Germany To Ban Far-Right Political Party

[Crata]

Good also legalize and hand out death penalty to all their members....

Disagreed.

Article 102 GG:
Capital punishment is abolished.

[Zottistan]

Good also legalize and hand out death penalty to all their members....

Stop feeding Hippo.

[Maineiacs]

Unless they start openly advocating Nazi policies, then don't ban them, just publicly ridicule them for the buffoons they are. If they cross the line, then step on their necks. HARD.

[CTALNH]

Good also legalize and hand out death penalty to all their members....

Disagreed.

Article 102 GG:
Capital punishment is abolished.

Of course it would be banned what do you think I was an idiot?

[Illestia]

Yes because that's actually what a democracy is about. If ideas that differ from the norm, no matter how stupid, are outlawed it's not a democracy.

Besides: The laws still apply, so every partaking in illegal activity by members of the party can still be prosecuted.

And on a sidenote: banning the NPD might very well just make them martyrs in the eyes of the far right and cause certain right groups to escalate their methods, leading to more violence.


Personally i think that the only purpose of the motion to ban them is to distract from the horrible failure in the solving and possibly prevention of the NSU murders.

This isn't a matter of the party being stupid. It's the matter of the party being a criminal conspiracy to establish a totalitarian state. In other words, it's an existential threat to any free society.

Is the move to ban them now more motivated by realpolitik? Yes. But the fundamental principle is still sound. THis isn't an anti-democratic action. What would be antidemocratic, though, would be to leave the gates open an unbarred to existential threats to a free society.

The Problem with that is censoring one fringe group already makes the democracy doing so undemocratic. Yes, it's a paradox, but a democracy, in order to be one, must accept undemocratic thoughts. Otherwise it is not a democracy.
There are other ways to fight nazism then to just outlaw it. Actually it might be a lot more effective to do some useful education (no, not the one being taught in schools today. schools rarely adress modern nazism) then to just ban them and hope that that is the first time a ban on something has actually worked.

[Trotskylvania]

If the government wants to prevent far-right ideologies from taking root, the better approach would be to tackle the core of the problem, rather than stifling them altogether. I thought Germany of all countries would have learned that.

The best way to destroy something is simply, to ignore them. Do not give them any attention for if you do give them attention then since they are attention whores that will only empower them. Example the tea party though they are few in numbers because they got so much attention they had a very big voice and way more power in proportion to their size as a whole.

You see, the responsible members of German society tried that the last time around. It didn't work out so well, because the other half of the establishment suddenly found it quite convenient to collaborate with the Nazis for their own purposes.

Ignoring threats will not make them go away. You can't just choose to not dignify something with a response. That will only give them free reign to organize and mobilize against you.

[CTALNH]

Good also legalize and hand out death penalty to all their members....

Stop feeding Hippo.

Please if I tried to feed him he would start crying and go hide in a corner after 3 minutes.....

[Zohai]

They have. It's in the party's constitution. They are unreconstructed Nazis, and have made it quite clear they intend to abolish democracy if they ever take power.

If the people vote them into power knowing that they intend to remove democracy, the people have voted an end to democracy. Democracy demands that the people get what the people vote for. The bit I was interested in was the "criminal conspiracy" bit. Have they ever said that they plan to overthrow the government? Not the republic, but the governing body of the republic?

The notion that democracy needs to allow it's destruction is so stupid.

[Zaras]

Yes, it's a paradox, but a democracy, in order to be one, must accept undemocratic thoughts. Otherwise it is not a democracy.

Meanwhile, in reality, democracy remains democracy despite banning parties that actively call for its destruction.

[Trotskylvania]

They have. It's in the party's constitution. They are unreconstructed Nazis, and have made it quite clear they intend to abolish democracy if they ever take power.

If the people vote them into power knowing that they intend to remove democracy, the people have voted an end to democracy. Democracy demands that the people get what the people vote for. The bit I was interested in was the "criminal conspiracy" bit. Have they ever said that they plan to overthrow the government? Not the republic, but the governing body of the republic?

But people don't vote to remove democracy.

