Australia enacts mandatory prison terms for Nazi salutes
Australia enacted legislation on Thursday imposing mandatory sentences of at least one year in prison for individuals who display Nazi salutes or
'hate symbols.'
While officials say the updated law is meant to address rising hate speech and extremist behavior in the country, it has raised concerns over its impact on freedom of expression.
The legislation follows a reported series of high-profile anti-Semitic attacks, such as Nazi symbols being graffitied on Jewish targets. Authorities have expressed concern that such actions contribute to the spread of hate speech and extremist ideologies.
The law was initially passed in January 2024, although Thursday's amendments make the jail term mandatory. Individuals found guilty of displaying Nazi salutes or hate symbols with the intent to incite hatred or intimidate others will now face a mandatory minimum prison sentence of one year. Other penalties include a minimum of three years for financing terrorism and six years for committing or planning terrorist acts.
The government has stated that the measures are necessary to uphold the values of tolerance and respect in Australian society.
READ MORE:
Woke elites are erasing Australia's national identity – no wonder neo-Nazis are on the rise
'The circumstances we are confronting in our community are so extreme that they require changes to the law,'
New South Wales Premier Chris Minns told local media.
'I don't believe the laws as they currently stand adequately confront this danger. We reviewed the Law Reform Commission's recommendations, studied other jurisdictions, and considered evidence from the field to make these changes.'
The legislation has reportedly garnered support from various community groups and organizations dedicated to combating hate and discrimination. However, some civil liberties organizations have raised concerns about the potential impact on freedom of expression. They argue that while the intent to curb hate speech is commendable, the laws must be carefully implemented to avoid infringing on individual rights.
Legal experts have noted that the legislation includes provisions to balance the enforcement of the law with the protection of free speech. The law specifies that the display of hate symbols is prohibited when used to intimidate or incite hatred against a particular group. Exceptions are made for legitimate purposes such as education, art, or scientific research.
The Australian government has indicated that law enforcement agencies will receive training to ensure the appropriate application of the new legislation.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
29-05-2025
- Russia Today
From psychiatric ward to Nobel prize: How a Jewish outcast became a great Russian poet
A Russian Jew who found spiritual kinship in Christianity and made it a tradition to write a Christmas poem each year. A man with an imperial imagination, shaped by the worldview of ancient Rome. Someone who defended the conquistadors and denounced Ukrainian independence. All of this – and more – describes Joseph Brodsky. Few writers achieve the status of a classic while still alive. Brodsky, deeply grounded in literary tradition and animated by a consciousness forged in antiquity, didn't just challenge conventions – he shattered them. Decades later, some of his choices still provoke. In the month he would have turned 85, RT revisits the life and legacy of Joseph Brodsky. They say childhood shapes who we are – and in Joseph Brodsky's case, that couldn't be more true. Within his first two years of life, he witnessed events that would leave an indelible mark on his future. Brodsky was born into a Jewish family in Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) on May 24, 1940. His father, a naval officer, was sent to the front when Nazi Germany launched Operation Barbarosa. During the brutal winter of 1941–1942, young Joseph endured the siege of Leningrad and was later evacuated with his mother to the city of Cherepovets. It was there that a Russian nanny quietly baptized him. After the war, the family was reunited in Leningrad. Brodsky would later recall those early years: 'My father wore his naval uniform for about two more years. He was an officer in charge of the photo lab at the Naval Museum, located in the most beautiful building in the entire city. And thus, in the whole empire. It was the former stock exchange – a structure far more Greek than any Parthenon.' This sense of imperial grandeur – part reverence, part irony – would stay with Brodsky for life. His youthful ambitions didn't yield immediate success. He failed to get into naval school, and after finishing eighth grade, took a job at a factory. Over the next few years, he worked as a stoker, a photographer, and even joined geological expeditions to the Russian Far East. Throughout it all, he pursued a rigorous self-education. Despite never receiving a formal literary degree, Brodsky emerged as a strikingly erudite voice. By the early 1960s, in his early twenties, he was reading poetry publicly in Leningrad. It was there that he met some of the era's most important poets – including Anna Akhmatova. A famous story survives from their first meeting. The aging Akhmatova asked the young Brodsky what a poet