Politics & Society
Banning the Nazi salute is one thing, let’s talk about the consequences
We need more than a ban on Nazi salutes to fight racism
While addressing racist gestures is important, criminalisation is not the only answer. We must deal with the underlying social, political and cultural conditions that enable them
Published 3 February 2025
On ‘Australia Day’, 17 members of the neo-Nazi Nationalist Socialist Network (NSN) were arrested for allegedly displaying Nazi-related symbols during celebrations in Adelaide.
This could not have happened a year ago, so it’s worth taking stock of how we got here.
In January 2024, the federal government’s Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures) Bill passed into law.
This made it an offence “to perform the Nazi salute in public or to publicly display, or trade in, Nazi hate symbols”. While some states like Victoria already had similar laws, the bill introduced a consistent approach nationwide.
But the new laws raised questions of effectiveness and enforceability. Would police be able to implement the laws? And would they achieve their aim of reducing public displays of symbols of racism and hate, or might there be unintended consequences?
Several high-profile cases emerged almost immediately, so we soon had some answers.
The first case was that of a Melbourne man who became the first to be charged under Victoria’s legislation – a mere eight days after the ban came into effect. In November 2024, he was found to have performed the Nazi salute outside a Melbourne court.
Then, in December 2024, former Neighbours star Damien Richardson was charged for allegedly making the salute at a ‘free speech’ event in Victoria. His case will be heard in March 2025.
And now the most recent events have occurred with the NSN on Australia Day.
While it is now clear the laws can be enforced, significant questions about whether they are having their intended effect still remain.
Have they actually stifled public displays of racist symbols and gestures? Or are they perhaps making the problem worse?
Unfortunately, we are also seeing this with powerful international figures like Elon Musk’s salute following President Trump’s inauguration.
Despite some claims the gesture was ambiguous, Musk has previously declared his support for the far-right group Alternative für Deutschland and has responded to criticisms of his behaviour on X by tweeting: “Frankly, they need better dirty tricks. The ‘everyone is Hitler’ attack is soo tired.”
Politics & Society
How the toxic went mainstream
Hiding in plain sight
When the Victorian bans first came into effect, I speculated the laws could have a range of unintended consequences, including some that might play directly into the hands of neo-Nazi groups like the NSN.
The reasons for this are multiple.
The first issue is that the bans can easily be circumvented via the creation of new symbols and gestures. This strategy is called ‘hiding in plain sight’.
A well-known example of this is the appropriation of the ‘okay’ hand symbol by white supremacists, who claim it resembles the letters ‘W’ and ‘P’, and thus stands for ‘White Power’.
Alternatively, groups like the NSN can instead leverage criminalisation to generate media and public attention whenever it suits them.
They can also take advantage of criminalisation to stoke white supremacist narratives of persecution upon which their recruitment and communication strategies rely.
I previously speculated these issues could lead to an increase in the public display of newly banned symbols and gestures – and this may be partly to blame for the rise we are seeing now.
Neo-Nazi symbolism
To understand why, it is worth briefly revisiting how and why neo-Nazi groups employ particular symbols and gestures, and to what end.
As my research shows, neo-Nazi, white supremacist and other far-right groups rely heavily on symbolism in the pursuit of their political goals. Symbols and gestures like the Nazi salute, swastika and ‘SS’ are used for a variety of reasons.
They assist with recruitment and messaging; can help members identify and connect with one another during organised events (as occurred over the weekend); and can be deployed as direct attacks against particular individuals and communities.
While bans on racist and fascist iconography attempt to disrupt the activities of groups like the NSN, given how they are used, criminalisation can instead play directly into their hands, providing them with the media attention they need to communicate their activities.
As I speculated then, the criminalisation of specific symbols and gestures can perversely strengthen the resolve of members of groups like the NSN.
It can not only stoke narratives of persecution but provide members with a means of tangibly demonstrating their fidelity to their cause, including their willingness to be arrested and imprisoned.
NSN leader Thomas Sewell provided some insight into this during his bail hearing.
After first refusing to sign bail documents, he instead chose to remain in custody as a “martyr”, claiming he “[wants] the record to show this is outright political persecution by the corrupt South Australian police force”.
Arts & Culture
Trolling in the era of ‘freedom of speech’
Ineffective anti-racism
As Parliament returns, it looks to focus its attention on addressing the rise in antisemitism.
However, the criminalisation of specific symbols and gestures ultimately only aims at some outward symptoms of racism and white supremacy.
While addressing these are important, so too is meaningfully dealing with the underlying social, political, and cultural conditions that have enabled groups like the NSN to emerge and take hold in the first place.
We know that to achieve this, community-, rather than government-led initiatives are required.
The reliance on criminalisation as a means of responding to racism in the community is a dubious strategy, to say the least – a fact to which policing’s long history of racism and producing racialised outcomes well attests.
In simple terms, racism is not something society can police away.
While criminalisation may have political utility for those wishing to spruik their antiracist credentials, the problem calls for much more genuine and considered efforts towards antiracism.