this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2026

239 points (99.6% liked)

World News

52530 readers

2359 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

lemmyAtom@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

239

Australia cancels visa of Jewish influencer who previously called for Islam to be banned (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 day ago by HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works to c/world@lemmy.world

34 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The government has cancelled the visa of a Jewish influencer who has previously called for the ban of Islam and was booked to speak at several events in Australia.

The right-leaning Australian Jewish Association (AJA) said Sammy Yahood’s visa was cancelled three hours before his flight was due to depart.

The home affairs minister, Tony Burke, confirmed he had cancelled the visa on Monday evening, and said “spreading hatred is not a good reason to come”.

“If someone wants to come to Australia they should apply for the right visa and come for the right reason,” Burke told Guardian Australia in a statement.

In response to the decision, Yahood took to social media overnight to accuse Labor of “tyranny”, insisting his spirits remained high despite the block.

top 34 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 3 points 20 hours ago

Good.

[–] fizzle@quokk.au 24 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Sorry but... I just don't really understand what the Jewish Assoc is playing at, honestly.

Very recently there was a massacre in Sydney. It was awful. Of course the Jewish victims and their community has my sympathy.

In the wake of that event, questions have rightly been asked as to what governments and communities are doing to manage hate speech and anti-semitism. New federal hate speech laws have been passed just in the last few weeks.

Sorry but importing some asshole to stoke more hatred and animosity between these communities is not the way to manage this problem.

[–] Aqarius@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

I believe it's called "pressing the advantage". Or, by the looks of it, "overplaying your hand".

[–] Baggie@lemmy.zip 9 points 1 day ago

Unfortunately then the conclusion has to be they don't want peace.

[–] ZoDoneRightNow@kbin.earth 26 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Sick of the reporting on situations like this highlighting the fact a person is Jewish over the fact they are an Israeli or a Zionist. It contributes greatly to the idea that it is Jewish people as a whole and not specifically Zionists that are spreading this hatred. Heck "notorious Islamaphobe" is probably way more relevant than the fact he happens to be Jewish.

[–] JerryMerweather@piefed.social 20 points 1 day ago

The same thing with muslims and immigrants.

IMMIGRANT SAYS BAD WORDS TO AN AMERICAN!!! "MUSLIMS" ARE BEING RACIST WITH TRUMP!!!

reading such headlines are enough to convince someone to change their opinion on something.

[+] Limerance@piefed.social -12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Most Jews are Zionists, as in they want Israel to continue to exist.

[–] ZoDoneRightNow@kbin.earth 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And so that means that his Jewish identity is more important to the story than the fact he is a Zionist, Israeli or a vile islamaphobe how? There are plenty of anti-zionist Jews. I march alongside some every week. All this does is further conflate Judaism and Zionism in the minds of the readers.

[–] FeatherConstrictor@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 day ago

Yeah, this is becoming a real problem. I am now more than ever in my life hearing antisemetic views and having to do my best to try to guide and correct those around me to understand what you've just explained. It's really sad to me as a Muslim that people are using israel-palestine as seemingly an excuse to exercise hatred and antisemitism, when they would condemn others who spread Islamophobia and use violent extremist action in ex. Nigeria to justify it.

[–] HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works 38 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Good. Racist assholes shouldn't be allowed to speak publically anywhere on the planet. Ever.

[+] ryannathans@aussie.zone -14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

This asshole shouldn't be allowed to enter the country I agree but prohibiting speech you disagree with everywhere on the planet is tyranical

[–] Lemming421@lemmy.world 34 points 1 day ago (2 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

[–] Greddan@feddit.org 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Exactly why religion should not be tolerated.

[–] Renat@szmer.info 7 points 1 day ago

Cause some religions are intolerant. Catholicism says to use violence toward gay people. Islam says to use violence toward gay people and nonbelievers.

[+] fizzle@quokk.au -13 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Paradoxically, the paradox of tolerance is often used as an argument for intolerance.

You just have to brand someone you don't like as "intolerant" and then the paradox of tolerance gives you an ethical fig leaf for refusing to tolerate them.

[–] Deme@sopuli.xyz 24 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The so-called paradox dissolves away once you recognize tolerance as a social contract between parties, instead of some immutable principle.

They break the contract, so they're no longer covered by it. Treat others as you would like to be treated. It's not that complicated.

[+] fizzle@quokk.au -14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

This is the same picture.

If you arbitrarily decide who has "broken the contract" then you arbitrarily decide who you will not tolerate.

Being tolerant does not merely mean allowing the presence of those who do not bother you.

Its not that complicated.

[–] Scubus@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 day ago

Im not required to be tolerant of anyone. I choose to accept those who dont cause a problem for society. The whole idea of "tolerance" and political civility is laughable. If youre a piece of shit, fuck you.

[–] Deme@sopuli.xyz 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Either you commit to a society that respects people as people regardless of their ethnicity, religion or sexual or gender identity (so long as they don't limit the freedoms of others), or you don't. I wouldn't call that an arbitrary line. If your views cross that line, I will not tolerate them.

The local neonazis held a "book club" at a public library here once (a publicity stunt because they knew it would make a lot of people angry). One liberal writer decided to go there to participate and to talk to them. She announced this beforehand and an article was published in the biggest newspaper in the country. It must've come as quite a surprise to her and all the idiots cheering her on for her tolerance, when she changed no minds and only contributed to the publicity stunt while also lending some of her credibility to them. Tolerating their views only gives them more legitimacy as a part of the political discourse.

When I see neonazis marching on the street here, I go shout obscenities at them to make sure they as a group feel unwelcome. The last time that one of them came up to me asking if I had a problem, I tried to talk some sense into him and I think I succeeded at least to an extent. Because a one on one conversation detached from the wider context is the only possible avenue to do so, when the us vs. them tribalism is at least somewhat removed and people can actually see each other instead of just a member of the opposing tribe. No cameras or ulterior motives, no incentive to keep up appearances as the best little loyal member in our team. That's how I think we should treat intolerance.

[–] fizzle@quokk.au 0 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

You don't see the irony of defining a group of people whom you will not tolerate, on the basis that they are not tolerant?

Either you commit to a society that respects people as people regardless of their ethnicity, religion or sexual or gender identity (so long as they don’t limit the freedoms of others), or you don’t.

This definition might be perfectly reasonable, but like any definition it can be used to capture people you don't want to be tolerant of. Your own intentions may be virtuous, but my point is weilding the paradox of tolerance like a stick to beat fascists is hypocrisy.

Instead, it's fine to just acknowledge that we don't tolerate fascists, without trying to cling to the moral high ground with this "paradox" nonsense.

[–] Deme@sopuli.xyz 2 points 22 hours ago

I already explained in my previous comment that there is no real paradox, only the appearance of one when tolerance is framed as a virtue rather than a contract.

Why don't you tolerate fascists? What's your reasoning for it?

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

An exorbitantly shitty take.

[–] Sharkticon@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 day ago

Hmmm

[–] fizzle@quokk.au 5 points 1 day ago

Not really.

You're absolutely correct that any limitations to free speech needs to be considered very carefully. Of course, an arbitrary ban on ideas you disagree with is something to be avoided.

However, that doesn't mean that there should not be any limitations to the things people are free to say and the ideas they're free to promote.

[–] allriledup@piefed.blahaj.zone 22 points 1 day ago

MY religion is fine, but YOUR religion? fuck no.

[–] 30p87@feddit.org 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

"But my Hallucination is BETTER than yours!!!!"

[–] gaymer@aussie.zone 7 points 1 day ago

Religion should be banned around the world and then social media.

[–] SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 day ago

Dont ban a religion, just ban the practices and beliefs that are detrimental.

Religions need to reform to be constructive or die.

[–] Mihies@programming.dev 4 points 1 day ago

Antisemitism!!!! /s

[–] Greddan@feddit.org 4 points 1 day ago

Cultists of any of these sects should be institutionalised for deprogramming.

[–] starik@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 day ago

Great. Now he can start a GoFundMe and a podcast and be a millionaire by next year

[–] Eyekaytee@aussie.zone 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

deleted