should do once they've mastered all the rhymes and rhythms of the language. Without hesitation, he answered, 'But there remains the grandeur of vision.' Brodsky was just 23 when Soviet reality collided with his rising career and brought it to an abrupt halt. In 1963, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev launched a public campaign to root out 'layabouts, moral degenerates, and whiners' who, in his words, wrote in 'the bird language of idlers and dropouts.' In the eyes of the government, poets fit squarely into that category. That November, the newspaper Vecherniy Leningrad published a hit piece titled 'The Near-Literary Drone,' targeting Brodsky by name. The poems cited were falsely attributed to him, and the article was riddled with fabrications – but none of that stopped the authorities. A few months later, Brodsky was arrested and charged with 'social parasitism.' By then, he had already earned recognition in literary circles. His poems had appeared in respected magazines, and he was receiving commissions to translate poetry. But none of this mattered to the court, which refused to acknowledge him as a legitimate writer. During the trial, a now-legendary exchange unfolded between Brodsky and the judge: Judge: And what is your profession, in general?Brodsky: Poet. Poet and And who said you're a poet? Who enrolled you in the ranks of poets?Brodsky: No one. Who enrolled me in the ranks of the human race?Judge: Did you study for this?Brodsky: Study for what?Judge: To become a poet. Did you attend a university where people are trained – where they're taught...?Brodsky: I didn't think it was a matter of Then what is it a matter of?Brodsky: I believe it comes from God. He was first sent for compulsory psychiatric evaluation, then sentenced to five years of hard labor – the maximum term – for doing what the state deemed 'nothing.' In practice, this meant exile to the Arkhangelsk region, deep in Russia's far north. Brodsky worked on a collective farm, spending his free time reading, translating, and teaching himself English. His sentence was eventually cut short, thanks to the intervention of prominent cultural figures, including composer Dmitri Shostakovich, poet Korney Chukovsky, writer Konstantin Paustovsky, and even French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre. After returning from exile in 1965, Brodsky was granted formal membership in a 'professional group' within the Writers' Union – a bureaucratic maneuver that shielded him from future charges of parasitism. He worked prolifically; his poetry was widely published abroad, and he built relationships with scholars, editors, and journalists. Still, in the Soviet Union, only his children's verses saw print. He remained fundamentally out of step with the system. In May 1972, he was summoned to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and given a choice: emigrate immediately or face 'difficult days' ahead. Recalling his interrogations and forced hospitalization, Brodsky chose exile. Obtaining an exit visa from the USSR usually took months. Brodsky's was ready in just 12 days. In June 1972, he left the country – this time, for good. When Joseph Brodsky left the Soviet Union, he left behind nearly everything – his parents, his friends, the woman he loved, and his son. 'It is very painful for me to leave Russia,' he wrote in a candid letter to Soviet General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev. 'I was born, grew up, and lived my life here, and everything I have, I owe to this country.'The Soviet authorities never allowed him to return. He would never see his parents again, nor attend their funerals. Upon arriving in Vienna, Brodsky was met by Karl Proffer, an American publisher and Slavist who offered him a post as a 'visiting poet' at the University of Michigan. It was a surreal twist of fate: Brodsky had only completed eight years of formal schooling, yet he would go on to teach Russian literature, poetry, and comparative literature at some of the most prestigious universities in the United States and the United Kingdom for the next 24 years. In truth, Brodsky didn't really know how to teach – at least not in any conventional academic sense. But he spoke to students about what mattered most to him: poetry. After winning the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1987, a student once asked why he still taught when he clearly no longer needed to. His answer was simple: 'I just want you to love what I love.' Still, to imagine Brodsky as a remote, ivory-tower intellectual would be misleading. He was not just a man of letters – he was also a man of appetite and mischief. His friend, the poet and writer Glyn Maxwell, recalled Brodsky and his circle as loud, unfiltered, and often crude: 'They behaved like alpha males. Sometimes it was even annoying, but that was the male culture of the time.' They drank heavily, told off-color jokes, and filled rooms with their presence. But when it came to poetry, Brodsky was exacting and unwavering. After becoming an American citizen, he turned his focus toward essay writing, translating Russian poetry into English, and even composing poems in English himself. He revered the English language and deeply loved its poetic tradition, though he recognized that as a non-native speaker, he would always be writing from the outside in. His biographer, Valentina Polukhina, observed that for all his success abroad, Brodsky remained, at heart, a Russian poet. Poetry, for him, was the highest form of linguistic expression, and Russian was the language in which his soul most fluently spoke. 