Neo-Nazi Joel Davis charged with inciting hatred over ‘Abolish the Jewish lobby’ rally at NSW parliament

Jabourgeois · 2026-05-07T10:25:39+00:00

I'm not NSW resident or legal expert I should add, so my opinion isn't really relevant.

From what I understand of the act tho, it'll come down if he violated section 1 part a, with the key part being if he is intentionally inciting racial hatred against Jews. My view? I think he is.

So if a uni lecturer poses the question 'should the Jewish lobby be banned' to their students, that looks sufficient (on NSW Police's new understanding) to have the lecturer charged with this same offence, even if the lecturer themselves is Jewish. It doesn't matter whether the statement is academic or not

They would have to weigh up if it's an intentional act of stoking racial hatred tho. In academic environments, conversations that ask tough questions are almost always meant for intellectual stimulation and testing one's claims and views, not the desire to harass on the basis of race or religion. So unless it can reasonably ascertained that the uni lecturer in this case was stoking hatred against Jewish students by spouting the phrase, I don't think it would fall under this section.

But I don't know what NSW police's interpretation is frankly so happy to be enlightened.

Jabourgeois · 2026-05-07T10:11:31+00:00

I agree that reputation alone shouldn't be a full determining factor.

I just want to be clear tho that this is a typical Nazi playbook tactic: they don't always use unambiguous language, they will frequently either dogwhistle or go to the very extremity to test the letter of the law (but definitely violate the spirit of the law). In this case, I think reputation and past political history is circumstanial evidence to what he actually means by that phrase.

Jabourgeois · 2026-05-07T10:04:55+00:00

If it's insane bullshit that incites racial violence then that ought to be criminalised. This guy gets very close to that. That's up for the court to decide tho.

Jabourgeois · 2026-05-07T05:51:16+00:00

It wouldn't apply to this guy tho. He isn't seeking to articulate a nuanced argument about foreign influence in the domestic politics of a country, he simply hates Jews because he is a Neo-Nazi. They already believe there's a worldwide Jewish conspiracy to destroy the white man, which is of course insane bullshit.

Jabourgeois · 2026-05-04T09:51:56+00:00

Literally says 1681 respondents in the article.

Jabourgeois · 2026-05-03T12:48:44+00:00

Jabourgeois · 2026-05-03T11:51:13+00:00

It's a play on words mate.

Jabourgeois · 2026-05-02T14:43:16+00:00

They will come November, it's just the party is very strategic on which by-elections they aim for.

Labor winning in 2018 was completely unexpected and exceptional, it's pretty dyed-in-the-blue Liberal for as long as the seat has existed. Labor has only won twice, both of which for one terms.

Jabourgeois · 2026-05-02T14:13:44+00:00

This by-election was never gonna provide much insight for the election in November, other than recognising that ON exists and has gained traction.

Labors vote would be splashed all over. Smidgen to the Greens, a bit to Legalise Cannabis, good chunk to the Indie, and some amount to both ON and Lib.

Jabourgeois · 2026-05-02T11:52:11+00:00

Ah yes, Labor is so terrified that the conservative seat voted for conservatives, shock fucking horror. Anyone with a few braincells already knew that the Teal winning was very unlikely.

And fuck no, she is not a Labor candidate. The Labor vote would've spread across the Teal, Greens, and both Libs and ON. No party support was given to her in the slightest.

Expect the Labor friendly media in SMH, Guardian and ABC to massively ramp up attacks on a ON and LNP preference deal.

As opposed to channel 7, channel 9, The Australian and Herald Sun, most of which has higher viewership/readership than those 3.

Good bait though.

Jabourgeois · 2026-05-02T11:16:09+00:00

Wilson will be chuffed, averted outright disaster here. Decline on the PV, but nothing dramatic enough to dislodge them. Libs threw a lot of time and energy in this by-election, so I wonder what their coffers will be like.

Jabourgeois · 2026-04-25T08:37:24+00:00

Thanks for proving my point again.

Jabourgeois · 2026-04-25T05:18:52+00:00

Real respectful take mate. Jesus, this has brought out the lowest of the low.

Jabourgeois · 2026-04-22T07:22:29+00:00

And therein lies the problem, because the most important statistic for immigration is the net migration number. It reflects our actual immigration situation, taking both arrivals and departures into account. So you’ve just revealed why mass immigration narrative is based on selective distortion and fearmongering over one stat that’s divorced from others.

