Please stop comparing the current German government with fascists.
Trying to ban a political party in the open after year (decade?) long preparation is very different from taking all civil liberties (freedom of expression, freedom of press, freedom to assemble) and putting political opponents in prison (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree 1933)
Indeed. The NPD is stupid enough to be a true wink-wink Neo-Nazi party. To be legally safe in Germany, you can still advocate all the same bigoted policies, you just have to disassociate yourself from the actual Hitler worshipers, and very slightly modulate your rhetoric which incites racial hatred.
Indeed. Part of the investigation is if the NPD party is even big and relevant enough to cause the harm that it is accused of. Based on the March/3rd questioning I'd say it is, but I'm not following too closely.
> it sets a nice precedent for governments to ban any party whose opinions they don't like.
If so, this precedent has existed for many decades in Germany, which has had this law in place and banned two other parties for the same reason over that time.
It hasn't led to the slipperly slope you fear, in Germany or elsewhere. I think people understand that Nazis in Germany are a special circumstance.
As the second part of my comment pointed out, I see this being used to also outlaw parties becoming too overtly anti-EU (which in case you didnt notice, is conveniently conflated with "populist right wing parties" a la UKIP, FN usw).
As the economic and social situation deteriorates, I see anti-EU sentiment becoming waaaaaaaaay more prevalent than it has been during the 70 years post WW2 period you're on about.
> I see this being used to also outlaw parties becoming too overtly anti-EU
This is hard to understand. The party in power in the UK, the Conservatives, are overtly anti-EU and have called a nationwide referendum on leaving the EU. I don't see anyone talking about banning them or the many leading public figures are coming out for Brexit.
> in case you didnt notice, is conveniently conflated with "populist right wing parties" a la UKIP, FN usw
No, it's may others too, as I pointed out above. The parties you mention are actually populist, right-wing, and often racist and xenophobic nationalists.
> I see ... I see ...
To be clear, those are one person's predictions; nothing like it has happened. If any group is at risk of oppression, it's the Muslims and other minorities against whom many of the parties you list openly advocate discrimination.
> The party in power in the UK, the Conservatives, are overtly anti-EU and have called a nationwide referendum on leaving the EU. I don't see anyone talking about banning them or the many leading public figures are coming out for Brexit.
It's a little more complicated than that.
The Conservative party is officially in favour of the EU, although not all of its members are. Whilst it has allowed party members to campaign for leaving the EU, it hasn't allowed them to use parliamentary resources to fund or support their campaign.
"Anti-EU" is also a vague term. There's a difference between "we don't mind the EU existing but don't want to be a member" - a typical UK Euro-sceptic view - and "the EU is great in principal but maybe it needs more skulls on its uniform" - a typical neo-Nazi view.
Whilst nobody is suggesting banning people who campaign for "brexit" - it would be odd considering we're having a referendum on it - it's worth noting that the UK has not, in living memory, attempted to subjugate all of Europe under its ruthless mass-murdering rule. Given their past, German sensibilities may not be as receptive to the idea of wanting to change Germany's position in Europe, and parties which adopt policies of that ilk may be viewed with deep suspicion.
Thanks for filling in some of the details. I know it's more complex than what I wrote, but I'm not paid by the word here. :)
> it's worth noting that the UK has not, in living memory, attempted to subjugate all of Europe under its ruthless mass-murdering rule
I agree with this point but would like to add a tangential one: The UK didn't do that in Europe, but they did it many other places around the world, as did other world powers. Why is murderous oppression acceptable in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe but not in Poland or England?
Amongst people who think it is, there are basically two reasons:
1. Africa is where brown people live.
2. We (in the UK) tend to have a romantic rose-tinted view of how the British Empire treated its colonies. We imagine that our rule was a net positive for the countries we occupied, bringing civilization to primitive tribes. One of the effects of losing the war is that the German people weren't allowed to forgot the atrocities of Nazi Germany. We, on the other hand, were allowed to forget our own atrocities.
> We imagine that our rule was a net positive for the countries we occupied
Just adding to your excellent points: The words net positive are used to justify almost every attrocity in history, including Hitler, Stalin, Mao ... torture by the US government (not comparable to those three but the same rationale) ... etc. etc. You have to break a few eggs to make an omlette, as they say.
Speaking of oppressing muslims, for a government that fully supports the ethnic cleansing policy implemented by the Likud (which let's face it, makes the platform of any european right-wing party pretty mild in comparison), the German .gov sure seems to have peculiar standards of what is morally acceptable for a political party to do or think...
This is an attempt only, has been attempted and failed before. And whatever outcome it will have this time, it can be trusted to be just and reasoned, since this case is being held in front of the one court that has historically been responsible mainly for destroying idiotic proposals from german amateur politicians in the pursuit of protecting the german constitution. If this court agrees, then the NPD was in fact a danger to the constitution.
Keep in mind that while many people may have read about this kind of history in books, germans have lived it.
As I'm always saying in those threads: that whole notion that neonazism is an issue of its own, meriting special treatment, and that democracy must be fortified (please don't look up militant democracy on Wikipedia, both the lemma and the article's content have obviously been written by people who don't know what they're talking about) is something that the United States demanded and forced upon us after WW2.
surprisingly, America never seems to export its own political system and mechanisms when nation-building. I've always found that quite odd.
> Justice Minister Heiko Maas also cautioned that “even if the NPD is banned, that unfortunately doesn’t mean there is no more right-wing extremism in Germany”.