'Sometimes I feel that for Brodsky, the choice of the Russian language was conscious,' she reflected. Poet Bella Akhmadulina echoed this sentiment. She described how Brodsky didn't merely use the Russian language – he nourished it from within: 'He didn't need to hear how people around him spoke... Cut off from everyday conversation, he himself became fertile ground for the Russian language.' Brodsky's complexity often revealed itself in quiet, personal rituals. 'I had this idea, back when I was 24 or 25, to write a poem every Christmas,' he once said. And he kept that promise – for the rest of his life. In fact, he began even earlier. At 22, he wrote A Christmas Romance, and from then on, continued to write Christmas poems every year until his forced emigration in 1972. After a long break, he returned to the tradition in 1987 and maintained it annually until his death in 1996. Though not affiliated with any particular denomination, Brodsky was deeply drawn to Christianity. He read the Bible attentively and spoke of Jesus Christ with profound reverence. 'After all, what is Christmas? The birthday of God who became Man. It's as natural for a person to celebrate it as their own birthday... It's the oldest birthday celebrated in our world.' His spiritual reflections extended beyond religious ritual. In a 1972 letter to The New York Times, Brodsky challenged the utopian promises often made in Soviet political discourse: 'In my opinion, there is something offensive to the human soul about preaching Paradise on Earth,' he wrote. 'Life the way it really is – is a battle not between Bad and Good, but between Bad and Worse. And today humanity's choice lies not between Good and Evil, but rather between Evil and Worse. Today humanity's task comes down to remaining good in the Kingdom of Evil, and not becoming an agent of Evil.' Such sentiments may seem stark, but they were consistent with his moral seriousness and existential clarity. Despite being born into a Jewish family, Brodsky repeatedly described himself as a Russian poet, and always saw Russia as inseparable from the Christian cultural world. Even in exile, he refused to speak ill of his homeland. 'I did not leave Russia of my own free will... No matter under what circumstances you leave it, home does not cease to be home. No matter how you lived there – well or poorly. And I simply cannot understand why some people expect, and others even demand, that I smear its gates with tar. Russia is my home; I lived there all my life, and for everything I have in my soul I am indebted to Russia and its people. And – this is the main thing – indebted to its language.' Politically speaking, Brodsky was more of a 'Westerner' than a 'Slavophile,' at least in the traditional Russian sense. But he was unmistakably a Russian Westerner. Living in the West after his exile, he often encountered anti-Russian sentiment and cultural disdain. And yet, again and again, he chose to defend the Russian people—not out of nationalism, but from a sense of fairness. As the poet and scholar Lev Losev put it: 'Just like the 'Slavophile' Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, 'Westerner' Joseph Brodsky stood ready to defend Russia – its people and its culture – against unfounded accusations of inherent aggressiveness, servile psychology, and national masochism.' Joseph Brodsky was, unmistakably, a poet of the Empire. Born in Leningrad – once imperial St. Petersburg – he could never imagine himself, or the world around him, outside the gravitational pull of imperial culture, history, and aesthetics. Raised among the colonnades and neoclassical façades of Russia's most imperial city, Brodsky found in ancient Rome the ultimate model of grandeur. In his poem Letters to a Roman Friend, he writes: 'If you were destined to be born in the Empire,it's best to find some province by the from Caesar and the blizzard, in your flattery, no rushing, constant telling me the governors are crooks?But murderers are even less endearing.' The lines recall Ovid's Letters from Pontus, written during exile by the Black Sea. For Brodsky, his own symbolic 'imperial space' was Crimea – a peninsula he always considered Russian and which inspired some of his most evocative poetry. There he found his cherished trinity: antiquity, the sea, and empire. Brodsky's imperial sensibility revealed itself in more than just geography. His biographer, Vladimir Bondarenko, remarked that the poet could easily be mistaken for a staunch conservative – a man with a worldview shaped by colonial assumptions. A striking example can be found in his 1975 poem To Yevgeny, written after a visit to Mexico. Contemplating the ruins of Aztec civilization, Brodsky reflects: 'What would they tell us, if they could speak?Nothing. At best, of victoriesover neighboring tribes, of shatteredskulls. Of human bloodthat, spilled into a bowl for the Sun god,strengthens the latter's muscle.' And further: 'Even syphilis or the jawsof Cortés' unicorns