Germany could ban far-Right politicians from running for office
-
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! JUST DO IT! đ§
-
While the idea sounds good I donât think anyone should be setting a precedent to say itâs okay for elected governments to ban opposition parties from running based on their political views. Ultimately the people should hold the power.
People are easily manipulated. There needs to be some guardrails.
-
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.
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. -
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.
Think of it like washing your laundry. Yes, you can and should be careful to not get it dirty in the first place. Yes, if you wrestle in the mud, your clothes will be muddy. Either way you will need to wash them from time to time. Now whether that time is often or only rarely is something you can influence, but the washing itself remains necessary.
-
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.
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! -
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".
It can also be initiated by the federal government. Something that both the past and the likely upcoming government have rejected, because they are happy with the Fascists from the AfD moving the country to the far-right, so they can get their own right wing positions in better.
In that sense the article calling the current SPD center-left is already out of touch with the current time. In many positions the current SPD is right to where the CDU was under Merkel. The CDU and their Bavarian partner CSU have embraced a heavy far right populist position, with the CSU befriending Trumps republicans, Orban and other far right/authoritarian leaders. The CDU ran on a platform of racism and dismantling human rights. The SPD has a hard on for authoritarianism and wants to dismantle many civil rights, such as privacy, protection of the flat, freedom of sciences and arts, freedom of opinion, right to asylum...
-
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.
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.
-
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!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!
