Germany could ban far-Right politicians from running for office
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Who said that? They’re suggesting that, since you’re putting restrictions, you might as well add other restrictions that also make sense.
The comment I‘m commenting
-
Do it. Honestly I'm a little surprised you didn't do it 80 years ago
-
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 — 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.
I'm not sure I agree with your. Acting like your 2nd example wasn't created because of the fascist nature of the US government, I have a bridge to sell to you.
US has never stopped being fascist, they just got beaten by Germany at the world stage with the reveal.
So no, US was always going to MAGA, mostly because every civic institution was ran over by money.
And can be stop pretending that fascists follow laws? It's not like they won't create new ones if the existing don't fit their narrative. Or just do whatever, not even pretend to hide behind excuses.
You are not arming them with laws, you are arming them with making general public needlessly suffer, like no social safety nets, uncontrolled rent hikes, inflation through the roof etc.
-
So you're OK with a plutocracy?
This is a slippery slope fallacy I believe. Stop with the fallacious reasoning
-
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 CDU thinks they will get their votes but they won't.
-
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.
Yes we could, but the inner security is stalling the investigation and the conservatives and liberals think they could get the nazi votes and lean heavily into the rethorik. Yeaaah doesnt work out. Never did
-
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.
