First Conviction in Victoria for Nazi Salute: Self-Proclaimed Nazi Faces Sentencing

[Social Media]

 

In a significant legal moment for the Australian state of Victoria, a self-proclaimed Nazi has become the first individual to be convicted for performing an illegal Nazi salute. On Tuesday, 25-year-old Jacob Hersant was found guilty of making the salute and praising Adolf Hitler outside the Victoria County Court on October 27, 2023. The incident occurred just six days after Victoria's state government had officially banned the Nazi salute.

 

 

Hersant's actions were captured on camera as he left the courthouse after appearing for an unrelated charge. Facing the media, Hersant not only performed the banned salute but also expressed admiration for the infamous Nazi leader, Adolf Hitler. The timing of the event was especially notable, given that Victoria had recently enacted legislation criminalizing such behavior.

 

In December 2022, Australia's Federal Parliament had taken a further step by passing nationwide legislation, which outlawed the public performance of the Nazi salute as well as the public display and trading of Nazi hate symbols. This broader legal framework reflects the country’s commitment to combating the rise of extremist ideologies, including antisemitism.

 

Despite Hersant's conviction, his defense lawyers attempted to argue that what he did did not constitute an illegal Nazi salute. They contended that the gesture was not a salute and that the legal ban violated Hersant’s implied right to political communication. However, the Melbourne magistrate dismissed these arguments, ruling Hersant guilty. Hersant is scheduled to be sentenced on Wednesday, where he could face up to 12 months in prison and a substantial fine.

 

Hersant’s case is not the first incident in Australia involving individuals performing the Nazi salute. In June 2023, three men were convicted in New South Wales for giving the Nazi salute during a soccer match in Sydney on October 1, 2022. The state had already banned the display of Nazi symbols earlier that year. These men were each fined but have since filed appeals.

 

After his conviction, Hersant suggested that he may appeal the decision in a higher court. When asked by reporters about the incident, Hersant responded that he did not necessarily acknowledge having performed the salute, though he did admit to making the gesture in the past. “But I do give the Nazi salute and I am a Nazi,” Hersant said openly. “I’ll still continue to give the salute, but hopefully police officers don’t see it.”

 

The court’s decision was praised by many, particularly by the Anti-Defamation Commission chair, Dvir Abramovich. Abramovich, a prominent voice in Australia’s fight against antisemitism, expressed his satisfaction with the verdict. “This is a historic and thundering day for justice and decency,” Abramovich said, conveying the significance of the conviction in advancing efforts to curb hateful, extremist acts. 

 

As Hersant awaits his sentencing, this case marks a notable point in Victoria’s—and Australia’s—ongoing efforts to confront the resurgence of hate symbols and ideologies tied to Nazism.

 

Based on a report from ABC News 2024-10-09

 

 

 

[RichardColeman]

Funny how a nazi salute can put you in trouble, but praying to a book calling to kill the infidel does not

[thesetat2013]

Hard to believe that the government actually made it a criminal act for a hand gesture. I remember when I was a kid we used that salute to mock those who tried to control us or demand things from us we did not want to do. 

 

What has the world come to? Next will be to make it illegal to put your hands together in prayer or for giving the one-fingered salute some deserve to get. 

[Ben Zioner]

Well, they are in the process of criminalising looking at women without their written consent.

[Gsxrnz]

Rugby referees better be on their guard in fascist Victoria.

[JonnyF]

Ridiculous. 

 

Much as I detest the Nazis and what they did, this guy can believe in whatever he wants. This is almost as ridiculous as the Scottish guy convicted of a hate crime for teaching his girlfriend's Pug dog to do the Nazi salute on demand, as a joke to annoy his girlfriend.

 

Australia is losing the plot, just like Scotland already has. 

[john donson]

they blur the salute here, why thailand sells hitler t-shirts

 

yeah, what he did is worse than rapists and murderers..  or nice illegals burning town a town because a thief they know got caught and maybe died while trying to evade police...

[300sd]

In Thailand it is a common occurrence unfortunately.

[Chomper Higgot]

My brother has the medals awarded to members of our family who spent a few years of their youth dealing with Nazis the right way.

 

[JonnyF]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

My brother has the medals awarded to members of our family who spent a few years of their youth dealing with Nazis the right way.

 

 

An excellent reason to police the verboten arm movements and thought crimes of Australians in 2024. 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

An excellent reason to police the verboten arm movements and thought crimes of Australians in 2024. 

Perhaps more like a bit of history we should all remember.

 

[WDSmart]

First Conviction in Victoria for Nazi Salute: Self-Proclaimed Nazi Faces Sentencing

This is definitely a violation of this person's right to free speech, which is evidently not protected in Australia. 😞 

[JonnyF]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Perhaps more like a bit of history we should all remember.

 

 

Putting your fascinating yarn aside for a moment, perhaps the left should be addressing real issues surrounding anti-semitism, particularly from the Pro Palestine crowd. You know, real crimes against Jews happening in 2024.

