The Coalition were all about free speech when Andrew Bolt published a series of articles explicitly attacking and trying to humiliate named Aboriginal people on the basis of (what he decided was) their race. They tried to weaken the racial discrimination act. Brandis even said Australians have "a right to be bigots" - this was only 12 years ago. The double standard is breathtaking.

[–] Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone 5 points 9 hours ago

I'm gona jump in to defend Brandis a little here and say his views on these things are usually ideologically consistent. I don't know if he's been asked specifically about this case, but his response (if he decided to respond), would likely be worth listening to. Even if disagreeable.

[–] mortemtyrannis@lemmy.ml 4 points 12 hours ago

Not at all shocking because it was never really a double standard.

The LNP exists to maintain the current power structures of Australia. If you in any way threaten that structure (based on Anglo-European patriarchal values) the LNP will be against you. If you uphold those values they will support you.

[–] Zephorah@discuss.online 82 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Again, why does any country who is not Israel care at all about this? Does Australia have a military base there?

[+] ForgottenUsername@lemmy.world -20 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

Exactly, half these people are bored with nothing better to do and should be working.

You can tell as they often are a collective with no common goal or objective other than 'protest'. And it's causing such division in our society with now a strong anti immigration movement cos people are getting sick of it.

And in the end everyone loses.

[–] bampop@lemmy.world 19 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

If you can get arrested and jailed for wearing a shirt saying "from the river to the sea", that means your government is suppressing your free speech in service to the genocidal regime of a different country. Even if you don't care about the genocide, the subversion of your democracy and your civil rights by a foreign power is something that any responsible citizen should be fighting against.

[–] ForgottenUsername@lemmy.world -5 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (2 children)

Again so quick to fire you assume that I disagree with you.

Something to consider though, we do have free speech in this country and its likely and this case (if challenged) will get thrown out. Update edit: she took a caution.

But also tell me how wearing a t shirt constructively convinces others to share our point of view? Quite the contrary I imagine others who don't share the same opinion will go 'avoid this person before they shout at me for having a different point of view'

And do you know a better way to make a movement in this country than if everyone is able to convince someone else to share (or perhaps just lean closer to) a common opinion/belief. So if instead of pissing off alternative points of view, have an open chat, you might change ppls minds. 1 million voices is better than 100,000 voices, and 25 million voices is better than 1 million. And an open chat is not wearing a tshirt.

But first people need to actually talk and listen to each other instead of shouting and hating each other.

[–] Zephorah@discuss.online 2 points 46 minutes ago

Wearing a shirt doesn’t, but then why should the government care? The answer is they shouldn’t.

Punchinb nazis used to be cool. Now, when the forner victims of genocide pay that genocide forward, governments defend it, going so far as to prosecute their own for saying “I don’t like it”.

A normal government reply would be: cool, enjoy your angst. Instead, they spend money and energy on it which is not normal.

[–] bampop@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 50 minutes ago)

You assume that I assume that you disagree with me.

Well, I am making a counterpoint to your comments about people having nothing better to do and not having a common goal as a collective. This woman achieved something extremely worthwhile, and she probably wasn't working in isolation. She brought attention to an absurd ban on free speech, and by calling the government's bluff on it, helped to reduce the chilling effect on dissent that such restrictions are intended to create. It takes courage, but the most effective way to oppose an unjust law is to break that law, openly and with as much publicity as possible. It draws attention to what is wrong in a way that an open chat simply fails to do. And how open can that chat be anyway? You say you have free speech, but when it gets you arrested with the threat of serious jail time, your freedom of speech is on very thin ice.

I'm not opposed to verbal persuasion, but it has limitations. Sure you might be able to convince one person of something in a face to face conversation. But that's small fry compared to the influence of internet forums, which have become overrun with bots, paid shills, foreign interference, partisan moderators and hidden algorithms designed to maximize engagement and distort your worldview.

