Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register

05-19-2024 , 07:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luciom
Ofc AFD isn't banned, that has nothing to do with Nazism, it would be like banning the democratic party for Marxism.

As for German rules wrt banning parties



https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht...hren_node.html
Right. But again they haven't banned an actual neo Nazi party. So what are these many countries you spoke of earlier?
And it has an important caveat in the sense that it bans parties which seek to overthrow democracy and abolish it.
And the German judiciary suspects ADF of being extremist so I don't think your nothing to do with nazism claim may actually be correct. I take it you think Meloni's party has absolutely nothing at all whatsoever to do with fascism?
Quote
05-19-2024 , 09:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Horror
The use of deadly force to protect property isn't crazy. It just isn't practical. It just causes a larger riot.
Not really no, when people actually start to drop dead the others stop rioting.

Moreover, other stop attempting riots elsewhere in the first place, which is kinda what you want to happen.

No one should even think of rioting ever, in a democratic country.
Quote
05-19-2024 , 09:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile
Right. But again they haven't banned an actual neo Nazi party. So what are these many countries you spoke of earlier?
And it has an important caveat in the sense that it bans parties which seek to overthrow democracy and abolish it.
And the German judiciary suspects ADF of being extremist so I don't think your nothing to do with nazism claim may actually be correct. I take it you think Meloni's party has absolutely nothing at all whatsoever to do with fascism?
I said in many countries Nazi parties are illegal.

Many countries have rules in the books allowing parties to be closed by law in exceptional cases that have to be motivated and so on (details vary between countries), and most of the legal definitions include what we would call a Nazi party (a party that among his policies has the jailing of all political opponents, the suspension of democracy, the banning of all other parties and the extermination of all Jews, gipsies, and so on).

Italy does, germany does, Spain does.

In practicality , given actual neo Nazi parties basically don't exist, they didn't have to ban any afaik, but they banned other evil parties predicated on mass scale unconstitutional violations of basic rights.

As for ADF, it is certainly extremist definitionally (it represents policy preferences that are far from the German center currently), but what has that to do with being unconstitutional? Which ADF policy proposals, or actions where it governs, or parts of it's manifesto, are mass violations of constitutional rights?
Quote
05-19-2024 , 10:54 AM
Well again, Germany didn't ban a bonafide neo Nazi party and again have rather pertinent conditions attached to their authority to ban. Italy still have neo fascist parties and I'm not sure about Spain but I would imagine that the countries you mention also have pertinent preconditions such as an avowed willingness toward violence, overthrowing governments, abolishing of democracy etc. I very much doubt they're banned right off the bat.
Quote
05-19-2024 , 11:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpus vile
Well again, Germany didn't ban a bonafide neo Nazi party and again have rather pertinent conditions attached to their authority to ban. Italy still have neo fascist parties and I'm not sure about Spain but I would imagine that the countries you mention also have pertinent preconditions such as an avowed willingness toward violence, overthrowing governments, abolishing of democracy etc. I very much doubt they're banned right off the bat.
Yes they need to be party actually based on completely illicit policy platforms not just vague references to Nazism or separatism or Marxism or Islam fundamentalism and so on.

Which is the point we are discussing since the beginning. When you start acting politically speech protection disappears in most western countries, 1a is kinda the exception.

But even under the 1a you can consider those chanting death to America a potential actual threat that justifies FBI monitoring and infiltration of the groups and so on. And when they start planning actions you can intervene
Quote
05-19-2024 , 11:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luciom
Yes they need to be party actually based on completely illicit policy platforms not just vague references to Nazism or separatism or Marxism or Islam fundamentalism and so on.

Which is the point we are discussing since the beginning. When you start acting politically speech protection disappears in most western countries, 1a is kinda the exception.

But even under the 1a you can consider those chanting death to America a potential actual threat that justifies FBI monitoring and infiltration of the groups and so on. And when they start planning actions you can intervene
Well my response to you was that you couldn't criminalise radical leftism, which you counterpointed with nazi parties, but you're not fully correct when you claim many countries make nazi parties illegal, as again it's not by rote here but in accordance with specific preconditions.
Quote
05-19-2024 , 12:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luciom
Yes they need to be party actually based on completely illicit policy platforms not just vague references to Nazism or separatism or Marxism or Islam fundamentalism and so on.

Which is the point we are discussing since the beginning. When you start acting politically speech protection disappears in most western countries, 1a is kinda the exception.

But even under the 1a you can consider those chanting death to America a potential actual threat that justifies FBI monitoring and infiltration of the groups and so on. And when they start planning actions you can intervene
I understand you better. Banning parties would look more like denying non-profit status to prevent fundraising and classifying assembly as conspiracy and such.
Quote
05-20-2024 , 09:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Horror
I understand you better. Banning parties would look more like denying non-profit status to prevent fundraising and classifying assembly as conspiracy and such.
I can elaborate with some examples.

There is a blurred line from speech to action, and at some point all countries (including the USA) decide it's action and so it can be criminalized.

Between

/Talking while drunk in a bar about how "uncle Adolph" really had all the solutions (not criminal almost anywhere, reasonably so)

To

/Training and arming a militia to kidnap all sinagogue-goers in a specific city with detailed plans on how to do so, how to kill them and dispose of the bodies and so on (criminalized everywhere I think USA included)

There is an abyss which isn't all just speech.

At some point you get close enough to the actual planning of the actual heinous criminal actions that law enforcement can intervene. Where that happens varies from country to country, and I guess it happens last in the USA, but it can happen.
Quote
05-21-2024 , 11:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luciom
I can elaborate with some examples.

There is a blurred line from speech to action, and at some point all countries (including the USA) decide it's action and so it can be criminalized.

Between

/Talking while drunk in a bar about how "uncle Adolph" really had all the solutions (not criminal almost anywhere, reasonably so)

To

/Training and arming a militia to kidnap all sinagogue-goers in a specific city with detailed plans on how to do so, how to kill them and dispose of the bodies and so on (criminalized everywhere I think USA included)

There is an abyss which isn't all just speech.

At some point you get close enough to the actual planning of the actual heinous criminal actions that law enforcement can intervene. Where that happens varies from country to country, and I guess it happens last in the USA, but it can happen.
And we have a very talented FBI that thwarts attacks all the time.
Quote

      
m