Germany To Ban Far-Right Political Party

[Genivaria]

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

Nice priorities.

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

What the actual fuck?

[Illestia]

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

I wont comment on the rest of the post for a multitude of reasons, the main one being that it would lead too far astray.

But considering that point if i would form a party it would have to be banned either because i would too actively fight the current state of "representative democracy" in germany to replace it with a more direct form that actually takes the will of the people into consideration.
So, would that be ok too? I would be fighting for MORE democracy (or better for "direct democracy") but i would still be, in a way, trying to demolish the current form of democracy that is practiced now.

Legally it would be perfectly admissible to try and ban that party. But would it morally be? If not then its a "pick and choose buffet" of banning parties that oppose the curent stateform. And that is not democratic.

[Zottistan]

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.

Hence "shouldn't be".

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

What the actual fuck?

The holocaust was issued by the state, so it was legal under state law.

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.

If it restricts who can and can't run for government, or how they do it to within reason, it's undemorcatic. It might be democratically approved, but it's still undemocratic.

[Zaras]

So, would that be ok too? I would be fighting for MORE democracy (or better for "direct democracy") but i would still be, in a way, trying to demolish the current form of democracy that is practiced now.

You're fighting for a gradual evolution and increased democracy. The neo-Nazis fight to destroy democracy and replace it with totalitarianism.

[Zaras]

The holocaust was issued by the state, so it was legal under state law.

Oh my fucking god



You cannot be serious

If it restricts who can and can't run for government, or how they do it to within reason, it's undemorcatic. It might be democratically approved, but it's still undemocratic.

Your semantic sophistry is really getting nowhere.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

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.

If it restricts who can and can't run for government, or how they do it to within reason, it's undemocratic. It might be democratically approved, but it's still undemocratic.

So in your vision of a democracy a post-Holocaust Adolf Hitler would have been allowed to run for President?

[Zottistan]

The holocaust was issued by the state, so it was legal under state law.

Oh my fucking god



You cannot be serious

Yeah. I can. And am. The holocaust was terrible, but legal.

If it restricts who can and can't run for government, or how they do it to within reason, it's undemorcatic. It might be democratically approved, but it's still undemocratic.

Your semantic sophistry is really getting nowhere.

It's not sophistry. I've yet to see a post showing how it's wrong.

[Zottistan]

If it restricts who can and can't run for government, or how they do it to within reason, it's undemocratic. It might be democratically approved, but it's still undemocratic.

So in your vision of a democracy a post-Holocaust Adolf Hitler would have been allowed to run for President?

Yes. And, provided he stayed within the law, nobody would have voted for him.

[Mycellena]

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" -Voltaire

Not being an expert in German legal practices I cannot say for certain if any laws have been broken or the constitution violated in some way. I can however completely see how the banning of even the most deserved of parties can potentially be seen as a weakening of German Democracy. Will Germany's democratic system collapse because of this act? Certainly not. In all likelihood the 1% of the population affected by this decision will disperse among other political parties or else form some kind of new coalition. They'll be back before long if their membership is truly determined to the ideals of their former party. Mark my words, we'll be having this same conversation again around next year.

[Zohai]

Hence "shouldn't be".

Then it's not a constitution.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

So you want the German Constitution to be amended to allow antidemocratic, violent and racist parties to be legalised?

Yes. Boohoo, bad things happened once. Bad things happen all the time. If the majority of a population wants something they should be allowed to have it, at the very least all ideas should be given fair consideration regardless of what they are. The best way to defeat ideas of racism or political extremism isn't to outlaw them, it is to debate them, to use logic to prove them wrong. You are the worst kind of person, the kind that is willing to trade freedom for potential security. You wanna know what organizations are legal in the US? The KKK is legal, the Black Panthers are legal, you can be a member of the Skinheads, yet the US has yet to fall into a state akin to Nazi Germany.

[Priory Academy USSR]

So you want the German Constitution to be amended to allow antidemocratic, violent and racist parties to be legalised?

Yes. Boohoo, bad things happened once. Bad things happen all the time. If the majority of a population wants something they should be allowed to have it, at the very least all ideas should be given fair consideration regardless of what they are. The best way to defeat ideas of racism or political extremism isn't to outlaw them, it is to debate them, to use logic to prove them wrong. You are the worst kind of person, the kind that is willing to trade freedom for potential security. You wanna know what organizations are legal in the US? The KKK is legal, the Black Panthers are legal, you can be a member of the Skinheads, yet the US has yet to fall into a state akin to Nazi Germany.

It was pretty nasty back in the late 19th/early 20th century.

[Zottistan]

Hence "shouldn't be".

Then it's not a constitution.

Are you intentionally beating around the point or can you seriously not spot it? I'm against the existence of constitutions.

[Port Myreal]

Banning an extreme nationalist party will only cause the establishment of a more popular moderate nationalist party.
In Germany's neighbouring countries Switzerland, Austria and the Netherlands, in which no far-right parties exist, nationalists tend to vote right-wing populist parties like the SVP, the FPÖ or the PVV. Their program may be less radical but they manage to attract way more voters (SVP 26.6%, FPÖ 17.54%, PVV 10.1%; NPD 1.8%).

[Herskerstad]

Cleverly done by Merkel, as her party being the mainstream right will probably absorb the fringe right votes on top of it.

