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.
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?
Yeah, sadly there is only one way to defeat Nazis and it’s not easy or liked by most.
I love how the commenters on that page hating all on the “far-left”, despite the left has exactly nothing to do with that idea. dumb fucks as far one can see.
It’s classic whataboutism and trying to draw false equivalencies to muddy the waters. They want to put everyone else on defense about the decision to ban Nazis by making you waste time explaining why someone else isn’t a Nazi.
To sum up: fuck them. Nazis are bad. Please continue punching them, both metaphorically, legally, and physically as needed to keep them in their hidey holes.
For what it’s worth, I wish we would do the same thing.
But with a proper definition where “center” is pretty far right.
Then they’ll ban far left politicians from running.
Then they’ll ban anyone they don’t like.
And eventually, they’ll ban everyone who isn’t them.
Right wing lunatics are repulsive in almost every sense, but this isn’t the way you beat them. When you put the machinery in place to do something like this, it will inevitably be abused in the opposite direction in future.
It’s much harder to be abused when you ban the only party abusing it.
Removed by mod
Do it. Honestly I’m a little surprised you didn’t do it 80 years ago
In a way we did. Anticonstitutional parties are generally not allowed. The problem is that courts and judges must be absolutely convinced that a party is anticonstitutional to actually ban them.
While I understand the point, won’t this just make politicians run on lies even more?
A far-right uprising in Germany, which is at the moment re-militarizing itself. Doesn’t anybody else worry about that?
That’s a point we are really worried about here in Germany too. The armament of the nation feels wrong in itself too many of us (even though most of us don’t have any better ideas when looking at Putin-Russia). But the outlook that the AfD (our stupid Nazi party) could inherit the upgraded army and it’s arsenal one day is really frightening.
Yes we could, but the inner security is stalling the investigation and the conservatives and liberals think they could get the nazi votes and lean heavily into the rethorik. Yeaaah doesnt work out. Never did
This absolutely needs to be a thing in every country. Ban far right parties, ban far right media
Considering the CDU could be considered a far right party themselves, they just wanna eliminate their competition, so i wouldn’t get my hopes up.
They literaly had an election poster with the slogan “You don’t have to vote for the AfD to get what you want. There is a democratic alternative: the CDU!”.
As long as privately owned press and corporate social media algorithms try to shift the overton window as far right as it can go that’s not gonna happen.
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).
It’s like banning marijuana and then expecting people to just not do it.
While restricting other pain medication.
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.
The issue being Germany. Country who commited genocide should lose their right to exist. Totale Rückverdummung now
Less inequality and better education are really the only solution.
People reach for extremism when they feel let down by the existing system.
Less inequality and better education are really the only solution.
People reach for extremism when they feel let down by the existing system.
Whatever actual or perceived grievances a person may have (even though merely being born in Germany already constitutes winning the global class lottery) - that only ever causes vulnurability.
That person then turning to actively undermining democratic systems and the international community is something that only happens if some con artist used that vulnurability to convince the person that it constitutes a solution to their problems.Equality and education are great. Letting con artists run around freely is a completely separate issue. Letting folk get scammed out of their life savings is just as detrimental to a healthy society as letting folk get scammed out of their vote.
They know too well what happens when you let these fuckers get power.
Does this have more backing than the motion to ban the AfD entirely did?
The CDU thinks they will get their votes but they won’t.
Removed by mod
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
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.
I would allow that company to sell poison.
But I would not allow them to market it as health food.
If a party campaigns on far right ideals, and get elected, then fair enough, that’s democracy. Sometimes you have to admit that your views are not wanted.
However, if a far right party campaigns on truth and love and free kittens for everyone, then instead is shown to be liars and haters and give out free guns, then I would have an issue.
“I would have an issue” that IS what’s happening. Far right parties’ modus operandi IS constantly lying, much much more than left wing ones, pretty much everywhere. So you have an issue with them correct?
Removed by mod
There we go… Your arguments are indeed so strong that im speechless, you are a comunication guru my friend
Free speech is only allowed if you agree with it, huh?
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]
This is a paradox well described by Popper. The gist is: You can not be tolerant towards the intolerant.
You can not be tolerant towards the intolerant.
Yep, The paradox of Tolerance. Its way more deep that we think it is
I never considered it all that much of a paradox. If anything, it’s a linguistic contradiction. It’s a question of whether we should tolerate someone (in-)directly causing/wishing harm onto others. It also doesn’t matter whether they understand it themselves.
A lot of aspects that are considered “political”, are arguably just “harm onto A that benefits B”. I think it is right to call these out. Universal health care, education, affordable housing, etc. Take off the capitalistic monocle, and certain “rights” and “wrongs” are painfully obvious.
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?
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.
This is a slippery slope fallacy I believe. Stop with the fallacious reasoning
Not really. Governing through bribery is a way to implement plutocracy.
To be clear: “I tolerate plutocracy but I draw the line at fascism” is a valid opinion, even if I don’t agree with it. I was just asking if that’s the opinion held by our fellow lemming.
Won’t do much if nobody ever gets convicted for bribery/ corruption
If the thing that user asked to happen doesn’t happen then the thing won’t happen?
Do you smell burnt toast?
If the thing that user asked to happen doesn’t happen then the thing won’t happen?
My understanding was that they asked that politicians with bribery convictions are blocked from running in elections (aka the topic of this thread).
Which can not happen if the prerequisite bribery convictions - which is something different from being blocked from the elections - have not been met.
I can see what your line of thought was now, ty for elaborating
