Germany’s centre-Right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party and the centre-Left Social Democrats (SPD), which are holding coalition talks, have proposed a law that will block people with multiple extremism convictions from standing in elections.
This will 100% be used to suppress left politicians.
Just ban the fucking AfD already.
Why would it suppress left politicians? It’s not like any of them have multiple extremism convictions, that’s usually rightwing politicians.
Because they might get convicted of something a judge would call left wing extremism. I have zero trust in this system.
Ok, I see now how that could happen - I forget people would abuse a law like that.
Thanks.
For instance partaking in seating blockades on the routes of Nazi demonstrations is considered left wing “extremism” and could be charged as crime ranging from “coercion” to “breach of public peace / rioting”. Now whether it is convicted as such is a different topic, but for instance many climate activists have been convicted with prison times for glueing themselves to the streets. Many courts consider this to be violent coercion. So making yourself vulnerable and unable to act, but in the way of some car, this is violent extremism in Germany.
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.
A party ban in germany results also in a pohibition to form follow up parties. That’s why we should aim for the party and not single members
Maybe also consider bribery convictions and we might get rid of a few CDU/CSU politicians as well 🙃
By far not the same level as extremism.
Fck little sister of whataboutism, the self-elevating sarcasm.
So you’re OK with a plutocracy?
This is a slippery slope fallacy I believe. Stop with the fallacious reasoning
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.
The comment I‘m commenting
Yeah but clearly the original comment is ironic since it addresses CDU as corrupt. You know, one of the two parties that would be main drivers behind the suggested extremists banning?
Soo it kind of looks like whataboutism.
The comment is very unlikely to be sarcastic. CDU is known to have deep ties into every single incumbent industry in Germany and Merz himself is a former chemical lobbyist and was a chair of the German BoD of BlackRock.
Yeah but that’s what i’m saying, given that this same CDU is one of the two parties behind the coalition talks for banning far-right politicians. Only a sarcastic comment would suggest them to do a similar vote against bribery which would get rid of a lot of CDU politicians themselves. Why would they do that if they are corrupt, vote against their own interests?
So, then why suggest this at all? Clearly to steer the discussion away from the original topic - banning far- right politicians.
I do appreciate the info tidbit there that CDU are corrupt, but I don’t appreciate the distraction. Or that was my point, anyway.
Wake us up when it’s “have”.
They’re not gonna
A similar system has been there to prevent Nazism rise. Sadly, AfD and other right wing parties found a loophole a decade ago.
If you’re talking about the option of banning the entire party: The “loophole” that Afd is exploiting is that this action needs political support and gonservatives are unwilling to give political support for banning a(nother) right-wing party. Is that really a loophole?
Its amazing how things work, the defendors of the democracy are asking to ban a political party. Do this exercise with me, imagine a country where the majority of people want a “far-right” party to rule them, they voted for them on a free and clean election. It can be for a lot of reasons, security, education, social paradox, conservative economic reasons, emigration… whatever, you choose, what would you do? Deny the will of the majority of the people from that country or let them freely choose what they want like true defendors of free will? Im not judging im just curious, i know my answer but i want to ear yours
Protecting minorities from the terror of the majority and protecting democracy for future generations that cannot vote yet are essential parts of democracy.
To answer your question:
Deny the will of the majority of the people
yes, because what you describe is not democracy, it’s mob rule
yes, because what you describe is not democracy, it’s mob rule
First part i agree with you but this one makes no sense to me, you are telling me that its only democracy when people align with your views, if they dont think the way you do “is not democracy”. I dont agree with this one tbh.
when people align with your views
Where do you even get that from? Far-right “values” are just outside of the democratic spectrum. Far-right ideologies are invariably rooted in hurting minorities, usually defined on the basis of outward characteristics like phenotype.
One theory holds that democracy requires three fundamental principles: upward control (sovereignty residing at the lowest levels of authority), political equality, and social norms by which individuals and institutions only consider acceptable acts that reflect the first two principles of upward control and political equality.[26] Legal equality, political freedom and rule of law[27] are often identified by commentators as foundational characteristics for a well-functioning democracy.[19]
Yes. Would you allow a company to sell actual poison that is marketed as a health food? What if a study showed 50.1% of all people believed it was not actually poisonous because of a successful marketing campaign by the company? What if innocent babies and children were ingesting this poison because their parents believed it was safe?
What if all those people believed companies shouldn’t be allowed to sell poison. But that this company should be allowed to sell their product because they mistakenly believe it’s not poison.
If you agree with banning a child killing poison but not with banning a far right party, please explain how it’s fundamentally any different.
While the idea sounds good I don’t think anyone should be setting a precedent to say it’s okay for elected governments to ban opposition parties from running based on their political views. Ultimately the people should hold the power.
Nah, that’s the paradox of tolerance. A democracy cannot allow fascists to run without dismantling itself. Also fascism and other “political views” that dehumanize are not a political view, they are chargeable criminal offenses in many countries.
That is a dangerously reckless and ignorant take of the paradox. The paradox is a rejection of protecting the intolerant, and their use of an argument they do not adhere to themselves. It does not mean we should build the tools and laws of fascist oppression to combat fascism.
It’s no different to a “means test” for voting. It sounds great initially, but falls apart if you dig deeper. The virtue of the means test is determined by who governs the means test. Once you create it, 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 gov could decide who could and couldn’t vote because of X, and any future gov could control the terms of X.
