The Alternative for Germany (AfD) has gained ground in three recent state elections, caused an uproar in the Thuringian parliament and triggering another debate on whether to ban the party outright.

  • Roflmasterbigpimp@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    165
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    FINALLY. And to everyone who is like “tHiS wiLl MaKe ThInGs WorSe!!11” or “bAnNiNg ThE pArTy WoN’t hElP”. SHUT THE FUCK UP.

    These are LITERALLY Nazis. Even more than the US Trump-Rep’s.

    And since Russia is not willing to throw 25 Million People on them again and is much more keen to join them, since they are heavily involved with the AFD:

    -https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/deutschland/putin-afd-zusammenarbeit-100.html

    -https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/deutschland/petr-bystron-afd-russland-100.html

    -https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2024/kw15-de-aktuelle-stunde-russland-afd-997398

    -https://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2024-04/afd-russische-regierung-strategiepapier

    I’m not willing to take any chance on that. We have Laws for EXACTLY this scenario, time for our government to grow a spine and starts protecting democracy!

    We did it once, we can do it again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Reich_Party

    • JigglySackles@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      I think their party should be banned and all funds currently donated and accounts related should be redirected to counter facism efforts and education.

    • where_am_i@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      68
      ·
      3 days ago

      They banned NPD and AFD happened.

      All you’ll get is a new party filling up the political vacuum and their audience being even more die-hard radicals.

      In a democracy where some 30% vote nazi, banning them won’t solve anything. Anything.

      No, I won’t shut up, because you and people like you are part of the problem. If you think the solution is to jail and ban your political opponents, I got bad news for you.

      • narp@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        74
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        Nearly everything you said is just plain wrong:

        • The NPD never got banned (supposedly because the party was “insignificant”).
        • They renamed themselves “Die Heimat”.
        • If banned, a follow up party from the AfD would be automatically banned too.
        • You make it sound like 30% of Germans vote AfD, while they get that many votes mainly in the eastern states.
        • You talk about democracy and call Nazis “political opponents”. I got news for you: Those fascist scums’ only goal is to get rid of democracy, sell Europe to Russia and maybe start a third world war.

        So keep on talking as much as you like, everyone with half a brain can see right through you.

        • where_am_i@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          2 days ago

          ah, ok, tell me please, what exactly do you see right through? I wanna know. For research purposes. (And to report it to the headquarters, so we could improve our sabotage operation).

          • bungalowtill@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            I guess he was just polite, assuming someone making all those false claims would at least do it with some purpose.

            • where_am_i@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              Oh yeah, that last implication certainly is full of polite implying. I’m honored.

              You know what I see? Someone who’s afraid that their world order will change. And their solution is “lock them up while we’re in the majority”.

              You know what I also see? A failed German re-unification, extreme arrogance of the west Germans towards east Germans, a bouquet of additional socio-economical problems that have been ignored for decades. And a consequent voters’ revolt.

              And their solution? Tell all those angry people that they’re nazi and their problems will continue being ignored. I’m sure that will solve it.

              The party in question, AfD, is fuckin scary. They, in fact, are openly nazi. And, yet, I promise you, banning them and continuing to ignore the underlying issues will only make things worse.

              – Your Polite But Malicious Kremlin Bot

      • somenonewho@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        35
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        Most of your points were already correctly dismantled. But I’d just like to ad to

        In a democracy where some 30% vote nazi, banning them won’t solve anything. Anything.

        Is a sentiment I often feel too. I believe that we have to do so much more to fight against Fascists than just Vote and “use the democratic system correctly”. (I.e. fight fascism in the streets, offer actual political solutions to peoples problems…). But to say this won’t do anything is a huge understatement.

        Banning the AfD will:

        1. Disband the party leaving them in shambles to reorganize
        2. Stop the money flow which is going to the AfD (and in turn to other right wing groups
        3. Finally delegitimize the AfD and their main actors in a Democratic setting

        A ban would be an amazing feat but it would just be a little breather in the fight against fascism.

        • where_am_i@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          2 days ago

          You can only ban them if they seriously threaten the democratic order. Which some of their members might claim to want to do, but so far the whole party hasn’t shown much of action in the direction.