The last time this happened in Germany, the Nazis got just enough support from the upper classes, and just enough thugs among the destitute, to constitute a serious threat; a state within a state so to speak. They used intimidation and propaganda to influence the results of election in their favor, and as a result, they became one of the largest parties in the Reichstag. The Old Right collaborated, and handed Hitler control of the state as Reichkanzler because he'd take it by force if he had to. And once he had control of the state, he used it to further centralize power in the Nazi Party, abolishing all opposition.

They were able to do all of this precisely because they were free to organize, and considered a legitimate political party rather than the existential threat to the republic that they were.

Someone quoted the head of the NDP earlier in this thread, in which he directly admits they have no respect for legality or the democratic state: "We from the NPD are proud that we are standing in the German domestic intelligence reports every year for supposedly being unconstitutional and against this system. Yes, we are unconstitutional when it comes to fight this system."

I cannot stress this enough: I am not being hyperbolic when I say they are Nazis. They are absolutely unreconstructed "national socialists", and would openly organize as the NSDAP if they could get away with it.

[Zottistan]

If the people vote them into power knowing that they intend to remove democracy, the people have voted an end to democracy. Democracy demands that the people get what the people vote for. The bit I was interested in was the "criminal conspiracy" bit. Have they ever said that they plan to overthrow the government? Not the republic, but the governing body of the republic?

The notion that democracy needs to allow it's destruction is so stupid.

It's also correct. Maybe expand on your argument a little.

Yes, it's a paradox, but a democracy, in order to be one, must accept undemocratic thoughts. Otherwise it is not a democracy.

Meanwhile, in reality, democracy remains democracy despite banning parties that actively call for its destruction.

Except no, it doesn't. Democracy cannot exist when parties who break no laws are banned.

[Zohai]

The political system of the Federal Republic of Germany is also called wehrhafte or streitbare Demokratie (fortified democracy). This implies that the government (Bundesregierung), the parliament (Bundestag) and the judiciary are given extensive powers and duties to defend the freiheitlich-demokratische Grundordnung (liberal democratic order) against those who want to abolish it. The idea behind the concept is the notion that even a majority of the people cannot be allowed to install a totalitarian or autocratic regime, thereby violating the principles of the German constitution, the Basic Law.

[Zaras]

The notion that democracy needs to allow it's destruction is so stupid.

It's also correct.

No it isn't.

Except no, it doesn't. Democracy cannot exist when parties who break no laws are banned.

This party has broken the law by advocating a return to Nazism and is demonstrably a threat to democracy. Stop defending it.

[Illestia]

Yes, it's a paradox, but a democracy, in order to be one, must accept undemocratic thoughts. Otherwise it is not a democracy.

Meanwhile, in reality, democracy remains democracy despite banning parties that actively call for its destruction.

Actually no. A democracy either allows diversity in opinions or chooses what opinions to allow. In the second case it is no longer a democracy.
One of the points that define a democracy is to allow opposition.

Just because something is called a democracy doesn't mean it is.

germany isn't one for multiple reasons, one being that the government is in no way bound to the voters will. Yes, they need to be elected, but after that they are completely seperated from the, supposed, souvereign, i.e. the voters.

[Trotskylvania]

The notion that democracy needs to allow it's destruction is so stupid.

It's also correct. Maybe expand on your argument a little.

Meanwhile, in reality, democracy remains democracy despite banning parties that actively call for its destruction.

Except no, it doesn't. Democracy cannot exist when parties who break no laws are banned.

Um hello, they are breaking the law. Parties that call for the destruction of democracy and the institution of a totalitarian state are banned in the German constitution.

[Zaras]

Actually no. A democracy either allows diversity in opinions or chooses what opinions to allow.

What the hell is it with people going for the tolerance paradox of taking tolerance of intolerance so far they end up excusing and defending intolerance?

One of the points that define a democracy is to allow opposition.

The NPD is not an opposition. It's a group of Nazis who want to destroy democracy.

I won't waste time on your absurd assertion that Germany isn't a democracy.

[Zottistan]

EDIT: Bear in mind, while reading this, that I'm working on the premise that constitutions shouldn't be legally binding.

