Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 
Send Topic Print
Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech (Read 4470 times)
Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 89989
Proud Old White Australian Man
Gender: male
Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Jan 27th, 2026 at 5:07pm
 
"A 31-year-old man was arrested for using hate speech linked to neo-Nazi ideology during a March for Australia protest in Sydney's inner east. He was detained by New South Wales police shortly before 3:00 PM after giving an open-microphone speech and is currently being questioned."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88RwKWP05Ec
Back to top
 

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams
 
IP Logged
 
greggerypeccary
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 150935
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #1 - Jan 27th, 2026 at 5:16pm
 

Denied bail.

Excellent   Smiley

Another Nazi locked up until at least February.

Back to top
 

GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles
 
IP Logged
 
Sir Eoin O Fada
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3608
New England, NSW
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #2 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 8:33am
 
The Nazis will have to find religious texts to use.
Back to top
 

Self defence is a right.
 
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 117947
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #3 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 8:38am
 
Free speech?
Australia has followed suit -
with leads from : China, Russia and North Korea -
free political expression is a crime in certain cases.

It's very concerning -
we shouldn't be following communist countries.
Anything can be labelled as hate speech at the whim of the Govt.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 46311
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #4 - Jan 28th, 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 Roll Eyes
Back to top
 

It seems that I have upset a Moderator and are forbidden from using posting to the general forum now. So much for Freedom of Speech. Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 117947
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #5 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 9:14am
 
Brian Ross wrote on Jan 28th, 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 Roll Eyes



Well that is wrong.

We're supposed to be part of the free world.      Tsk, tsk, tsk...  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 46311
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #6 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 9:18am
 
Bobby. wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 9:14am:
Brian Ross wrote on Jan 28th, 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 Roll Eyes


Well that is wrong.

We're supposed to be part of the free world.      Tsk, tsk, tsk...  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes


Take it up with the Government then, Bobby.  Tsk tsk, tsk...  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
Back to top
 

It seems that I have upset a Moderator and are forbidden from using posting to the general forum now. So much for Freedom of Speech. Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 15231
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #7 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 10:58am
 
Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 27th, 2026 at 5:07pm:
"A 31-year-old man was arrested for using hate speech linked to neo-Nazi ideology during a March for Australia protest in Sydney's inner east. He was detained by New South Wales police shortly before 3:00 PM after giving an open-microphone speech and is currently being questioned."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88RwKWP05Ec


It's a pity we probably won't be allowed to hear what the police deem to be "hate speech" in this case, so that we can decide for ourselves.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 117947
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #8 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 11:28am
 
thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 10:58am:
Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 27th, 2026 at 5:07pm:
"A 31-year-old man was arrested for using hate speech linked to neo-Nazi ideology during a March for Australia protest in Sydney's inner east. He was detained by New South Wales police shortly before 3:00 PM after giving an open-microphone speech and is currently being questioned."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88RwKWP05Ec


It's a pity we probably won't be allowed to hear what the police deem to be "hate speech" in this case, so that we can decide for ourselves.



Yes I did a search - the full text is not available
but it was only 45 seconds long.

A few seconds are here:

https://www.facebook.com/iwakeupwithtoday/videos/white-nationalist-brandan-kosch...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
greggerypeccary
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 150935
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #9 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 11:36am
 
thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 10:58am:
Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 27th, 2026 at 5:07pm:
"A 31-year-old man was arrested for using hate speech linked to neo-Nazi ideology during a March for Australia protest in Sydney's inner east. He was detained by New South Wales police shortly before 3:00 PM after giving an open-microphone speech and is currently being questioned."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88RwKWP05Ec


It's a pity we probably won't be allowed to hear what the police deem to be "hate speech" in this case, so that we can decide for ourselves.


A court of law will decide, not the court of public opinion.

Back to top
 

GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #10 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 12:11pm
 
Brian Ross wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 9:18am:
Bobby. wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 9:14am:
Brian Ross wrote on Jan 28th, 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 Roll Eyes


Well that is wrong.

We're supposed to be part of the free world.      Tsk, tsk, tsk...  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes


Take it up with the Government then, Bobby.  Tsk tsk, tsk...  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes


What Brian Ross means is that we don't have a piece of paper reassuring us that we have free speech. He is incorrect to suggest that a piece of paper is the only mechanism of achieving free speech. Nor can it even guarantee freedom of speech.

Anyone know what the bloke said?
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jan 28th, 2026 at 12:30pm by freediver »  

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #11 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 12:27pm
 
Brian Ross wrote on Jan 28th, 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 Roll Eyes

That is correct.

The Americanisation of Australian society has led many of us to believe that we, like Americans, have a constitutional and near-absolute right to free speech.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 117947
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #12 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 1:04pm
 
freediver wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 12:11pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 9:18am:
Bobby. wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 9:14am:
Brian Ross wrote on Jan 28th, 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 Roll Eyes


Well that is wrong.

We're supposed to be part of the free world.      Tsk, tsk, tsk...  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes


Take it up with the Government then, Bobby.  Tsk tsk, tsk...  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes


What Brian Ross means is that we don't have a piece of paper reassuring us that we have free speech. He is incorrect to suggest that a piece of paper is the only mechanism of achieving free speech. Nor can it even guarantee freedom of speech.

Anyone know what the bloke said?



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.



Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #13 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 1:18pm
 
So the "Jewish lobby groups" are responsible for a set of hate speech laws that specifically protects the right of Muslims to use their religion to promote the slaughter of Jews?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Setanta
Gold Member
*****
Offline


\/ Peace man!

Posts: 17240
Northern NSW
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #14 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 1:22pm
 
Brian Ross wrote on Jan 28th, 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 Roll Eyes


The high court disagrees and has ruled that we have on matters of politics and economics.

Quote:
Implied Freedom of Political Communication
The Australian Constitution (“the Constitution”) does not explicitly mention the phrase “freedom of speech” anywhere, however the High Court in Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills (1992) 177 CLR 1 and Australian Capital Television v Commonwealth (ACTV) (1992) 177 CLR 106 decided that the Constitution contained an implied right to freedom of communication on political matters.


Download our A3 Resource on the Implied Freedom of Communication



The judges who upheld the argument of an implied freedom of communication in the above cases were of the view that the freedom is implied by virtue of Australia’s system of representative government, as established by the Constitution. 

Former Chief Justice of the High Court His Honour Justice Brennan observed in Nationwide News [at 47]:

“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”.   

Notwithstanding this case, there has been increasing concern in recent years that the implied right of political communication is being encroached upon. 

https://www.ruleoflaw.org.au/implied-freedom-of-political-communication-case-note-and-new-resource/
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 117947
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #15 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 1:25pm
 
freediver wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 1:18pm:
So the "Jewish lobby groups" are responsible for a set of hate speech laws that specifically protects the right of Muslims to use their religion to promote the slaughter of Jews?



It seems that way -
as long as it's in an Islamic religious text -
then it's OK to encourage the slaughter of Jews.   Undecided
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 117947
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #16 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 1:32pm
 
Setanta wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 1:22pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Jan 28th, 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 Roll Eyes


The high court disagrees and has ruled that we have on matters of politics and economics.

Quote:
Implied Freedom of Political Communication
The Australian Constitution (“the Constitution”) does not explicitly mention the phrase “freedom of speech” anywhere, however the High Court in Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills (1992) 177 CLR 1 and Australian Capital Television v Commonwealth (ACTV) (1992) 177 CLR 106 decided that the Constitution contained an implied right to freedom of communication on political matters.


Download our A3 Resource on the Implied Freedom of Communication



The judges who upheld the argument of an implied freedom of communication in the above cases were of the view that the freedom is implied by virtue of Australia’s system of representative government, as established by the Constitution. 

Former Chief Justice of the High Court His Honour Justice Brennan observed in Nationwide News [at 47]:

“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”.   

Notwithstanding this case, there has been increasing concern in recent years that the implied right of political communication is being encroached upon. 

https://www.ruleoflaw.org.au/implied-freedom-of-political-communication-case-note-and-new-resource/



Does that mean that Brandan Koschel will beat the charges?    Undecided
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Daves2017
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3125
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #17 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 1:43pm
 
If the government is consistent and the courts apply the laws fairly the very worst thing that will happen to him is the local council will be requested to cut his mains water off.



That’s the response to Muslim people preaching hate?

However as neo Nazis don’t exist ( thankfully) in numbers too decide via votes a labor seat I expect he will be treated completely differently from those of another faith even given they believe and speak the same horrible words.

It’s all about votes and one law for one and a blind eye for the same offence for another.

Advance Australia fair.

Fairer for some not the majority.
Back to top
 

The Australian Labor Party- once the workers party but now the Islamic party!
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #18 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 1:52pm
 
Setanta wrote on Jan 28th, 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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #19 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 1:55pm
 
Bobby. wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 1:32pm:
Setanta wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 1:22pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Jan 28th, 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 Roll Eyes


The high court disagrees and has ruled that we have on matters of politics and economics.

Quote:
Implied Freedom of Political Communication
The Australian Constitution (“the Constitution”) does not explicitly mention the phrase “freedom of speech” anywhere, however the High Court in Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills (1992) 177 CLR 1 and Australian Capital Television v Commonwealth (ACTV) (1992) 177 CLR 106 decided that the Constitution contained an implied right to freedom of communication on political matters.


Download our A3 Resource on the Implied Freedom of Communication



The judges who upheld the argument of an implied freedom of communication in the above cases were of the view that the freedom is implied by virtue of Australia’s system of representative government, as established by the Constitution. 

Former Chief Justice of the High Court His Honour Justice Brennan observed in Nationwide News [at 47]:

“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”.   

Notwithstanding this case, there has been increasing concern in recent years that the implied right of political communication is being encroached upon. 

https://www.ruleoflaw.org.au/implied-freedom-of-political-communication-case-note-and-new-resource/



Does that mean that Brandan Koschel will beat the charges?    Undecided

Not even close.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 117947
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #20 - Jan 28th, 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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #21 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 2:26pm
 
When Australians express themselves, assuming American-style liberties, other Australians lambast Australian politicians for their weak response.

When Australian politicians respond to public outrage at certain groups expressing their extreme disdain for another by proposing speech restrictions, Australians lambast them as fascists.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #22 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 3:50pm
 
Bobby. wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 1:59pm:
I'm James Glissan, an Australian lawyer bringing clarity and honesty .

No, incitement and conspiracy are offences already. Slander and libel are, in defamation.  Copyright and intellectual property breaches are illegal.  People are charged for their emails and phone calls to organise future criminal acts.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 15231
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #23 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 4:46pm
 
greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 11:36am:
thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 10:58am:
Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 27th, 2026 at 5:07pm:
"A 31-year-old man was arrested for using hate speech linked to neo-Nazi ideology during a March for Australia protest in Sydney's inner east. He was detained by New South Wales police shortly before 3:00 PM after giving an open-microphone speech and is currently being questioned."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88RwKWP05Ec


It's a pity we probably won't be allowed to hear what the police deem to be "hate speech" in this case, so that we can decide for ourselves.


A court of law will decide, not the court of public opinion.



Yeh, but it would be good if the courts would enlighten us re how the  law re "hate speech" works.





Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
greggerypeccary
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 150935
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #24 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 4:55pm
 
thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 4:46pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 11:36am:
thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 10:58am:
Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 27th, 2026 at 5:07pm:
"A 31-year-old man was arrested for using hate speech linked to neo-Nazi ideology during a March for Australia protest in Sydney's inner east. He was detained by New South Wales police shortly before 3:00 PM after giving an open-microphone speech and is currently being questioned."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88RwKWP05Ec


It's a pity we probably won't be allowed to hear what the police deem to be "hate speech" in this case, so that we can decide for ourselves.


A court of law will decide, not the court of public opinion.



Yeh, but it would be good if the courts would enlighten us re how the  law re "hate speech" works.



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.

Back to top
 

GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles
 
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 117947
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #25 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 5:01pm
 
greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 28th, 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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
greggerypeccary
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 150935
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #26 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 5:06pm
 
Bobby. wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 5:01pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 28th, 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?
Back to top
 

GOP = Guardians Of Paedophiles
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #27 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 5:09pm
 
The MPs must be thanking the Nazis for existing so they can be banned. It gets govt. off the accusation of Muss bashing.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 117947
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #28 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 5:11pm
 
greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 5:06pm:
Bobby. wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 5:01pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 28th, 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?



I reckon it's weak case.


It says.
https://www.ruleoflaw.org.au/implied-freedom-of-political-communication-case-not...

The Appeal to the High Court
Mrs Clubb and Mr Preston appealed their matters to their respective state Supreme Courts and the issues of implied freedom of political communication were removed to the High Court (Clubb v Edwards; Preston v Avery ). They argued the legislation on which their two convictions were based interfered with the implied freedom of political communication and were thus invalid.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Setanta
Gold Member
*****
Offline


\/ Peace man!

Posts: 17240
Northern NSW
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #29 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:07pm
 
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 1:52pm:
Setanta wrote on Jan 28th, 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 28th, 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 Roll Eyes


Not what you assume I was responding to or what others think.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #30 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:23pm
 
Probably deleting parliament and bringing in Bruce Trump from Augamathellabong as dictator won't get the go-ahead.

'In Australia, laws against insurrection are primarily covered under the Criminal Code Act 1995 as treason, treachery, or sedition, with penalties up to life imprisonment for acts aimed at overthrowing the Constitution or government through force.'
Such acts would include chatting to the guys to have a go.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #31 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:23pm
 
Setanta wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:07pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 1:52pm:
Setanta wrote on Jan 28th, 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 28th, 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 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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Setanta
Gold Member
*****
Offline


\/ Peace man!

Posts: 17240
Northern NSW
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #32 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:27pm
 
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:23pm:
Setanta wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:07pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 1:52pm:
Setanta wrote on Jan 28th, 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 28th, 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 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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #33 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:31pm
 
They almost got the commies.
'High Court of Australia in 1951 declared the Communist Party Dissolution Act 1950 unconstitutional and invalid'. 
That was aimed at a specifically political organisation for all its policies. Nazi hate speech can be more identified with offender and victim.

Commie words were bad news.
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/93332252
He was sentenced to three years' hard labour in October 1949, the maximum penalty for the offence.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #34 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:38pm
 
Setanta wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:27pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:23pm:
Setanta wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:07pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 1:52pm:
Setanta wrote on Jan 28th, 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 28th, 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 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.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #35 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:42pm
 
Americans have BIG GUN RIGHTS BLESS AMERICA and FREEEEE SpEEEEEEECH. Also lots of laws to chop it all back to sensible dimensions.  But hey it's in the CONSTITOOOOOOTION.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Setanta
Gold Member
*****
Offline


\/ Peace man!

Posts: 17240
Northern NSW
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #36 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:44pm
 
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:38pm:
Setanta wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:27pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:23pm:
Setanta wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:07pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 1:52pm:
Setanta wrote on Jan 28th, 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 28th, 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 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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #37 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:46pm
 
chimera wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:42pm:
Americans have BIG GUN RIGHTS BLESS AMERICA and FREEEEE SpEEEEEEECH. Also lots of laws to chop it all back to sensible dimensions.  But hey it's in the CONSTITOOOOOOTION.

They went through a revolution, and the first ten amendments were a knee-jerk against British rule: to constitutionally guarantee certain freedoms as inalienable, those which were denied to colonists by the British.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #38 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:50pm
 
Setanta wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:44pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:38pm:
Setanta wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:27pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:23pm:
Setanta wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:07pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 1:52pm:
Setanta wrote on Jan 28th, 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 28th, 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 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.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Setanta
Gold Member
*****
Offline


\/ Peace man!

Posts: 17240
Northern NSW
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #39 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 7:01pm
 
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:50pm:
Setanta wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:44pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:38pm:
Setanta wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:27pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:23pm:
Setanta wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:07pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 1:52pm:
Setanta wrote on Jan 28th, 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 28th, 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 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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #40 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 7:02pm
 
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:46pm:
: to constitutionally guarantee certain freedoms as inalienable,

That was the opium and bourbon talking.  Happy is alienable too.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #41 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 7:08pm
 
Setanta wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 7:01pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:50pm:
Setanta wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:44pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:38pm:
Setanta wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:27pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:23pm:
Setanta wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:07pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 1:52pm:
Setanta wrote on Jan 28th, 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 28th, 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 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.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #42 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 7:09pm
 
chimera wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 7:02pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:46pm:
: to constitutionally guarantee certain freedoms as inalienable,

That was the opium and bourbon talking.  Happy is alienable too.

