Germany could ban far-Right politicians from running for office
-
TIL. Thank you!
Yeah we did learn a thing or two with the nazis and made our laws that way. Sadly many people (especially east germans) didnt
-
Do it. Honestly I'm a little surprised you didn't do it 80 years ago
In a way we did. Anticonstitutional parties are generally not allowed. The problem is that courts and judges must be absolutely convinced that a party is anticonstitutional to actually ban them.
-
Exactly! I mean, a far-right uprising in Germany... which is at the moment re-militarizing itself... doesn't anybody else F-king see what's going on?!
That's a point we are really worried about here in Germany too. The armament of the nation feels wrong in itself too many of us (even though most of us don't have any better ideas when looking at Putin-Russia). But the outlook that the AfD (our stupid Nazi party) could inherit the upgraded army and it's arsenal is really frightening.
-
This is a slippery slope fallacy I believe. Stop with the fallacious reasoning
Not really. Governing through bribery is a way to implement plutocracy.
-
Why are you arguing in favor of parties that want to infringe on people's human rights?
- Denying people their right to vote is LITERALLY "infringing on people's human rights". You are arguing in favor of this!
https://www.ohchr.org/en/about-democracy-and-human-rights
- I'm not defending the AFD. I'm defending human rights and civil liberties. There's a major difference that you don't seem to understand.
You are the one arguing that infringing "extremists" human rights is valid to protect everyone's human rights, ignorant of the fact that all the government has to do to disenfrachise entire groups of people is redefine what "extremism" means (e.g. like declaring protests and property damage of Tesla to be "terrorism"). You are using the exact same logic fascists use to seize control.
Do you think you get to decide what "extremism" is? To me, many global leaders are/were "extremist" and should be serving life in prison for their crimes – multiple members of the Bush admin in the US, numerous members of Israel's government and military, etc – but most of worlds dominant political classes do not agree that wars and genocide (which have killed thousdands/millions of people) are "extremist" enough, or "extremist" at all. How can they justify these crimes? Because they committed these crimes fighting terrorists/extremists!
What do oligarchs have to do with that anyway?
Oligarchs own the lion-share of the media, corporations, capital, and political financing – everywhere – therefore they heavily influence the definition of terms like "extremist", "terrorist" or "anti-humanist", both socially and legally.
How does any of that lead into dictatorship?
What about separation of power?
What about other means of political influence, like wide spread worker strikes, those wouldn't be affected by the dismantling of political parties.I've given you concrete examples. I suggest you read up on modern history and how dictatorships are formed, and what civil liberties and human rights actually are.
Why the fuck are people spouting libertarian nonsense in defense of fascism?
You don't know what libertarianism is. Libertarianism is not libertarian politics, political parties, or the fascists/conservatives who bastardize it for power/profit. It is the opposite of authoritarianism. If you believe that democracy, human rights, and civil liberties should be protected, you are a libertarian. You can't anti-libertarianism, without being pro-authoritarianism; just like you can't be anti-ANTIFAscist, without being fascist.
For what it's worth I don't believe you are arguing in bad faith, but I do believe you are uninformed/misinformed. You can either admit that there are major flaws with your argument, and that it has a potential to cause more bad than good, or you can dig in and continue resorting to logical fallacies.
I don't argue for the implementation of the legal changes discussed in the article, I argue that we already have the required means.
I argue for using these means to protect from fascism.
The better political means would be to enact changes that fix stuff for people so they don't get the feeling the only party that cares for them are fascist, but the topic is legal means.
As I wrote before, the infringement of human rights can be justified to protect others human rights. Barring people from voting for the prospect of genocide is a balanced approach I fully support.
How these legal instruments are used in practice is a different topic from what they are meant for.
Oligarchs are a societal problem which exists independent of constitutional balance of power. Since I try to argue within the idea of legal systems this seems to me as an unrelated, while still very real problem. But that must be dealt with outside of the question of the legality of political parties. To underline my intent here, I believe that the problem of oligarchy can be fixed by parties which adhere to the humanitarian political playing field which the constitution describes. This includes for example radical leftists that use the constitutional legal construct of seizing property in the name of the state (means of production aka money) from those who abuse the property.
Democracies don't die because they restrict political speech based on a constitution which in the case of Germany is pretty solid, they die because they disservice their population while spouting nationalist or other BS and declaring everyone else the enemy and shifting the legal framework to dismental the rule of law.
The idea of cutting these parties and movements of from gaining political traction seems blatantly obvious to me.
Libertarian BS is not the same as Libertarism. People arguing for free speech which allows for speech which is anti-humanist is libertarian BS. Libertarism in itself is a problem because it advocates for the freedom of the individual over the freedom of the collective. Which some find attractive and I myself egoistic. But that is not the the point I'm trying to make here.
In a working legal system, in a constitutional framework of sperated powers within a democratic society we cannot allow BS in the political discours, because it aims to dismental the political discours. Similarly to playing chess with a geese, you will get bit.
The only political discussion I'm willing to have with fascists is over the barrel of a gun, but since the societal contract we are born into asks of me to give my ability to exercise violence in the the hands of the state so it excersises violence in the most just way possible I demand the legal ability and the application of those means to barr fascists from everything.
And that is the point here. Fascism is not a valid political opinion, it's a crime. Other political or mixtures of religious and political thought qualify as well and I don't want them anywhere near a parliament.