are preferable to such sacrifice;If crows must feast on your brows,Let the killer be a killer, not an without the Spaniards, they'd hardly have learnedwhat really happened.' Brodsky never shied away from uncomfortable truths—or from voicing them bluntly. His worldview was neither romantic nor utopian. He rejected simplistic dichotomies of good versus evil. For him, paradise on earth was a dangerous illusion; reality was a constant struggle between 'bad' and 'worse.' Among his most controversial works is On Ukraine's Independence, a poem brimming with fury and sarcasm. In Brodsky's eyes, the move to break historical ties with Russia was a rejection not just of political union, but of shared culture, language, and literary heritage. In a caustic farewell, he wrote: 'Go away in your zhupans, your uniforms,To all four points of the compass, to destinations composed of four-letter wordsAnd let the Krauts and Pollacks in your hutsPut you on all fours, you scoundrels.' He closed the poem with a grim vision of cultural amnesia: 'God rest ye, eagles and Cossacks, hetmans and guards,Just know this – when it's time to be dragged into the graveyards,You'll wheeze, clawing the edge of your mattress,Alexander's lines, not the lies of Taras.' For Brodsky, Ukraine's departure from the Russian cultural orbit was not simply political; it was a loss of literary and civilizational continuity. He believed that when the time came to confront death, it would not be the folk verse of Shevchenko people would recall, but the classical cadence of Pushkin. As the post-Soviet world fractured, and vast parts of the 'Russian world' renounced their imperial inheritance, Brodsky watched with a mixture of dismay and resignation. In the 1990s and early 2000s, many within Russia's liberal intelligentsia held up Brodsky as a dissident icon – the embodiment of intellectual resistance to authority. And indeed, traces of dissent run through his work in subtle and powerful ways. But as his legacy has come under closer scrutiny, a more complex portrait emerges: that of a Russian poet with a profoundly imperial imagination and a strong, unapologetic view of Russia's role in history. He was, above all, a defender of Russian language and culture – often in defiance of popular sentiment in the West or among émigrés. After the start of the war in Ukraine, some opposition figures who fled Russia called for Brodsky to be 'canceled,' citing his imperially inflected worldview and what they described as the cultural colonialism embedded in his poetry. But Brodsky cannot be canceled. He remains what he always was: a witness to his time, a singer of antiquity, a thinker of vast moral scale, and – despite exile – a quintessentially Russian poet.
Russia Today
27-05-2025
- Russia Today
Europe once again rallying under Nazi flag against Russia
The EU has failed to learn the lessons of history by once again gathering under a Nazi flag to attempt to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Tuesday. Lavrov was responding to remarks by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who on Monday declared there were 'no more range limitations' for weapons sent to Ukraine by the West, including Germany. Merz has also vowed to turn the German military into Europe's strongest conventional force. 'Europe has once again found itself a Nazi flag by committing to a completely misguided, disastrous venture of inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia,' Lavrov stated. 'To hear from the current German leader that Germany will regain its position as the leading military power in Europe, just after we have celebrated the 80th anniversary of the defeat of Hitler's Nazism, is quite symptomatic. History, apparently, taught these people nothing.' Merz's remarks on long-range weapons drew concern even within his own coalition. German Vice Chancellor and Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil told reporters shortly after the chancellor's statement that no agreements had been reached regarding the range of Ukrainian strikes using German weapons on Russian territory beyond what the previous government had in place. Lavrov said Merz's confused and uninformed position 'reflects the level of competence of modern European leaders.' While Germany has not supplied long-range weapons to Ukraine, Merz's comments have stirred speculation about a possible policy shift, particularly regarding the delivery of Taurus cruise missiles. Former Chancellor Olaf Scholz consistently rejected the idea, warning it would dangerously escalate the conflict. Lavrov also addressed remarks by French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot, who on Monday claimed France is not at war with Russia. 'He's not telling the truth. France is fighting against Russia because its long-range missiles are being used by the Nazi regime in Kiev to attack the territory of the Russian Federation. And these are mainly attacks on civilian targets,' Lavrov said. He stressed that the only path to ending the Ukraine conflict lies in halting Europe's militaristic course. 'The main thing here... is to ensure that Europe stops sabotaging the movement towards peace, which is supported by both the United States and Türkiye, and to which the Russian Federation is fully committed,' Lavrov said.