That'd be the pursuit of happiness. Not happiness.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #43 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 7:12pm
 
That gets so whoofy you can't explain it.
Hey buddy, stop pursuing happiness'
Who says?
I'm the Speech Sheriff. Stop pursuing'.

Most Oz think freedom means political when you get down to it.
They don't believe they can stand at someone's doorstep and shout unlimited lies and slander about him to the neighbours.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Setanta
Gold Member
*****
Offline


\/ Peace man!

Posts: 17240
Northern NSW
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #44 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 7:14pm
 
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 7:08pm:
Setanta wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 7:01pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:50pm:
Setanta wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:44pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:38pm:
Setanta wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:27pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:23pm:
Setanta wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:07pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 1:52pm:
Setanta wrote on Jan 28th, 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 28th, 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 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.



Grin You're a joke.
I corrected him, I didn't "take a shot" at him. I've done that. No need to stay and watch you crap everywhere any longer. Are you another Dunning-Kruger like Brian?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #45 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 7:18pm
 
Setanta wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 7:14pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 7:08pm:
Setanta wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 7:01pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:50pm:
Setanta wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:44pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:38pm:
Setanta wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:27pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:23pm:
Setanta wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:07pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 1:52pm:
Setanta wrote on Jan 28th, 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 28th, 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 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.



Grin You're a joke.
I corrected him, I didn't "take a shot" at him. I've done that. No need to stay and watch you crap everywhere any longer. Are you another Dunning-Kruger like Brian?

Of course you took a shot... that's why you referred to him by an epithet in one of your responses to me... to get me on board, I'm guessing, that taking shots at him is kosher.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 15231
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #46 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 9:44pm
 
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 7:09pm:
chimera wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 7:02pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:46pm:
: to constitutionally guarantee certain freedoms as inalienable,

That was the opium and bourbon talking.  Happy is alienable too.

That'd be the pursuit of happiness. Not happiness.


Anti "rights" philosophers have dispensed with that one:

Everyone desires to be happy, but an individual's desires aren't rights, and they sometimes compete. 

Jefferson's addendum - "the pursuit of" - tries to avoid the above problem, but it becomes little more than a motherhood statement, like the 'right' to life and liberty, both of which can only be ahieved under rule of law, with sanctions against those who ignore the law.      
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #47 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 10:00pm
 
thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 9:44pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 7:09pm:
chimera wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 7:02pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:46pm:
: to constitutionally guarantee certain freedoms as inalienable,

That was the opium and bourbon talking.  Happy is alienable too.

That'd be the pursuit of happiness. Not happiness.


Anti "rights" philosophers have dispensed with that one:

Everyone desires to be happy, but an individual's desires aren't rights, and they sometimes compete. 

Jefferson's addendum - "the pursuit of" - tries to avoid the above problem, but it becomes little more than a motherhood statement, like the 'right' to life and liberty, both of which can only be ahieved under rule of law, with sanctions against those who ignore the law.      

Yep, well, the text of the Declaration of Independence was framed to be aspirational, upon which a constitution would be based that codified the relationship between government and the governed.

To define happiness in a 20th- or 21st-century context is generally to presume it refers to hedonism or hedonistic desire. Happiness in the late 18th-century context apparently referred to the contentment a person feels when they have achieved personal, economic and familial success, and good standing within their respective community.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 15231
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #48 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 10:03pm
 
Bobby. wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 5:01pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 28th, 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.


On the basis of that clip alone, I don't think it is (anti-semitic)  "hate speech"; that section  of the Jewish lobby, supported by the Murdoch press,  which blindly promotes  Israel's right to exist at the expense of Palestinians, doesn't speak for all fair-minded Jews.

And it's obvious the lobby got to Malinoukas.

Hence  not "hate speach", but fact.   


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 15231
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #49 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 10:16pm
 
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 10:00pm:
thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 9:44pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 7:09pm:
chimera wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 7:02pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:46pm:
: to constitutionally guarantee certain freedoms as inalienable,

That was the opium and bourbon talking.  Happy is alienable too.

That'd be the pursuit of happiness. Not happiness.


Anti "rights" philosophers have dispensed with that one:

Everyone desires to be happy, but an individual's desires aren't rights, and they sometimes compete. 

Jefferson's addendum - "the pursuit of" - tries to avoid the above problem, but it becomes little more than a motherhood statement, like the 'right' to life and liberty, both of which can only be ahieved under rule of law, with sanctions against those who ignore the law.      

Yep, well, the text of the Declaration of Independence was framed to be aspirational, upon which a constitution would be based that codified the relationship between government and the governed.


Yes, to dispense with the ancient Rule by Divine Right'/Mandate of Heaven.

But the question is ..."aspirational" for whom?

eg,  "the general welfare" is one of the aspirations mentioned in the Preamble, but it is still to be realized even after 2 centuries...

Quote:
To define happiness in a 20th- or 21st-century context is generally to presume it refers to hedonism or hedonistic desire. Happiness in the late 18th-century context apparently referred to the contentment a person feels when they have achieved personal, economic and familial success, and good standing within their respective community.


Well, maybe  those today who are blinded by the dictates of the modern 'consumer'/celebrity economy and society.

Otherwise the requirements for happiness you outlined above  remain  the same over the centuries.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #50 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 10:18pm
 
thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 10:03pm:
Bobby. wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 5:01pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 28th, 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.


On the basis of that clip alone, I don't think it is (anti-semitic)  "hate speech"; that section  of the Jewish lobby, supported by the Murdoch press,  which blindly promotes  Israel's right to exist at the expense of Palestinians, doesn't speak for all fair-minded Jews.

And it's obvious the lobby got to Malinoukas.

Hence  not "hate speach", but fact.   



At the risk of further advancing reductio ad Judeaum, those institutions that promote Israel's right to exist know they're lobbying for Israel. No nation has a right to exist. A nation exists because it is recognised as existing... in the modern world by the UN.

Otherwise, how would you curb recognition of every ethnicity/ religious group/ culture from formalising its claim of a right to exist in its own country?

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #51 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 10:22pm
 
thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 10:16pm:
Well, maybe  those today who are blinded by the dictates of the modern 'consumer'/celebrity economy and society.

Otherwise the requirements for happiness you outlined above  remain  the same over the centuries.

It's hard to imagine many Americans, in particular, not equating happiness with gross affluence, hedonism and consumerism.

Watching a few episodes of the wildly popular 'Landman' will demonstrate that.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 117947
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #52 - Jan 28th, 2026 at 10:38pm
 
thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 10:03pm:
Bobby. wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 5:01pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 28th, 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.


On the basis of that clip alone, I don't think it is (anti-semitic)  "hate speech"; that section  of the Jewish lobby, supported by the Murdoch press,  which blindly promotes  Israel's right to exist at the expense of Palestinians, doesn't speak for all fair-minded Jews.

And it's obvious the lobby got to Malinoukas.

Hence  not "hate speech", but fact.   





Be careful what you say - that was enough to get him locked up -
not given bail.    Shocked
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #53 - Jan 29th, 2026 at 8:08am
 
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 10:18pm:
No nation has a right to exist.
Otherwise, how would you curb recognition of every ethnicity/ religious group/ culture from formalising its claim of a right to exist in its own country?


This is how tgd mind is working: Something that does not exist can exist if it says it does.  Or in tdg experience, a person said something if tdg says they did.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #54 - Jan 29th, 2026 at 8:13am
 
Bobby. wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 10:38pm:
Be careful what you say - that was enough to get him locked up -
not given bail.   

It's been on the books for a while.
State law on conspiracy is 'an agreement between two or more people to committing an offence'. 

Cwlth.  'A person who conspires with another person to commit an offence and must have committed an overt act pursuant to the agreement'.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 117947
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #55 - Jan 29th, 2026 at 8:17am
 
chimera wrote on Jan 29th, 2026 at 8:13am:
Bobby. wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 10:38pm:
Be careful what you say - that was enough to get him locked up -
not given bail.   

It's been on the books for a while.
State law on conspiracy is 'an agreement between two or more people to committing an offence'. 

Cwlth.  'A person who conspires with another person to commit an offence and must have committed an overt act pursuant to the agreement'.



Who were the 2 people and what are you talking about?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #56 - Jan 29th, 2026 at 8:17am
 
chimera wrote on Jan 29th, 2026 at 8:08am:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 10:18pm:
No nation has a right to exist.
Otherwise, how would you curb recognition of every ethnicity/ religious group/ culture from formalising its claim of a right to exist in its own country?


This is how tgd mind is working: Something that does not exist can exist if it says it does.  Or in tdg experience, a person said something if tdg says they did.

There would be no China, India, Russia, Indonesia, Turkey, Canada, US, nor, likely, Australia, to name some of the largest, if every ethnicity/ religious group/ culture were recognised as having a right to exist in its own nation-state, based solely on that they said it does.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #57 - Jan 29th, 2026 at 9:42am
 
Bobby. wrote on Jan 29th, 2026 at 8:17am:
chimera wrote on Jan 29th, 2026 at 8:13am:
State law on conspiracy is 'an agreement between two or more people to committing an offence'. 


Who were the 2 people and what are you talking about?

There's no cartoon to illustrate it, Bobby. Can't help you.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #58 - Jan 30th, 2026 at 9:03am
 
Bobby. wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 1:25pm:
freediver wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 1:18pm:
So the "Jewish lobby groups" are responsible for a set of hate speech laws that specifically protects the right of Muslims to use their religion to promote the slaughter of Jews?



It seems that way -
as long as it's in an Islamic religious text -
then it's OK to encourage the slaughter of Jews.   Undecided


Maybe you shouldn't believe every conspiracy you read about the Jews?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #59 - Jan 30th, 2026 at 9:05am
 
greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 4:55pm:
thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 4:46pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 11:36am:
thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 10:58am:
Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Jan 27th, 2026 at 5:07pm:
"A 31-year-old man was arrested for using hate speech linked to neo-Nazi ideology during a March for Australia protest in Sydney's inner east. He was detained by New South Wales police shortly before 3:00 PM after giving an open-microphone speech and is currently being questioned."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88RwKWP05Ec


It's a pity we probably won't be allowed to hear what the police deem to be "hate speech" in this case, so that we can decide for ourselves.


A court of law will decide, not the court of public opinion.



Yeh, but it would be good if the courts would enlighten us re how the  law re "hate speech" works.



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


Grin
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Sir Eoin O Fada
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3608
New England, NSW
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #60 - Jan 31st, 2026 at 11:27am
 
Apparently if Nazis or others want to use hate speech they will be safe from the law if they quote from a religious book/text.

We all know which religious book is the most readily available with hate quotes.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jan 31st, 2026 at 3:54pm by Sir Eoin O Fada »  

Self defence is a right.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #61 - Jan 31st, 2026 at 11:29am
 
All they would have to do is declare Hitler to be their prophet. Then they are untouchable. That is how absurd our hate speech laws are.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 15231
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #62 - Jan 31st, 2026 at 11:54am
 
Bobby. wrote on Jan 29th, 2026 at 8:17am:
chimera wrote on Jan 29th, 2026 at 8:13am:
Bobby. wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 10:38pm:
Be careful what you say - that was enough to get him locked up -
not given bail.   

It's been on the books for a while.
State law on conspiracy is 'an agreement between two or more people to committing an offence'. 

Cwlth.  'A person who conspires with another person to commit an offence and must have committed an overt act pursuant to the agreement'.



Who were the 2 people and what are you talking about?


I'd like to know that as well.

As usual chim(p) avoided the issue with a (supposedly clever...) non-answer, to wit:

"There's no cartoon to illustrate it, Bobby. Can't help you."  Sad 
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #63 - Jan 31st, 2026 at 12:00pm
 
A country is a group of people in an area of land.
It has a 'government' a collection of wise genius people (or just one in US)
It makes 'laws'. spelled l a w  law. pronounced lore. it means a rule.
If 2 of the people in the area of land do bad stuff, it's not good.
Any two people such as tgd ..
maybe not, there are robot data loops.
anyway, any two people.
People are plural persons.

(The two people are named Larisa and Kurt
https://www.asic.gov.au/about-asic/news-centre/find-a-media-release/2025-release...
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jan 31st, 2026 at 3:31pm by chimera »  
 
IP Logged
 
Belgarion
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6123
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #64 - Jan 31st, 2026 at 3:13pm
 
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:23pm:
Setanta wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:07pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 1:52pm:
Setanta wrote on Jan 28th, 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 28th, 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 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.


We in fact have Common Law rights, which are a far more effective guarantee of free speech than any 'bill of rights' The issue is  that the government is attempting to restrict our Common Law rights and compliant judges are going along with it. We need lawyers, judges and the people themselves to stand against this government overreach.
Back to top
 

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Voltaire.....(possibly)
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #65 - Jan 31st, 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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Sir Eoin O Fada
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3608
New England, NSW
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #66 - Jan 31st, 2026 at 4:02pm
 
freediver wrote on Jan 31st, 2026 at 11:29am:
All they would have to do is declare Hitler to be their prophet. Then they are untouchable. That is how absurd our hate speech laws are.

Hitler was their prophet and his ‘’holy’’ book is ‘’Mein Kampf’’.
Back to top
 

Self defence is a right.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #67 - Jan 31st, 2026 at 4:33pm
 
I think that if Hitler had won, Nazism would be turning into a religion, not that dissimilar from Islam.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #68 - Jan 31st, 2026 at 4:38pm
 
A book shop can sell Mein Kampf.
Nazis can give hate speech using the book.
There is a slight difference between them.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #69 - Feb 1st, 2026 at 11:16am
 
Belgarion wrote on Jan 31st, 2026 at 3:13pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:23pm:
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.


We in fact have Common Law rights, which are a far more effective guarantee of free speech than any 'bill of rights' The issue is  that the government is attempting to restrict our Common Law rights and compliant judges are going along with it. We need lawyers, judges and the people themselves to stand against this government overreach.

How can the Common Law be a more effective guarantee of free speech than a constitutional 'bill of rights'?

Common Law can always be overridden by legislation.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #70 - Feb 1st, 2026 at 11:24am
 
Quote:
How can the Common Law be a more effective guarantee of free speech than a constitutional 'bill of rights'?


There is no such thing as a guarantee. Especially from a bit of paper.

The Americans seem to think their constitution guarantees them the right to bear arms. But there are all sort's restrictions on that right. The constitution is nothing more than a talking point on it.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 117947
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #71 - Feb 1st, 2026 at 11:29am
 

In jail for tweet:

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #72 - Feb 1st, 2026 at 11:36am
 
Being anti-Semitic is not mentioned in the Constitution, in laws or a common law offence. But Minns and others bring it out as the over-riding issue.  It ruled the ABC decision on the journalist's work and the Sth Aust Writers Fest.
Israel and Australia
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #73 - Feb 1st, 2026 at 12:24pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 1st, 2026 at 11:24am:
Quote:
How can the Common Law be a more effective guarantee of free speech than a constitutional 'bill of rights'?


There is no such thing as a guarantee. Especially from a bit of paper.

The Americans seem to think their constitution guarantees them the right to bear arms. But there are all sort's restrictions on that right. The constitution is nothing more than a talking point on it.

I'm sure there are.

However, if Australian common law permitted a person to be armed, that could easily be abrogated completely by legislation, which is exactly why the right to bear arms appears in the US Constitution, and is second only to the right to peaceably assemble, the right to freedom of speech, freedom of religious expression, and to petition the government for redress of grievances.

No US legislature or administration has the authority to ban the possession of arms or abrogate any of the rights guaranteed in their constitution.

In Australia, nearly all of those rights can be abrogated by legislation.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #74 - Feb 1st, 2026 at 12:31pm
 
'As of early 2026, Washington D.C. maintains some of the strictest gun control laws in the United States, including a ban on most semi-automatic weapons defined as "assault weapons."  The District requires strict registration for all firearms and prohibits open carry'.

The centre of US happiness and firepower knows what's good.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 15231
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #75 - Feb 1st, 2026 at 12:38pm
 
chimera wrote on Jan 31st, 2026 at 12:00pm:
A country is a group of people in an area of land.
It has a 'government' a collection of wise genius people (or just one in US)
It makes 'laws'. spelled l a w  law. pronounced lore. it means a rule.
If 2 of the people in the area of land do bad stuff, it's not good.
Any two people such as tgd ..
maybe not, there are robot data loops.
anyway, any two people.
People are plural persons.