Hit the nail on the head right there. Say they ban the NPD, what's stopping the same people from forming another party that's the same in all but name?
Successor parties are automatically banned, as well.
Of course it's possible to found a completely unrelated neonazi party, but when they miraculously share the top brass, have the same locations for meetings etc. it is pretty obvious.
So it at least puts some administrative and organizational hurdles in the way.
Remember that the Nazis were elected to the legislature, a minority party, and once they were put in power they ended democracy in order to retain power. Another way to look at it: Would it be acceptable for even a majority, 55% of a nation, to elect a leader who would bring an end to future elections (even, for the sake of example, one who pledged to do it)?
Democracy, which I very strongly favor, does have some weaknesses. As someone said, 'Democracy must be more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.'
Also, Germany, with its history, is in a very unusual situation. Neo-Nazis in power is not an acceptable outcome. They also censor new-Nazi materials.
25 comments
[ 10.9 ms ] story [ 77.3 ms ] threadSigh.
Trying to ban a political party in the open after year (decade?) long preparation is very different from taking all civil liberties (freedom of expression, freedom of press, freedom to assemble) and putting political opponents in prison (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_Fire_Decree 1933)
Like most governing political parties all over the world then?
It's entirely unlikely that the anti-EU sentiment that fuels the rise of remarketed right-wing parties all over Europe will persist much longer.
If so, this precedent has existed for many decades in Germany, which has had this law in place and banned two other parties for the same reason over that time.
It hasn't led to the slipperly slope you fear, in Germany or elsewhere. I think people understand that Nazis in Germany are a special circumstance.
As the economic and social situation deteriorates, I see anti-EU sentiment becoming waaaaaaaaay more prevalent than it has been during the 70 years post WW2 period you're on about.
This is hard to understand. The party in power in the UK, the Conservatives, are overtly anti-EU and have called a nationwide referendum on leaving the EU. I don't see anyone talking about banning them or the many leading public figures are coming out for Brexit.
> in case you didnt notice, is conveniently conflated with "populist right wing parties" a la UKIP, FN usw
No, it's may others too, as I pointed out above. The parties you mention are actually populist, right-wing, and often racist and xenophobic nationalists.
> I see ... I see ...
To be clear, those are one person's predictions; nothing like it has happened. If any group is at risk of oppression, it's the Muslims and other minorities against whom many of the parties you list openly advocate discrimination.
It's a little more complicated than that.
The Conservative party is officially in favour of the EU, although not all of its members are. Whilst it has allowed party members to campaign for leaving the EU, it hasn't allowed them to use parliamentary resources to fund or support their campaign.
"Anti-EU" is also a vague term. There's a difference between "we don't mind the EU existing but don't want to be a member" - a typical UK Euro-sceptic view - and "the EU is great in principal but maybe it needs more skulls on its uniform" - a typical neo-Nazi view.
Whilst nobody is suggesting banning people who campaign for "brexit" - it would be odd considering we're having a referendum on it - it's worth noting that the UK has not, in living memory, attempted to subjugate all of Europe under its ruthless mass-murdering rule. Given their past, German sensibilities may not be as receptive to the idea of wanting to change Germany's position in Europe, and parties which adopt policies of that ilk may be viewed with deep suspicion.
> it's worth noting that the UK has not, in living memory, attempted to subjugate all of Europe under its ruthless mass-murdering rule
I agree with this point but would like to add a tangential one: The UK didn't do that in Europe, but they did it many other places around the world, as did other world powers. Why is murderous oppression acceptable in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe but not in Poland or England?
Amongst people who think it is, there are basically two reasons:
1. Africa is where brown people live.
2. We (in the UK) tend to have a romantic rose-tinted view of how the British Empire treated its colonies. We imagine that our rule was a net positive for the countries we occupied, bringing civilization to primitive tribes. One of the effects of losing the war is that the German people weren't allowed to forgot the atrocities of Nazi Germany. We, on the other hand, were allowed to forget our own atrocities.
Just adding to your excellent points: The words net positive are used to justify almost every attrocity in history, including Hitler, Stalin, Mao ... torture by the US government (not comparable to those three but the same rationale) ... etc. etc. You have to break a few eggs to make an omlette, as they say.
Speaking of oppressing muslims, for a government that fully supports the ethnic cleansing policy implemented by the Likud (which let's face it, makes the platform of any european right-wing party pretty mild in comparison), the German .gov sure seems to have peculiar standards of what is morally acceptable for a political party to do or think...
http://www.reuters.com/video/2016/02/16/europe-sentiment-at-... http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-anti-eu-europe-201... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Europeanism http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/swinging-right-left-anti-eu-s...
Keep in mind that while many people may have read about this kind of history in books, germans have lived it.
Except for... the "trial strategy" of the NPD's lawyer which seems to be inspired by Hans Reiser.
surprisingly, America never seems to export its own political system and mechanisms when nation-building. I've always found that quite odd.
Hit the nail on the head right there. Say they ban the NPD, what's stopping the same people from forming another party that's the same in all but name?
Of course it's possible to found a completely unrelated neonazi party, but when they miraculously share the top brass, have the same locations for meetings etc. it is pretty obvious.
So it at least puts some administrative and organizational hurdles in the way.
Democracy, which I very strongly favor, does have some weaknesses. As someone said, 'Democracy must be more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.'
Also, Germany, with its history, is in a very unusual situation. Neo-Nazis in power is not an acceptable outcome. They also censor new-Nazi materials.