If the people vote them into power knowing that they intend to remove democracy, the people have voted an end to democracy. Democracy demands that the people get what the people vote for. The bit I was interested in was the "criminal conspiracy" bit. Have they ever said that they plan to overthrow the government? Not the republic, but the governing body of the republic?

But people don't vote to remove democracy.

Which is exactly why we don't need to worry, and can keep such parties legal.

The last time this happened in Germany, the Nazis...

The Nazis were an entirely different situation. They used illegal methods like coercion to come to power, and they should have been nipped in the bud for the illegal way they came to power, not for their beliefs, or what they intended to do after they came to power.

They were able to do all of this precisely because they were free to organize, and considered a legitimate political party rather than the existential threat to the republic that they were.

Indeed. But outlawing parties on the basis of "ha! preemptive strike!" is incredibly undemocratic and unnecessary. If any laws are broken, then you can do something about it. If not, you really have no case.

Someone quoted the head of the NDP earlier in this thread, in which he directly admits they have no respect for legality or the democratic state: "We from the NPD are proud that we are standing in the German domestic intelligence reports every year for supposedly being unconstitutional and against this system. Yes, we are unconstitutional when it comes to fight this system."

I could make the argument that constitutions shouldn't be legally binding, but it'd probably be threadjacking.

I cannot stress this enough: I am not being hyperbolic when I say they are Nazis. They are absolutely unreconstructed "national socialists", and would openly organize as the NSDAP if they could get away with it.

What harm? Until laws are broken, they are legitimate, and, for better or for worse, nothing can be done about legitimate actions.

[Zohai]

Meanwhile, in reality, democracy remains democracy despite banning parties that actively call for its destruction.

Actually no. A democracy either allows diversity in opinions or chooses what opinions to allow. In the second case it is no longer a democracy.
One of the points that define a democracy is to allow opposition.

Just because something is called a democracy doesn't mean it is.

germany isn't one for multiple reasons, one being that the government is in no way bound to the voters will. Yes, they need to be elected, but after that they are completely seperated from the, supposed, souvereign, i.e. the voters.

Nice that you believe that. Unfortunately, almost the entire body of work regarding democratic theory disagrees with you. You are allowed to be as anti-democratic as you like, just not allowed to actively try an remove it. Maybe you want read up on democratic theory.
http://www.bpb.de/shop/buecher/schrifte ... ietheorien

[Indira]

Banning them is ironically in itself antiethical to democracy. It's not like these guys represent a genuine threat and like the BNP, they're a wonderful example of the worst-case examples of modern politics

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Banning them is ironically in itself antithetical to democracy.

I've barely got the energy to do more than that.

How is banning parties that violate the German Constitution and are essentially criminal, as well as being inherently anti-democratic, an anti-democratic idea?

[Zaras]

The Nazis were an entirely different situation. They used illegal methods like coercion to come to power, and they should have been nipped in the bud for the illegal way they came to power, not for their beliefs, or what they intended to do after they came to power.

So the Machtergreifung was bad, but the Holocaust was A-OK.

Nice priorities.

[Zottistan]

Banning them is ironically in itself antithetical to democracy.

I've barely got the energy to do more than that.

How is banning parties that violate the German Constitution and are essentially criminal, as well as being inherently anti-democratic, an anti-democratic idea?

Constitutions in their own right are anti-democratic.

[Zottistan]

The Nazis were an entirely different situation. They used illegal methods like coercion to come to power, and they should have been nipped in the bud for the illegal way they came to power, not for their beliefs, or what they intended to do after they came to power.

So the Machtergreifung was bad, but the Holocaust was A-OK.

Nice priorities.

So the Machtergreifung was illegal, but the holocaust was legal.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

I've barely got the energy to do more than that.

How is banning parties that violate the German Constitution and are essentially criminal, as well as being inherently anti-democratic, an anti-democratic idea?

Constitutions in their own right are anti-democratic.

In Germany's case, not really, given that it was approved by elected members of the Parliamentary Council and then ratified by the democratically-elected governments of each Land.

[Zohai]

EDIT: Bear in mind, while reading this, that I'm working on the premise that constitutions shouldn't be legally binding.

wtf? constitutions are per se legally binding.