Germany could ban far-Right politicians from running for office
-
This will 100% be used to suppress left politicians.
Just ban the fucking AfD already.
Why would it suppress left politicians? It's not like any of them have multiple extremism convictions, that's usually rightwing politicians.
-
Why would it suppress left politicians? It's not like any of them have multiple extremism convictions, that's usually rightwing politicians.
Because they might get convicted of something a judge would call left wing extremism. I have zero trust in this system.
-
This will 100% be used to suppress left politicians.
Just ban the fucking AfD already.
In countries where banning parties is a thing, such parties usually have another on the shelf ready to go.
It's usually the party leader that gets banned and the party can't re-register or something.
So when the leader gives their thanks goodbye speech they usually mention the new party.
-
In countries where banning parties is a thing, such parties usually have another on the shelf ready to go.
It's usually the party leader that gets banned and the party can't re-register or something.
So when the leader gives their thanks goodbye speech they usually mention the new party.
Germany's law on party bans automatically bans successor organisations.
-
Maybe also consider bribery convictions and we might get rid of a few CDU/CSU politicians as well
Won't do much if nobody ever gets convicted for bribery/ corruption
-
Because they might get convicted of something a judge would call left wing extremism. I have zero trust in this system.
Ok, I see now how that could happen - I forget people would abuse a law like that.
Thanks.
-
This will 100% be used to suppress left politicians.
Just ban the fucking AfD already.
Yes, and that's how it should be if a politician of any party is convicted for serious offense, eg violence or hatred. Laws should apply equally to all.
Which means such law should be carefully crafted to prevent its abuse for partisan purpose, supressing the opposition, etc.
For instance making it a judicial process, not an arbitrary administrative/executive discussion. Restricting this to specific well-defined offenses. Making it a time-limited ban, not a life ban. ...
-
Germany's law on party bans automatically bans successor organisations.
TIL. Thank you!
-
Far-Right politicians in Germany could be banned from running for office under plans by the incoming government, echoing a decision in France to block Marine Le Pen from a presidential bid.
Diverse views here, even within our lemmy 'bubble', suggest it's not obvious what to do about this (and similar situation in France and other european countries). Banning either individuals or parties can set a risky precedent and does not necessarily diminish a movement. I'd rather go for gradually (but rapidly) changing norms about acceptable campaigning, propaganda, use of social media, 'fake' news (lies). That includes faster-acting legal restrictions on funding, ownership, facts/fakes, algorithms, etc.. , as well as positively strengthening alternatives like our fediverse.
-
That is a dangerously reckless and ignorant take of the paradox. The paradox is a rejection of protecting the intolerant, and their use of an argument they do not adhere to themselves. It does not mean we should build the tools and laws of fascist oppression to combat fascism.
It's no different to a "means test" for voting. Once you create a means test you have created the attack vector, and all the fascists have to do when they take office is change the terms of the means test. As an example, Trump is currently using a 200 year old law to deport any immigrant an ICE agent chooses, without trial.
No.
The tolerance paradox generally is interpreted to mean that any tolerant society that tolerates intolerance destroys itself. See Wikipedia first paragraph tolerance paradox.
Any serious democratic constitution bases itself on humanism and the idea that human rights cannot be infringed on except to protect the human rights of others.
Allowing participants in political discussions who question that is outright fucking stupid.
They must be excluded, deconstructed, and fought in the streets if necessary.
Using the US as an example for anything democracy related is on the same level as using China as an example for well implemented communism. -
Why would it suppress left politicians? It's not like any of them have multiple extremism convictions, that's usually rightwing politicians.
For instance partaking in seating blockades on the routes of Nazi demonstrations is considered left wing "extremism" and could be charged as crime ranging from "coercion" to "breach of public peace / rioting". Now whether it is convicted as such is a different topic, but for instance many climate activists have been convicted with prison times for glueing themselves to the streets. Many courts consider this to be violent coercion. So making yourself vulnerable and unable to act, but in the way of some car, this is violent extremism in Germany.
-
You can ban them all you want, they can still reform
Then make them do that work.
And investigate any ties between the banned party and the new one. Ban the new one as well, if they're just the same people with a new name.
Every time they are forced to rename and reform, that's effort they can't use to further their other goals.
Every time they need to "wink wink" a little harder, they risk losing part of their extremist base.
