Germany moves to ban NPD

Border-Rat

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,801312,00.html

This is a further indicator that there is no Democratic system in Germany. Either there is free speech or there is not. There is no such thing as partial Democracy or partial freedom of speech. The denial of these basic rights renders the legitimacy of the system void. E.g. questioning the establishment version of history will land a person a criminal record and jailtime, expression of thought must be sanctioned by the State.

Where To

Can't see the problem to be honest.

Jonny7

Border-Rat wrote: »

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,801312,00.html

This is a further indicator that there is no Democratic system in Germany. Either there is free speech or there is not. There is no such thing as partial Democracy or partial freedom of speech. The denial of these basic rights renders the legitimacy of the system void. E.g. questioning the establishment version of history will land a person a criminal record and jailtime, expression of thought must be sanctioned by the State.

Yes there is. You're living in one. In case you haven't noticed you can't run down the street yelling fire, you can't mention a bomb on a plane, you're not free to slander in the press, etc.

Germany is banning that movement because it has links to violent and dangerous militancy.

"..he renewed talk of an NPD ban is the result of Tuesday's arrest of former NPD official Ralf Wohlleben, who is suspected of providing a gun for a trio of neo-Nazis who are thought to have murdered nine people of foreign origin and a policewoman. Police allege that 36-year-old Wohlleben was an accessory to six of the killings."

southsiderosie

Border-Rat wrote: »

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,801312,00.html

This is a further indicator that there is no Democratic system in Germany. Either there is free speech or there is not. There is no such thing as partial Democracy or partial freedom of speech. The denial of these basic rights renders the legitimacy of the system void. E.g. questioning the establishment version of history will land a person a criminal record and jailtime, expression of thought must be sanctioned by the State.

If it is indeed the case that the party in question has links to a neo-Nazi terror organization that has murdered people, why would they not be banned? Groups should only be allowed to participate in democratic politics if they actually observe and follow the rules of that particular democracy. How can a party make laws if they do not follow the law?

Amtmann

The rising anti-German sentiment in this country is both pitiful and idiotic, but sadly predictable.

Benny_Cake

Border-Rat wrote: »

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,801312,00.html

This is a further indicator that there is no Democratic system in Germany. Either there is free speech or there is not. There is no such thing as partial Democracy or partial freedom of speech. The denial of these basic rights renders the legitimacy of the system void. E.g. questioning the establishment version of history will land a person a criminal record and jailtime, expression of thought must be sanctioned by the State.

You are familiar with German history,right?

If the NPD is banned,it will details done through due process,which does exist in Germany.In fact,the last time an attempt was made to ban the party,the Constitutional Court refused to do so.Given German history,and the fact that some members appear to have links to a terrorist group,they are lucky to have remained legal for so long.

Border-Rat

The 'terror cell' is a concocted stitch-up at worst, at best the NPD had members who under their own proclivities engaged in terrorist activity. This type of cooked up guilty-by-association banning exposes the absence of Democracy. Their attempt to ban them before failed, now they're showing their true colors. Its an authoritarian clamp-down.

Benny_Cake

Border-Rat wrote: »

The 'terror cell' is a concocted stitch-up at worst, at best the NPD had members who under their own proclivities engaged in terrorist activity. This type of cooked up guilty-by-association banning exposes the absence of Democracy. Their attempt to ban them before failed, now they're showing their true colors. Its an authoritarian clamp-down.

How can you possibly know if it's a stitch-up?Germany is a democratic country,the courts will decide.The previous attempt to ban them failed so how can you say democracy is absent?

Border-Rat

Benny_Cake wrote: »

How can you possibly know if it's a stitch-up?Germany is a democratic country,the courts will decide.The previous attempt to ban them failed so how can you say democracy is absent?

Even if it isn't a stitch up, it is not grounds to ban the NPD. Guilt by association is not grounds for banning an entire political party, any rational person can see this. The Tories would not be banned in the UK is they had a few rotten apple foot soldiers. Ridiculous. As for the lack of Democracy in Germany, if this happens it'll prove it. As if jailing people for questioning WW2 didn't already. There is no such thing as partial free-speech.

A man who asks inconvenient questions cannot become the leader of Germany, by law. This is not Democratic. This chic/hip authoritarianism. Western style.