(The two people are named Larisa and Kurt
https://www.asic.gov.au/about-asic/news-centre/find-a-media-release/2025-release...


I pointed out that -  on the  basis of the clip containing his actual words, the individual  concerned did not commit "hate speech", but merely told the truth regarding the influence of the zionist Jewish lobby. 

Bobby warned me to be careful, in asserting that opinion.....

Then chim(p) chimed in with an irrelevancy  about 2 people, when the issue is what one person said. 

Chimera being a chimp,  as usual, has gone off in his own frolic, defining "plural" etc. 

Meanwhile  bobby and I are still waiting for a sensible  answer....in vain, I suppose.... 
Back to top
« Last Edit: Feb 1st, 2026 at 12:50pm by thegreatdivide »  
 
IP Logged
 
Belgarion
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6123
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #76 - Feb 1st, 2026 at 12:39pm
 
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 1st, 2026 at 11:16am:
Belgarion wrote on Jan 31st, 2026 at 3:13pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:23pm:
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.


We in fact have Common Law rights, which are a far more effective guarantee of free speech than any 'bill of rights' The issue is  that the government is attempting to restrict our Common Law rights and compliant judges are going along with it. We need lawyers, judges and the people themselves to stand against this government overreach.

How can the Common Law be a more effective guarantee of free speech than a constitutional 'bill of rights'?

Common Law can always be overridden by legislation.



Rights defined are rights limited. Effectively this means that unless a right is laid down in law it does not exist, whereas under common law unless something is expressly prohibited by law it is legal, and when such a prohibition appears in court its legality is tested against precedent and for a judge to set a precedent that goes against common law they must give a really watertight reason for doing so. 
Back to top
 

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Voltaire.....(possibly)
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #77 - Feb 1st, 2026 at 12:40pm
 
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 1st, 2026 at 12:24pm:
freediver wrote on Feb 1st, 2026 at 11:24am:
Quote:
How can the Common Law be a more effective guarantee of free speech than a constitutional 'bill of rights'?


There is no such thing as a guarantee. Especially from a bit of paper.

The Americans seem to think their constitution guarantees them the right to bear arms. But there are all sort's restrictions on that right. The constitution is nothing more than a talking point on it.

I'm sure there are.

However, if Australian common law permitted a person to be armed, that could easily be abrogated completely by legislation, which is exactly why the right to bear arms appears in the US Constitution, and is second only to the right to peaceably assemble, the right to freedom of speech, freedom of religious expression, and to petition the government for redress of grievances.

No US legislature or administration has the authority to ban the possession of arms or abrogate any of the rights guaranteed in their constitution.

In Australia, nearly all of those rights can be abrogated by legislation.


The constitution says: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Clearly it is infringed. Citing the constitution to claim that you support one style of infringement, but not the other, makes the constitution meaningless - a mere talking point in the real debate, albeit a strong and persistent one. There is nothing fundamentally different in the way the US and Australia restricts gun use. Both are entirely dependent on the democratic process. Even the US constitution itself can and occasionally is changed. I am surprised they haven't gotten rid of the firearms bit already, given how meaningless it has become. If the US voting public actually had the appetite for a complete gun ban, the constitution would not stop them.

It always, always falls back on the voting public to decide what rights and freedoms we have, and where to draw the line where they are conflicting. The US constitution is a grand rhetorical flag in the ground, that can be ignored or picked up and moved on a whim.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #78 - Feb 1st, 2026 at 12:50pm
 
thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 1st, 2026 at 12:38pm:
Then chim(p) chimed in with an irrelevancy  about 2 people, when the issue is what one person said. 


thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 31st, 2026 at 11:54am:
chimera wrote on Jan 29th, 2026 at 8:13am:
It's been on the books for a while.
State law on conspiracy is 'an agreement between two or more people to committing an offence'. 

Cwlth.  'A person who conspires with another person to commit an offence and must have committed an overt act pursuant to the agreement'.



Who were the 2 people and what are you talking about?


I'd like to know that as well.

 
[/quote]

You asked which two people. You still don't comprehend what a law is.  This one refers to restraint on speech. It's not a new policy.  Today is Sunday. 
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #79 - Feb 1st, 2026 at 1:02pm
 
Belgarion wrote on Feb 1st, 2026 at 12:39pm:
for a judge to set a precedent that goes against common law they must give a really watertight reason for doing so. 

Same for depriving the masses of constitutional rights. It's how the n----- lost the right to vote in Dixie. Or why Guantanamo Bay exists. The good old 'reasonable man' gives the best pub test for judges.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 15231
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #80 - Feb 1st, 2026 at 1:07pm
 
chimera wrote on Feb 1st, 2026 at 12:50pm:
It's been on the books for a while.
State law on conspiracy is 'an agreement between two or more people to committing an offence'. 

Cwlth.  'A person who conspires with another person to commit an offence and must have committed an overt act pursuant to the agreement'.


Quote:
chimp You asked which two people.


You confused again?

I proffered my opinion the individual should not be charged with 'hate speech', on the basis  of his actual words.

bobby warned me I might be violating  the new 'hate speech'  law ....

Quote:
You still don't comprehend what a law is. 


More idiocy from the resident chimp; we all know what a law is (as opposed to how it is interpreted by the courts). 

Quote:
This one refers to restraint on speech. It's not a new policy.  Today is Sunday. 


Correct.

And?

ie did the individual who openly stated his own thoughts at a rally - alone, with no 'conspiring' with another person - commit "hate speech", in your opinion? 


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #81 - Feb 1st, 2026 at 1:11pm
 
Belgarion wrote on Feb 1st, 2026 at 12:39pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 1st, 2026 at 11:16am:
Belgarion wrote on Jan 31st, 2026 at 3:13pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:23pm:
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.


We in fact have Common Law rights, which are a far more effective guarantee of free speech than any 'bill of rights' The issue is  that the government is attempting to restrict our Common Law rights and compliant judges are going along with it. We need lawyers, judges and the people themselves to stand against this government overreach.

How can the Common Law be a more effective guarantee of free speech than a constitutional 'bill of rights'?

Common Law can always be overridden by legislation.



Rights defined are rights limited. Effectively this means that unless a right is laid down in law it does not exist, whereas under common law unless something is expressly prohibited by law it is legal, and when such a prohibition appears in court its legality is tested against precedent and for a judge to set a precedent that goes against common law they must give a really watertight reason for doing so. 

The US is also a Common Law nation, so Americans have common law rights (that can be restricted or abrogated) by legislation, and constitutional rights (which cannot).
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 15231
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #82 - Feb 1st, 2026 at 1:16pm
 
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 1st, 2026 at 1:11pm:
The US is also a Common Law nation, so Americans have common law rights (that can be restricted or abrogated) by legislation, and constitutional rights (which cannot).


How does the US incorporate Common Law into its legal system? 
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #83 - Feb 1st, 2026 at 1:17pm
 

MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 1st, 2026 at 1:11pm:
can be restricted or abrogated by legislation, and constitutional rights (which cannot).

Gun laws say that's incorrect.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #84 - Feb 1st, 2026 at 1:21pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 1st, 2026 at 12:40pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 1st, 2026 at 12:24pm:
freediver wrote on Feb 1st, 2026 at 11:24am:
Quote:
How can the Common Law be a more effective guarantee of free speech than a constitutional 'bill of rights'?


There is no such thing as a guarantee. Especially from a bit of paper.

The Americans seem to think their constitution guarantees them the right to bear arms. But there are all sort's restrictions on that right. The constitution is nothing more than a talking point on it.

I'm sure there are.

However, if Australian common law permitted a person to be armed, that could easily be abrogated completely by legislation, which is exactly why the right to bear arms appears in the US Constitution, and is second only to the right to peaceably assemble, the right to freedom of speech, freedom of religious expression, and to petition the government for redress of grievances.

No US legislature or administration has the authority to ban the possession of arms or abrogate any of the rights guaranteed in their constitution.

In Australia, nearly all of those rights can be abrogated by legislation.


The constitution says: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Clearly it is infringed. Citing the constitution to claim that you support one style of infringement, but not the other, makes the constitution meaningless - a mere talking point in the real debate, albeit a strong and persistent one. There is nothing fundamentally different in the way the US and Australia restricts gun use. Both are entirely dependent on the democratic process. Even the US constitution itself can and occasionally is changed. I am surprised they haven't gotten rid of the firearms bit already, given how meaningless it has become. If the US voting public actually had the appetite for a complete gun ban, the constitution would not stop them.

It always, always falls back on the voting public to decide what rights and freedoms we have, and where to draw the line where they are conflicting. The US constitution is a grand rhetorical flag in the ground, that can be ignored or picked up and moved on a whim.

Given that there are estimated to be nearly 400 million guns in private ownership in the US, despite some of their legislators, presidents and state governors over more than 2 centuries, who would have approved of (nearly) banning all gun ownership in the way any Australian government can do it, i.e., without needing to hold a constitutional referendum.

I'd say that indicates that the 2nd Amendment is more than a rhetorical talking point.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #85 - Feb 1st, 2026 at 1:23pm
 
thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 1st, 2026 at 1:07pm:
chimera wrote on Feb 1st, 2026 at 12:50pm:
You asked which two people.


You confused again?



thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 31st, 2026 at 11:54am:
Bobby. wrote on Jan 29th, 2026 at 8:17am:
Who were the 2 people and what are you talking about?


I'd like to know that as well.
 
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #86 - Feb 1st, 2026 at 1:23pm
 
thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 1st, 2026 at 1:16pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 1st, 2026 at 1:11pm:
The US is also a Common Law nation, so Americans have common law rights (that can be restricted or abrogated) by legislation, and constitutional rights (which cannot).


How does the US incorporate Common Law into its legal system? 

States are common law jurisdictions. Judges rely on precedent for many areas unless a statute or the Constitution overrides it.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #87 - Feb 1st, 2026 at 1:26pm
 
thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 1st, 2026 at 1:16pm:
How does the US incorporate Common Law into its legal system? 

now that does explain a few things about tgd.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #88 - Feb 1st, 2026 at 1:28pm
 
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 1st, 2026 at 1:21pm:
freediver wrote on Feb 1st, 2026 at 12:40pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 1st, 2026 at 12:24pm:
freediver wrote on Feb 1st, 2026 at 11:24am:
Quote:
How can the Common Law be a more effective guarantee of free speech than a constitutional 'bill of rights'?


There is no such thing as a guarantee. Especially from a bit of paper.

The Americans seem to think their constitution guarantees them the right to bear arms. But there are all sort's restrictions on that right. The constitution is nothing more than a talking point on it.

I'm sure there are.

However, if Australian common law permitted a person to be armed, that could easily be abrogated completely by legislation, which is exactly why the right to bear arms appears in the US Constitution, and is second only to the right to peaceably assemble, the right to freedom of speech, freedom of religious expression, and to petition the government for redress of grievances.

No US legislature or administration has the authority to ban the possession of arms or abrogate any of the rights guaranteed in their constitution.

In Australia, nearly all of those rights can be abrogated by legislation.


The constitution says: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Clearly it is infringed. Citing the constitution to claim that you support one style of infringement, but not the other, makes the constitution meaningless - a mere talking point in the real debate, albeit a strong and persistent one. There is nothing fundamentally different in the way the US and Australia restricts gun use. Both are entirely dependent on the democratic process. Even the US constitution itself can and occasionally is changed. I am surprised they haven't gotten rid of the firearms bit already, given how meaningless it has become. If the US voting public actually had the appetite for a complete gun ban, the constitution would not stop them.

It always, always falls back on the voting public to decide what rights and freedoms we have, and where to draw the line where they are conflicting. The US constitution is a grand rhetorical flag in the ground, that can be ignored or picked up and moved on a whim.

Given that there are estimated to be nearly 400 million guns in private ownership in the US, despite some of their legislators, presidents and state governors over more than 2 centuries, who would have approved of (nearly) banning all gun ownership in the way any Australian government can do it, i.e., without needing to hold a constitutional referendum.

I'd say that indicates that the 2nd Amendment is more than a rhetorical talking point.


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. What some presidents, legislators and state governors thought over the last two centuries is no more irrelevant to current US gun laws than what a random Australian MP from a few generations back thought about our laws. Neither country is a dictatorship.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #89 - Feb 1st, 2026 at 1:34pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 1st, 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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #90 - Feb 1st, 2026 at 1:57pm
 
Quote:
Australian legislators can and have banned guns, even at the risk of public outrage


Risk? If it had cost them the next election, they would not have done it. They are not complete idiots. I don't see any major parties taking more relaxed gun ownership to the next election. Not because they lack a constitution to spur them on. But because we live in a democracy, and they make it their job to know what will win votes. Our politicians do not give a stuff how outraged you and your friends get. They care about being re-elected. Outrage does not do that, votes do.

A correlation between the piece of paper and the reality does not prove causation one way or the other, and merely pointing out that correlation is not a rational argument.

With enough public support in the US, the second amendment would either be changed, or ignored to an even greater extent than it is today.

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.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Feb 1st, 2026 at 2:03pm by freediver »  

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #91 - Feb 1st, 2026 at 2:10pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 1st, 2026 at 1:57pm:
Quote:
Australian legislators can and have banned guns, even at the risk of public outrage


Risk? If it had cost them the next election, they would not have done it.

Rob Borbidge is at least one who risked and lost it all by supporting the 1996 NFA. In Borbidge's case, it is cited as the cause of the fall of his government.

Many rural MPs, particularly within the Nationals party, faced intense backlash. Former Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer had an effigy "lynched" in the Queensland town of Gympie.

As it stands, polls indicate that most Americans do support tighter restrictions, if not outright banning, of guns in their respective electorates... but no state legislature has the authority to enact gun-banning legislation because of the 2nd Amendment, despite popular support.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 117947
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #92 - Feb 1st, 2026 at 2:20pm
 
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 1st, 2026 at 1:34pm:
freediver wrote on Feb 1st, 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.



Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #93 - Feb 1st, 2026 at 2:23pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 1st, 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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #94 - Feb 1st, 2026 at 2:34pm
 
The US Constitution was specifically designed to intrude upon and restrict a US president's and Congress's claim of supreme sovereignty by introducing the concept of inalienable rights as bestowed by a deity - as stipulated in the Declaration of Independence, "... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

These rights are codified in its amendments and are inalienable.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 46311
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #95 - Feb 1st, 2026 at 4:08pm
 
...

Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
Back to top
 

It seems that I have upset a Moderator and are forbidden from using posting to the general forum now. So much for Freedom of Speech. Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #96 - Feb 1st, 2026 at 4:53pm
 
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 1st, 2026 at 2:34pm:
as bestowed by a deity -

These rights are codified in its amendments and are inalienable.

The deity saved Trump, the guns and agents who shoot chicano.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #97 - Feb 1st, 2026 at 6:57pm
 
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 1st, 2026 at 2:34pm:
The US Constitution was specifically designed to intrude upon and restrict a US president's and Congress's claim of supreme sovereignty by introducing the concept of inalienable rights as bestowed by a deity - as stipulated in the Declaration of Independence, "... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

These rights are codified in its amendments and are inalienable.

What Jefferson and his peers didn't seem to consider (or, if they did, it didn't stay their hand) was the sentiment that: an attack on one amendment is an attack on all.

The US Constitution has always enjoyed the mystique, esteem and respect of Americans as a quasi-religious document, which warns off those legislators who would 'tinker' with it or propose amendment repeals that result in a perceived loss of a currently protected and 'inalienable' right.

To date, the only U.S. constitutional amendment that has been repealed is the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) ratified in 1919 and repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933, which restored the people's right to 'choose their poison'.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #98 - Feb 1st, 2026 at 7:07pm
 
The 2nd Amendment specifically applied to Pretti bearing arms for the State. Half America is against this.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #99 - Feb 1st, 2026 at 7:28pm
 
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 1st, 2026 at 6:57pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 1st, 2026 at 2:34pm:
The US Constitution was specifically designed to intrude upon and restrict a US president's and Congress's claim of supreme sovereignty by introducing the concept of inalienable rights as bestowed by a deity - as stipulated in the Declaration of Independence, "... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

These rights are codified in its amendments and are inalienable.