No. The tolerance paradox generally is interpreted to mean that any tolerant society that tolerates intolerance destroys itself. See Wikipedia first paragraph tolerance paradox. Any serious democratic constitution bases itself on humanism and the idea that human rights cannot be infringed on except to protect the human rights of others. Allowing participants in political discussions who question that is outright fucking stupid. They must be excluded, deconstructed, and fought in the streets if necessary. Using the US as an example for anything democracy related is on the same level as using China as an example for well implemented communism.
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 current/future populist achieve their goal of 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?
- 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 be 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 harm than good, or you can dig in and continue resorting to logical fallacies.
DO IT! JUST DO IT! 🧍
It’s a really bad idea - forcing your own political opinions is a key characteristic of the ‘fascism’ you claim to want to ban.
Germany has a usable definition for bannable behavior, as there already is a law to ban entire parties. That criterion is having the “goal of overturning liberal-democratic basic order (FDGO)”. I would imagine that this criterion would be used here as well.
The big issue with any form of attempted suppression will not suddenly sway their voters. It would be much smarter to not give people a reason to fall for populists.
But that would be too easy, I guess.
But that would be too easy, I guess.
It’s absolutely not easy at all. Afd acts like a cult, getting people de-radicalized will take a lot of effort. And politics that emphasizes societal solidarity and education about democracy, culture, etc.; instead we have gonservatives gutting funding for all of these topics.
You seem to think that everyone who is voting for the AfD is radicalized, which couldn’t be further from the truth. Many people who voted for them just saw it as the only option for change. We had CDU/SPD for over a decade where the standard of living declined constantly, then we had red yellow green which tanked it completely - that’s almost every party we have available on a national level. The only options are left and AfD, and I’m gonna be honest, the left does not sound appealing to people who understand economics.
Knocking the AfD down to sub 10% would be rather simple - politics just has to shift into a direction where it’s pro-population, not pro-top1%. Plenty of stuff could be done to ease the economic pressure of the population, but they rather ensure that people stay at the right I guess.
Many people who voted for them just saw it as the only option for change.
You’re right, these change-for-change’s sake people do exist. And I don’t know what to say to them, except maybe that if they just excitement in their lives, going bungee-jumping might be better than voting neonazis into power. Their existence seems like a failure of political education too.
But, there’s another, probably much larger group of people who were sucked into propaganda channels that run divide & conquer strategies on society. Much like the change-people, they are barely political but they can be mobilized by irrational fears, like Lidl selling chocolate bunnies being a precursor for their own forced islamization.
In your post, the combination of this “The only options are […] AfD” and this “politics just has to shift into a direction where it’s pro-population, not pro-top1%.”
… is utterly baffling. Right-wing parties, AfD, Fdp, CxU, etc., are quite explicitly pro-special interest, not pro-populace. The further right, the more special the interests. And sure, these parties claim they are proposing common-sense “non-ideological” “sane” ideas while actually ignoring science, ignoring precedent, ignoring negative outcomes for society. That’s their whole MO. If you don’t want the 1% to profit, then maybe just don’t vote anything right of the SPD (and even SPD is a questionable choice in that regard).
the left does not sound appealing to people who understand economics.
Interestingly enough, the economic proposals contained in the last election platform of the Left party were the most financially solid among all parties in that election (as detailed by multiple institutes, e.g. ZEW [de-DE]). The Left were the only party where the state was least burdened with unexplained money outflow that would be prohibited under the debt brake.
Is it possible that by “people who understand economics” you mean the group of people that currently profits from existing inequality? I.e. the 1%ers and the 10%ers. Because that’s the people who would “suffer” from the Left’s proposals (actually, while they’d make less money, they’d most likely live in a much more physically secure society).
Nope, if the AfD gets banned, the entire structure and funding crumbles. It will take decades to build up this kind of Nazi momentum.
First of all, no, that’s wrong. The AfD got to where they are in 12 years, and that was from 0 - do you really think it would take them another 10 years to get to the point where they are now?
Second of all, it STILL would not convince the people that the AfD is wrong and they would just fall for the next right-wing populist party. So even if it would work, it would only be a temporary solution to a major issue.
First of all, no. They won’t exist and can’t establish anything similar if the party gets forbidden. They won’t be able to do shit.
Second of all, there is no next right wing populist party like that.
That’s the whole reason to ban a party.
Tbf, if you remember, the Afd started out as a party critical to European integration and the Euro in particular. They were right of Merkel’s CDU and they were dumb but they were not fascist. But very, very quickly, they were infiltrated in various ways by people and funds who were previously entangled with the NPD (now “Heimat”).
And there definitely are a bunch of other right-wing parties that ex-Afd people could hop onto: Werteunion, Bündnis Deutschland, yada. It’s reasonable to ask how quickly this would happen. The real solution is actually teaching democracy and living democracy, from a young age, and with the chance to actually have a real impact.
At the very least, it’d buy us more time to educate the masses. But I’m not optimistic that this will work. Social media needs to die first for that and that’s not likely to happen. Tossing some lies around via bots funded by Russia is so, so much easier than refuting said claims with facts. People have no interest in spending time and effort to do research. Plus the short format content being pushed everywhere completely destroys people’s capability to focus on anything that take more than 20 seconds.
Banning the AfD will also make sure that the same people can’t work together anymore. They’ll have a very hard time building up something like this again. At least in the foreseeable future.
At the very least, it’d buy us more time
That it will.
to educate the masses. But I’m not optimistic that this will work. Social media needs to die first for that and that’s not likely to happen.
I am less pessimistic. But I do think ownership structure of social media needs to change.
Banning the AfD will also make sure that the same people can’t work together anymore.
Legally? Like forcing people to find new circles of friends? I can’t quite imagine that.