Make them do the work!wrote on last edited by [email protected]Exactly. People act like it's useless because it doesn't permanently solve the problem.
Well guess what. Fascism cannot be solved permanently. It needs to be opposed in every generation, consistently. Giving in is not an option.
Banning a fascist party costs them a lot of internal cohesion and about a decade of organizing. It's absolutely necessary and worth it.
-
Maybe also consider bribery convictions and we might get rid of a few CDU/CSU politicians as well
By far not the same level as extremism.
Fck little sister of whataboutism, the self-elevating sarcasm.
-
No.
The tolerance paradox generally is interpreted to mean that any tolerant society that tolerates intolerance destroys itself. See Wikipedia first paragraph tolerance paradox.
Any serious democratic constitution bases itself on humanism and the idea that human rights cannot be infringed on except to protect the human rights of others.
Allowing participants in political discussions who question that is outright fucking stupid.
They must be excluded, deconstructed, and fought in the streets if necessary.
Using the US as an example for anything democracy related is on the same level as using China as an example for well implemented communism.So you agree that whoever is currently in government â which are highly-influenced by their oligarchy, everywhere, to varying degrees â should be able to dictate who can and cannot be involved with politics?
Congrats! You've made the EU great again! You've now given the majority the ability to eliminate political opposition, all challenges to the status quo, and supported a future populist whose goal is dictatorship. Time to pat yourself on back, now off to the gulag!
-
Ok, I see now how that could happen - I forget people would abuse a law like that.
Thanks.
You are much smarter than the users I encountered below, who downvoted the following examples I provided:
It's no different to a "means test" for voting. It sounds great initially, but falls apart if you dig deeper. Once you create a means test you have created the attack vector, and all the fascists have to do if they weasel their way into power is simply change the terms of the means test â you've already completed and normalized the hard part for them. As an example, Trump is currently using a 200 year old law to deport any immigrant an ICE agent chooses, without trial. He's using this law because it gave the president blanket unilateral powers to apply it as they see fit.
Another example from the US that has assisted fascism in denying blacks their right to vote; an old law declared anyone convicted of a felony ineligible to vote, then conservatives created the war on drugs to target and persecute blacks and the left. All they had to do was make non-violent drug offences a felony. As a result, millions of blacks have been denied the right to vote. All because the government could decide who could and couldn't vote because of X, and any future gov could control the terms of X.
-
Exactly. People act like it's useless because it doesn't permanently solve the problem.
Well guess what. Fascism cannot be solved permanently. It needs to be opposed in every generation, consistently. Giving in is not an option.
Banning a fascist party costs them a lot of internal cohesion and about a decade of organizing. It's absolutely necessary and worth it.
Especially since a ban includes seizing all property belonging to that organization.
All IT equipment, offices rented, employees... -
Far-Right politicians in Germany could be banned from running for office under plans by the incoming government, echoing a decision in France to block Marine Le Pen from a presidential bid.
Less inequality and better education are really the only solution.
People reach for extremism when they feel let down by the existing system.
-
A party ban in germany results also in a pohibition to form follow up parties. That's why we should aim for the party and not single members
Same here, the same people couldn't run again but they asked all their supporters to vote for a specific candidate with a clean rep but essentially a puppet
-
Wehrhafte Demokratie macht BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
There allready is precedent for banning parties. History and current events both show that people are fully ready to vote fascists into power. And also, you know what's one of the big reasons so many people vote for fascists? Fascist propaganda. Banning fascist parties will help have fewer fascist citizens around (at least after a while).
@FourGreenFields @twinnie. add populists to that
-
You can ban them all you want, they can still reform
Then make them do that work.
And investigate any ties between the banned party and the new one. Ban the new one as well, if they're just the same people with a new name.
Every time they are forced to rename and reform, that's effort they can't use to further their other goals.
Every time they need to "wink wink" a little harder, they risk losing part of their extremist base.
Make them do the work!I agree with you, we should stop them at every corner. I'm trying to point out that banning them isn't a fix-all solution, something needs to be done about their voters as well.
In Greece some members of older, more moderate but still far right parties were absorbed by the center right and are now ministers of the government.
Essentially the center right parties tend to steer to the far right a little to gain the far right vote without being labeled a far right party.
This also nneds to be addressed.