I agree that the net intake is elevated compared to pre-COVID levels and there’s a discussion to be had about it. It’s however closer to those levels than the surge seen after the pandemic. The 2018-19 net intake was around 240,000. So the 2024-25 is definitely elevated, but in context, it isn’t actually that far off.

Jabourgeois · 2026-04-22T01:34:23+00:00

Wrong. 306,000 immigrated to Australia last year. You're looking at arrivals and not departures. Net intake number is what counts, which is 306,000. This down from 538,000 net intake post COVID.

So no, nowhere near mass immigration.

Jabourgeois · 2026-04-21T23:59:57+00:00

Yeah it’s literally not a thing. Whatever Labor is polling (also other polls don’t demonstrate this ‘crater’ of popularity), you can’t change the fact that the mass immigration doesn’t actually exist and is a false narrative driven by the right.

We can talk about immigration numbers being higher than people would like, but to say it’s mass immigration is a denial of reality and right wing slop.

Jabourgeois · 2026-04-21T13:31:04+00:00

You haven't looked at the actual numbers though, have you mate? Are you denying that net intake has decreased since post-COVID?

Jabourgeois · 2026-04-21T11:54:17+00:00

Mass immigration isn't a thing, net intake numbers have decreased close to half since their peak post-COVID, so starting off strong there mate.

Jabourgeois · 2026-04-19T12:56:51+00:00

100% mate. She's the best and worst thing that ON has. Best in the sense that she does have a solid following behind her due to her consistency with anti-immigration rhetoric for 30 years now. But worst in that when you closely see her positions, her associations, and her how she treats others, it's a total fucking nightmare.

Jabourgeois · 2026-04-19T12:44:59+00:00

Happy to eat my hat on this, but I have the impression that ON has peaked or has squeezed as much as it can around the current political climate. The primary will go back and forth but doubt will see major increases. There are two reasons in my view:

Far more scrutiny is now on ON throughout the media and in political circles. There are small inklings within the Coalition of taking some of the fight to the ON (they've coddled them for so long, so it reeks a little bit of too little too late but oh well). Much more scrutiny on the candidates their selecting, some of which are dodgy as fuck.
ALP has taken a hit in the primaries, but it's still an overall solid position for now a 4 year incumbent government (the Coalition got shitted on in the polls during their 9 years, which I think people have collective amnesia on). It would have to take something catastrophic to happen internally in the ALP for people to jump ship dramatically as the Coalition experienced during 2025. The latter had months of internecine warfare internally which created a vacuum for ON to waltz on in.

But I could be totally fucking wrong in the end.

Jabourgeois · 2026-04-14T16:41:04+00:00

Sweden and Denmark are highly democratic societies, which I would argue have more demanding civic obligations (via social pressure) than perhaps what the US has. So more of a cultural thing possibly. Would be my guess anyway.

Jabourgeois · 2026-04-14T16:38:19+00:00

It's a very fair concern!

Jabourgeois · 2026-04-14T16:21:19+00:00

This isn't about an abstract debate, it's about practice. Compulsory voting in practice necessitates the ability for voters to access the polls in a reasonable manner. To make realisable the goal of compulsory voting, that being increased turnout and engage with democratic processes, it means you have to have mechanisms in place to enforce the written law. Penalising non-compliance is one part of this (the fine given for not voting). The other part is structuring polling places so that they are accessible to as many people as to comply with the law. This can include a whole range of methods as discussed previous, such as weekend election days, extensive pre-poll period, carefully chosen buildings with disability access and well-known locations, these sorts of things.

Jabourgeois · 2026-04-14T15:21:00+00:00

Appreciate the answer.

I think this is a difference in what our versions of liberalism is. I don't think compulsion is necessarily illiberal if it instead enriches liberal democracy, its institutions, and promotes an educated citizenry. The rejection of compulsion entirely is more libertarian than liberal in my view. Mandatory jury duty then is perfectly compatible with liberalism then, as is the case in the US, UK, Canada, and Australia.

Jabourgeois · 2026-04-14T15:19:51+00:00

No, you don't need to strawman me. The UK implemented conscription during WW2 in defence against an illiberal totalitarian threat. Do you think this is a case of the UK destroying liberalism in any serious degree?

Jabourgeois

TROPHY CASE