What Jefferson and his peers didn't seem to consider (or, if they did, it didn't stay their hand) was the sentiment that: an attack on one amendment is an attack on all.

The US Constitution has always enjoyed the mystique, esteem and respect of Americans as a quasi-religious document, which warns off those legislators who would 'tinker' with it or propose amendment repeals that result in a perceived loss of a currently protected and 'inalienable' right.

To date, the only U.S. constitutional amendment that has been repealed is the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) ratified in 1919 and repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933, which restored the people's right to 'choose their poison'.


Notably, the passage of the 13th Amendment (abolition of slavery) through to its ratification was only possible due to the inability of the states 'currently in rebellion' against the Union to vote in the US Congress against its passage, and even with that, it passed by only 2 votes above the 2/3 required.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #100 - Feb 1st, 2026 at 7:39pm
 
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 1st, 2026 at 7:28pm:
ratification was only possible due to the inability of the states 'currently in rebellion' against the Union to vote in the US Congress against its passage,

The Bible , praise the Lord, gave n------ to white men as slaves with the mark of Canaan, amen and he blesses America.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #101 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 9:58am
 
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 1st, 2026 at 2:23pm:
freediver wrote on Feb 1st, 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?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #102 - Feb 2nd, 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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #103 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 11:20am
 
freediver wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 9:58am:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 1st, 2026 at 2:23pm:
freediver wrote on Feb 1st, 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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #104 - Feb 2nd, 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.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #105 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 11:29am
 
chimera wrote on Feb 2nd, 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: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #106 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 11:33am
 
chimera wrote on Feb 2nd, 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: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #107 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 11:35am
 
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 11:20am:
freediver wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 9:58am:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 1st, 2026 at 2:23pm:
freediver wrote on Feb 1st, 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.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #108 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 11:37am
 
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 11:29am:
Remind you of any other president?

Malcolm Fraser?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #109 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 11:39am
 
freediver wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 11:35am:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 11:20am:
freediver wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 9:58am:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 1st, 2026 at 2:23pm:
freediver wrote on Feb 1st, 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: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #110 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 11:41am
 
chimera wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 11:37am:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 2nd, 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
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #111 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 11:41am
 
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 2nd, 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: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #112 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 11:55am
 
chimera wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 11:41am:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 2nd, 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
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #113 - Feb 2nd, 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: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #114 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 12:32pm
 
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 11:39am:
freediver wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 11:35am:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 11:20am:
freediver wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 9:58am:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 1st, 2026 at 2:23pm:
freediver wrote on Feb 1st, 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.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Gnads
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 33172
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #115 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 1:10pm
 
Bobby. wrote on Jan 28th, 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: 33172
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #116 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 1:14pm
 
greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 5:06pm:
Bobby. wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 5:01pm:
greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 28th, 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: 33172
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #117 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 1:19pm
 
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 7:08pm:
Setanta wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 7:01pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:50pm:
Setanta wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:44pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:38pm:
Setanta wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:27pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:23pm:
Setanta wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 6:07pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Jan 28th, 2026 at 1:52pm:
Setanta wrote on Jan 28th, 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 28th, 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 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: 33172
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #118 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 1:23pm
 
chimera wrote on Jan 31st, 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: 33172
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #119 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 1:40pm
 
Bobby. wrote on Feb 1st, 2026 at 2:20pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 1st, 2026 at 1:34pm:
freediver wrote on Feb 1st, 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
 

"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
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #120 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 1:41pm
 
Gnads wrote : 'idiot'.

Belgarion wrote on Jan 31st, 2026 at 3:13pm:
The issue is  that the government is attempting to restrict our Common Law rights and compliant judges are going along with it. We need lawyers, judges and the people themselves to stand against this government overreach.

If there's no restraint on hate then guns will be out on the streets. as at Bondi.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Gnads
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 33172
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #121 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 1:48pm
 
chimera wrote on Feb 1st, 2026 at 7:39pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 1st, 2026 at 7:28pm:
ratification was only possible due to the inability of the states 'currently in rebellion' against the Union to vote in the US Congress against its passage,

The Bible , praise the Lord, gave n------ to white men as slaves with the mark of Canaan, amen and he blesses America.


The Negros(Africans) & Arabs had a slave trade & slaves before the British white men even had an empire.
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: 33172
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #122 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 1:50pm
 
chimera wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 1:41pm:
Gnads wrote : 'idiot'.

Belgarion wrote on Jan 31st, 2026 at 3:13pm:
The issue is  that the government is attempting to restrict our Common Law rights and compliant judges are going along with it. We need lawyers, judges and the people themselves to stand against this government overreach.

If there's no restraint on hate then guns will be out on the streets. as at Bondi.



I called - you came.

Wonderful - I should try & get you on Muster Dogs.
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: 33172
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #123 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 2:00pm
 
chimera wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 1:41pm:
Gnads wrote : 'idiot'.

Belgarion wrote on Jan 31st, 2026 at 3:13pm:
The issue is  that the government is attempting to restrict our Common Law rights and compliant judges are going along with it. We need lawyers, judges and the people themselves to stand against this government overreach.

If there's no restraint on hate then guns will be out on the streets. as at Bondi.


What was the restraint on the hate on our streets for the past 27 months?

How many Jews or other non Muslims had the guns out shooting those terrorist supporting bastards all over the country?

Answer none... not one, zip, zero, nada.

But 2 of those Islamist terrorist supporting bastards
came out with guns 7 bombs & killed 15 people & injured 40 more.

As usual it's all a one way street - because the Govts weak/spineless, they take aim at the soft target law abiding Australians & are afraid of tackling & deflect from the elephant in the room - Islamists & excessive unassimilable immigration.
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
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #124 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 2:07pm
 
You don't understand logic and progression of an idea, heh.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #125 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 2:09pm
 
Meister I think you are confusing the legal fiction with the reality, as well as the correlation with causation. I am not talking about what preserves rights in the minds of lawyers and various other legal technicians. I am talking about what preserves the reality of those rights. Having a right, and having a piece of paper declaring that you have a right, are not the same thing. The only thing that actually maintains them is the democratic process. The constitution is of limited relevance here, other than as a flag in the ground. You can achieve rights with or without one. You can have those rights taken away, with or without one. But without a democratic process and a citizenry that values those rights and is alert to their erosion, it is pretty much inevitable that you will either never have them, or will lose them over time.

Thus, a constitution that establishes that democratic process (eg Australia), but not does not set those rights "in stone" as the US one does, is sufficient to achieve the same thing, and the only thing that actually sets them in stone is the will of the voting public, not a piece of paper.

That is why in the US, different states have widely varying infringements on the right to bear arms. This does not reflect different constitutions for each state, nor different interpretations of the same constitution by different states. It reflects differences in the public mood to gun control within each state. Whatever legal fiction is invented to justify those different outcomes is the response, not the cause.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Feb 2nd, 2026 at 2:16pm by freediver »  

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #126 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 2:25pm
 
Gnads wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 1:19pm:
Oft times it's better to walk away coz when you argue with a fool they're are 2 fools arguing. Roll Eyes

I'm guessing you avoid mirrors.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #127 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 2:38pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 2:09pm:
Meister I think you are confusing the legal fiction with the reality, as well as the correlation with causation. I am not talking about what preserves rights in the minds of lawyers and various other legal technicians. I am talking about what preserves the reality of those rights. Having a right, and having a piece of paper declaring that you have a right, are not the same thing. The only thing that actually maintains them is the democratic process. The constitution is of limited relevance here, other than as a flag in the ground. You can achieve rights with or without one. You can have those rights taken away, with or without one. But without a democratic process and a citizenry that values those rights and is alert to their erosion, it is pretty much inevitable that you will either never have them, or will lose them over time.

Thus, a constitution that establishes that democratic process (eg Australia), but not does not set those rights "in stone" as the US one does, is sufficient to achieve the same thing, and the only thing that actually sets them in stone is the will of the voting public, not a piece of paper.

That is why in the US, different states have widely varying infringements on the right to bear arms. This does not reflect different constitutions for each state, nor different interpretations of the same constitution by different states. It reflects differences in the public mood to gun control within each state. Whatever legal fiction is invented to justify those different outcomes is the response, not the cause.

I think you are confusing a right with something that can exist outside of a societal contract - in a literate society, codified in written language.

If you live alone on a desert island, do you have rights?

Jefferson and crew (all atheists, or at least copping out as deists) nevertheless introduced a deity (the creator) to assert a right as a metaphysical entity bestowed on 'men' at birth, that every civilised society should acknowledge, to avoid the argument that you're putting up.

So, having a right and having a piece of paper declaring that you have a right are exactly the same thing... No paper (or formal acknowledgement within a social contract), no right.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #128 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 2:44pm
 
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 11:39am:
No inalienable right of any Amendment defining one has ever disappeared over time.


For 200 years there were appeals from Oz to Privy Council, and written in constitution by s 74. Whether or not it affected daily life, it was as solid as any right. Then it blew away because opinions changed.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #129 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 2:53pm
 
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 2:38pm:
freediver wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 2:09pm:
Meister I think you are confusing the legal fiction with the reality, as well as the correlation with causation. I am not talking about what preserves rights in the minds of lawyers and various other legal technicians. I am talking about what preserves the reality of those rights. Having a right, and having a piece of paper declaring that you have a right, are not the same thing. The only thing that actually maintains them is the democratic process. The constitution is of limited relevance here, other than as a flag in the ground. You can achieve rights with or without one. You can have those rights taken away, with or without one. But without a democratic process and a citizenry that values those rights and is alert to their erosion, it is pretty much inevitable that you will either never have them, or will lose them over time.

Thus, a constitution that establishes that democratic process (eg Australia), but not does not set those rights "in stone" as the US one does, is sufficient to achieve the same thing, and the only thing that actually sets them in stone is the will of the voting public, not a piece of paper.

That is why in the US, different states have widely varying infringements on the right to bear arms. This does not reflect different constitutions for each state, nor different interpretations of the same constitution by different states. It reflects differences in the public mood to gun control within each state. Whatever legal fiction is invented to justify those different outcomes is the response, not the cause.

I think you are confusing a right with something that can exist outside of a societal contract - in a literate society, codified in written language.

If you live alone on a desert island, do you have rights?

Jefferson and crew (all atheists, or at least copping out as deists) nevertheless introduced a deity (the creator) to assert a right as a metaphysical entity bestowed on 'men' at birth, that every civilised society should acknowledge, to avoid the argument that you're putting up.

So, having a right and having a piece of paper declaring that you have a right are exactly the same thing... No paper (or formal acknowledgement within a social contract), no right.



If you live alone on a desert Island, you have pretty much every right you can think if. It is hard to be any more free, as most restrictions on our rights are done in the name of protecting someone else's rights. You don't need a piece of paper, or a committee of your peers to tell you that you have the right to walk along the beach.

On the other hand Americans have a piece of paper saying that their right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The reality is that it is infringed in all sorts of ways, driven by the mood of the electorate in each state.

You are engaging in circular reasoning. You claim that having a right and having a piece of paper declaring that right are the same thing, but your only explanation for this logic is redefining a right to mean having a piece of paper. But rights have a meaning, even without the existence of paper or something to write with.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #130 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 2:53pm
 
chimera wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 2:44pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 11:39am:
No inalienable right of any Amendment defining one has ever disappeared over time.


For 200 years there were appeals from Oz to Privy Council, and written in constitution by s 74. Whether or not it affected daily life, it was as solid as any right. Then it blew away because opinions changed.

Yep... the same as the American right to practise public silly walks in the US has disappeared from the Constitution.

Jefferson expected that regular Constitutional conventions would occur that would prune amendments or abolish them on a regular basis to reflect the changes in American society.

He didn't believe the Constitution was divine, received from a deity or had a quasi-religious status.

It was his best shot at delivering to Americans a concept of rights, as it seemed to him - and his peers - in the late 1770s.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #131 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 2:57pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 2:53pm:
If you live alone on a desert Island, you have pretty much every right you can think if. It is hard to be any more free, as most restrictions on our rights are done in the name of protecting someone else's rights.

On the other hand Americans have a piece of paper saying that their right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The reality is that it is infringed in all sorts of ways, driven by the mood of the electorate in each state.

No... rights don't exist when you have nothing to compare with not having them.

Like the diver asking the fish, 'How's the water?'
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #132 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 3:00pm
 
Quote:
No... rights don't exist when you have nothing to compare with not having them?


Sure they do. If you live alone on a desert Island, you have the right to walk along the beach. You don't need to compare it to not having the right to walk along the beach for this to be true.

Put down the law textbook and think for yourself. A law textbook will define everything in terms of whether it is written in law, which is fine if you only want to think about the law, but that is not the same as thinking about the reality.

If there are two of you on the island, the other person might reach an agreement with you under which you do not have the right to walk along the beach. Or he may keep trying to kill you if you sees you, and he happens to hang out at the beach. Either way, you have lost the right to walk along the beach, whether by 'legal' agreement or otherwise. You could even have a piece of home made papyrus, signed by both of you in charcoal, and witnessed and ratified by the entire UN assembly, stating that you both have he right to walk along the beach, but you have still lost it.

We do not say that the North Koreans lack our rights because they do not have the piece of paper. For all we know they do have the piece of paper, and the country is called a democratic republic. We say they do not have our rights because that is an accurate reflection of the reality they face. Whether it is properly codified, or codified in any way at all, is irrelevant.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Feb 2nd, 2026 at 3:10pm by freediver »  

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #133 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 3:12pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 3:00pm:
Quote:
No... rights don't exist when you have nothing to compare with not having them?


Sure they do. If you live alone on a desert Island, you have the right to walk along the beach. You don't need to compare it to not having the right to walk along the beach for this to be true.

No, you don't have the right to walk along the beach, nor would you think of the right to walk along the beach; you just walk along the beach.

Do you believe you have a right to breathe on the desert island (or anywhere) when you breathe?

Rights only exist within a societal contract where a societal force greater than yourself can prevent you from expressing that action, but does not, because a known and acknowledged societal contract is in place, permitting your action and conduct.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #134 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 3:17pm
 
Suppose you have a piece of home made papyrus, signed by everyone on the island in charcoal, and witnessed and ratified by the entire UN assembly, stating that you all have the right to walk along the beach.

But, the bloke who lives on the beach tries to kill you whenever he sees you.

Do you have the right to walk along the beach?

Likewise, Americans have a piece of paper stating that their right to bear arms shall not be infringed. They also have a bunch of state laws infringing their right to bear arms, to widely varying extents, depending on the mood of the electorate in each state. Is their right to bear arms infringed?
Back to top
« Last Edit: Feb 2nd, 2026 at 3:23pm by freediver »  

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #135 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 3:22pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 3:17pm:
Suppose you have a piece of home made papyrus, signed by everyone on the island in charcoal, and witnessed and ratified by the entire UN assembly, stating that you all have the right to walk along the beach.

But, the bloke who lives on the beach tries to kill you whenever he sees you.

Do you have the right to walk along the beach?

Can the people on the island use violence to restrain the bloke who lives on the beach in defence of my right to walk on the beach?

What if the tribe granted the right of all to walk on the beach, with a subclause which withdraws that right during the first week of the new moon after the vernal equinox?

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #136 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 3:30pm
 
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 2:53pm:
Yep... the same as the American right to practise public silly walks in the US has disappeared from the Constitution.



No it doesn't say the legislative power is the silly walks of the Queen, Senate and House of Representatives.  Any section has the strength of any other section. The weakest link as they say.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #137 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 3:37pm
 
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 3:22pm:
freediver wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 3:17pm:
Suppose you have a piece of home made papyrus, signed by everyone on the island in charcoal, and witnessed and ratified by the entire UN assembly, stating that you all have the right to walk along the beach.

But, the bloke who lives on the beach tries to kill you whenever he sees you.

Do you have the right to walk along the beach?

Can the people on the island use violence to restrain the bloke who lives on the beach in defence of my right to walk on the beach?

What if the tribe granted the right of all to walk on the beach, with a subclause which withdraws that right during the first week of the new moon after the vernal equinox?



It is irrelevant. The reality you face is that if you try to walk along the beach, he sees you and tries to kill you.

Do you have the right to walk along the beach?