          If you do ban your political opponents because “now they need to reorganize and won’t get money”. You will only strengthen their point that the current democratic order cannot be trusted and that their voters are ignored by the system. You will turn 10% of hardcore voters and 20% of rebel voters into 30% hardcore voters.

          And then good luck to you with having any democracy whatsoever. Or do you plan to maybe institute a special democratic police and jail everyone with antidemocratic views? What about jailing some 30% of a certain region of your country? How do you imagine this will go down?

          • somenonewho@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            2 days ago

            Yes you can only ban them if they threaten the democratic order. Or to be more precise:

            Eine Partei kann nur dann verboten werden, wenn sie nicht nur eine verfassungsfeindliche Haltung vertritt, sondern diese Haltung auch in aktiv-kämpferischer, aggressiver Weise umsetzen will.

            Which (if you don’t know German) basically means

            A party can only be banned if it advocates an unconstitutional position and also plans to use militant and aggressive means to reach their goals

            • rough translation I might try to find a source for a better one later

            Now I believe that the AfD does fit those criteria (unconstitutional position for sure, but them working together with militant neo-nazis etc. should fill the second criterium as well). But that’s just my opinion and in this situation it does not count as much. The process here is that the court will decide wether or not the AfD fits these criteria and based on that they will be banned or not banned.
            This is the important distinction to what you’ve outlined. It’s not “banning political opponents” it’s banning opponents of the constitution. I’m also not saying everyone with opposing views should be jailed I’m saying a party that opposes the constitution should be banned according to the constitution.

            • where_am_i@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              Yes, I’m familiar with that part of your legislation.

              Approximately everyone else here except for you sees AfD as a target for banning because “they’re radical far right”. No, sorry, bad idea.

              Even banning an anti-democracy party at first might be a bad idea. Better go figure out why is anyone voting for them.

              Banning an anti-democracy party is an absolute last-resort measure. It only exists in Germany because this is how Hitler came to power, so the idea is to prevent that scenario from repeating. I can see the point, however it is yet to be proven that such bans would actually help preserve the democratic order.

              • somenonewho@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 day ago

                It only exists in Germany because this is how Hitler came to power,

                That’s correct but in my opinion that’s a great argument to push for a ban. As you say that’s how Hitler came to power with the NSDAP, so it would only be correct to use this law to try and prevent history from repeating itself. If we find out in the court that the law currently doesn’t apply it will be a win for the AfD of course but I believe and hope that it won’t be and that they will be banned. But if we don’t try and enact the law now how long do we wait? Till they are in government? Till they enacted emergency laws …

                Also, again, I do not believe this a definite solution to the “problem” of AfD and right wing movements in Germany. I do however believe it will be a big blow to the Right and might give us some room to move into with progressive ideas.

    • lennivelkant@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      If discourse and argument fail to quell the intolerant, a tolerant society must be willing to use censorship and even violence to defend itself. If we let them trample all over our values, tolerating them for the sake of being the “better person”, we’ll be the better corpse sooner rather than later and history will remember us “Look how nobly they did nothing!”

      If our history is ever written, that is.

  • Jeena@piefed.jeena.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    77
    ·
    3 days ago

    Banning one of the the biggest democratic parties to save democracy.

    I wonder how that would go. It’s the paradox that you have to be intolerant to intolerance.

    • Darkard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      83
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      3 days ago

      There is no paradox.

      Tolerance is a social contract that both guides and protects your actions. If you breach that contract by being a cunt then you are no longer afforded it’s protections for the same.

      Nazis demand you accept them while demonising others and will continue to take advantage of you being “tolerant” for as long as you allow it.

    • Siegfried@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      3 days ago

      We banned the fascist party in my country for 20 years. It accounted something like 55-60 % of the votes, back in the day.

      It didn’t work well.

        • Siegfried@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          3 days ago

          Argentina. Peronism got proscribed for ~20 years (1955-1973). It’s a lot more complicated than that cause it actually was fascist vs conservatives*.

          Ellected governments had little to no real power cause +50% of the people were not allowed to vote, so the faction that started winning power was the military. Every excuse was a good one to take down the government and bring up another dictatorship.