Benny_Cake

Border-Rat wrote: »

Even if it isn't a stitch up, it is not grounds to ban the NPD. As for the lack of Democracy in Germany, if this happens it'll prove it. As if jailing people for questioning WW2 didn't already. There is no such thing as partial free-speech.

A man who asks inconvenient questions cannot become the leader of Germany, by law. This is not Democratic. This chic/hip authoritarianism. Western style.

I presume you are referring to those who question the fact of the murder of millions of men,women and children?I don't like censorship but I can understand why Germany does this-it is a total insult to the memory of the victims.Germany has largely come to terms with it's past and has a lot to be proud of there in my opinion.

Pride Fighter

Good move. The party is full of racists and neo-nazis and deserves to be banned.

Border-Rat

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I presume you are referring to those who question the fact of the murder of millions of men,women and children?I don't like censorship but I can understand why Germany does this-it is a total insult to the memory of the victims.Germany has largely come to terms with it's past and has a lot to be proud of there in my opinion.

If I, as an aspiring German Politician asked why Holocaust photos have been airbrushed in order to fool people, I'd be denied the right to any longer be a politician, fined and jailed. This is not Democratic.

Border-Rat

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Good move. The party is full of racists and neo-nazis and deserves to be banned.

That's a paradox. An institution banning opposition under the pretense that the banned party doesn't permit opposition.

Benny_Cake

Border-Rat wrote: »

If I, as an aspiring German Politician asked why Holocaust photos have been airbrushed in order to fool people, I'd be denied the right to any longer be a politician, fined and jailed. This is not Democratic.

If the German people were to elect some Holocaust-denying idiot to public office,that would be something to worry about?The NPD getting banned-not a human rights cause I'm going to get too exercised about to be honest.

Border-Rat

Benny_Cake wrote: »

If the German people were to elect some Holocaust-denying idiot to public office,that would be something to worry about?The NPD getting banned-not a human rights cause I'm going to get too exercised about to be honest.

You miss the point entirely. They're not likely to, but it should be his right to question it. If he can't question it, its undemocratic. There is no such thing as 'almost democratic'. What you're arguing is that the people can't be trusted, so if thats the case, how do we know who they currently elected aren't criminals?

Benny_Cake

Border-Rat wrote: »

You miss the point entirely. They're not likely to, but it should be his right to question it. If he can't question it, its undemocratic. There is no such thing as 'almost democratic'. What you're arguing is that the people can't be trusted, so if thats the case, how do we know who they currently elected aren't criminals?

I'm not arguing that the people can't be trusted.

The German constitution gives extensive powers to the democratic organs of the state and the courts to protect the constitution and the liberal democratic nature of the state.This is to ensure that even if majority of the people wanted to install a totalitarian government,they wouldn't be able to do so.This is precisely to ensure that the events of the early 1930s which led to the Nazi's coming to power would never be repeated.The German constitution was drawn up under Allied supervision in the late 1940s so as you can imagine the Allies felt it important that the weaknesses of the Weimar republic were not replicated.As for Holocaust-denial it is spitting on the memory of the murdered victims of Nazism and I have little sympathy for anyone who does it in Germany of all places.

Border-Rat

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I'm not arguing that the people can't be trusted.

[...]

As for Holocaust-denial it is spitting on the memory of the murdered victims of Nazism and I have little sympathy for anyone who does it in Germany of all places.

Sympathy has nothing to do with it. Again, refusing to let someone question history is undemocratic. Arguing that it should be illegal because the person may become elected is arguing that the people are irresponsible, thus begging the question who is to judge ultimately whether their final decision is legitimate.

murphaph

Germany is more democratic that Ireland lad.

No stupid party whip system in Germany! The party whip system distorts democracy more than banning some ignorant bunch of mullet wearing Neanderthals like the NPD.

They had repulsive posters up during the recent elections here with "GAS geben" on them. This translates literally as "give gas". Normally that means just to "have at it" or "get moving" or simply "accelerate" but the horrible double-entendre in the case of the NPD's use of it what quite clear.

Germany has a 5% rule in the Bundestag to prevent parties that don't have nationwide support of at least 5% from getting a single seat in parliament. They want to make sure the events of the 1930s are not repeated....and given what that bunch of small minded gimps did to Germany and the rest of Europe, who could blame them! (If only other countries would learn the lessons of history and implement lasting measures to make sure they weren't repeated, eh?!)