Quote:
Rights only exist within a societal contract where a societal force greater than yourself


I realise you are about to get as slippery as an eel, so let me skip to the end, pretending you had the spine to give a straight answer. This is where your argument is already falling apart. You already acknowledge here that the pieces of paper are irrelevant, and what matters is what the "societal force greater than yourself" allows you to get away with. And what is the best way to answer the question of what they allow you to get away with? Is it to spend your lifetime looking at pieces of paper and trying to second guess how they will act? Or is it simply to engage your brain and assess the reality you are faced with?

The societal force can take on a whole spectrum of forms, and the "alone on a desert island" is merely one very extreme end of that spectrum. "They" can still take away your rights, or grant you rights either explicitly or by not caring what you get up to, and whether it is codified or not only matters to the lawyers.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Feb 2nd, 2026 at 3:43pm by freediver »  

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #138 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 3:43pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 3:37pm:
[It is irrelevant. The reality you face is that if you try to walk along the beach, he sees you and tries to kill you.

Do you have the right to walk along the beach?


Now you're confusing having a right (as bestowed by the tribe) with successfully exercising that right in the absence of the tribal police to defend me against those who would deny me that right.

In the US, when the states would not convict murderers, the federal government could and did charge the wrongfully acquitted murderers with violating the Constitional rights of the victims.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #139 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 3:44pm
 
I notice you did not answer the question Meister.

The reality you face is that if you try to walk along the beach, he sees you and tries to kill you. Do you have the right to walk along the beach?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #140 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 3:55pm
 
The strange thing is, when I wrote that UN rights aren't inherent but depend on peoples' will, you disagreed.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #141 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 4:02pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 3:44pm:
I notice you did not answer the question Meister.

The reality you face is that if you try to walk along the beach, he sees you and tries to kill you. Do you have the right to walk along the beach?

Maybe you are immune to the effects of self-embarrassment.

If you were attacked for walking along a public-access beach (i.e. you had a right to walk along the beach), your right persisted even during the attack, given the tribe had not revoked it. The attacker violated your right.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #142 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 4:05pm
 
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 4:02pm:
freediver wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 3:44pm:
I notice you did not answer the question Meister.

The reality you face is that if you try to walk along the beach, he sees you and tries to kill you. Do you have the right to walk along the beach?

Maybe you are immune to the effects of self-embarrassment.

If you were attacked for walking along a public-access beach (i.e. you had a right to walk along the beach), your right persisted even during the attack, given the tribe had not revoked it. The attacker violated your right.


You answered a different question Meister. You are being evasive and slippery. This is the question I am asking you:

The reality you face is that if you try to walk along the beach, he sees you and tries to kill you. Do you have the right to walk along the beach?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #143 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 4:12pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 4:05pm:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 4:02pm:
freediver wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 3:44pm:
I notice you did not answer the question Meister.

The reality you face is that if you try to walk along the beach, he sees you and tries to kill you. Do you have the right to walk along the beach?

Maybe you are immune to the effects of self-embarrassment.

If you were attacked for walking along a public-access beach (i.e. you had a right to walk along the beach), your right persisted even during the attack, given the tribe had not revoked it. The attacker violated your right.


You answered a different question Meister. You are being evasive and slippery. This is the question I am asking you:

The reality you face is that if you try to walk along the beach, he sees you and tries to kill you. Do you have the right to walk along the beach?

As I said, you're immune to self-embarrassment.

I have answered the question. A right persists within a social contract. That does not mean your right will never be violated by another for whatever reason.

People complain at or after the point when their rights are violated. They don't decide that they never had the right in the first place because they were attacked for exercising it.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #144 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 4:16pm
 
Quote:
A right persists within a social contract.


Are you saying that a right is not dependent on what "a societal force greater than yourself" allows you to do, or are you claiming that those societal forces are always accurately and completely captured by pieces of paper?

Have you talked yourself into a position where you cannot give a straight answer to a simple question Meister?

If the reality you face is that if you try to walk along the beach, he sees you and tries to kill you - do you have the right to walk along the beach?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #145 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 4:35pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 4:16pm:
Quote:
A right persists within a social contract.


Are you saying that a right is not dependent on what "a societal force greater than yourself" allows you to do, or are you claiming that those societal forces are always accurately and completely captured by pieces of paper?

Have you talked yourself into a position where you cannot give a straight answer to a simple question Meister?

If the reality you face is that if you try to walk along the beach, he sees you and tries to kill you - do you have the right to walk along the beach?

Now you're confusing a right with the capacity to exercise that right.

If someone prevented you from walking along a public-access beach by tying you up, does that mean to you that you don't have the right to walk along the beach? Or is it that your right to walk along the beach has been violated?

If you were asleep, would it be reasonable for others to conclude by that fact that you did not have a right to walk on the beach?

Would you argue that you didn't have the right to walk along the beach? Or that your capacity to exercise your right was violated?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #146 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 4:37pm
 
Wow. It's like the simpler I make the question for you, the harder it is for you to understand.

Meister, you started out insisting that rights are defined by pieces of paper. Now you have retreated to vague, nebulous terms like "social contract" and "societal forces greater than yourself".  Do you still disagree with me, or have you done a complete 180 without realising it?

If the "social contract" and the behaviour of the "societal forces greater than yourself" is either not codified, or inconsistent with the code, or the code itself is inconsistent and contradicts itself allowing them to pick and choose, what determines your actual rights? The code, or the "social contract" and "societal forces greater than yourself". For clarity I am not asking you to tell me that your codified rights are your codified rights. I am asking you what your actual rights are.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Feb 2nd, 2026 at 4:42pm by freediver »  

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #147 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 4:46pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 4:37pm:
Meister, you started out insisting that rights are defined by pieces of paper. Now you have retreated to vague, nebulous terms like "social contract" and "societal forces greater than yourself".  Do you still disagree with me, or have you done a complete 180 without realising it?

No, I assumed you weren't this stupid and not immune to self-embarrassment.

A right is the product of a social contract. It does not exist outside of one. Social contracts are written or taught orally...

Jefferson, knowing the religious predisposition of the colonists, introduced a deity into the new nation's social contract to argue for a right's divinely-gifted status that no human could deny to another, to move on towards defining rights that had the implied authority of a deity to defend.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #148 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 4:49pm
 
Two questions for you Meister. One simple. One complicated. Feel free to man up and give a straight answer to either one of them.

If the reality you face is that if you try to walk along the beach, he sees you and tries to kill you - do you have the right to walk along the beach?

If the "social contract" and the behaviour of the "societal forces greater than yourself" is either not codified, or inconsistent with the code, or the code itself is inconsistent and contradicts itself allowing them to pick and choose, what determines your actual rights? The code, or the "social contract" and "societal forces greater than yourself". For clarity I am not asking you to tell me that your codified rights are your codified rights. I am asking you what your actual rights are.

Quote:
If someone prevented you from walking along a public-access beach


Are you just pretending to be an idiot? Or deliberately lying? You know the context of the question, and you know that this is not that context. I have given it to you several times. You actually introduced it yourself. Do I need to copy and paste the whole thing every time you slither away from it?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #149 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 4:54pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 4:37pm:
If the "social contract" and the behaviour of the "societal forces greater than yourself" is either not codified, or inconsistent with the code, or the code itself is inconsistent and contradicts itself allowing them to pick and choose, what determines your actual rights? The code, or the "social contract" and "societal forces greater than yourself". For clarity I am not asking you to tell me that your codified rights are your codified rights. I am asking you what your actual rights are.

I'm sure you don't know what you're asking anymore.

First you confused a right with something that can exist outside of a societal contract.

Then you confused a right with the capacity to exercise that right.

Now it's, yeah but, what is a right in itself, separate from a social contract?

Back to the desert island with you, where you can decide you have the 'right' to make war on your shadow.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #150 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 5:08pm
 
The 'walking along the beach' scenario reminds me of riparian rights... where a landowner's property could extend into the water.

Many an unwitting beachwalker would be confronted by some old fart who claimed riparian rights and ordered the beachwalkers off their property.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 15231
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #151 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 5:25pm
 
chimera wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 2:07pm:
You don't understand logic and progression of an idea, heh.



Your "progression of an idea" is merely a ruse to avoid addressing the original point.

Hence bobby and I are still in the dark re your "other person" (involved in the conspiracy, in law). 

Logic doesn't work that way, ie, expecting the opposition to think the way you want, via a progression of (your) "idea". 

You chimp.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #152 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 5:40pm
 
I put it in a ridculously simple way and you still can't get it?
A law applies to all people. Conspiracy is between any two people.
That law prevents speech to organise a crime. It's connected with restricting hate speech.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 15231
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #153 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 5:41pm
 
chimera wrote on Feb 1st, 2026 at 1:23pm:
thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 1st, 2026 at 1:07pm:
chimera wrote on Feb 1st, 2026 at 12:50pm:
You asked which two people.


You confused again?



thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 31st, 2026 at 11:54am:
Bobby. wrote on Jan 29th, 2026 at 8:17am:
Who were the 2 people and what are you talking about?


I'd like to know that as well.
 

 

bobby and I were discussing the alleged neo-nazi who was charged with "hate speech".

You chimed in, ruminating about a "conspiracy" (in law) involving 2 people......

We still want to know what those 2 people you referred to have to do with the supposed neo-nazi, who words might only be exposing the influence of the zionist lobby.

Keep obfuscating, you chimp.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 15231
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #154 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 5:45pm
 
chimera wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 5:40pm:
I put it in a ridculously simple way and you still can't get it?
A law applies to all people. Conspiracy is between any two people.
That law prevents speech to organise a crime. It's connected with restricting hate speech.


Exposing the egregious influence of the Zionist lobby isn't "hate speech", and there is no conspiracy in this case.   


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #155 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 5:48pm
 
Probably you stay all day at Stop signs.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #156 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 6:21pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 3:00pm:
If you live alone on a desert Island, you have the right to walk along the beach.

Who granted that 'right' to you alone on the island?

Did Tom Hanks have the right to remain silent on his desert island?

If so, it's a good thing he didn't exercise it... the movie was boring enough as it was.

Thank god for 'Wilson', eh!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #157 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 6:22pm
 
Meister, I am sure there is something at the start of your legal textbook explaining that reality does not spring forth from the pages of legal documents. Perhaps it was too subtle for you. You almost grasped it when you started backpedalling to those vague and nebulous concepts like societal contract and greater forces, but you got lost along the way. Again.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #158 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 6:26pm
 
thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 5:45pm:
chimera wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 5:40pm:
I put it in a ridculously simple way and you still can't get it?
A law applies to all people. Conspiracy is between any two people.
That law prevents speech to organise a crime. It's connected with restricting hate speech.

Exposing the egregious influence of the Zionist lobby isn't "hate speech", and there is no conspiracy in this case.   

That depends on who has the authority to determine what is hate speech and whether or not the accused can appeal to their right to speak in that manner, and if that right is protected and if it is upheld in a court...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #159 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 6:29pm
 
When I tell you troubling things, like that rights might exist outside of pieces of paper, I meant in that reality which does not spring forth from the pages of legal texts. I'm sure you could make your way there somehow.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #160 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 6:34pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 6:22pm:
Meister, I am sure there is something at the start of your legal textbook explaining that reality does not spring forth from the pages of legal documents. Perhaps it was too subtle for you. You almost grasped it when you started backpedalling to those vague and nebulous concepts like societal contract and greater forces, but you got lost along the way. Again.

How do you manage your cognitive dissonance as you muddle through your self-embarrassment?

What do rights mean outside a society and a social contract pertaining to that society?

Language confuses you, I can see that. Do you have anyone to help you with that?

You're like the Australian teenager who rails against being told to shut up by claiming he has a Constitutional and inalienable right to free speech, as bestowed on him at his birth by a god.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #161 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 6:38pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 6:29pm:
When I tell you troubling things, like that rights might exist outside of pieces of paper, I meant in that reality which does not spring forth from the pages of legal texts. I'm sure you could make your way there somehow.

Is there a right separate from society, from societal contract, without invoking deific bestowal, that you can define?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #162 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 6:39pm
 
Meister do you actually believe that you have the right to do something, even if the consistent and predictable result is someone trying to kill you, because pieces of paper trump reality? And if so, why did you start back pedalling to those vague and nebulous concepts like societal contract and greater forces?

Or were you just being slippery and evasive?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #163 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 6:44pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 6:39pm:
Meister do you actually believe that you have the right to do something, even if the consistent and predictable result is someone trying to kill you, because pieces of paper trump reality? And if so, why did you start back pedalling to those vague and nebulous concepts like societal contract and greater forces?

Or were you just being slippery and evasive?

Wars have been fought, people have died, for that exact cause.

The American colonists claimed the right to overthrow tyrannical government, which they wrote on a piece of paper, and charged the British king with tyranny, then took up arms against him to assert their newly-codified rights.

Under the British social contract, the colonists were committing acts of treason and sedition against their rightful sovereign.

The matter was settled when the stronger forces prevailed over the weaker ones.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #164 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 6:51pm
 
You didn't answer the question Meister.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #165 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 6:59pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 6:51pm:
You didn't answer the question Meister.

I did and have many times...

Rights do not exist outside of a social contract...

We can talk about flying pigs all day... what they eat, where they like to fly, how high, their favourite food, whether they can sing in tune... but... what's the point?

Name a right that exists outside a social contract... And one that is not granted by an acknowledged higher social authority within a social contract... one with the power to defend that granted right in your name.

I know you can't, I know you know you can't... so will it be flying pigs for a few pages?


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #166 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 7:06pm
 
Quote:
I did and have many times...


You have invented a different question and answered that. You have never answered the question that was actually asked. Because you are being slippery and evasive. And you cannot give a straight answer to a simple question.

Quote:
Name a right that exists outside a social contract...


A social contract is a vague and nebulous term used by slippery and evasive people to avoid giving a straight answer to a simple question. Someone trying to kill you whenever they see you is a type of social contract, oh slippery one. Your inability to comprehend is not a rational argument.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Feb 2nd, 2026 at 7:15pm by freediver »  

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #167 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 7:16pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 7:06pm:
Quote:
I did and have many times...


You have invented a different question and answered that. You have never answered the question that was actually asked. Because you are being slippery and evasive. And you cannot give a straight answer to a simple question.

No, I've told you rights do not exist outside a social contract. They do exist within one. I can point to them. I can read them.

Name a right that exists outside a social contract whose genesis is not from within a social contract... And one that is not granted by an acknowledged higher social authority within a social contract... one with the power to defend that granted right in your name.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #168 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 7:29pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 7:06pm:
A social contract is a vague and nebulous term used by slippery and evasive people to avoid giving a straight answer to a simple question. Someone trying to kill you whenever they see you is a type of social contract, oh slippery one. Your inability to comprehend is not a rational argument.

See, you can't name a right that exists without a social contract. You can't even explain your objection to the term 'social contract' other than a teenage pout, 'social contract, bad'.

How old are you... developmentally?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #169 - Feb 2nd, 2026 at 9:33pm
 
Conflicts of social contracts between cultural groups within a nation play out in Australia between mainstream Australian culture and Aboriginal culture.

The dominant mainstream Australian culture has ceded ground to Aboriginal culture by granting rights to its adherents in the form of Acts like Native Title, Racial Discrimination etc...

What was a step too far, in the minds of a majority of Australians, was the concept of a permanent Aboriginal 'voice' enshrined in the nation's Constitution. Not because mainstream Australians are unstympathetic to the Aboriginal cause, but because such accommodations, once enshrined in the Constitution, could not be legislated away, even if they did prove over time to be a step too far, leading to the likes of dual sovereignty.

Clearly, most Australians intuit that there is a vast difference between parliamentary legislated rights and constitutional rights.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #170 - Feb 3rd, 2026 at 7:32am
 
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 7:29pm:
freediver wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 7:06pm:
A social contract is a vague and nebulous term used by slippery and evasive people to avoid giving a straight answer to a simple question. Someone trying to kill you whenever they see you is a type of social contract, oh slippery one. Your inability to comprehend is not a rational argument.

See, you can't name a right that exists without a social contract. You can't even explain your objection to the term 'social contract' other than a teenage pout, 'social contract, bad'.

How old are you... developmentally?


I have no objection to it. In fact I said it was a good thing that you were backpedalling on your belief that rights spring from pieces of paper to the vague and nebulous terms like social contract and greater forces. It almost sounded like you were getting in touch with reality. Almost. Have you forgotten already?

