Germany To Ban Far-Right Political Party

[Novaya Tselinoyarsk]

The Grundgesetz does not make the advocacy of the democratization/abolition of private property a criminal offense. They are free to advocate it all they want, just as the Free Democrats are free to advocate for the destruction of Germany's constitutionally enshrined welfare state.

The National Democrats, on the other hand, can be argued to be in violation of the Grundgesetz, because they are an anti-democratic Neo-Nazi party, the organization political advocacy of such is expressly banned by the Grundgesetz.

So advocation violation of certain rights is completely okay, but advocation of violation of some other rights is EEEEBULL!

Leftist logic...

Logic you share, Hippo. You'd be happy violating the rights of the Left just to get rid of them while whole heartedly protecting the right.

[Varijnland]

No it's not. He's right.........for once.

It's kind of hard for me to delude myself enough to pretend that I haven't given people so many reasons to dislike me.

As do left-wingers, you want me to link you dozens of crimes caused by antifa scum?

Tu quoque is not an argument.

My point is that both parties are just as bad,

And your point is stupid. Moving on.

Like political repression that's taking place right now.

Like the fact that you don't demonstrate much knowledge about Germany.

So you advocate violence and violation of laws? How left-wing of you!

All X Are Y =/= argument.

Trying to repress opposing political views is fairly fasistic.

Says the chief McCarthyite of NationStates. Ergo, you are fascistic yourself. QED.

Can you not discuss anything? You only seem to want to argue all the time.

[Conscentia]

So you recognize your politics are terrible?

Conclusion should be obvious: Zaras has self-loathing issues.
See a mental health Doctor.

Don't know why you're so obsessed on being hated.

I wouldn't say it's obsessed. I'd say it's 'more might as well get used to it'.
Thou art going beyond getting used to it. Thou art encouraging it, which is an absurd thing to do.

That's an odd thing to say.

I've said plenty of weird things.
Have you?
Beyond writing that you've "said" thing on a text based forum, i've not perceived any evidence to suggest that you are all that strange.

[Zottistan]

The Grundgesetz does not make the advocacy of the democratization/abolition of private property a criminal offense. They are free to advocate it all they want, just as the Free Democrats are free to advocate for the destruction of Germany's constitutionally enshrined welfare state.

The National Democrats, on the other hand, can be argued to be in violation of the Grundgesetz, because they are an anti-democratic Neo-Nazi party, the organization political advocacy of such is expressly banned by the Grundgesetz.

So advocation violation of certain rights is completely okay, but advocation of violation of some other rights is EEEEBULL!

Leftist logic...

Indeed. The advocation of anything and everything is ok. I could make a quip about you and the left, Hippo, but I won't, because I'm in a good mood.

[Great Void]

And Tea Party holds peaceful rallies, they don't damage properly and clean up once they leave. Antifa means up beats up erryone and damages both public and private property. Antifa's asshattery means that you have to pay for the damage that they've caused.

Given up sobriety now..?

[Zaras]

Can you not discuss anything? You only seem to want to argue all the time.

There's a difference between "argument" as in yelling match, and "argument" as in logical/philosophical statement of one's position.

[Conscentia]

The Grundgesetz does not make the advocacy of the democratization/abolition of private property a criminal offense. They are free to advocate it all they want, just as the Free Democrats are free to advocate for the destruction of Germany's constitutionally enshrined welfare state.

The National Democrats, on the other hand, can be argued to be in violation of the Grundgesetz, because they are an anti-democratic Neo-Nazi party, the organization political advocacy of such is expressly banned by the Grundgesetz.

So advocation violation of certain rights is completely okay, but advocation of violation of some other rights is EEEEBULL!

Leftist logic...

Couldst thou stop with the anti-left prejudice, please.

[Crata]

Hippo: I apologize, but the more you say the less credible you are.

It makes no difference what you think about property rights. The Left is not violating the Constitution, the NPD does in my opinion, though I trust the Court's decision.

It's not about illegal activities. It's about undemocratic and unconstitutional activities.

[Zaras]

See a mental health Doctor.

I'm pretty sure other people have better reasons to.

Thou art going beyond getting used to it. Thou art encouraging it, which is an absurd thing to do.

It's less encouraging it, and more being surprised when it doesn't happen. I'm already pretty absurd. Since I can't discourage it, it's either go with it or encourage it. I tend to vary between the two.

Have you?
Beyond writing that you've "said" thing on a text based forum, i've not perceived any evidence to suggest that you are all that strange.

Slip of the tongue.

You haven't seen enough of what I've written then. (I'd add "you haven't met me", but honestly, that's probably just luck.)

[Zottistan]

Hippo: I apologize, but the more you say the less credible you are.

It makes no difference what you think about property rights. The Left is not violating the Constitution, the NPD does in my opinion, though I trust the Court's decision.

It's not about illegal activities. It's about undemocratic and unconstitutional activities.

Democracy allows for undemocratic behaviour. If it didn't, it wouldn't be democracy.

[Old Tyrannia]

As others have said, this is a bad thing. It'll only force the far-right underground and, at any rate, completely undermines freedom of speech. As Voltaire said, "I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." If a far-right party can be outlawed, why not a far-left one? Why not outlaw every party but the ruling party? You can't pick and choose. That's not how democracy works, when it's working right. And racism won't go away just because the public face of the far-right has been disbanded- this is merely a quick-fix solution to the wider problem, doomed to failure.

[Zaras]

As others have said, this is a bad thing. It'll only force the far-right underground and, at any rate, completely undermines freedom of speech. As Voltaire said, "I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." If a far-right party can be outlawed, why not a far-left one?

