By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A South African man, Matthew Gruter, who participated in a Neo-Nazi protest outside NSW parliament house, has had his Australian visa revoked by the federal government. The protest, organized by the National Socialist Network, displayed hateful banners and chanted Nazi slogans. Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke stated that Gruter, as a visa holder, was considered a guest who overstepped the bounds of acceptable behavior. Gruter’s social media revealed his connection to Nazi ideology, and the government’s action follows Premier Chris Minns’s statement that Nazis are not welcome in New South Wales.
Read the original article here
“Time to go home”: South African man who attended Neo-Nazi rally has visa cancelled, and it seems like the collective response is a resounding “good riddance.” The initial comment from the Minister for Home Affairs, Tony Burke, really sets the tone: a visa is a privilege, and guests who act like they own the place, particularly when they spew hate, aren’t welcome. It’s a sentiment echoed throughout. It’s not just a matter of disagreeing with his views; it’s about actively rejecting the kind of divisive ideology that he was clearly promoting.
The prevailing feeling is a mix of relief and disgust. It’s not difficult to see why. The mere presence of someone openly aligning with neo-Nazi beliefs in a country that values multiculturalism and tolerance is jarring. The comments reflect a strong sense of protecting the values of the community and the safety of its citizens. The fact that the man was attending a rally specifically promoting such hateful views makes the visa cancellation seem like the only reasonable outcome. Many people expressed satisfaction in the outcome.
The irony of this situation is not lost on anyone, especially when considering that these very same neo-Nazis were involved in anti-immigration rallies. The hypocrisy is blatant, and the comments make it clear that this contradiction isn’t lost on the commenters. It’s a bitter pill to swallow when those preaching hate are the ones demanding others leave. The sentiment is very much “don’t like it here? Then get out,” a phrase often weaponized against immigrants, but in this case, the tables are turned, and the irony is delicious.
The United States gets a mention, and the conversation takes a darkly humorous turn. Several comments suggest, with a heavy dose of sarcasm, that the man might find a more welcoming environment in America. It’s a jab at the perceived political climate of the US, a place where some believe such ideologies are more readily accepted or even embraced. It’s a stark reminder of the global spread of this kind of hateful thinking. The comments about potentially volunteering in Ukraine are also dark humor highlighting the extremes some will go to, to show their ideology.
The discussions also touch on deeper issues. The question “Who hurt this person?” highlights a genuine attempt to understand the roots of such hatred. It’s a moment of reflection, recognizing that deeply ingrained prejudice doesn’t simply appear out of nowhere. The question prompts a discussion about the origins of this hateful ideology, whether it’s fueled by ignorance, personal trauma, or something else entirely. It’s a moment of empathy, although the prevailing emotion remains disgust.
There’s frustration about the government and the police, with the permit granted to the group being called out, especially when considering the unfurling of the “WHITE AUSTRALIA” banner outside Parliament House. This is a clear indicator that many people believe that the government and police should be doing much more to combat hate speech and that such groups should not be given any space.
Then there is the issue of dual citizenship and the challenges it presents. The comments suggest solutions, from dumping the man in international waters to sending him back to South Africa. It’s a testament to the complex legal and logistical hurdles involved in removing someone from the country, and the determination to do so.
The comments do not come in agreement, there are many different responses. All show that the man’s beliefs are not welcome, and the response is one of disgust, frustration and humor.