Do you actually believe that you have the right to do something, even if the consistent and predictable result is someone trying to kill you, because pieces of paper trump reality? And if so, why did you start back pedalling to those vague and nebulous concepts like societal contract and greater forces?

Or were you just being slippery and evasive?

If you cannot bring yourself to give a straight answer to a simple question Meister, there is no way to tell what your point is or what you are trying to say, as you never seem to get round to saying it.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #171 - Feb 3rd, 2026 at 8:02am
 
freediver wrote on Feb 3rd, 2026 at 7:32am:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 7:29pm:
See, you can't name a right that exists without a social contract. You can't even explain your objection to the term 'social contract' other than a teenage pout, 'social contract, bad'.

How old are you... developmentally?


I have no objection to it. In fact I said it was a good thing that you were backpedalling on your belief that rights spring from pieces of paper to the vague and nebulous terms like social contract and greater forces. It almost sounded like you were getting in touch with reality. Almost. Have you forgotten already?

Do you actually believe that you have the right to do something, even if the consistent and predictable result is someone trying to kill you, because pieces of paper trump reality? And if so, why did you start back pedalling to those vague and nebulous concepts like societal contract and greater forces?

Or were you just being slippery and evasive?

If you cannot bring yourself to give a straight answer to a simple question Meister, there is no way to tell what your point is or what you are trying to say, as you never seem to get round to saying it.

And there you go again… confusing/conflating categories.

Now, it’s with the act and the morality or sanity of the act.

Back on the desert island. When alone, by what measure is an act moral or insane?

Back on the beach, you’re walking on what you believe is public access, when an old codger tries to chase you off with a stick, claiming he has riparian rights.

When you refuse to leave, asserting your right to walk on a public accessway, he calls the police who forcibly remove you, defending the owner’s riparian rights.

What just happened? His written riparian rights trump written public accessway rights.

What has changed in your world of objects? Nothing. You, the codger, the beach, are the same.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #172 - Feb 3rd, 2026 at 8:18am
 
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 9:33pm:
once enshrined in the Constitution, could not be legislated away,


Indeed. So Australia's head of state is King Charles III in Privy Council . s 74 of Constitution.
His Council is Queen Camilla
Prince William the Prince of Wales.
Lord President of the Council: Alan Campbell, MP for Tynemouth.
Privy Counsellors : Sir Clive Alderton (Private Secretary to the King), Kemi Badenoch, Rachel Reeves, Simon Case, Tom Tugendhat.

Hate speech against poms has zero tolerance.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #173 - Feb 3rd, 2026 at 8:40am
 
chimera wrote on Feb 3rd, 2026 at 8:18am:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 9:33pm:
once enshrined in the Constitution, could not be legislated away,


Indeed. So Australia's head of state is King Charles III in Privy Council . s 74 of Constitution.
His Council is Queen Camilla
Prince William the Prince of Wales.
Lord President of the Council: Alan Campbell, MP for Tynemouth.
Privy Counsellors : Sir Clive Alderton (Private Secretary to the King), Kemi Badenoch, Rachel Reeves, Simon Case, Tom Tugendhat.

Hate speech against poms has zero tolerance.

Why changing the Constitution’s text was unnecessary to effectively remove the Privy Council...

Because s 74 already contemplates Parliament restricting appeals. So Commonwealth legislation could do most of the work without touching the constitutional wording.

Because the remaining State-to-Privy-Council routes were ended by the Australia Acts 1986, which operate as ordinary statutes in Australia (plus matching UK legislation) rather than a constitutional alteration under s 128.

Net effect: the words of s 74 stayed, but the practical ability to use them was removed, so the High Court became the final court of appeal in reality.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #174 - Feb 3rd, 2026 at 8:46am
 
They could have legislated, but didn't.
'Except as provided in this section, this Constitution shall not impair any right which the Queen may be pleased to exercise by virtue of Her Royal prerogative to grant special leave of appeal from the High Court to Her Majesty in Council.   The Parliament may make laws limiting the matters in which such leave may be asked, but proposed laws containing any such limitation shall be reserved by the Governor-General for Her Majesty's pleasure.'

So the wise men said they won't allow s 74 to function. It's constitutional and it's no go. 
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #175 - Feb 3rd, 2026 at 8:54am
 
chimera wrote on Feb 3rd, 2026 at 8:46am:
They could have legislated, but didn't.
'Except as provided in this section, this Constitution shall not impair any right which the Queen may be pleased to exercise by virtue of Her Royal prerogative to grant special leave of appeal from the High Court to Her Majesty in Council.   The Parliament may make laws limiting the matters in which such leave may be asked, but proposed laws containing any such limitation shall be reserved by the Governor-General for Her Majesty's pleasure.'

So the wise men said they won't allow s 74 to function. It's constitutional and it's no go. 

And we all know how well it turned out for any Australian G-G exercising reserve powers...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #176 - Feb 3rd, 2026 at 9:08am
 
It may be a hard act to follow.
Free speech got the chop.
'It is a felony under US federal law to intentionally “solicit, command, induce, or otherwise endeavor to persuade” another person to engage in a crime of violence against a person or property. 18 U.S.C. § 373. 1984.  Many states have similar laws.'
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #177 - Feb 3rd, 2026 at 10:42am
 
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 3rd, 2026 at 8:02am:
freediver wrote on Feb 3rd, 2026 at 7:32am:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 7:29pm:
See, you can't name a right that exists without a social contract. You can't even explain your objection to the term 'social contract' other than a teenage pout, 'social contract, bad'.

How old are you... developmentally?


I have no objection to it. In fact I said it was a good thing that you were backpedalling on your belief that rights spring from pieces of paper to the vague and nebulous terms like social contract and greater forces. It almost sounded like you were getting in touch with reality. Almost. Have you forgotten already?

Do you actually believe that you have the right to do something, even if the consistent and predictable result is someone trying to kill you, because pieces of paper trump reality? And if so, why did you start back pedalling to those vague and nebulous concepts like societal contract and greater forces?

Or were you just being slippery and evasive?

If you cannot bring yourself to give a straight answer to a simple question Meister, there is no way to tell what your point is or what you are trying to say, as you never seem to get round to saying it.

And there you go again… confusing/conflating categories.

Now, it’s with the act and the morality or sanity of the act.

Back on the desert island. When alone, by what measure is an act moral or insane?

Back on the beach, you’re walking on what you believe is public access, when an old codger tries to chase you off with a stick, claiming he has riparian rights.

When you refuse to leave, asserting your right to walk on a public accessway, he calls the police who forcibly remove you, defending the owner’s riparian rights.

What just happened? His written riparian rights trump written public accessway rights.

What has changed in your world of objects? Nothing. You, the codger, the beach, are the same.


Do you actually believe that you have the right to do something, even if the consistent and predictable result is someone trying to kill you, because pieces of paper trump reality?

Not sure I can dumb the question down any more for you Meister. Would you like to have a go at answering the question that was actually asked, rather than being slippery and evasive yet again?
Back to top
« Last Edit: Feb 3rd, 2026 at 10:52am by freediver »  

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #178 - Feb 3rd, 2026 at 10:53am
 
freediver wrote on Feb 3rd, 2026 at 10:42am:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 3rd, 2026 at 8:02am:
freediver wrote on Feb 3rd, 2026 at 7:32am:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 7:29pm:
See, you can't name a right that exists without a social contract. You can't even explain your objection to the term 'social contract' other than a teenage pout, 'social contract, bad'.

How old are you... developmentally?


I have no objection to it. In fact I said it was a good thing that you were backpedalling on your belief that rights spring from pieces of paper to the vague and nebulous terms like social contract and greater forces. It almost sounded like you were getting in touch with reality. Almost. Have you forgotten already?

Do you actually believe that you have the right to do something, even if the consistent and predictable result is someone trying to kill you, because pieces of paper trump reality? And if so, why did you start back pedalling to those vague and nebulous concepts like societal contract and greater forces?

Or were you just being slippery and evasive?

If you cannot bring yourself to give a straight answer to a simple question Meister, there is no way to tell what your point is or what you are trying to say, as you never seem to get round to saying it.

And there you go again… confusing/conflating categories.

Now, it’s with the act and the morality or sanity of the act.

Back on the desert island. When alone, by what measure is an act moral or insane?

Back on the beach, you’re walking on what you believe is public access, when an old codger tries to chase you off with a stick, claiming he has riparian rights.

When you refuse to leave, asserting your right to walk on a public accessway, he calls the police who forcibly remove you, defending the owner’s riparian rights.

What just happened? His written riparian rights trump written public accessway rights.

What has changed in your world of objects? Nothing. You, the codger, the beach, are the same.


Do you actually believe that you have the right to do something, even if the consistent and predictable result is someone trying to kill you, because pieces of paper trump reality?

You need to understand that you have the comprehension of a teenager.

Another category mistake. You're now confusing desires with rights.

Does a psychopath have a right to do what he wants to, because he wants to?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #179 - Feb 3rd, 2026 at 10:56am
 
Quote:
Another category mistake.


You are confused Meister. It is a question. A very simple one. As dumbed down as I can get it for you. If all you are going to do is slither away again, why bother posting a response at all?

Do you actually believe that you have the right to do something, even if the consistent and predictable result of doing it is someone trying to kill you - because pieces of paper trump reality?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #180 - Feb 3rd, 2026 at 11:07am
 
freediver wrote on Feb 3rd, 2026 at 10:56am:
Quote:
Another category mistake.


You are confused Meister. It is a question. A very simple one. As dumbed down as I can get it for you.

Do you actually believe that you have the right to do something, even if the consistent and predictable result of doing it is someone trying to kill you - because pieces of paper trump reality?

Repeating a category mistake doesn't correct it...

You do not have the comprehension capacity to take on these subjects.

Adding to your growing list of category mistakes:

Desires are not necessarily rights. If you are walking on a public accessway, whether you want to or have no choice, does not augment or detract from your granted right to do so. It also works in reverse, where you act when prohibited, i.e., have no granted right to act.

That someone tries to obstruct your exercise of a right granted to you does not void your right... An argument often used in a court of law in an attempt to delegitimise an arrest.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #181 - Feb 3rd, 2026 at 11:13am
 
Quote:
Repeating a category mistake doesn't correct it...


This is some creative slithering Meister. Again, not a mistake, just a very simple question.

Do you actually believe that you have the right to do something, even if the consistent and predictable result of doing it is someone trying to kill you - because pieces of paper trump reality?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #182 - Feb 3rd, 2026 at 11:21am
 
freediver wrote on Feb 3rd, 2026 at 11:13am:
Quote:
Repeating a category mistake doesn't correct it...


This is some creative slithering Meister. Again, not a mistake, just a very simple question.

Do you actually believe that you have the right to do something, even if the consistent and predictable result of doing it is someone trying to kill you - because pieces of paper trump reality?

See above - You do not have the comprehension capacity to take on these subjects - I'm guessing you're about 15 developmentally, a common age with arrested development.

What I believe or you believe, about having rights, is irrelevant.

It's why the state does not tolerate ignorance of the law. It's the responsibility of citizens and residents to educate themselves on what they have granted rights to do and what is prohibited by law.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #183 - Feb 3rd, 2026 at 11:26am
 
freediver wrote on Feb 3rd, 2026 at 11:13am:
Do you actually believe that you have the right to do something, even if the consistent and predictable result of doing it is someone trying to kill you - because pieces of paper trump reality?

I'm starting to wonder if these teenage pouts of yours are related to your anger at no longer having the right to access land now declared the private property of Aboriginal tribes/clans.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #184 - Feb 3rd, 2026 at 11:27am
 
Grin

Here's a question for you Meister, do you actually believe that you have the right to do something, even if the consistent and predictable result of doing it is someone trying to kill you - because pieces of paper trump reality?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #185 - Feb 3rd, 2026 at 11:38am
 
freediver wrote on Feb 3rd, 2026 at 11:27am:
Grin

Here's a question for you Meister, do you actually believe that you have the right to do something, even if the consistent and predictable result of doing it is someone trying to kill you - because pieces of paper trump reality?

Can you find a mate to go bike riding with... Y'know... get you out of the house... And stay off Aboriginal land... You don't have the right to trespass on private property, no matter how much you want to or believe you have a right to... Aboriginal ownership granted rights trump your personal wants or beliefs.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #186 - Feb 3rd, 2026 at 11:41am
 
Do you actually believe that you have the right to do something, even if the consistent and predictable result of doing it is someone trying to kill you - because pieces of paper trump reality?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #187 - Feb 3rd, 2026 at 11:45am
 
freediver wrote on Feb 3rd, 2026 at 11:41am:
Do you actually believe that you have the right to do something, even if the consistent and predictable result of doing it is someone trying to kill you - because pieces of paper trump reality?

Where's your dad? Someone's got to deal with this!

Aboriginal land that is deemed private property is off-limits. If you don't like it, wait till you're older, get yourself elected and campaign for unrestricted public access rights to be granted to non-Aboriginal people on Aboriginal land... and good luck with that!


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #188 - Feb 3rd, 2026 at 11:47am
 
Do you actually believe that you have the right to do something, even if the consistent and predictable result of doing it is someone trying to kill you - because pieces of paper trump reality?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #189 - Feb 3rd, 2026 at 11:52am
 
freediver wrote on Feb 3rd, 2026 at 11:47am:
Do you actually believe that you have the right to do something, even if the consistent and predictable result of doing it is someone trying to kill you - because pieces of paper trump reality?

Here's something you can plug into Google's AI... might help... although, in your case, I doubt it:

"In Australia, can someone still have a legal right to do something even if others disagree and try to obstruct them?"

Yes, in Australia, a person can possess a valid legal right even if others disagree with them and actively try to obstruct them. The Australian legal system is based on the rule of law, which means rights are determined by statute, common law, and the Constitution, rather than by popular opinion, community consensus, or the actions of those causing obstruction.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #190 - Feb 3rd, 2026 at 11:55am
 
Do you actually believe that you have the right to do something, even if the consistent and predictable result of doing it is someone trying to kill you - because pieces of paper trump reality?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #191 - Feb 3rd, 2026 at 12:13pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 3rd, 2026 at 11:55am:
Do you actually believe that you have the right to do something, even if the consistent and predictable result of doing it is someone trying to kill you - because pieces of paper trump reality?

Here's something you can plug into Google's AI... might help... although, in your case, I doubt it

Nup... Didn't think so...

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #192 - Feb 3rd, 2026 at 12:16pm
 
Do you actually believe that you have the right to do something, even if the consistent and predictable result of doing it is someone trying to kill you - because pieces of paper trump reality?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #193 - Feb 3rd, 2026 at 12:28pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 3rd, 2026 at 12:16pm:
Do you actually believe that you have the right to do something, even if the consistent and predictable result of doing it is someone trying to kill you - because pieces of paper trump reality?

Apart from your mum and dad and other kin, neighbours, work mates... who else is trying to kill you?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #194 - Feb 3rd, 2026 at 12:29pm
 
Do you actually believe that you have the right to do something, even if the consistent and predictable result of doing it is someone trying to kill you - because pieces of paper trump reality?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #195 - Feb 3rd, 2026 at 12:42pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 3rd, 2026 at 12:29pm:
Do you actually believe that you have the right to do something, even if the consistent and predictable result of doing it is someone trying to kill you - because pieces of paper trump reality?

OK, apart from your mum and dad and other kin, neighbours, workmates, the posties, the lawnmower man, the deli owner, the checkout chicks at Coles... who else is trying to kill you?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #196 - Feb 3rd, 2026 at 1:01pm
 
Do you actually believe that you have the right to do something, even if the consistent and predictable result of doing it is someone trying to kill you - because pieces of paper trump reality?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Daves2017
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3125
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #197 - Feb 3rd, 2026 at 1:15pm
 
I find it interesting that extreme Islam hate preachers are yet to be arrested and charged under the new law?

I note that the labor state government has passed laws today to assist local governments to cut water to hate speech headquarters but the police refuse to arrest them?

Back to top
 

The Australian Labor Party- once the workers party but now the Islamic party!
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 15231
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #198 - Feb 3rd, 2026 at 2:36pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 3rd, 2026 at 1:01pm:
Do you actually believe that you have the right to do something, even if the consistent and predictable result of doing it is someone trying to kill you - because pieces of paper trump reality?