Russia Today
12-05-2025
- Russia Today
Voice from China: This is why Moscow and Beijing stand together, now more than ever
On May 9, 2025, Moscow held a grand military parade on Red Square to mark the 80th anniversary of the Soviet victory in the Great Patriotic War. Approximately 27 foreign heads of state attended the Red Square parade, highlighting Russia's influence on the international stage and signaling a break from Western diplomatic isolation. It also reinforced Russia's ties with friendly nations. However, the parade was not merely a response to Western sanctions and containment. More importantly, it served as a powerful historical symbol and collective memory – a tribute to the immense sacrifices made for the victory in the global anti-fascist war, and a solemn reaffirmation of that great triumph and enduring honor. At President Putin's invitation, President Xi Jinping paid a state visit to Russia from May 7 to 10 and attended the Victory Day events. President Xi Jinping's visit to Russia signals a shared commitment by China and Russia to promote an accurate understanding of World War II history, defend the post-war international order centered on the United Nations, and uphold the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. At the bilateral level, the two countries will continue to deepen their partnership through high-level exchanges, using the stability of their relationship to offset global uncertainty and advancing strategic coordination to safeguard international fairness and justice. Eighty years ago, China and the Soviet Union fought side by side in the World Anti-Fascist War (World War II), forging a deep friendship through shared sacrifice. At this year's military parade, President Putin praised the Chinese people's significant contributions to the victory. In a signed article in Rossiyskaya Gazeta, President Xi Jinping also emphasized the decisive roles played by both countries. Today, Western countries manipulate ideology through historical nihilism, double standards, and discursive reconstruction, deliberately downplaying, distorting, or even rewriting the historical contributions of China and the Soviet Union in World War II. By reshaping the narrative, they seek to undermine the foundations of the post-war international order and perpetuate their global dominance. Against this backdrop, the renewed call by the Chinese and Russian leaders to 'jointly uphold a correct view of WWII history' serves as a powerful rebuke to historical revisionism and falsification. It reflects a shared strategic resolve to break the West's monopoly on historical discourse and to defend international justice and collective memory. This is not only a shared responsibility to safeguard historical truth, but also a deep convergence between China and Russia in promoting the democratization of international relations, building a fair and equitable global order, and opposing unilateral hegemony. On May 8, China and Russia signed a series of cooperation documents, including two major joint statements. The first focuses on further deepening the China-Russia comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination for the new era; the second is a joint statement on global strategic stability. In addition, the two heads of state witnessed the exchange of multiple cooperation agreements in areas such as education, investment, culture, and science and technology. These documents not only ensure the continuity and stability of bilateral ties at the strategic level, but also reflect the steady deepening of practical cooperation across key sectors. The 'Joint Statement on Further Deepening the China-Russia Comprehensive Strategic Partnership of Coordination for the New Era' not only reaffirms the two countries' firm commitment to safeguarding the international system with the United Nations at its core and the international order based on international law, but also elevates the promotion of a correct view of World War II history to a strategic element of institutionalized bilateral cooperation. Key measures include jointly organizing commemorative events, conducting research and exhibitions on the crimes of Nazi Germany and Japanese militarism, locating the remains of fallen soldiers, restoring memorial sites, and deepening cooperation on WWII historical memory in education, archives, media, and youth exchanges. The 'Joint Statement on Maintaining Global Strategic Stability' reaffirms the two countries' consistent stance on preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, safeguarding the international arms control and disarmament system, and more. It also systematically establishes a comprehensive dialogue and cooperation framework that includes nuclear security, strategic deterrence balance, and governance of militarization of emerging technologies. Notably, this statement marks the first time that biological security, chemical weapons control, and military ethics in artificial intelligence have been included in the global strategic stability agenda, signaling a significant breakthrough for China and Russia in shaping a new international security paradigm for the future. At the bilateral cooperation level, President Xi Jinping and President Vladimir Putin witnessed the exchange of 28 cooperation documents between China and Russia, covering areas such as trade, biosafety, investment protection, digital economy, scientific facilities, quarantine, media, film, and youth exchanges. This broad agenda strengthens traditional sectors like energy and trade, while strategically positioning both countries in emerging fields like digital economy and scientific innovation, and deepening people-to-people ties through cultural, educational, and youth cooperation. Amid unprecedented global changes, the trajectory of China-Russia relations continues to attract international attention. Some speculate about a formal alliance or potential rifts due to diverging interests. In response, China and Russia have demonstrated through deepening cooperation that they are building a new type of major-country relationship based on 'highest mutual trust, coordination, and strategic value.' As President Xi has emphasized, their relationship is driven by clear historical logic, strong internal momentum, and shared civilizational heritage, not aimed at or influenced by any third party. History is not only a repository of memories of the past, but also serves as the foundational basis for contemporary international relations, shaping value identities and acting as the spiritual pillar for a fair and just international order. The outcomes of World War II crystallized into the cornerstone of multilateralism, with the United Nations at its core, establishing the fundamental principles that govern modern international relations. These principles, derived from the collective sacrifices of the war, have provided a framework for diplomacy, conflict resolution, and global cooperation. As the world faces new challenges, the importance of these historical lessons becomes increasingly evident – reminding us that the stability of the global order rests on our ability to respect shared values, adhere to international norms, and safeguard the multilateral system. In this context, the victory in WWII is not just a historical event, but an enduring legacy that continues to shape global governance and the international system. As the renowned Russian historian Vasily Klyuchevsky once said, 'Those who refuse to learn from history will ultimately pay a heavy price for their ignorance and arrogance.' China also has a saying: 'Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.' The significance of history lies in guiding us forward. Upholding the achievements of WWII and safeguarding the international system centered on the United Nations is a shared responsibility and mission for both China and Russia.