          *refined fascists

          • Carrolade@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            I’m not sure we can call Peronism fascist. While it was populist and nationalistic, it’s missing that hallmark blood-and-soil (this land for our bloodline) aspect that really marks out fascist ideologies.

            You can’t really call yourself fascist if you’re trying to say all your people are equal, you need to be trying to establish some sort of hierarchical order where these citizens are always better than those citizens.

    • Fallenwout@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      3 days ago

      You getting downvoted shows how hypocrite the internet collective is. Democracy for everyone unless they don’t like the result.

    • somenonewho@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      The last time they tried to ban a party in Germany was the NPD (another Nazi party) and at the end the Supreme Court decided the reason not to ban them, even though they were clearly unconstitutional , was because they were to few/insignificant (in the end they banned them from receiving party funding which still has a massive effect).

      So you couldnt ban them because they were to small and you can’t ban the AfD because they’re to big? Just because enough people vote for a party doesn’t mean they’re not unconstitutional.

    • Wanderer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      You can be tolerant of intolerance. But its got to be about homophobia, sexism, threats of violence, and hatred of the status quo. But it only works if a minority is doing it.

    • celsiustimeline@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      The first half of your comment seems to be critical of banning a party, as if it damages democracy. But then in your second half, you reference the paradox or tolerance, which implies you are in favor of banning the AfD.

  • FrowingFostek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    So, for the sake of argument, if AfD is banned would they not just became a paramilitary group?

    What’s to stop them from devolving into something more ‘nefarious’ if they are stripped of political power?

    • Jumi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      I’m guessing they’d still be under observation after they get banned because of exactly that and I also think there’s steep step between political engagement and serious criminal activity.

      But that gets decided by a court and as a German I think the judiciary is the most trustworthy of the three powers. I think if it even comes to that they deal with the motion in a sensitive way.

      • FrowingFostek@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        I am not a German, so I appreciate you explaining that to me. As an American I’d love to say the same about our judiciary.

    • JayObey711@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 days ago

      What stoped the kpd? Or the groups that wanted to rebuild the NSDAP? Would you rather have them pull the strings instead? I mean yea a ban could be dangerous, but letting them take over the justice system, the finances and police of Germany seems like a horrible second option.

      • FrowingFostek@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Oh I’m not advocating for letting them remain in a position of political influence.

        I’m asking what mechanisms beyond simply banning them will need to be implemented? I’m thinking banning them is only a bandage solution.

        • JayObey711@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          Well there are mechanisms that should keep Nazis in check. Unfortunately these positions in the police and secret service are full of Nazis :). We’ll see

    • Don Piano@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      The ease with which they can build such structures would go down. Building while hiding is harder than building while not having to hide.

      Having central coordination, for example in the form of a party or some other form of organization, means that strategic goals can be planned for and resources acquired and allocated in a more efficient manner. The previous bigger neonazi party, the NPD, fulfilled that role for quite a while.

      Organizations and people are not that interchangeable for these purposes. Workflows, institutional memory, leadership all matter. That’s why targeted assassinations of leadership even in cell-like structures can meaningfully disrupt e.g. terrorist organizations’ effectiveness. Similar things can be accomplished by simply disrupting business-as-usual.

  • Siegfried@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    3 days ago

    Too little, too late. You can’t ban a 30% party and expect democracy to hold.

      • RamblingPanda@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        3 days ago

        “Sorry, the Nazis are at 30%, nothing we can do. We’ll just die then.”

        1. What you said.
        2. You really should.
        3. You need to make sure to educate people so that they don’t fall prey to populist assholes.
        4. Politicians need to address people’s needs and fears instead of whatever the hell our current government is doing at the moment.
      • Siegfried@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Very noble, but we are at an inconsistency here. Democracy is also incompatible with not allowing people to vote. We have to get a better solution or this will explode in our faces.

    • somenonewho@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      The last time they tried to ban a party in Germany was the NPD (another Nazi party) and at the end the Supreme Court decided the reason not to ban them, even though they were clearly unconstitutional , was because they were to few/insignificant (in the end they banned them from receiving party funding which still has a massive effect).

