Germany could ban far-Right politicians from running for office
-
Calling the SPD anything but a luke warm pudding is a lie.
They are literally neither right noir left. They just bend to whatever coqlition they get into.
Nope. The SPD defending the AFD. Faeser stops the publication of a report, which would label the whole AFD as a party fighting the constitution. They actively work sending refugees to countries like Afghanistan, help to criminalize climate and Palestine activists and so forth.
The only left leaning thing they actively fought for in the last term in government was raising the minimum wage a bit. Everything else which was decent left leaning policy was brought through mainly by the Greens. Sometimes even the FDP had to rightly fight the insane policies of the SPD.
-
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
Yes - but if leading AfD figures were stripped of their right to vote, then such ruling would hit that person _regardless_ of which party he or she¹ is in. So I think going after individuals vs. going after parties is not an either-or. It would make sense to do both.
---
¹ I don't think AfD has enby members. -
Yes - but if leading AfD figures were stripped of their right to vote, then such ruling would hit that person _regardless_ of which party he or she¹ is in. So I think going after individuals vs. going after parties is not an either-or. It would make sense to do both.
---
¹ I don't think AfD has enby members.¹ I don’t think AfD has enby members.
What does that have to do with anything?
-
¹ I don’t think AfD has enby members.
What does that have to do with anything?
I wrote “he or she”. @MaggiWuerze
-
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
@MaggiWuerze @Zer0_F0x thats right but does really someone believe, that this won't happen? There are members of the afd who are clever enough to form a new party thats just "new enough" to be legaly not a follow up party. I don't think we will get rid of this party or to be more clear, of that spirit that lives within this party. Especially with the CDU/CSU at the moment, which is doing everything at the moment to destroy the trust in the democratic partys and this 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.
I love how the commenters on that page hating all on the "far-left". despite the left has exactly nothing to do with that idea. dumb fucks as far one can see.
-
@MaggiWuerze @Zer0_F0x thats right but does really someone believe, that this won't happen? There are members of the afd who are clever enough to form a new party thats just "new enough" to be legaly not a follow up party. I don't think we will get rid of this party or to be more clear, of that spirit that lives within this party. Especially with the CDU/CSU at the moment, which is doing everything at the moment to destroy the trust in the democratic partys and this system.
I usually assume left people to be smarter than people from the right wing, yet the communist party has not been able to reform in almost 70 years
-
I wrote “he or she”. @MaggiWuerze
Ah, that footnote was not rendered properly in my app. Thought it was just a random statement
-
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.
Do it. Honestly I'm a little surprised you didn't do it 80 years ago
-
I love how the commenters on that page hating all on the "far-left". despite the left has exactly nothing to do with that idea. dumb fucks as far one can see.
It's classic whataboutism and trying to draw false equivalencies to muddy the waters. They want to put everyone else on defense about the decision to ban Nazis by making you waste time explaining why someone else isn't a Nazi.
To sum up: fuck them. Nazis are bad. Please continue punching them, both metaphorically, legally, and physically as needed to keep them in their hidey holes.
-
Greece did something similar a few years ago.
The Golden Dawn far right wing party was declared a criminal organization (after some violence that lead to a few stabbings and at least one death) and their leaders were thrown in jail.
From the ashes of Golden Dawn and a few other populist/Christian conservative/nationalist parties rose a few new ones, with more careful rhetoric and open support from the now jailed golden dawn leaders and high ranking church ministers.
They are collectively holding 26 of the 300 seats in the parliament and are expected to get better results on the next election cycle.
You can ban them all you want, they can still reform into a "we are not far right, wink wink" party after the ban itself verifies their far right status and rise to power all the same.
We are already in that second phase. We threatened to ban the NPD, it fell into irrelevancy.
And out of the Ashes rose the AfD, wrapping their NPD rhethoric in a cozy CSU blanket.
-
By far not the same level as extremism.
Fck little sister of whataboutism, the self-elevating sarcasm.
So you're OK with a plutocracy?
-
So you're OK with a plutocracy?
I’m not okay with saying extremism is the same as taking money for influence.
-
I love how the commenters on that page hating all on the "far-left". despite the left has exactly nothing to do with that idea. dumb fucks as far one can see.
For what it's worth, I wish we would do the same thing.
But with a proper definition where "center" is pretty far right.
-
So you agree that whoever is currently in government — which are highly-influenced by their oligarchy, everywhere, to varying degrees — 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!
Why are you arguing in favor of parties that want to infringe on people's human rights?
I fail to see how any movement of change within the spectrum of a constitution based on human rights would be negatively affected by the deligtimisation of anti-humanist factions.
What do oligarchs have to do with that anyway?
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.
Why the fuck are people spouting libertarian nonsense in defense of fascism?
And pertaining to the gulag: no you.
-
Why are you arguing in favor of parties that want to infringe on people's human rights?
I fail to see how any movement of change within the spectrum of a constitution based on human rights would be negatively affected by the deligtimisation of anti-humanist factions.
What do oligarchs have to do with that anyway?
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.
Why the fuck are people spouting libertarian nonsense in defense of fascism?
And pertaining to the gulag: no you.
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’m not okay with saying extremism is the same as taking money for influence.
Who said that? They’re suggesting that, since you’re putting restrictions, you might as well add other restrictions that also make sense.
-
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.
This absolutely needs to be a thing in every country. Ban far right parties, ban far right media
-
Less inequality and better education are really the only solution.
People reach for extremism when they feel let down by the existing system.
Less inequality and better education are really the only solution.
People reach for extremism when they feel let down by the existing system.
Whatever actual or perceived grievances a person may have (even though merely being born in Germany already constitutes winning the global class lottery) - that only ever causes vulnurability.
That person then turning to actively undermining democratic systems and the international community is something that only happens if some con artist used that vulnurability to convince the person that it constitutes a solution to their problems.Equality and education are great. Letting con artists run around freely is a completely separate issue. Letting folk get scammed out of their life savings is just as detrimental to a healthy society as letting folk get scammed out of their vote.
-
Do it. Honestly I'm a little surprised you didn't do it 80 years ago
While I understand the point, won't this just make politicians run on lies even more?