Germany's democracy is open and transparent. The recent "scandal" with the "leaked" Irish budget business was proof of this: the Ministry of Finance is simply obliged to hand over documents like this as a matter of due course to the CROSS PARTY finance committees in the Bundestag. None of that business of the Dail being kept in the dark and drip fed information from the incumbent government.

Germany is quite simply a far more mature democracy than Ireland, despite being much younger one.

View

Border-Rat wrote: »

Sympathy has nothing to do with it. Again, refusing to let someone question history is undemocratic.

It may - depending on the opinion of the courts - be a denial of an individual's freedom of expression but it isn't undemocratic (unless you are trying to make out that a democratic majority of people in Germany support holocaust denial).

Border-Rat wrote: »

Arguing that it should be illegal because the person may become elected is arguing that the people are irresponsible, thus begging the question who is to judge ultimately whether their final decision is legitimate.

The answer is the Bundesverfassungsgerricht (Federal Constitutional Court).

meglome

Border-Rat wrote: »

If I, as an aspiring German Politician asked why Holocaust photos have been airbrushed in order to fool people, I'd be denied the right to any longer be a politician, fined and jailed. This is not Democratic.

So you think if it was 3 million or 6 million it really makes a difference? Enough legitimate historians agree on the six million figure to be pretty sure it's accurate enough. But what's a half million slaughtered either way between friends.

Zombrex

Border-Rat wrote: »

Even if it isn't a stitch up, it is not grounds to ban the NPD. Guilt by association is not grounds for banning an entire political party, any rational person can see this. The Tories would not be banned in the UK is they had a few rotten apple foot soldiers.

Where are you getting this information from? Who said it was only a few foot soldiers?

Now I don't know anything about the NPD but the article you linked to suggests that it is the leadership of the party, which is why the ban in 2003 couldn't go ahead because the court was concerned that they couldn't rule out police informants in senior positions may have steered the parties direction towards these militant groups, which would be a form of police entrapment.

If the senior leadership of the party are connected with illegal militant organisation that seems a perfect reason to ban the party, since after all the party is a representation of the senior leadership.

Boskowski

Border Rat, you're either misinformed or seem to have a chip on your shoulder it seems.
The NPD cannot be removed just so and if in fact they were it would be on the exact opposite grounds youre statingf inyour OP.
A political party or any organisation can be banned on the grounds of being misanthropic, promoting hatred and/or most importantly aiming at removing the free and democratic order guaranteed by the constitution and thus the constitution itself.
If the NPD is found to be that they will be banned. If former attempt has failed as it happens although that's more down to the fact that those scummy neo-Nazis are well versed in disguising their true aims since they are well aware of being under scrutiny. So they leave the dirty work to even dirtier little sub-organisations which they claim to have no ties with. The tricky bit is to prove they do.
How is that is that not democratic?
To me that is following the constitution to the letter. A constitution I may add that was more or 'less developed' for us by the western allies after WW2 to be the safest and most democratic of them all for our apparent need of it. A constitution designed to withhold any attempt to be removed or undermined by totalitarian forces.

Seriously. Are you a Nazi? That's usually their argument trying to turn things on the head.

PS: sorry did this on the phone

Yahew

murphaph wrote: »

Germany is more democratic that Ireland lad.

Yet it bans political opinion.

No stupid party whip system in Germany! The party whip system distorts democracy more than banning some ignorant bunch of mullet wearing Neanderthals like the NPD.

I don't like party whips, but they hardly invalidate democracies. I do dislike lis systems which basically elect parties, not people. In the case of the list system there is probably no need for a whip, you are where you because of your position on a list, a threat to move you down the list is probably enough to make you come into line. No need for whips because the parties are less full in individuals with individual clout in their constituencies, in short.

They had repulsive posters up during the recent elections here with "GAS geben" on them. This translates literally as "give gas". Normally that means just to "have at it" or "get moving" or simply "accelerate" but the horrible double-entendre in the case of the NPD's use of it what quite clear.

yes, but should they be banned.

Germany has a 5% rule in the Bundestag to prevent parties that don't have nationwide support of at least 5% from getting a single seat in parliament. They want to make sure the events of the 1930s are not repeated....and given what that bunch of small minded gimps did to Germany and the rest of Europe, who could blame them! (If only other countries would learn the lessons of history and implement lasting measures to make sure they weren't repeated, eh?!)