      So you couldnt ban them because they were to small and you can’t ban the AfD because they’re to big? Just because enough people vote for a party doesn’t mean they’re not unconstitutional.

  • daltotron@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 days ago

    I mean I do think banning them is a good idea, and in general I think nazis should be taken on helicopter rides, most especially the enablers of nazis, their financial leash handlers which basically bootstrap them into these positions in order to push the dialogue further rightward in service of corporate interests, and probably also in this case in service of “geopolitical security” since we’re going to be seeing oncoming climate refugees in the coming years, and combatting that in any way but increasing the security apparatus is off the table.

    More than that, though, I worry that realistically just banning them, though a great temporary measure, won’t do much, say, five years or a decade down the road, because it’s not gonna solve the core hypocrisies and discrepancies that neoliberalism is not so keen to solve. If you want to actually solve this problem long term then you need to combat those core problems. Instead, though, I think that probably the party being banned will just see them either form a new party, or else tone down their rhetoric to an acceptable degree, or just join the next furthest right party and then decide to push them further right, and so on and so on, until we’ve all collectively just shifted rightward to an incredible degree.

    Ad nauseam, et cetera, regardless of the political apparatuses at work, until collectively the western world plummets towards fascism.

  • doingthestuff@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    3 days ago

    I feel like history could teach us something. How many times have banned ideologies thrived? A lot of people assume the party doing the silencing is in the wrong.

  • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    3 days ago

    Far-right parties’ main goal is excluding people from society so they should be fully okay when they’re the ones being excluded.

  • lemonmelon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 days ago

    As an aside, I can’t be the only one annoyed by the choice to expand “AfD” to “Alternative for Germany” instead of “Alternative for Deutschland” right? I really think the best solution to this is that we all agree that AfD should fuck off into oblivion. Sound good? Great!

  • Gammelfisch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    2 days ago

    We, Germans, cannot allow 30 Jan 1933 to 08 May 1945 to repeat itself. Also, the communists in “Die Linke” can go straight to hell with the neo-Nazis.

  • rustyfish@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    3 days ago

    A ban is incredibly hard. Not impossible, but hard. And even if, it won’t solve the actual problem. The AfD maintained the image of a protest party and to this day people believe this crap. A great way to cut their votes in half would be educating the population so they understand that protest is good but voting for fascist scum is not.

    • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      A ban is incredibly hard. Not impossible, but hard.

      Not in Germany. Spreading Nationalist or Nazi-adjacent views is a crime in Germany. the AfD not only should be banned, but many of those those involved in it should be arrested and face criminal charges for spreading Nazism. It’s literally just a matter of enforcing the law.

      And even if, it won’t solve the actual problem.

      It’ll solve a large part of the problem.

      A great way to cut their votes in half would be educating the population so they understand that protest is good but voting for fascist scum is not.

      Germany is extremely highly educated. If you want to send a message to Nazis, start throwing them in prison until the rest get the message and fuck off.

  • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    133
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    3 days ago

    If simply banning nazis from holding political power is enough for some of you to question, then you’re really not going to be ready for what you need to do to them once they get political power. Ban them now because y’all are far too soft to do what needs to be done if you don’t.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Ban them now

      They won’t, in no small part because the AfD has enough seats to block the attempt. Also, doesn’t help that lots of the enforcement wing of the German government (particularly in the national security services) are AfD or AfD sympathetic.

      We’re well past the point at which Germans can do to the fascists what they did to the communists back in the 1990s - ban the party outright and seize their assets. Now they’ve actually got to make this a political fight, rather than a legalistic one, because they turned their backs on the AfD for far too long.

      • Mrs_deWinter@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        2 days ago

        They won’t, in no small part because the AfD has enough seats to block the attempt.

        They cannot block a decision of the federal constitutional court, don’t be ridiculous. Germany has measures in place exactly for this scenario, and they are about to be enforced. They cannot be vetoed away, it’s a legal matter.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          2 days ago

          They cannot block a decision of the federal constitutional court

          Given the concentration of AfD in the Eastern Block, you’d be inviting the region to pull a Catalonia and threaten to break away.

