144
Queensland moves to ban pro-Palestine slogan ‘from the river to the sea’ under sweeping new hate speech laws (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 9 months ago by to c/australia@aussie.zone
112 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Laws to be introduced this week include up to two years in prison for distributing, displaying or reciting prohibited phrases to harass or offend

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 9 months ago (10 children)

The history of harassment, Palestine, and israel is largely irrelevant.

If a law prescribes (proscribes?) specific phrases regadless of intent and context, they should be chosen very, very carefully.

Im not an expert, but i think other states require a context like "intended to incite hatred".

By prescribing this particular phrase, even if you are correct, it allows harassment to portray Palestine as ignored and persecuted - the very intention of terrorism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 9 months ago (9 children)

    Should people be allowed to use nazi slogans at protests? What about racist slogans?

    I understand it's dicey to draw a line somewhere, but do you really believe hate speech should be protected as political speech? It's a slippery slope either way, the trick is to find the point of balance.

    And repeating a phrase which initial intent is to call for the eradication of an entire ethnic group is, in my opinion, on the side of the line that should be considered hate speech, promoting violence, and shouldn't be protected.

    The history of the conflict is indeed relevant. And the proscription of the phrase isn't being done "regardless of intent and context."

    (By the way, 'proscribe' means to condemn something; 'prescribe' means doctor's orders)

    I'm not following the logic of your last paragraph.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (8 children)

    Holding a flag of a state committing genocide and is the one who is currently trying to exterminate Palestinians on the ground is what should be compared to nazi slogans

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    That's a bit of a strawman. Who's holding an Israeli flag here?

    Genocide is atrocious, whether committed by the IDF or Hamas. Hamas's stated purpose is a complete ethnic cleansing of the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

    I can say "genocide is wrong" and apply that to both sides, without favoring one over the other. The fact that you can't is part of the problem.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago* (6 children)

    Hypocrites favourite words are strawman and whataboutism

    There is an genocide in Gaza not Israel. Despite hamas genocide intent they have no power to do so and like I said in my other comment. A west backed PA would be in charge of destroying hamas in exchange of the end of occupation.

    You don't want that because you are a liar. You want israel to continue colonization

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    Just because one side is committing genocide doesn't excuse the other side's genocidal intent. Genocide is wrong on both sides, and saying more power should be given to one genocidal organization because it's currently the one losing is an asinine take.

    The slogan in question in this post isn't a Palestinian Authority slogan. It's a slogan Hamas uses to advocate for ethnic cleansing. Stop deflecting.

    A west backed PA would be in charge of destroying hamas in exchange of the end of occupation.

    That's the idea with the two-state solution favored by the UN, but having an idea and actually implementing it are two different things. It's much more geopolitically complex than simply "the west should play kingmaker and then the PA can destroy Hamas." Hamas is entrenched in the governance of Gaza, and they won't hand over the reins to PA peacefully.

    You don't want that because you are a liar. You want israel to continue colonization

    Strawman. "Anyone who doesn't support hamas is a zionist." Yawn.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (4 children)

    Just because one side is committing genocide doesn’t excuse the other side’s genocidal intent. Genocide is wrong on both sides, and saying more power should be given to one genocidal organization because it’s currently the one losing is an asinine take.

    You never called people to boycott Israel; you never asked your trashy country to stop supporting Israel with diplomatic cover; you keep voting for trashy politicians supporting the genocide. You are just a hypocrite, that's all. Your country is hosting a war criminal who said there are no innocent Palestinians, and you have the audacity to claim that you oppose genocide and occupation; you do not; you are a hypocrite. All talk, no action.

    The slogan in question in this post isn’t a Palestinian Authority slogan. It’s a slogan Hamas uses to advocate for ethnic cleansing. Stop deflecting.

    The slogan in question is a call for a one-state solution with equal rights. Just because Hamas uses it with an ulterior motive does not mean nobody can use it. You are using the same rhetoric as authoritarian regimes; for example, Mali recently arrested an opponent for saying the words "by all means necessary." There are people who, when they say that, really mean all means necessary including terrorism, but it is not enough to ban those words.