It's the left which should be worried about this, as the party banned only carried ceremonial weight. If it looked to become a genuine contender then there would be an issue, but there's no way such would occur.

Why should the left be worried about anti-democratic parties being banned when the largest leftist party in Germany is democratic socialist?

Because it will be that much harder for the left in Germany to fight a unified rightist front. Limiting competition is just one way to make a vote stronger, whereas the left in Germany will be spread out over parties that will inevitably have more friction in their alliance.

[Crata]

There still are two right-wing parties without the NPD - the Christian Democrats and the Free Democrats.

[Euronion]

If you are in favor of democracy, then you should be against this.

wrong. If you are in favor of Freedom or any kind of representation then you should be against this. I hate Communism vehemently yet I detest the decision of the USA to ban the Communist Party. Why? because Freedom of Speech, Religion, Expression, and Press are what separate us from tyranny both totalitarian and authoritarian.

[Kvatchdom]

There still are two right-wing parties without the NPD - the Christian Democrats and the Free Democrats.

They're not supporting totalitarism. Nor are they beating up people.

[Euronion]

Banning an extreme nationalist party will only cause the establishment of a more popular moderate nationalist party.
In Germany's neighbouring countries Switzerland, Austria and the Netherlands, in which no far-right parties exist, nationalists tend to vote right-wing populist parties like the SVP, the FPÖ or the PVV. Their program may be less radical but they manage to attract way more voters (SVP 26.6%, FPÖ 17.54%, PVV 10.1%; NPD 1.8%).

And this matters why? I do not see how one can justify silencing a group of people, far-left or far-right.

[Euronion]

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" -Voltaire

Not being an expert in German legal practices I cannot say for certain if any laws have been broken or the constitution violated in some way. I can however completely see how the banning of even the most deserved of parties can potentially be seen as a weakening of German Democracy. Will Germany's democratic system collapse because of this act? Certainly not. In all likelihood the 1% of the population affected by this decision will disperse among other political parties or else form some kind of new coalition. They'll be back before long if their membership is truly determined to the ideals of their former party. Mark my words, we'll be having this same conversation again around next year.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a catholic.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

[Trotskylvania]

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

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

(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

Pick one! You can't argue both at the same time!

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

So that they can organize to destroy the republic without fear of consequence until it's too late for us to do anything? Yeah, no.

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 got into a position to do being able to hold the elected government hostage precisely because they were considered a legitimate political party and not a criminal conspiracy. They worked very hard to minimize the thuggery until the SA became strong enough to be a threat to the state.

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.

Laws were broken. The fundamental law of the Federal Government of Germany was broken.

Quit defending Nazis, and pretending they aren't lawbreakers.

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

You really shouldn't because you seem to think breaking laws is sufficient reason to deal with these people. Breaking the fundamental laws of a nation ought to be held to at least the same standard.

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

Laws were broken, and their organization and actions are not legitimate.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" -Voltaire

Not being an expert in German legal practices I cannot say for certain if any laws have been broken or the constitution violated in some way. I can however completely see how the banning of even the most deserved of parties can potentially be seen as a weakening of German Democracy. Will Germany's democratic system collapse because of this act? Certainly not. In all likelihood the 1% of the population affected by this decision will disperse among other political parties or else form some kind of new coalition. They'll be back before long if their membership is truly determined to the ideals of their former party. Mark my words, we'll be having this same conversation again around next year.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a catholic.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

That's genuinely disgusting. Using Martin Niemoeller's poem, composed inside Sachsenhausen, to try and defend a group of Neo-Nazis whose party explicitly goes against the German constitution and many of whose leaders are convicted criminals. Remind me again of what the BRD's planning to do here. Is it planning to cart off NPD members to concentration camps and work them to death or shoot them? No, it fucking well isn't, and your appropriation of an anti-Nazi poem written inside the heart of Nazi Germany when the author was imprisoned to leap to the defence of the ideological descendants of Niemoeller's imprisoners is just sick.

It's not even disgusting, it's just pathetic and intellectually dishonest.

[Trotskylvania]

If you are in favor of democracy, then you should be against this.

wrong. If you are in favor of Freedom or any kind of representation then you should be against this. I hate Communism vehemently yet I detest the decision of the USA to ban the Communist Party. Why? because Freedom of Speech, Religion, Expression, and Press are what separate us from tyranny both totalitarian and authoritarian.

Then you're foolish, because the late 40s to 50s CPUSA was totally committed to Stalinist totalitarianism, and had no place in a free society. Their banning was totally justifiable.

[Port Myreal]

And this matters why?

I'd rather see a small far-rightist party in Germany, which will never pass the 5% threshold, than a PVV-like party which gets 10% of the seats in the Bundestag.

I do not see how one can justify silencing a group of people, far-left or far-right.

Me neither.

[Trotskylvania]

Banning an extreme nationalist party will only cause the establishment of a more popular moderate nationalist party.
In Germany's neighbouring countries Switzerland, Austria and the Netherlands, in which no far-right parties exist, nationalists tend to vote right-wing populist parties like the SVP, the FPÖ or the PVV. Their program may be less radical but they manage to attract way more voters (SVP 26.6%, FPÖ 17.54%, PVV 10.1%; NPD 1.8%).

And this matters why? I do not see how one can justify silencing a group of people, far-left or far-right.

They're not being silenced. Their criminal conspiracy is being plowed under.