Because the far left one isn't advocating the return of Germany to dictatorship?

That's not how democracy works, when it's working right.

Has it ever worked as it's supposed to? There's always been speedbumps and problems.

And racism won't go away just because the public face of the far-right has been disbanded- this is merely a quick-fix solution to the wider problem, doomed to failure.

It should be backed up with more action to solve the problem, but I doubt that'll happen.

[Risottia]

Democracy allows for undemocratic behaviour.

No, democracy doesn't allow for antidemocratic political actions.

If it didn't, it wouldn't be democracy.

If it did, it would cease to exist.

[Zaras]

Hippo: I apologize, but the more you say the less credible you are.

It makes no difference what you think about property rights. The Left is not violating the Constitution, the NPD does in my opinion, though I trust the Court's decision.

It's not about illegal activities. It's about undemocratic and unconstitutional activities.

Democracy allows for undemocratic behaviour. If it didn't, it wouldn't be democracy.

And, as we've seen in the Weimar Republic, democracy can be warped, twisted and destroyed by undemocratic behaviour.

[Crata]

As others have said, this is a bad thing. It'll only force the far-right underground and, at any rate, completely undermines freedom of speech. As Voltaire said, "I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." If a far-right party can be outlawed, why not a far-left one? Why not outlaw every party but the ruling party? You can't pick and choose. That's not how democracy works, when it's working right. And racism won't go away just because the public face of the far-right has been disbanded- this is merely a quick-fix solution to the wider problem, doomed to failure.

Mostly agreed like I said in my OP, but the German government can not "pick and choose". They can't even decide. It's up to the Court to decide according to Art. 21 II GG.

[Sailsia]

I understand Germany's past with extremist right-wingers is horrid, but you can't ban a party because you don't agree with it; it's a suppression of people's freedoms. And the thing is, if you're scared that this party is gaining traction and because of that it must be dispersed, than another party will fill the void. As long as Germany enforces its own laws, they shouldn't be worried about any ideology because everyone's rights will be protected.

[Gallogach]

The idea of banning a political party is tyrannical. It kills freedom of expression, freedom of speech, discourages honest/open debate (which does nothing more than sharpen the truth), and criminalizes otherwise honest citizens. But then again, they will just reorganize under a different name.

[Risottia]

If a far-right party can be outlawed, why not a far-left one?

It already happened in 1956.

[Galloism]

Democracy allows for undemocratic behaviour.

No, democracy doesn't allow for antidemocratic political actions.

If it didn't, it wouldn't be democracy.

If it did, it would cease to exist.

Have the communist and nazi political parties within the US caused our democracy to cease to exist?

[Kvatchdom]

The idea of banning a political party is tyrannical. It kills freedom of expression, freedom of speech, discourages honest/open debate (which does nothing more than sharpen the truth), and criminalizes otherwise honest citizens. But then again, they will just reorganize under a different name.

Their activities broke the constitution. You can't lead a totalitarian party.

[Zaras]

I understand Germany's past with extremist right-wingers is horrid, but you can't ban a party because you don't agree with it; it's a suppression of people's freedoms.

The party in question's entire program is to suppress other people's freedoms.

It kills freedom of expression, freedom of speech, discourages honest/open debate (which does nothing more than sharpen the truth), and criminalizes otherwise honest citizens.

Which is exactly what the neo-Nazis want to do.

[Risottia]

No, democracy doesn't allow for antidemocratic political actions.


If it did, it would cease to exist.

Have the communist and nazi political parties within the US caused our democracy to cease to exist?

How many times have the US nazis attempted openly anticonstitutional, antidemocratical political actions?

The US nazis seem quite tame if compared with their European counterparts.

[Trotskylvania]

A brave attempt to make Hungary an actual communist society. The fact that the Red Army went in and murdered everybody was outrageous and a tragedy.

Eh, not really Hungarian opposition actually begged the West to intervene. They just wanted free and democratic elections and end to political repression organized by the socialists.

Because they naively thought that the West actually cared about freedom.

The official UN Special Committee on the Problem of Hungary report (1957) disagrees with your assessment. The report notes that the primary revolutionary force were the industrial workers of Hungary, who organized workers' councils in the industries, taking control of labor from the party apparatchiks for the express purpose of establishing a socialist economy free from party control (pp. 22). A new, anti-Soviet government was constituted by a coalition of four parties: Communist Party dissidents, the Social Democrats, the Independent Smallholders Party, and Petofi. The government "announced that the four parties were unanimously agreed to retain from the socialist achievements everything which could be used in a free, democratic and socialist country, in accordance with the will of the people" (pp. 24).

[Zottistan]

Democracy allows for undemocratic behaviour.

No, democracy doesn't allow for antidemocratic political actions.

If it didn't, it wouldn't be democracy.

If it did, it would cease to exist.

Democracy does indeed allow for antidemocracy. Democracy allows for all beliefs to be expressed and campaigned for. That's literally the whole point of it. Whether it would work or not is beside the point. Censoring beliefs is fundementally undemocratic.

[Sailsia]

I understand Germany's past with extremist right-wingers is horrid, but you can't ban a party because you don't agree with it; it's a suppression of people's freedoms.

The party in question's entire program is to suppress other people's freedoms.

It kills freedom of expression, freedom of speech, discourages honest/open debate (which does nothing more than sharpen the truth), and criminalizes otherwise honest citizens.

Which is exactly what the neo-Nazis want to do.

Doesn't matter. They have a right to their opinions. As long as they aren't actually suppressing other's freedoms, it's fine. And if they are, than that is already against the law so banning their party would be redundant.