          Germany has measures in place exactly for this scenario

          Riot police, sure.

          • rooroo@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            They’re free to pull a Catalonia tbh. Glhf without Solizuschlag. It’d also be nice to have my friends move back home from Berlin.

          • crapwittyname@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            Ooh the Nazis are threatening to break away? Oh no! Whatever will we do without them?!
            Fuck them. They can break away and start their own little fourth Reich, which will be a pariah forever. In fact, that’s even better - all the fascists can go to the same geographical location so we can deal with them surgically.

    • Mrs_deWinter@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      54
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Don’t know what’s there to be so smug about. “Oh you would rather ban them in a constitutional process than to wait for them to seize power and fight a bloody civil war, or worse?” Yes please! I hope we all much prefer the first option.

      • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        I hope we all much prefer the first option.

        Some of us are convinced this measure does nothing, and are unwilling to fight. It seems they only seem to oppose fascism when it can be done by magic.

        • Don Piano@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Those of us are wrong, then. Fascism isn’t some inherently abstract force of nature, it’s people and organizations of people. Those social structures can be disrupted, and the major question whose answer determines the means of disruption is whether the earlier responses were appropriately timed and powered.

          I prefer the situation where fascist-attitude people are individuals who need treatment rather than one where fascism is not just an attitude of individuals but a structural problem requiring e.g. law enforcement involvement or even a full-societal issue requiring outside military involvement.

        • Mrs_deWinter@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          3 days ago

          Some of us are convinced this measure does nothing

          Nothing? How can it do nothing? You could argue that it doesn’t do enough or not the right things, but if nothing else banning the party would obviously keep them out of the government at least for the next few years.

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            How can it do nothing?

            If you pass a law but never enforce it, the law does nothing. That’s assuming the Parliament could even pass it in a government that’s thick with AfD MPs.

            • Mrs_deWinter@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              2 days ago

              That rather speaks for banning the AfD though. We have a law for banning fascist parties, so we should enforce it, or it truly would mean nothing.

              • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                2 days ago

                That rather speaks for banning the AfD though.

                Belling the Cat.

                We have a law for banning fascist parties

                You have laws for banning use of symbols of unconstitutional and terrorist organizations. These have been deployed most aggressively against Communists, Socialists, Islamists, and - post USSR - against Russian Nationalists. Currently, it is pro-Palestinian Jews who suffer the most from application of these laws.

                The AfD is that its being fueled by a ton of right-wing media. It isn’t just a party springing from the soil ex nihilio. It is a consequence of right wing press flooding German society. And as the press builds support for the AfD, the AfD helps shield these press organs from censorship by the state. Its a self-replicating trend.

                Can you ban a party that’s got a plurality of seats in the Parliament? Or will they be the ones banning you?

                I mean, by all means, feel free to give it a shot. But it seems like you’re asking an elected government to do a thing it isn’t designed to do. MPs aren’t going to vote against themselves.

                • Mrs_deWinter@feddit.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 days ago

                  Can you ban a party that’s got a plurality of seats in the Parliament? Or will they be the ones banning you?

                  Of course. And it’s nonsensical to claim we cannot ban them, while worrying they could ban us. We can and we should, based on what you yourself wrote:

                  If you pass a law but never enforce it, the law does nothing.

                  We have laws against undemocratic parties, so we should enforce them.

                  I mean, by all means, feel free to give it a shot. But it seems like you’re asking an elected government to do a thing it isn’t designed to do.

                  But it is designed to do exactly that. That’s like a core mechanism of our democracy.

                  The only way to argue we shouldn’t ban the AFD is if you claim that they somehow should be exempt from our mechanisms against fascism. They were enforced before, they will be enforced again. And the AFD fits the bill in every way.

  • rekabis@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Whenever you squash a community of cockroaches, they tend to scatter and infest nearby communities.

    It is nearly always a much better strategy for them to have their “safe space” so they can be more easily identified and de-converted. Being able to pick off the lightly/conveniently indoctrinated is extremely helpful, as it prevents them from being radicalized like a wholesale community squashing will do.