The point I don't understand and that might be due to my mental limitations, is why would anyone want these in a political discussion. Why give those free speech that want to abolish it?
The abuse of these legal frameworks is a problem, and that is real, but their existence is required to have a line of defense against anti-humanist BS.
-
That's astonishing bullshit. There is already a process for ban political parties with political alignments incompatible with the constitution, which has to be initialized by o e of the two chambers of parliament and decided by the constitutional court. Having a political instrument in addition to that will automatically reduce the hurdle of dismantling political movements, for blurry definitions of "sufficient amount of extremists in a party".
The proposal doesn't ban the party, it suggests banning extremist individuals convicted of things like inciting hatred from running for office. In effect, it puts a damper on extreme individual members of a party that doesn't itself reach the threshold for prohibition as a party. So I can see the logic behind it. But I agree it's a dicey proposal and ripe for political abuse. Still, it would be contingent on court decisions so it could work with a strong (just/uncorrupt) court system.
-
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.
Does this have more backing than the motion to ban the AfD entirely did?
-
This absolutely needs to be a thing in every country. Ban far right parties, ban far right media
Considering the CDU could be considered a far right party themselves, they just wanna eliminate their competition, so i wouldn't get my hopes up.
They literaly had an election poster with the slogan "You don't have to vote for the AfD to get what you want. There is a democratic alternative: the CDU!".
As long as privately owned press and corporate social media algorithms try to shift the overton window as far right as it can go that's not gonna happen.
-
DO IT! JUST DO IT! 🧍
-
As much as I'm a fan of keeping Nazis out of government, holy fuck is this a bad idea!
A judge shouldn't be able to ban anyone from running for office.
This is what Russia does. Ban you from running if you're convicted of "extremism", then define that to include opposing the government.Disappointing that this isn't the overwhelming response; and shows how dangerously close to fascism a lot of the supposedly 'anti fascist' respondents actually are. As soon as you ban a thing you need to be able to define what it is. 'Far right' is not an easy definition, with Right/Left are poor descriptors of often complex political stances, at the best of times. Descriptions that can be easily bent to match any set of beliefs you want to target. Clearly a dangerous path. Those beying for it need to take a pause and think.
-
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.
-
The proposal doesn't ban the party, it suggests banning extremist individuals convicted of things like inciting hatred from running for office. In effect, it puts a damper on extreme individual members of a party that doesn't itself reach the threshold for prohibition as a party. So I can see the logic behind it. But I agree it's a dicey proposal and ripe for political abuse. Still, it would be contingent on court decisions so it could work with a strong (just/uncorrupt) court system.
Well reading what's actually is there and not what I already concluded to be there has never been my strong suit.
The proposal feels like sidestepping the actual problem, that the rise of the far right must be countered, by putting a weak barr on political discussion and political discours to mitigate broader problems. Which to be fair is the politics of center parties. -
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.
Its amazing how things work, the defendors of the democracy are asking to ban a political party. Do this exercise with me, imagine a country where the majority of people want a "far-right" party to rule them. It can be for a lot of reasons, security, education, social paradox, conservative economic reasons, emigration... whatever, you choose, what would you do? Deny the will of an entire country or let them freely choose what they want? Im not judging im just curious, i know my answer but i want to ear yours
-
Its amazing how things work, the defendors of the democracy are asking to ban a political party. Do this exercise with me, imagine a country where the majority of people want a "far-right" party to rule them. It can be for a lot of reasons, security, education, social paradox, conservative economic reasons, emigration... whatever, you choose, what would you do? Deny the will of an entire country or let them freely choose what they want? Im not judging im just curious, i know my answer but i want to ear yours
OK Adolf.
-
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.
Then they'll ban far left politicians from running.
Then they'll ban anyone they don't like.
And eventually, they'll ban everyone who isn't them.
Right wing lunatics are repulsive in almost every sense, but this isn't the way you beat them. When you put the machinery in place to do something like this, it will inevitably be abused in the opposite direction in future.
-
OK Adolf.
-
Then they'll ban far left politicians from running.
Then they'll ban anyone they don't like.
And eventually, they'll ban everyone who isn't them.
Right wing lunatics are repulsive in almost every sense, but this isn't the way you beat them. When you put the machinery in place to do something like this, it will inevitably be abused in the opposite direction in future.
-
Its amazing how things work, the defendors of the democracy are asking to ban a political party. Do this exercise with me, imagine a country where the majority of people want a "far-right" party to rule them. It can be for a lot of reasons, security, education, social paradox, conservative economic reasons, emigration... whatever, you choose, what would you do? Deny the will of an entire country or let them freely choose what they want? Im not judging im just curious, i know my answer but i want to ear yours
Yes. Would you allow a company to sell actual poison that is marketed as a health food? What if a study showed 50.1% of all people believed it was not actually poisonous because of a successful marketing campaign by the company? What if innocent babies and children were ingesting this poison because their parents believed it was safe?
If you agree with banning a child killing poison but not with banning a far right party, please explain how it's fundamentally any different.
-
Won't do much if nobody ever gets convicted for bribery/ corruption
If the thing that user asked to happen doesn't happen then the thing won't happen?
Do you smell burnt toast?
-
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.
The big issue with any form of attempted suppression will not suddenly sway their voters. It would be much smarter to not give people a reason to fall for populists.
But that would be too easy, I guess.