 

Rather than trying to police the angle at which someone is allowed to hold their arm? Or what they are allowed to think?

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Putting your fascinating yarn aside for a moment, perhaps the left should be addressing real issues surrounding anti-semitism, particularly from the Pro Palestine crowd. You know, real crimes against Jews happening in 2024.

 

Rather than trying to police the angle at which someone is allowed to hold their arm? Or what they are allowed to think?

 

 

 

Where did antisemitism come into this discussion?

 

Oh you inserted it.

 

Being pro-Palestinian is not in and of itself anti semitism, but I think you knew that.

[JonnyF]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Where did antisemitism come into this discussion?

 

The topic is about Nazis.  😄

 

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

 

 

 

Being pro-Palestinian is not in and of itself anti semitism, but I think you knew that.

 

Call it anti-Zionist if you prefer. We all know what it is.  

[Neeranam]

3 hours ago, RichardColeman said:

Funny how a nazi salute can put you in trouble, but praying to a book calling to kill the infidel does not

Islamophobia should be illegal.

You do know there are similar passages in the Bible?

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

The topic is about Nazis.  😄

 

 

Yea Nazis, those Nazis I have zero sympathy for.

 

6 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Call it anti-Zionist if you prefer. We all know what it is.  

Nah, let’s stick with what called it to start with ‘Pro-Palestinian’.

 

 

[newbee2022]

3 hours ago, RichardColeman said:

Funny how a nazi salute can put you in trouble, but praying to a book calling to kill the infidel does not

I'm surprised that your knowledge of history is on such a low level

[Gaccha]

It really is awful how quickly received wisdom on the subject has changed. I despair at one or two comments on here. 

 

Just two decades ago and the Anti-Defamation League (a Jewish lobby organisation) would have been defending the actions of the Nazi (most famously they defended a literal Nazi group in 1978 in Chicago). 

 

The view back then-- correctly-- was that the key to democracy was freedom of expression no matter what. 

 

I despair at these increasing infringements on freedom. Now we have people thinking it is okay to pass laws criminalising criticising passages of the Koran. This is outrageous. There is a giant leap between hatred towards a group as such and criticism of a religious text. Do you think anybody should be prosecuted for criticising Talmudic verses?

 

I am a huge fan of the pro-free speech FIRE organisation. And I strongly support attempts in the UK to roll back speech legislation to the 1960s. This increasing obsession with safetyism and toxic empathy will slowly corrode the very heart of democracy.

 

[Neeranam]

2 minutes ago, Gaccha said:

It really is awful how quickly received wisdom on the subject has changed. I despair at one or two comments on here. 

 

Just two decades ago and the Anti-Defamation League (a Jewish lobby organisation) would have been defending the actions of the Nazi (most famously they defended a literal Nazi group in 1978 in Chicago). 

 

The view back then-- correctly-- was that the key to democracy was freedom of expression no matter what. 

 

I despair at these increasing infringements on freedom. Now we have people thinking it is okay to pass laws criminalising criticising passages of the Koran. This is outrageous. There is a giant leap between hatred towards a group as such and criticism of a religious text. Do you think anybody should be prosecuted for criticising Talmudic verses?

 

I am a huge fan of the pro-free speech FIRE organisation. And I strongly support attempts in the UK to roll back speech legislation to the 1960s. This increasing obsession with safetyism and toxic empathy will slowly corrode the very heart of democracy.

 

Criticism of any religious text, including the Koran or Talmud, can be a part of healthy discourse, the challenge arises when such criticisms lead to real-world harm or fuel intolerance. The key lies in finding a balance between protecting free speech and preventing hate speech. Open dialogue about religious beliefs is crucial, but it should be done respectfully and thoughtfully, considering the potential consequences.

[Gaccha]

2 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

The key lies in finding a balance between protecting free speech and preventing hate speech.

Correct. And that balance is to allow all speech, and for people who are offended to withdraw from the conversation and go and do something else. 

 

If however they say something which in any event would be a crime under normal criminal law (such as a threat to kill which has long been a crime in England), then they must suffer the normal sanctions. 

[Neeranam]

14 minutes ago, Gaccha said:

Correct. And that balance is to allow all speech, and for people who are offended to withdraw from the conversation and go and do something else. 

 

If however they say something which in any event would be a crime under normal criminal law (such as a threat to kill which has long been a crime in England), then they must suffer the normal sanctions. 

Indeed, but sadly there are many bigots where I come from(UK) who take passages from the Quran out of context to support their arguments, particularly those that mention violence or punishment. For instance, verses that discuss conflict or warfare are sometimes highlighted without considering the historical and textual context in which they were revealed. This  leads to the harmful stereotype that Islam promotes violence against non-believers, overshadowing the faith's core teachings of peace, compassion, and coexistence.

Similarly, there are no doubt bigots in the Muslim faith that do the same with the Bible.

