In Australia, preserving a piece of history could be considered a hate crime.
Two history buffs are facing the full force of a 2022 New South Wales Crimes Act amendment, which prohibits the public display of material related to the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (NAZIS).
Charles Cameron, and Craig Elston, were charged by police on February 7 after Elston showed Cameron a Nazi-era flag in a pub, in Darlinghurst, Sydney.
Elston was adding the flag to his WW2 collection.
Police said Cameron and Elston were arrested after someone reported the incident.
Both men were refused bail, and remain incarcerated until the – “hate speech” – overreach test case is heard on February 21.
Elston pleaded guilty. Cameron, a 20-year ADF veteran, didn’t answer either way.
The ABC and Sydney Morning Herald said, Elston – a collector of war memorabilia – unfolded the flag from a backpack, then handed his phone over to Cameron to capture the moment.
Cameron’s lawyer, Elliot Rowe, informed the court that Cameron had issues with depression and anxiety and PTSD.
Rowe added that Cameron had served well in the ADF, had no prior record, and was not an antisemite.
Despite this, Magistrate Greg Grogan denied Camerson’s request for release.
Justifying the decision, Magistrate Grogan put down keeping the ADF veteran behind bars, as “protecting the community.”
“As a longstanding member of the ADF,” he said, Cameron “would be acutely aware of the emotions, the actions he allegedly took part in, would invoke in people in Australia from around the world.
“This is an extremely serious offence in the current climate,” Magistrate Grogan continued.
He then described the ‘incident’ as “disgraceful, disgusting and abhorrent,” stating that the “symbol creates terror in the community.”
Known as 93ZA, the bipartisan law makes it a criminal offence to display German National Socialist paraphernalia “without reasonable excuse.”
93ZA excludes Hindu, and Jainism swastikas; as well as academics, artists, educators, or anyone who uses a Nazi symbol to serve the public interest.
Cameron and Elston’s detention without concern for intentions exposes the subjective flaw in all hate speech laws.
This is all laid bare by the recent acquittal of Australian soccer star, Samantha Kerr.
Kerr wrecked a taxi, then racially abused police by calling them “F*** white and stupid.”
Unlike Kerr, Cameron and Elston may have broken a flawed law, they did not damage property, threaten a person’s livelihood, or launch a racist tirade on their arresting officers.
Yet, it’s Cameron and Elston, not Kerr, who are sitting in prison.
Let’s be honest, Kerr’s behaviour was excused because:
a) She’s a minor sport’s celebrity
b) Woke ideology has infiltrated institutions to the point where there’s “hate speech for thee, but not for me.”
c) Minority status and melanin now matter in the eyes of a justice system weaponised by intersectional “social justice.”
d) “Antiracists” have conditioned people to believe that racism is okay, as long as it’s their version of it.
This is the Fasco-Communist system of two-tier justice, which states that “any crime is just, as long as it serves the revolution.”
Samantha Kerr got off because hate speech laws only apply to those the activist, and bureaucratic classes choose to target.
Such as, said CP’s Bill Muehlenberg, “if white, male Christians did the sorts of things Kerr did … they would be in prison by now.”
As Caldron Pool, and Sky News contributor Evelyn Rae highlighted in her recent arguments against Australia’s latest inflation of ‘hate speech’ legislation.
These laws are a trojan horse for litigation lawfare, and government overreach.
“Fear is enough to curb democracy.” pic.twitter.com/PtSrCpAHm7
— Caldron Pool (@CaldronPool) February 10, 2025
To quote George Christenson – one of those leading the pushback:
“They think it will crack down on radical Islamic anti-Semitism. But once these laws are in place, they’ll be weaponised against conservatives, Christians, and anyone who questions progressive ideology.
“Today, it’s about anti-Semitism,” he asserted in a thread on X.
“Tomorrow, it’s about “protecting” trans activists. Next year? Maybe radical Muslims will demand protection from ‘offensive’ speech.”
That’s not a stretch when you look into how Sweden and the UK are moving towards falsely linking “Islamophobia” with racism, and turning the criticism of Islam into a hate crime (See here and here).
It’s relevant to ask who benefits from restricting freedom of speech, instead of protecting the God-given right to liberty, and the practice of individual responsibility.
If, for instance, debate is hate – an idea strongly suggested by the “Yes” campaign during the Voice referendum – where do hate speech laws end?
Who do they ultimately serve?
Hate speech legislation will not stop future mass casualty events.
Especially if those laws continue to be used as a smokescreen to hide the breakdown of multiethnic social cohesion caused by no-integration mass immigration, and multiculturalism.
Laws built on subjectivism sustain suffering, they don’t cure it.
Thus, thunders Proverbs: “There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.” (Pr. 14:12)
The selective applications of arbitrary laws are what built, and barricaded the Iron Walls of Fasco-Communism’s satanic kingdoms.
In a similar way, hate speech laws will only be seen by Islamists as a challenge to manipulate Muslims into hating harder on Jews to reach Mohammad’s promised rewards for martyrdom.
As such, muzzling free speech will not stop antisemitism.
Cameron and Elston, unfolding a Nazi flag in public is as drongo-level dumb, as it is disrespectful.
It’s a far cry, though, from celebrating the SS, smoke stacks, and the serial killing of the Jews in the name of Government safetyism.