You don't have the "right" to do something likely to egregiously affect other people; rather  the law (written on paper..) - infomed by 'moralilty, justice and fairness' -  should prescribe relevant behaviours, and be your guide.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #199 - Feb 3rd, 2026 at 2:38pm
 
Wow. You use the words, but you misunderstand them even more than Meister.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 15231
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #200 - Feb 3rd, 2026 at 2:50pm
 
chimera wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 5:48pm:
Probably you stay all day at Stop signs.


See - you conclusion is garbage, as expected.

Do you think some guy - eg, who says the zionist lobby is evil - has commited a crime?

As to the behaviour of others who heard him, it's up to the government   to clearly outline the limits of the zioinist lobby, and loudy condemn the genocidal jewish state, both here and at the UN.

An action would would defuse those who think they must take illegal actions into their own hands.

Instead  Albo who  can't anaylize clearly  has invited the President of a genocidal  state to Oz....while the relatives of many victims of that genocide are living in Oz.   
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 15231
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #201 - Feb 3rd, 2026 at 2:53pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 3rd, 2026 at 2:38pm:
Wow. You use the words, but you misunderstand them even more than Meister.


Please elaborate, directly addressing my words.

ie  "You don't have the "right" to do something likely to egregiously affect other people; rather  the law (written on paper..) - infomed by 'moralilty, justice and fairness' -  should prescribe relevant behaviours, and be your guide.


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #202 - Feb 3rd, 2026 at 2:54pm
 
Grin

LOL. If only we had the CCP to tell us what to think, everything would be perfect.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 15231
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #203 - Feb 3rd, 2026 at 3:00pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 3rd, 2026 at 2:54pm:
Grin

LOL. If only we had the CCP to tell us what to think, everything would be perfect.


Fail, try again.

Show where my statement is in error, here it is again.

"You don't have the "right" to do something likely to egregiously affect other people; rather  the law (written on paper..) - infomed by 'moralilty, justice and fairness' -  should prescribe relevant behaviours, and be your guide'.

How about YOU do some thinking, and show us the error(s) in it. 

Or prove your mental incapacity, again.......



Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #204 - Feb 3rd, 2026 at 3:34pm
 
thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 3rd, 2026 at 2:53pm:
freediver wrote on Feb 3rd, 2026 at 2:38pm:
Wow. You use the words, but you misunderstand them even more than Meister.


Please elaborate, directly addressing my words.

ie  "You don't have the "right" to do something likely to egregiously affect other people; rather  the law (written on paper..) - infomed by 'moralilty, justice and fairness' -  should prescribe relevant behaviours, and be your guide.



Don't go there... he thinks rights come from mines in South Africa.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #205 - Feb 3rd, 2026 at 3:50pm
 
thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 3rd, 2026 at 2:50pm:
chimera wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 5:48pm:
Probably you stay all day at Stop signs.


See - you conclusion is garbage, as expected.



Hey tgd. 'Key Requirements for Stop Signs in NSW:
Complete Stop: You must bring your vehicle to a complete stop—the wheels must stop turning entirely.'
Now, which person does that mean?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
thegreatdivide
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 15231
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #206 - Feb 3rd, 2026 at 4:01pm
 
chimera wrote on Feb 3rd, 2026 at 3:50pm:
thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 3rd, 2026 at 2:50pm:
chimera wrote on Feb 2nd, 2026 at 5:48pm:
Probably you stay all day at Stop signs.


See - you conclusion is garbage, as expected.



Hey tgd. 'Key Requirements for Stop Signs in NSW:
Complete Stop: You must bring your vehicle to a complete stop—the wheels must stop turning entirely.'
Now, which person does that mean? 


Me - and everyone else (ie not 2 "conspiring" people ).


Now, are you capable of explaining whether  the alleged 'neo nazi' has comitted "hate speech" or not, on the basis of the clip we heard ? 

Bobby and I are still wondering....
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #207 - Feb 3rd, 2026 at 4:01pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 3rd, 2026 at 1:01pm:
Do you actually believe that you have the right to do something, even if the consistent and predictable result of doing it is someone trying to kill you - because pieces of paper trump reality?

Explain the difference between believing and actually believing.

Explain the relationship between the existence of a right and resistance to the exercise of that right.

Explain why you believe a right does not exist if resistance would be meted out to those who exercise that right.

When a right is granted by the state, the state takes responsibility for defending that right, using violence if necessary. Is the state absolved from defending a right if you encounter resistance to its exercise?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #208 - Feb 3rd, 2026 at 4:04pm
 
You might need a dictionary if it is still too complicated for you.

Do you actually believe that you have the right to do something, even if the consistent and predictable result of doing it is someone trying to kill you - because pieces of paper trump reality?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #209 - Feb 3rd, 2026 at 4:34pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 3rd, 2026 at 4:04pm:
You might need a dictionary if it is still too complicated for you.

Do you actually believe that you have the right to do something, even if the consistent and predictable result of doing it is someone trying to kill you - because pieces of paper trump reality?

You'll need more than a dictionary.

Using repetitive, effete bitchery is not asking a question.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #210 - Feb 3rd, 2026 at 4:57pm
 
It's a simple, straightforward question Meister. I think even you could answer it.

Do you actually believe that you have the right to do something, even if the consistent and predictable result of doing it is someone trying to kill you - because pieces of paper trump reality?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #211 - Feb 3rd, 2026 at 5:19pm
 
thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 3rd, 2026 at 4:01pm:
Me - and everyone else (ie not 2 "conspiring" people ).

You did it. You got there. Excellent work.
You had me worried there for a couple of days.  Well, you're halfway but heh that's good enough for now. Again, well done.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #212 - Feb 3rd, 2026 at 5:24pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 3rd, 2026 at 4:57pm:
It's a simple, straightforward question Meister. I think even you could answer it.

Do you actually believe that you have the right to do something, even if the consistent and predictable result of doing it is someone trying to kill you - because pieces of paper trump reality?

No, it's a stupid question.. the sort you often latch onto on this site and repeat, like Tourette's.

But I think it might be revealing what's going on in your scrambled mind.

I'm guessing you probably subscribe to 'sovereign citizenry', which would 'empower' you to trespass on Aboriginal land... if you ever grew the balls to confront the state.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #213 - Feb 3rd, 2026 at 6:09pm
 
thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 3rd, 2026 at 4:01pm:
Now, are you capable of explaining whether  the alleged 'neo nazi' has comitted "hate speech" or not, on the basis of the clip we heard ? 

Yes I am and yes he did. Australia is subject to Zion and victory for holiness. Criticism of Israel Jerusalem Judea is an offence against the Great Hall of Australia, Simpson's donkey and the horses of Beer Sheba and Lawrence.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Feb 3rd, 2026 at 6:15pm by chimera »  
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #214 - Feb 3rd, 2026 at 6:12pm
 
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 3rd, 2026 at 5:24pm:
freediver wrote on Feb 3rd, 2026 at 4:57pm:
It's a simple, straightforward question Meister. I think even you could answer it.

Do you actually believe that you have the right to do something, even if the consistent and predictable result of doing it is someone trying to kill you - because pieces of paper trump reality?

No, it's a stupid question.. the sort you often latch onto on this site and repeat, like Tourette's.

But I think it might be revealing what's going on in your scrambled mind.

I'm guessing you probably subscribe to 'sovereign citizenry', which would 'empower' you to trespass on Aboriginal land... if you ever grew the balls to confront the state.

It might also explain why you associate a right as existing only in the absence of resistance to the liberties it grants.

How else would 'sovereign citizens' sort out who can do what other than down the barrel of a gun?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #215 - Feb 5th, 2026 at 7:32am
 
It seems unusual for the hate Bill to be named:
'Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026'.
Antisemitism is a policy of AFP.
'Investigating threats, violence and hatred towards the Australian Jewish community and parliamentarians'.
https://www.afp.gov.au/crimes/antisemitism

There are several strands of hatred in Oz and selecting one suggests that hatred against another group is not serious. That in turn can be a form of hate by the government. But it's all in the constitution at
s51  (xxvi.)  Parliament can make laws for 'The people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws'.

Special laws for a race. There you have it. Where do we go from there?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #216 - Feb 5th, 2026 at 7:41am
 
chimera wrote on Feb 5th, 2026 at 7:32am:
It seems unusual for the hate Bill to be named:
'Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026'.
Antisemitism is a policy of AFP.
'Investigating threats, violence and hatred towards the Australian Jewish community and parliamentarians'.
https://www.afp.gov.au/crimes/antisemitism

There are several strands of hatred in Oz and selecting one suggests that hatred against another group is not serious. That in turn can be a form of hate by the government. But it's all in the constitution at
s51  (xxvi.)  Parliament can make laws for 'The people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws'.

Special laws for a race. There you have it. Where do we go from there?


Even more interesting, given that it specifically protects the right of Muslims to promote Jew slaughtering in the name of Islam.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #217 - Feb 5th, 2026 at 7:41am
 
Meister, do you actually believe that you have the right to do something, even if the consistent and predictable result of doing it is someone trying to kill you - because pieces of paper trump reality?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #218 - Feb 5th, 2026 at 8:48am
 
freediver wrote on Feb 5th, 2026 at 7:41am:
Even more interesting, given that it specifically protects the right of Muslims to promote Jew slaughtering in the name of Islam.

Oh yes, s 46. 'Muslims have the right to slaughter Jews for Islam. Muahammed is the prophet'.
s.47. 'It's a crime to slaughter Jews for Islam'.
s.48. 'My head hurts'.

What are you talking about or don't you care?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #219 - Feb 5th, 2026 at 8:51am
 
Here is an example for you:

https://sunnah.com/bukhari:2926

Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #220 - Feb 5th, 2026 at 9:01am
 
freediver wrote on Feb 5th, 2026 at 7:41am:
Meister, do you actually believe that you have the right to do something, even if the consistent and predictable result of doing it is someone trying to kill you - because pieces of paper trump reality?

Isn't that what you believe Jews/Israelis have a right to do, because a paper-based UN recognition of Israel 'trumps reality'?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #221 - Feb 5th, 2026 at 9:06am
 
freediver wrote on Feb 5th, 2026 at 8:51am:
Here is an example for you:

https://sunnah.com/bukhari:2926

Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him."

Almost exactly what Christo-Europe thought of Jews for nearly 2000 years, do you think that's where Muhammed cribbed it from?

After all, he was heavily influenced by pre-Christian Messianic sects (disciples of 'The Way') whose ancestors had fled south into Arabia after the Romans sacked Jerusalem.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #222 - Feb 5th, 2026 at 9:12am
 
freediver wrote on Feb 5th, 2026 at 7:41am:
Even more interesting, given that it specifically protects the right of Muslims to promote Jew slaughtering in the name of Islam.

The defence at 80.2BF(4) is available if the conduct consists only of directly quoting from, or otherwise referencing, a religious text for the purpose of religious teaching or discussion. The defence does not protect discussions beyond the mere quoting or referencing of the text if that broader discussion is intended to promote or incite hatred, or if it constitutes ideas of superiority.
1 Samuel 15:3 this command is given to Saul:.
“Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey”   The Amalekites were arch-enemies of the Israelites, inhabiting the Negev desert, south Israel.

Are you saying that Australia's parliament is Islamic?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 117947
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #223 - Feb 5th, 2026 at 9:20am
 

It might go to the High Court:


https://au.news.yahoo.com/first-australian-jailed-nazi-salute-053528226.html


Wed 4 February 2026     at 5:27 pm AEDT

First Australian jailed for Nazi salute.



Hersant returned to the County Court on Wednesday afternoon for a plea hearing and sentencing.

His barrister, Tim Smartt, urged Judge Moglia to not sentence his client to jail, described in references to the court as a “wonderful father” to his three-year-old son.

Mr Smartt said Hersant retains the support of his parents, despite them both disagreeing with his political views.


“People are far better than their very worst deeds,” Mr Smartt said.

“(Hersant is a) far better person than the 10 minutes on that video.”


Mr Smartt argued Hersant had been “provoked” by the presence of the media outside court, but conceded the salute was done with a degree of hubris or arrogance after having received a lenient sentence.

The court was told there had been 18 cases across Australia for performing illegal Nazi salutes, with none resulting in a jail sentence.

Mr Smartt pointed to several of these; including outside a synagogue on the Gold Coast, outside a Jewish museum and in a Perth bar, that had resulted in sentences less than jail.


“It is by far the most severe sentence in Australia,” he said of Hersant’s sentence.

“You can’t jail your way into social cohesion, these people aren’t going to change their views on a sentence in this case.”

Daniel Gurvich KC, for the Crown, argued Hersant’s offending was done in a calculated fashion to achieve maximum impact and demonstrated “disdain for the law”.


Sentencing Hersant, Judge Moglia said the salute was performed with the full appreciation of it being unlawful and in the context of him having just been sentenced for a “most terrifying” and “violent” incident.

“I accept he relished that opportunity ... with the full knowledge it was being done not simply in the presence of a few people but in the presence of the wider community in a realistic way,” the judge said.


Judge Moglia described the context as “contemptuous” and designed to send a “chilling message to the community”.

Hersant was sentenced to one month in jail and fined $1000 for breaching a community corrections order by performing the salute.

He has repeatedly described himself a Nazi and was a leading figure in the National Socialist Network until the neo-Nazi group claims to have disbanded last month to avoid the federal government’s new hate group legislation.

Hersant has flagged his intention to appeal the case to the High Court.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #224 - Feb 5th, 2026 at 10:10am
 
chimera wrote on Feb 5th, 2026 at 9:12am:
freediver wrote on Feb 5th, 2026 at 7:41am:
Even more interesting, given that it specifically protects the right of Muslims to promote Jew slaughtering in the name of Islam.

The defence at 80.2BF(4) is available if the conduct consists only of directly quoting from, or otherwise referencing, a religious text for the purpose of religious teaching or discussion. The defence does not protect discussions beyond the mere quoting or referencing of the text if that broader discussion is intended to promote or incite hatred, or if it constitutes ideas of superiority.
1 Samuel 15:3 this command is given to Saul:.
“Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey”   The Amalekites were arch-enemies of the Israelites, inhabiting the Negev desert, south Israel.

Are you saying that Australia's parliament is Islamic?


No. If I was saying that, I would be saying that.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #225 - Feb 5th, 2026 at 10:11am
 
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 5th, 2026 at 9:01am:
freediver wrote on Feb 5th, 2026 at 7:41am:
Meister, do you actually believe that you have the right to do something, even if the consistent and predictable result of doing it is someone trying to kill you - because pieces of paper trump reality?

Isn't that what you believe Jews/Israelis have a right to do, because a paper-based UN recognition of Israel 'trumps reality'?


You are confused Meister.

Do you actually believe that you have the right to do something, even if the consistent and predictable result of doing it is someone trying to kill you - because pieces of paper trump reality?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #226 - Feb 5th, 2026 at 10:24am
 
freediver wrote on Feb 5th, 2026 at 10:10am:
chimera wrote on Feb 5th, 2026 at 9:12am:
Are you saying that Australia's parliament is Islamic?


No. If I was saying that, I would be saying that.


freediver wrote on Feb 5th, 2026 at 7:41am:
Even more interesting, given that it specifically protects the right of Muslims to promote Jew slaughtering in the name of Islam.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #227 - Feb 5th, 2026 at 10:29am
 
freediver wrote on Feb 5th, 2026 at 10:11am:
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 5th, 2026 at 9:01am:
freediver wrote on Feb 5th, 2026 at 7:41am:
Meister, do you actually believe that you have the right to do something, even if the consistent and predictable result of doing it is someone trying to kill you - because pieces of paper trump reality?

Isn't that what you believe Jews/Israelis have a right to do, because a paper-based UN recognition of Israel 'trumps reality'?


You are confused Meister.

Do you actually believe that you have the right to do something, even if the consistent and predictable result of doing it is someone trying to kill you - because pieces of paper trump reality?

So, according to your logic, Israelis do not have the right to claim sovereignty via a UN recognition of Israel because it is paper-based, and many Arabs are trying to abolish Israel by force.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #228 - Feb 5th, 2026 at 10:58am
 
chimera wrote on Feb 5th, 2026 at 10:24am:
freediver wrote on Feb 5th, 2026 at 10:10am:
chimera wrote on Feb 5th, 2026 at 9:12am:
Are you saying that Australia's parliament is Islamic?


No. If I was saying that, I would be saying that.


freediver wrote on Feb 5th, 2026 at 7:41am:
Even more interesting, given that it specifically protects the right of Muslims to promote Jew slaughtering in the name of Islam.