If German's have a 5% rule then they are not really as historically aware as you think, the Nazi's took control with 30-40% of the vote. That 5% wouldn't have stopped them.

Germany's democracy is open and transparent. The recent "scandal" with the "leaked" Irish budget business was proof of this: the Ministry of Finance is simply obliged to hand over documents like this as a matter of due course to the CROSS PARTY finance committees in the Bundestag. None of that business of the Dail being kept in the dark and drip fed information from the incumbent government.

I am sure Ireland has a cross party finance committee too. The irish budget was not actually released to parliament, it was not fully finalised. When it is, it is released. Pretty sure that the germans don't release half assed financial bills, no more than anywhere else.

Germany is quite simply a far more mature democracy than Ireland, despite being much younger one.

I doubt it, I sense the typical Irish inferiority complex raising its timid head once again.

JustinDee

meglome wrote: »

So you think if it was 3 million or 6 million it really makes a difference? Enough legitimate historians agree on the six million figure to be pretty sure it's accurate enough. But what's a half million slaughtered either way between friends.

The party in question is absolutely obssessed with Jews and takes any contrarian stance to jab a finger in the eye of anything Jewish. Its all too familiar and it is hardly surprising that there are laws in place to ensure that what happened before never happens again, especially at the hands of such a band of hateful nutjobs.

In two or three generations time, the last of the Shoah survivors will have died thus the memory of what happened is confined to literature, film and audio. When this time has passed, pro-agendaic revisionists would obliterate what happened and it all gets forgotten or becomes a subject of conjecture.

Auf wiedersehen, Apfel et al. You will not be missed.

Yahew

Boskowski wrote: »

A political party or any organisation can be banned on the grounds of being misanthropic, promoting hatred and/or most importantly aiming at removing the free and democratic order guaranteed by the constitution and thus the constitution itself.

Has this ever been used on Marxist parties?

Benny_Cake

Yahew wrote: »

Boskowski wrote: »

A political party or any organisation can be banned on the grounds of being misanthropic, promoting hatred and/or most importantly aiming at removing the free and democratic order guaranteed by the constitution and thus the constitution itself.

Has this ever been used on Marxist parties?

The KPD (Communist Party of Germany) was declared illegal in West Germany back in the 1950s.

murphaph

Yahew wrote: »

Yet it bans political opinion.

It bans groups who incite hatred etc. It bans terrorist groups (Bader Meinhof etc.). Don't you remember just a few short years ago when the Ireland banned the media from broadcasting the statements of members of Sinn Fein. Ireland went further than the UK indeed in suppressing the message from SF. I fully agree with that stance, though many many people would have said "SF are just a political party, it's censorship etc.".

Yahew wrote: »

I don't like party whips, but they hardly invalidate democracies. I do dislike lis systems which basically elect parties, not people. In the case of the list system there is probably no need for a whip, you are where you because of your position on a list, a threat to move you down the list is probably enough to make you come into line. No need for whips because the parties are less full in individuals with individual clout in their constituencies, in short.

Fair enough. I hate Ireland's electoral system personally. I think it's thoroughly outdated and was devised at a time of bitter civil war division. It's well past its sell by date. The same system was chosen intentionally in Northern Ireland to ensure a parliament that basically can't form a strong government. It breeds massive internal competition within constituencies, much more so than alternative systems (including list systems) and this competition leads TDs to focus far too much of their time on local issues. They then ignore national questions and we have seen the devastating effect this can have. TDs spent ALL their time trying to get new parish halls and swimming pools built and never asked questions about who was regulating the banks!

Yahew wrote: »

yes, but should they be banned.

A court will have to decide that. I believe senior NPD members may be associated to this recently discovered murder cell in Zwickau. It has shocked Germany that these killings were orchestrated by Neo Nazis, under the noses of the police over many years. The police never even considered a connection between the killings and assumed they were just either random murders or perhaps that the foreigners killed had "dodgy connections". If senior NPD members have something to do with this then they should certainly be banned for subverting the democratic institutions of the Federal Republic of Germany.

Yahew wrote: »

If German's have a 5% rule then they are not really as historically aware as you think, the Nazi's took control with 30-40% of the vote. That 5% wouldn't have stopped them.