Sure you can try to change people's minds and/or maintain a balanced worldview in that arena. But any large scale forum for talk tends to create delusion, division and outrage, by design. It keeps dissent in a form that is contained, monitored and manipulated. Keep talking by all means, but people like this woman are doing more to improve the world than mere talk ever could.

[–] pipi1234@lemmy.world 6 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

If the citizens of the countries that can exert some pressure on other genocidal countries do nothing who will?

Your logic is no different to saying people involved in WW2 should have mind their own businesses unless directly attacked by the Nazis.

You also fail to recognise that, as history teaches, oppression somewhere in the world can quickly be exported to you country.

And most importantly, unless you are a soulless person with no sense of empathy, we should care about suffering anywhere in the world.

[–] lmdnw@lemmy.world 109 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Just because something is illegal, doesn’t make it wrong and just because something is legal, doesn’t make it right. We need more illegal action against those who oppress legally.

[–] 18107@aussie.zone 65 points 15 hours ago (5 children)

Best example: the holocaust was legal, hiding Jews to save their lives was illegal.

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] zakobjoa@lemmy.world 53 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Cool ass lady

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 55 points 15 hours ago

[–] SarahFromOz@lemmy.world 44 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

Are we ok with this people?

[–] oneser@lemmy.zip 38 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

Obviously, assuming this is the whole story, no. Are there any planned protests? Is there an open donation box for this person's legal fees open? Is there any other way in which the average person can help?

I'm getting sick of rhetorical questions about tyrannical governments, without any effort made to show people what they realistically can do to help.

[–] zero_gravitas@aussie.zone 22 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Is there an open donation box for this person’s legal fees open?

Just had a look and found this one: https://chuffed.org/project/173177-justice-for-palestine-legal-defence

Are there any planned protests?

Justice for Palestine Magan-Djin (indigenous name for Brisbane) has announced a 'weekend of action' against the laws on the 18th-19th of April: https://www.instagram.com/p/DVvfrhOk20n/

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Gork@sopuli.xyz 27 points 17 hours ago (6 children)

Does Australia not have freeze peach laws in general? Asking as an ignorant Yank.

[–] ForgottenUsername@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

In short our constitution is boring.

There will be states, federal government will do this, states do everything else

Separation of powers, there will be a crown, legislative (parliamentary), executive (public service) and judicial (courts).

Then how to alter the constitution and add the ability to annex new Zealand and that's pretty much a wrap. Nothing fancy like yous have.

Edit, forgot consolidated revenue

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 16 points 13 hours ago

Australia's constitution has been interpreted by our High Court to contain an implied right to freedom of political communication. Restrictions on that right may be constitutional if they are (1) for a valid purpose and are (2) narrowly targeted towards that purpose.

The law she was arrested under was only passed by the Queensland state Parliament earlier this week (or late last week? I forget). It is definitely going to face constitutional challenge, and there is a very good chance it is ruled struck down. This is because the law literally outlaws two specific phrases from one side of a political issue, and is likely to be seen as stifling free flow of political discourse, rather than being a more "content-neutral" law.

This article, written by a constitutional scholar, gives some great insight: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/mar/08/the-lnps-phrase-banning-law-is-wide-open-to-constitutional-attack-is-it-a-victory-for-the-people-or-a-smart-political-play

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 39 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (3 children)

Its a very recent addition that creates some exceptions to australian free speech protections under the guise of combatting anti-semitism. Basically just the Israel lobby getting their personal laws.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] nevetsg@aussie.zone 18 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

We have a lot of laws and legal interpritation, but it isnt written into our constitution like the US.

[–] joelfromaus@aussie.zone 18 points 16 hours ago

Pollies like to say free speech is “implied” when it supports them and point out that it’s not a right when it doesn’t support them.

It’s a funny ol’ system.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] prex@aussie.zone 28 points 18 hours ago (13 children)

I got down voted last time for pointing out that "between the river and the sea" was the motto of the town of mosman park

load more comments (13 replies)

load more comments