• Angela Merkel's Cabinet greenlights motion to cut off far-right NPD gov funds
    9 replies, posted
http://www.dw.com/en/angela-merkels-cabinet-greenlights-motion-to-cut-off-far-right-npd-from-state-funding/a-43443315
I mean, if any party is anti-Constitutional, especially one actively encouraging neo-Nazi rhetoric, there's no reason the government acting under said Constitution should give them funding. I just hope this doesn't energize anti-government extremists even further.
Germany's government is (afaik) the only one in the world which has a constitutional duty to prevent parties like this from gaining power. The German constitution lists all of the civil rights like free speech, free association etc, and then says that if you 'abuse' these rights 'in order to combat the free democratic basic order' then your rights are forfeit. In theory you can be locked up for it, though that's never happened. The Constitutional Court recently ruled that the NPD is anti-constitutional, and pretty much came out and said that if the party started taking off then they'd be permabanned for reason 'bye'. So that's why the government is now looking at ways to fuck them over
Why the fuck doesn't every self-respecting democratic nation such laws? If someone seeks to erode democracy, then they should be banned.
I find it really interesting, democracy is supposed to allow ~the people~ to say anything, elect anyone, change their government however they want in the future etc. but does that extend to inciting against democracy itself? Germany is the only state in the world that explicitly says nope, we don't care what future generations think, democracy is here forever. They also put several of their constitutional principles under an 'eternity clause' which means there is literally no way to ever change it, you can't pass an amendment or a law or anything, it's there forever.
I guess I can see some irony in the fact that a fascit nation that was responsible for launching a war just short of a century ago that resulted in millions of deaths, are now possibly one of the most free and democratic nations in the world, and even have it written in their constitution that any and all attempts to undo their democracy will be shut down instantly. I know who I'd rather call "leader of the free world".
If we could do it competently then I'd be down for it, but it's risky and a lot of people are squeamish about drawing lines in the sand on free speech because: A.) It might be too broad or vague or otherwise end up being applied to situations that are obviously benign. If I remember correctly (forgive me because I wasn't following the story that closely) a man was recently convicted of some sort of hate speech in Scotland for training his dog to lift his paw in a faux Nazi salute on a "sieg heil" command. His intent was deemed entirely inconsequential to the court's decision. B.) It would more than likely be abused by malicious parties to oust their competition. The moment we would declare Nazism to be illegal is the moment opposing parties would accuse the others of being Nazis. In the US both sides already do that, in fact.
Sorta happens when your country experienced probably one of the worst, if not the worst brutal regime to ever be produced on this rock. Now we have a fuck ton of other countries trying to pull off the same shit with the rise of the far-right, while Germany is sitting by going "Ya'll Niggas are crazy..."
like they say, nescesity is the mother of all inventions, plus having four occupying nations having to approve your constitution helps a bunch
It's a weird-ass law if you examine it closely. 'Human dignity' is technically an undefined legal term, too, in this context. Still, I'm very fond of us having this. Also, Brazil has this too (since 1988). Theirs is a reaction to a military dictatorship, and actually seems to be more extensive than ours.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.