Have you ever played "spot the difference" before?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #229 - Feb 5th, 2026 at 11:08am
 
Where does the legislation specifically protect the right of Muslims to promote Jew slaughtering in the name of Islam?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 117947
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #230 - Feb 5th, 2026 at 11:43am
 
chimera wrote on Feb 5th, 2026 at 11:08am:
Where does the legislation specifically protect the right of Muslims to promote Jew slaughtering in the name of Islam?



The preachers are allowed to read out loud any text in their Holy books.

If that text encourages the slaughter of Jews then it's allowed
as protected by its holiness.

Note: the Christian Bible and Jewish Torah also have text which encourages
the murder of non believers, homosexuals and all sorts of people.

Example.


Deuteronomy 13  KJV


13 Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known;

14 Then shalt thou inquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you;

15 Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword.

16 And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #231 - Feb 5th, 2026 at 12:00pm
 
Bobby. wrote on Feb 5th, 2026 at 11:43am:
If that text encourages the slaughter of Jews then it's allowed
as protected by its holiness.


That's specifically in the legislation to slaughter Jews? The text causes death?
Then John 2:15 says about Jesus: 'In the temple courts He found men selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and money changers seated at their tables. So He made a whip out of cords and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle. He poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables'.

So Parliament specifically says to whip Jews and pour out their money? And use machetes on unbelievers? The Antisemitic law is to attack Jews?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #232 - Feb 5th, 2026 at 12:03pm
 
Quote:
That's specifically in the legislation to slaughter Jews?


Who said anything about "legislation to slaughter Jews"?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #233 - Feb 5th, 2026 at 12:09pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 5th, 2026 at 7:41am:
chimera wrote on Feb 5th, 2026 at 7:32am:
It seems unusual for the hate Bill to be named:
'Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026'.
Antisemitism is a policy of AFP.
'Investigating threats, violence and hatred towards the Australian Jewish community and parliamentarians'.
https://www.afp.gov.au/crimes/antisemitism

There are several strands of hatred in Oz and selecting one suggests that hatred against another group is not serious. That in turn can be a form of hate by the government. But it's all in the constitution at
s51  (xxvi.)  Parliament can make laws for 'The people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws'.

Special laws for a race. There you have it. Where do we go from there?


Even more interesting, given that it specifically protects the right of Muslims to promote Jew slaughtering in the name of Islam.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #234 - Feb 5th, 2026 at 12:12pm
 
It means that Christians who read the Gospels are promoted to go to synagogues to whip Jews and pour out their money.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 117947
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #235 - Feb 5th, 2026 at 12:15pm
 
chimera wrote on Feb 5th, 2026 at 12:00pm:
Bobby. wrote on Feb 5th, 2026 at 11:43am:
If that text encourages the slaughter of Jews then it's allowed
as protected by its holiness.


That's specifically in the legislation to slaughter Jews? The text causes death?
Then John 2:15 says about Jesus: 'In the temple courts He found men selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and money changers seated at their tables. So He made a whip out of cords and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle. He poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables'.

So Parliament specifically says to whip Jews and pour out their money? And use machetes on unbelievers? The Antisemitic law is to attack Jews?



It was directed only at people desecrating the holy temple by
changing money and selling animals etc.


...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #236 - Feb 5th, 2026 at 12:29pm
 
Oh yes. That's right. But not for fd.
'The German advance earlier in the year had created a "bulge" in the front line around the village, a salient that exposed Allied troops in the sector to enfilading fire and enabled the Germans to observe Allied rear areas.  Lieutenant General John Monash, commander of the Australian Corps, was chosen to plan the attack.'

People who read about the war are promoted to attack Germans.  Australian schools are guilty of hate crime against krauts.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #237 - Feb 5th, 2026 at 12:29pm
 
chimera wrote on Feb 5th, 2026 at 12:09pm:
freediver wrote on Feb 5th, 2026 at 7:41am:
chimera wrote on Feb 5th, 2026 at 7:32am:
It seems unusual for the hate Bill to be named:
'Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026'.
Antisemitism is a policy of AFP.
'Investigating threats, violence and hatred towards the Australian Jewish community and parliamentarians'.
https://www.afp.gov.au/crimes/antisemitism

There are several strands of hatred in Oz and selecting one suggests that hatred against another group is not serious. That in turn can be a form of hate by the government. But it's all in the constitution at
s51  (xxvi.)  Parliament can make laws for 'The people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws'.

Special laws for a race. There you have it. Where do we go from there?


Even more interesting, given that it specifically protects the right of Muslims to promote Jew slaughtering in the name of Islam.



Did you intend to say something?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #238 - Feb 5th, 2026 at 12:40pm
 
Bobby. wrote on Feb 5th, 2026 at 12:15pm:
chimera wrote on Feb 5th, 2026 at 12:00pm:
Bobby. wrote on Feb 5th, 2026 at 11:43am:
If that text encourages the slaughter of Jews then it's allowed
as protected by its holiness.


That's specifically in the legislation to slaughter Jews? The text causes death?
Then John 2:15 says about Jesus: 'In the temple courts He found men selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and money changers seated at their tables. So He made a whip out of cords and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle. He poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables'.

So Parliament specifically says to whip Jews and pour out their money? And use machetes on unbelievers? The Antisemitic law is to attack Jews?


It was directed only at people desecrating the holy temple by
changing money and selling animals etc.

Under Temple law, money-changing for diaspora Jews and the sale of animal sacrifices were not desecrations of the Temple. It had been done for centuries.

Jesus (and particularly his brother, James) advocated for an extreme form of charity, i.e., giving all to the poor. James held this conviction until his death.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #239 - Feb 5th, 2026 at 2:16pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 5th, 2026 at 12:03pm:
Quote:
That's specifically in the legislation to slaughter Jews?


Who said anything about "legislation to slaughter Jews"?

freediver posts in Ozpol an internet site.
He asked a question.
The question was answered.It shows that fd was talking about the Act of legislation.
Then he was asked where does it specifically say what he claims.
This is all in English, a language used by Irish, some of the Yanks, Mussies and several Mongolians.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #240 - Feb 5th, 2026 at 2:22pm
 
'Individuals with Down syndrome often possess strong visual processing skills but face significant challenges with reading comprehension, which typically lags behind their word-reading accuracy. Comprehension difficulties are largely driven by limitations in expressive language, vocabulary, working memory, and grammatical complexity, requiring structured, tailored reading instruction.'
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #241 - Feb 5th, 2026 at 2:29pm
 
chimera wrote on Feb 5th, 2026 at 2:16pm:
freediver wrote on Feb 5th, 2026 at 12:03pm:
Quote:
That's specifically in the legislation to slaughter Jews?


Who said anything about "legislation to slaughter Jews"?

freediver posts in Ozpol an internet site.
He asked a question.
The question was answered.It shows that fd was talking about the Act of legislation.
Then he was asked where does it specifically say what he claims.
This is all in English, a language used by Irish, some of the Yanks, Mussies and several Mongolians.


Were you attempting to answer the question?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #242 - Feb 5th, 2026 at 2:41pm
 
I just told you that I did so.

('English
/ˈɪŋ(ɡ)lɪʃ/
adjective
relating to England and its language.
noun
1.
the language of England, widely used in many varieties throughout the world).
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #243 - Feb 5th, 2026 at 4:20pm
 
Who said anything about "legislation to slaughter Jews"?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #244 - Feb 5th, 2026 at 4:26pm
 
Date Registered:Nov 24th, 2006 at 4:40am
7013 Days since joining
Location:At my desk.
About Me:I am freediver.


freediver wrote on Feb 5th, 2026 at 7:41am:
chimera wrote on Feb 5th, 2026 at 7:32am:
It seems unusual for the hate Bill to be named:
'Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026'.
Antisemitism is a policy of AFP.
'Investigating threats, violence and hatred towards the Australian Jewish community and parliamentarians'.
https://www.afp.gov.au/crimes/antisemitism

There are several strands of hatred in Oz and selecting one suggests that hatred against another group is not serious. That in turn can be a form of hate by the government. But it's all in the constitution at
s51  (xxvi.)  Parliament can make laws for 'The people of any race for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws'.

Special laws for a race. There you have it. Where do we go from there?


Even more interesting, given that it specifically protects the right of Muslims to promote Jew slaughtering in the name of Islam.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #245 - Feb 5th, 2026 at 4:28pm
 
Well done. That is a quote. Are you trying to make a point with it?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #246 - Feb 5th, 2026 at 4:34pm
 
No it's just quoting random words by a person without a mind.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 117947
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #247 - Feb 5th, 2026 at 4:37pm
 
MeisterEckhart wrote on Feb 5th, 2026 at 12:40pm:
Bobby. wrote on Feb 5th, 2026 at 12:15pm:
chimera wrote on Feb 5th, 2026 at 12:00pm:
Bobby. wrote on Feb 5th, 2026 at 11:43am:
If that text encourages the slaughter of Jews then it's allowed
as protected by its holiness.


That's specifically in the legislation to slaughter Jews? The text causes death?
Then John 2:15 says about Jesus: 'In the temple courts He found men selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and money changers seated at their tables. So He made a whip out of cords and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle. He poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables'.

So Parliament specifically says to whip Jews and pour out their money? And use machetes on unbelievers? The Antisemitic law is to attack Jews?


It was directed only at people desecrating the holy temple by
changing money and selling animals etc.

Under Temple law, money-changing for diaspora Jews and the sale of animal sacrifices were not desecrations of the Temple. It had been done for centuries.

Jesus (and particularly his brother, James) advocated for an extreme form of charity, i.e., giving all to the poor. James held this conviction until his death.



Google AI Overview

In a passionate display of righteous anger, Jesus drove money changers and merchants from the Jerusalem Temple with a makeshift whip of cords, overturning their tables and declaring that his "Father’s house" should not be a "den of thieves" or a marketplace. This act occurred during Passover and disrupted the exploitative commercialism occurring within the sacred space.

Key Details of the Event

The Action: Described in all four Gospels (John 2:13-16, Matthew 21:12-13, Mark 11:15-17, Luke 19:45-46), Jesus physically ejected those buying and selling animals, poured out coins, and overturned tables of money changers.


The Reason: The Temple courtyard was filled with merchants selling animals for sacrifice and changing foreign currency into temple currency, often at inflated rates, which hindered worship and exploited the poor.


Significance: This act of purification showed "zeal for [God's] house" and directly challenged the religious authorities who permitted this trade, contributing to their decision to seek his death.


The Whip: While often depicted as a weapon, the "whip of cords" mentioned in John 2:15 is interpreted as a tool to drive out the livestock (sheep and oxen) and signal authority rather than a weapon meant for violence against people.

This event represents a moment of fiery indignation where Jesus restored the holy purpose of the Temple, emphasizing that greed and commerce had no place in the worship of God.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #248 - Feb 5th, 2026 at 4:43pm
 
In the world of fd, Christians read Gospels and are entering synagogues to overturn the tables and pour out the money.   Parliament has enacted a law to protect the Christian money-grab.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #249 - Feb 5th, 2026 at 4:46pm
 
Are you trying to make a point, or just dribbling on your keyboard?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #250 - Feb 5th, 2026 at 5:05pm
 
I've repeated my point but you can't comprehend that I have or what it means or what your own words mean.
sorry and that
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 52822
At my desk.
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #251 - Feb 5th, 2026 at 5:12pm
 
I think you confused me with Bobby. Or you're just dribbling incoherently.
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 117947
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #252 - Feb 5th, 2026 at 5:22pm
 
Google AI:

Proposed 2026 Australian federal hate speech legislation (specifically regarding racial vilification) includes a narrow defence allowing for the quoting or referencing of religious texts during legitimate religious teaching or discussion. While public incitement of hatred is criminalized, this clause protects scripture, provided it is not used to promote violence.


Key details regarding the religious text exemption in the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 include:

Targeted Scope: The exemption applies only to "directly quoting from, or otherwise referencing, a religious text for the purpose of religious teaching or discussion".


Limitation: It is a narrow defence that does not cover broader, extraneous commentary, or speech deemed to incite violence or intimidate.


Purpose: It aims to prevent legitimate religious expression from being criminalized, though critics argue it could be used as a "safe harbour" for hate speech framed within scripture.


Aggravated Offence: The legislation also includes provisions for religious leaders or officials who use their position to advocate violence, which may override this protection.

This is a specific carve-out designed to balance freedom of speech and religious practice with the aim of reducing hate speech, with debates still ongoing regarding its application.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #253 - Feb 5th, 2026 at 5:41pm
 
freediver wrote on Feb 5th, 2026 at 5:12pm:
dribbling incoherently.

dribble
The defence at 80.2BF(4) is available
dribble
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #254 - Feb 6th, 2026 at 8:34am
 
A major reform to Traffic laws will prevent road rage, a growing problem with 1.85 million convictions for spitting dummy. From April 1st the middle finger sign will be banned along with index and middle together in the obscene gesture.
1 finger  : 50 hours community service and clean up 1km roadside.
2 finger  : loss of licence, car and hand is amputated.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #255 - Feb 6th, 2026 at 8:53am
 
chimera wrote on Feb 6th, 2026 at 8:34am:
2 finger  : loss of licence, car and hand is amputated. 

First offence: a small toe, determined by 4-sided dice.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #256 - Feb 6th, 2026 at 9:11am
 
There is no excuse for a finger sign followed by nazi salute. A rare exception may be a religious blessing for the Holy Fatherland if used for teaching children some manners.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Sir Eoin O Fada
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3608
New England, NSW
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #257 - Feb 6th, 2026 at 12:50pm
 
Bobby. wrote on Feb 5th, 2026 at 11:43am:
chimera wrote on Feb 5th, 2026 at 11:08am:
Where does the legislation specifically protect the right of Muslims to promote Jew slaughtering in the name of Islam?



The preachers are allowed to read out loud any text in their Holy books.

If that text encourages the slaughter of Jews then it's allowed
as protected by its holiness.

Note: the Christian Bible and Jewish Torah also have text which encourages
the murder of non believers, homosexuals and all sorts of people.

Example.


Deuteronomy 13  KJV


13 Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known;

14 Then shalt thou inquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you;

15 Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword.

16 And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the LORD thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again.

Deuteronomy is Old Testament and does not apply to Christianity.
Back to top
 

Self defence is a right.
 
IP Logged
 
MeisterEckhart
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16693
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #258 - Feb 6th, 2026 at 1:02pm
 
chimera wrote on Feb 6th, 2026 at 9:11am:
There is no excuse for a finger sign followed by nazi salute. A rare exception may be a religious blessing for the Holy Fatherland if used for teaching children some manners.

Or you waggle the hand within 3 seconds of raising it, palm flat, downside up... Not saluting, waving.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Daves2017
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3125
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #259 - Feb 6th, 2026 at 1:14pm
 
Yes I agree!

But I do find it interesting that if you preach hateful extremism Islam the very worst thing that will happen to you  is the local council “ might “ cut your water off?

Please explain?
Back to top
 

The Australian Labor Party- once the workers party but now the Islamic party!
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #260 - Feb 7th, 2026 at 2:35am
 
Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Feb 6th, 2026 at 12:50pm:
Deuteronomy is Old Testament and does not apply to Christianity.

The material is part of Judeo-Christianity. Moses and ten commandments are familiar and he gave the book of Deuteronomy. He led the Jews towards invading Philistines of 'Palestine'.
' Anglican teaching regards the Old Testament as divinely inspired Scripture that reveals God's creation, covenant with Israel, and, crucially, bears witness to Christ.'
'Catholic teaching views the Old Testament as divinely inspired, an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture, and the true Word of God. It is not obsolete but holds permanent value as a record of God's saving love, preparation for the Gospel, and foundation for understanding the New Testament'
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
chimera
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 15108
Armidale
Gender: male
Re: Neo-Nazi arrested over hate speech
Reply #261 - Feb 7th, 2026 at 2:38am
 
Daves2017 wrote on Feb 6th, 2026 at 1:14pm:
But I do find it interesting that if you preach hateful extremism Islam the very worst thing that will happen to you  is the local council “ might “ cut your water off?

Please explain?

No it can circumcise all the penises and cut off foreskin. Then it can jail you at the works depot where they have fearsome power-tools.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 
Send Topic Print