off. You're a coward who took a shot at a poster you don't like, not expecting pushback.

You're an insufferable knowall prig at times.

Oft times it's better to walk away coz when you argue with a fool they're are 2 fools arguing. Roll Eyes

Back to top

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais

IP Logged

Gnads

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 32882
Gender: male

Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #118 - Feb 2^nd, 2026 at 1:23pm

chimera wrote on Jan 31^st, 2026 at 3:34pm:

..and more guns. Say, 20 for each Muss and Racist household. (They can put that description in gun applications)
Also unlimited ammo and gun maintenance subsidy.
'Personal carriage of ammunition is generally restricted to a reasonable amount, and for air travel, it is typically limited to 5kg per person, securely boxed.' Can't solve anything with 5kg.

Idiot.

Back to top

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais

IP Logged

Gnads

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 32882
Gender: male

Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #119 - Feb 2^nd, 2026 at 1:40pm

Bobby. wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 2:20pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 1:34pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2026 at 1:28pm:

They haven't banned guns to the same extent as us because there is broader public support for gun ownership in the US. No other reason.

They haven't banned guns at all because the 2nd Amendment exists.

Australian legislators can and have banned guns, even at the risk of public outrage, because there are no constitutional prohibitions against doing so.

Hence, there aren't 40 million guns in private ownership in Australia.

I hate guns.
I'd like to live in a world where not even the cops carry guns but
that is just dreaming.
The problem is that criminals will always be able to get guns whether they are:

old resurrected guns,
stolen guns from registered firearm users,
illegally imported guns on the black market,
3D printed guns or locally manufactured clandestine guns.

We also have the problem of licensed gun owners who go crazy
and do Bondi massacres,
and accidents with such guns too.

In the USA it's much worse -
every crack dealer, halfwit, lunatic and criminal has a gun.
About 5 people are killed by guns every hour over there.

Bullshyte. The Bondi shooters were Islamic terrorists not normal law abiding gunowners. Sajid Akram should never have got a license.... and the weapons they used were illegally modified. They were always would be criminal terrorists.

The shooter at Lake Cargelligo had a history of DV & crime was out on bail - did not have a weapons license & had an illegal weapon.

If every Australian licensed gun owner handed in their guns - the criminals would still have guns...... and knives & machetes etc etc.

Back to top

Screenshot_2026-02-02_134001.jpg (18 KB | 1 )

"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais

IP Logged