It's more complicated than that. The 5% rule prevents one particular geographical area from electing a couple of nutjob Abgeordneten (TDs) who can then spout their extreme views in parliament. It has worked quite well for Germany since the NSDAP days. I would welcome it in Ireland to prevent such gombeen men as Jackie Healy Rae and Michael Lowry from being elected and holding successive governments to ransom in exchange for their support..."to hell with my country, what can I get for my parish" politics sickens me as an IRISHman.

Yahew wrote: »

I am sure Ireland has a cross party finance committee too. The irish budget was not actually released to parliament, it was not fully finalised. When it is, it is released. Pretty sure that the germans don't release half assed financial bills, no more than anywhere else.

It has. It has no automatic right to access documents from the DoF as the equivalent committee in Berlin does. There is no way a party in Germany can be elected to government and then claim that "they didn't know it was as bad as it is" as so often happens in Ireland.

Yahew wrote: »

I doubt it, I sense the typical Irish inferiority complex raising its timid head once again.

Pathetic. Argue the points please ffs without resorting to a stupid assumption that I feel inferior as an Irishman. Ireland could do things so much better and it SADDENS me that we don't. We are a nation capable of much more than we have achieved so far.

murphaph

Yahew wrote: »

Has this ever been used on Marxist parties?

I see the point you're trying to make and while being no fan of communists etc. they weren't the side of the spectrum that destroyed this country 60 years ago. Germans reserve a special caution for the extreme right however it should be noted that the current German chancellor is a conservative and Germany has been governed by a CDU chancellor for most of the time since the war. Germany can see the difference between conservative and right wing (something many of the posters on this board have major problems with-not you Yahew)

In Ireland there are no real conservative parties. Even the PDs were in with the give away Ahern government. A true conservative party would not have signed up to the increasing of the size of government and the increases in welfare that ran way ahead of inflation. We have centrist and left leaning parties to choose from. The Germans have a broader spectrum, which is better for democracy.

Ellis Dee

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Good move. The party is full of racists and neo-nazis and deserves to be banned.

You are absolutely right in the first part of that sentence, but I'm not so sure that banning it is the best solution.

Bans only give Arschlöcher und Haudegen like those Tröttel a kind of martyr status and legitimacy, and drive them deeper underground. :cool:

It is better to let them make eejits of themselves in the full glare of publicity and at the same time devote plenty of resources to watching them like hawks and busting them every time they break an existing law, something that is bound to happen sooner or later.

JustinDee

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Bans only give Arschlöcher und Haudegen like those Tröttel a kind of martyr status and legitimacy, and drive them deeper underground

Underground and surveilled is far better than on a platform with deluded support.

bobbysands81

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Good move. The party is full of racists and neo-nazis and deserves to be banned.

I'd prefer to have them out in the open where we can point and laugh at them and utterly ridicule their "political" beliefs.

Dr Galen

bobbysands81 wrote: »

I'd prefer to have them out in the open where we can point and laugh at them and utterly ridicule their "political" beliefs.

This, I would tend to agree with. There is a point though, with groups like these, that the incitement to hatred or commit violence aspect of what they say has to be taken into account.

Boskowski

Yahew wrote: »

If German's have a 5% rule then they are not really as historically aware as you think, the Nazi's took control with 30-40% of the vote. That 5% wouldn't have stopped them.

ah come on do you really think that this just slipped their attention and you are the guy we all needed to point this out to them?

The 5% is there to avert the Weimar situation. The Weimar situation was the presence of so many tiny splinter groups and independents that the parliament was effectively paralysed when it came to decision making as no majority could be got for anything. It was a major factor with regards to the electorate having deemed parliamentary democracy a failure at the time.

Benny_Cake

Boskowski wrote: »

ah come on do you really think that this just slipped their attention and you are the guy we all needed to point this out to them?

The 5% is there to avert the Weimar situation. The Weimar situation was the presence of so many tiny splinter groups and independents that the parliament was effectively paralysed when it came to decision making as no majority could be got for anything. It was a major factor with regards to the electorate having deemed parliamentary democracy a failure at the time.

Indeed,in the final years of the Weimar Republic the President was effectively ruling by decree because it was next to impossible to get a Reichstag majority for anything. Democracy had already started breaking down before the Nazi's came to power. By 1933 a majority of voters were backing parties which wanted to end parliamentary democracy.