    That’s the idea with the two-state solution favored by the UN, but having an idea and actually implementing it are two different things. It’s much more geopolitically complex than simply “the west should play kingmaker and then the PA can destroy Hamas.” Hamas is entrenched in the governance of Gaza, and they won’t hand over the reins to PA peacefully.

    The UN has stated that Israel should unconditionally end the occupation. Your rhetoric is that it is too complex, so let's do nothing except keep selling weapons to Israel and do business with them like usual. You are just a hypocrite who supports occupation and genocide.

    You would have used the same excuse during apartheid South Africa. You would have talked about how the ANC wanted to exterminate white people because they committed some acts of terrorism, and you would have defended crushing anti-apartheid protests and been silent about your trashy country backing up the supremacist regime.

    You think Hamas can survive with no popular support because the occupation would end and the whole West would back the PA with money and arms. Or are you one of those racists who think most Palestinians support genociding Israelis?

    Strawman. “Anyone who doesn’t support hamas is a zionist.” Yawn.

    Not true. I do not consider anybody who opposes Hamas a Zionist.

    Anybody who says Zionists who came from Europe had the right to force a state on the local people which included Palestinian Jews and then ethnically cleansed them are themselves Zionists.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    You're making a lot of fucking assumptions about me, including what I have or haven't done, what I do or don't support, what opinions I hold, and even what country I'm from. It's all so you can set up some convenient strawman arguments that you can shoot down, by putting words in my mouth and claiming I said things that I didn't say. So I'm not going to take you seriously.

    The UN has stated that Israel should unconditionally end the occupation. Your rhetoric is that it is too complex

    I said I support the UN's position, but that there's a difference between stating what should be done and actually implementing it. If it wasn't complex, the problem would already be solved. I never said we should do nothing and keep selling weapons to israel. Strawman.

    Or are you one of those racists who think most Palestinians support genociding Israelis?

    I said Hamas supports genociding israelis, and I also said Hamas holds de facto power in Gaza. Both of which are true statements. I've also said that I can discern between Hamas and Palestinians, which you apparently can't, so by your own logic you're the one who's racist and you're making accusations in a mirror.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Everybody history is public. There is no assumptions. All you do is to pretend to oppose occupation while only attacking anti occupation people.

    I said I support the UN’s position, but that there’s a difference between stating what should be done and actually implementing it. If it wasn’t complex, the problem would already be solved. I never said we should do nothing and keep selling weapons to israel. Strawman.

    Again I said the solution is complex but logical . You couldn't give a single valid argument besides racism and antisemitism.

    The UN position is unconditional ending of the occupation.

    I said Hamas supports geocoding Israelis, and I also said Hamas holds de facto power in Gaza. Both of which are true statements. I’ve also said that I can discern between Hamas and Palestinians, which you apparently can’t, so by your own logic you’re the one who’s racist and you’re making accusations in a mirror.

    I am the one who say that Palestinians and Israelis can live together at some point while I acknowledge it will take time and won't be easy. You are the one who said they can't live together so the racist and antisemite is you .

    Can you answers those questions ?

    Do you agree that the occupiers and occupied do not hold the same level of responsibility?

    Do you support Palestinians right to return to israel if they want to in case it is the two state solution is the one they succeed?

    Do you support Palestinians right to all the recognized Palestinians areas? Which is all Gaza, all the west bank and all east Jerusalem?

    Does an independent Palestinian state has the right to an army to defend itself?

    Did you vote for people who support unconditional end of settler colonialism done by Israel, support bans of all arms on Israel and sanctions on the state of Israel itself not just one or two ministers and 1 or 2 settler terrorists?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    All you're doing is moving goalposts, twisting the things I've said, and pretending you're the one being rational. Calling me racist and anti-semitic isn't going to change the complexity of the situation, and trying to force your overly simplistic solutions is only going to complicate things further.

    There's no point answering any questions you ask if you're only going to take everything I say in the most uncharitable light because you're allergic to nuance. I'm done with you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •