Australia's High Court has been told that the White Australia party - formerly known as the National Socialist Network, because subtlety is for other people - is a 'modern manifestation' of Hitler's Nazi movement. The party is challenging its designation as a hate group, a move that makes one wonder what exactly they expected after rebranding from a name that literally translates to 'National Socialist.'

The group was slapped with the illegal hate group label in May, after Australia's domestic intelligence agency, Asio, passed its recommendation to Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke. Now, over two days this week, the party's lawyers are arguing that the ban breaches the implied freedom of political communication and that handing the decision to Burke violates the separation of powers. They also claim the Commonwealth can't ban political parties, citing a 1951 Cold War-era ruling that nixed a ban on the Communist Party of Australia. Because nothing says 'we're not Nazis' like invoking communist protections.

Commonwealth lawyer Brendan Lim told the court on Wednesday that the group's move to form a political party was a direct response to anti-hate laws passed after the Bondi terror attack. The group sought 'protection' under the guise of political legitimacy, Lim argued, but it's still the same group with the same goals - namely, making Australia great by making it, well, white.

Lim presented a smorgasbord of evidence: inflammatory rhetoric designed to encourage communal violence, an alleged physically violent attack on Camp Sovereignty in 2025, and the past criminal convictions of leader Thomas Sewell. When Justice Robert Beech-Jones asked if the Commonwealth believed the group were the 'modern manifestation' of Hitler's Nazi movement, Lim responded with a resounding 'Yes.' He added, 'There are few legitimate reasons, outside of history books and museum, that warrant the use of Nazi symbols.' Clearly, the group missed that memo.

Lim cited Asio briefings and public speeches by Director-General Mike Burgess to argue the listing was necessary because the group is security-conscious and savvy enough to operate within the law's limits. 'The existence of the group itself is the source of harm,' Lim said. He explained that stochastic terrorism - using media and public discourse to demonize communities - could push lone wolves or fringe members to commit racially motivated hate crimes. The anti-hate laws, he insisted, go 'no further than necessary' to remove that harm.

Meanwhile, the party's lawyers argued on Tuesday that banning the party is like using a 'sledgehammer on a nut.' Barrister Shahed Sharify called the law's breach of implied freedom of political communication 'authoritarian in nature' and suggested it could outlaw any political party whose members had threatened or engaged in hate crimes with organizational help. Sharify also took a swipe at the decision-making process, saying the ban was determined by a politician with no judicial fairness, and suggested a judge would be better than a 'busy minister who flicks through a brief and decides in two hours.' Because nothing says 'due process' like a rushed ministerial flick.

The High Court now faces the unenviable task of deciding whether a group that can't even come up with an original name has the right to exist as a political party. Stay tuned for the verdict, which will surely be delivered with the gravity such a case deserves - and possibly a collective eye-roll from the nation.