Edited October 9 by Neeranam

[fredwiggy]

Freedom of speech,along with gestures, should be worldwide, as it shows freedom, which should be everyone's right.  Everyone has the right to protest a corrupt government, justice systems, politicians or any other officials that are doing wrong, and doing this, although it comes from weak minded sheep who follow those who hate, should be allowed. It will show others how people think, and who should be labeled as toxic and better avoided.

[mokwit]

1 hour ago, Neeranam said:

Islamophobia should be illegal.

You do know there are similar passages in the Bible?

Define Islamophobia.

[Gaccha]

17 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

This  leads to the harmful stereotype that Islam promotes violence against non-believers, overshadowing the faith's core teachings of peace, compassion, and coexistence.

 

Well, then let's have that discussion. Allow them to state their arguments and then allow people to respond. Your position is, in my view, a rather dodgy position to take, and certainly not one that should be imposed by the Crown. 

 

Evil always arrives in the form of an angel. I understand you believe firmly in your view on Islam, and I don't even doubt you've read scholarly works on this topic from SOAS professors, but what if you are wrong? How will you ever know if you've prevented people from telling you. 

 

In effect, we are doing that debate which you wish to ban, even if at a meta-level. 

 

Awkwardly for your position, stereotyping is how science works. It seeks patterns. Stereotypes are accurate-- that is the simple academic consensus-- and stereotypes of other humans are the most accurate of all. You are, then, opposed to truth.

 

This means what you are demanding is to impose Polite Lies for the Greater Good, against the Cruel Truth. I will fight any effort of you to do this.

[Neeranam]

5 minutes ago, Gaccha said:

 

Well, then let's have that discussion. Allow them to state their arguments and then allow people to respond. Your position is, in my view, a rather dodgy position to take, and certainly not one that should be imposed by the Crown. 

 

Evil always arrives in the form of an angel. I understand you believe firmly in your view on Islam, and I don't even doubt you've read scholarly works on this topic from SOAS professors, but what if you are wrong? How will you ever know if you've prevented people from telling you. 

 

In effect, we are doing that debate which you wish to ban, even if at a meta-level. 

 

Awkwardly for your position, stereotyping is how science works. It seeks patterns. Stereotypes are accurate-- that is the simple academic consensus-- and stereotypes of other humans are the most accurate of all. You are, then, opposed to truth.

 

This means what you are demanding is to impose Polite Lies for the Greater Good, against the Cruel Truth. I will fight any effort of you to do this.

I listen to both sides, I do NOT wish to ban debate, I enjoy it. All I said was Islamophobia should be banned.

Sterotyping people based on their race, ethnicity, or nationality can be dangerous and harmful. Stereotypes can oversimplify human behaviors and cultures, causing misrepresentation and discrimination.

I once was asked to work in a Muslim school in Lardprao, Bangkok, just after 9/11. No American colleague could handle it, as there was real hatred towards America, understandably after the ME wars. The kids had Osama Bin Laden pencil cases and were shouting death to America as I was writing on the whiteboard. I stayed as I wanted to teach them that stereotypes can perpetuate cycles of prejudice and division. When people rely on stereotypes instead of talking to others as unique persons, they miss the opportunity for meaningful dialogue and understanding. Patterns exist but they don't define. I smashed their thoughts that Americans were arrogant and culturally insensitive, for example. 

[Neeranam]

24 minutes ago, mokwit said:

Define Islamophobia.

Associating Muslims with violence, extremism, or terrorism based on the actions of a minority.

Treating individuals unfairly in social, political, or economic contexts due to their Muslim identity or perceived affiliation with Islam.

Engaging in or promoting verbal or physical attacks against individuals or groups because they are Muslim or perceived to be.

Dismissing or denigrating Islamic beliefs, practices, and cultural expressions without understanding or respect.

Edited October 9 by Neeranam

[MalcolmB]

2 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

Associating Muslims with violence, extremism, or terrorism based on the actions of a minority.

If you add up the numbers the American “christians” have killed more than anyone else over the last 80 years. All over the world.

 

And the Jews more than anyone else in the last year. Definitely the most women and children.

Or perhaps the Christian Russians or Ukraines, but they seem to stick to killing men, unlike the Jews who mostly have killed women and children. 

 

The nazis were not Muslims either.

Neither were the Japanese.

 

The people who blame the Muslims for all the killings are a bit simple

 

 

 

 

[Neeranam]

11 minutes ago, MalcolmB said:

If you add up the numbers the American “christians” have killed more than anyone else over the last 80 years. All over the world.

 

And the Jews more than anyone else in the last year. Definitely the most women and children.

Or perhaps the Christian Russians or Ukraines, but they seem to stick to killing men, unlike the Jews who mostly have killed women and children. 

 

The nazis were not Muslims either.

Neither were the Japanese.

 

The people who blame the Muslims for all the killings are a bit simple

 

 

 

 

Indeed, Iran has not been the initiator in any war for hundreds of years! 

The have supported some allies in conflicts across the Middle East, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, and was involved in the Syrian Civil War, providing support to the Assad regime.

 

 

[pacovl46]

Is the penalty being taken in the back and shot? That would be great!