Australian lawmakers have banned the performance of the Nazi salute in public and outlawed the display or sale of Nazi hate symbols such as the swastika in landmark legislation that went into effect in the country Monday. The new laws also make the act of glorifying OR praising acts of terrorism a criminal offense.
The crime of publicly performing the Nazi salute or displaying the Nazi swastika is punishable by up to 12 months in prison, according to the Reuters news agency.
Mark Dreyfus, Australia’s Attorney-General, said in a press release Monday that the laws — the first of their kind in the country — sent “a clear message: there is no place in Australia for acts and symbols that glorify the horrors of the Holocaust and terrorist acts.”
He was arrested, he wasn’t kidnapped, and no mention of the job. He was being confrontational as the article stated. Why do I need to “admit” what happened to him? It’s in the article. No mention of his job, which you have been so insisted on. I’m very bored of this since you have shown no proof of anyone losing their jobs.
He was prevented from leaving, that’s kidnapping.
You finally admitted he was sent to jail, is it your claim that he still held his job while in jail?
He was arrested, where did it say he went to jail? Or lost his job? It was also because of what looks like his confrontational attitude, not because of the protestors. So no actual examples of losing jobs, right.
I get it now you’re just dragging the goal posts over and over.
First you claimed that no one had ever said they lost their job. He clearly said that.
Is your new claim that he didn’t go to jail when he was arrested, that parolees don’t go to jail when there are arrested, that he didn’t lose his job while he was in jail?
Actually no, you have been wrong throughout this exchange and you continue to be wrong in the face of direct quotes. Last post from me on the matter as you seem insistent on ignore facts:
I didn’t claim no one had lost their jobs, I said (and I quote): “I’ve seen no one say they lost their jobs.”
I had never seen that, and, guess what? I still haven’t.
He (who?) didn’t clear say he lost his job but that he could if he doesn’t make it to his job on time (as part of his parole).
The guy was arrested, I don’t know if he went to jail, I don’t know the system there. I don’t know he lost his job (it wasn’t mentioned).
And you still bleat on about it? You have only found this tenuous example whereby the guy was arrested (his fault, not the protestors). Do one.
So you have no evidence to refute the guy’s claim that he would lose his job and go back to jail if he’s late. You have no idea what happens to parolees when they get arrested but somehow think he was able to keep his job as he was arrested. It seems like the theme is you don’t know.
Now you’ve moved the goal posts to find more examples.