Dutch director killed by islamist fanatic!

[AuH2O]

No but they cast heavy doubt on the toll and, further, challenge the idea Germans are solely to blame for the "Holocaust," which along with the Inquisition is capitalized only because it affected Jews.

Unless you can find examples of other atocities treated in the same way.

And many other. Not only Jews, but Romas, Jehovas Witnesses, homosexuals, handicapped, Slavs were part of the German Endlösnung or Holocaust.
The Inquisition did just affect Jews. Anybody with a religious point of view that the Catholic Church helt was in danger, especially herectics

Sure, others were affected.

But those two time periods/events are Capitalized because they primarily brought harm to Jews.

Find a counter-example and I will admit the error in my ways.

[Lunar]

By Kantian standards, the British were the most immoral agent in WW2, followed by the Russians, and the French. The Axis and the US would be tied with moderate immorality.

Is morality even comparative by Kantian standards?

Britain and especially France did force harsh standards after WW1, which led to the conditions which fueled nationalism.  However, it is not Britain's fault that the German people CHOSE to elect a nationalist warmonger and follow him. 

[AuH2O]

According to Kant, people are naturally inclined towards violence, so it's the duty of just states to overcome this natural tendency.

By their actions, Britain (a theoretically just state) made justice impossible in Germany itself, and then proceeded to commit war crimes against Germany.

Britain had a moral obligation to seek peace, even if it meant failure, whereas the broken Germany could only be expected to relfect more base instincts.

[Lunar]

According to Kant, people are naturally inclined towards violence, so it's the duty of just states to overcome this natural tendency.

By their actions, Britain (a theoretically just state) made justice impossible in Germany itself, and then proceeded to commit war crimes against Germany.

Britain had a moral obligation to seek peace, even if it meant failure, whereas the broken Germany could only be expected to relfect more base instincts.

Ah, but Kant viewed morality in absolutist terms ("catagorical imperative").   Basically, my nitpicking was to point out that Kantian morality is a binary: something is either completely immoral or it is completely moral.  At that point, you can't say that something is "more moral" than something else.

Heh.

[AuH2O]

Not true.

An action can have no moral worth but not be immoral.

Thus, Germany rearming might be viewed as amoral because the Germans were not led by a just government.

On the other hand, a democratically elected government in Britain- presumably subject to rationality- was doing the same things.

Refer to Kant's 'Perpetual Peace' rather than simply looking at the Categorical Imperative(s).

[Lunar]

Yeah, I know about perpetual peace.  It has it flaws (Finland-England, War 1812, ACW, etc.), but still pretty amazing that a chap living in Autocratic Prussia in what..1795, could figure out how democracies would act.

It's a stretch from the Dutch director, but oh well.

The whole basis of the catagorical imperative is to strip all of that contextual crap away from an action and look at the primitive behind it.  So it doesn't matter if you are murdering someone who just killed your wife or if you're murdering the guy for fun, since murder applied universally is immoral, murder is always immoral.  Trying to insert "but..the government" specifics into the scenarios doesn't change moral scale since it is always immoral.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Yeah, I know about perpetual peace.  It has it flaws (Finland-England, War 1812, ACW, etc.), but still pretty amazing that a chap living in Autocratic Prussia in what..1795, could figure out how democracies would act.

It's a stretch from the Dutch director, but oh well.

The whole basis of the catagorical imperative is to strip all of that contextual crap away from an action and look at the primitive behind it.  So it doesn't matter if you are murdering someone who just killed your wife or if you're murdering the guy for fun, since murder applied universally is immoral, murder is always immoral.  Trying to insert "but..the government" specifics into the scenarios doesn't change moral scale since it is always immoral.

Lunar, homocide which is justifiable, isn't murder.

[Lunar]

Ah, my mistake.

[Middle-aged Europe]

In both the Netherlands and Germany, banning parties that do not adhere to political correctness is done, just as in Belgium.

In post-WWII Germany two political parties were banned:
1) the nazist "Sozialistische Reichspartei" (SRP) in 1952
2) the communist "Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands" (KPD) in 1956

A few years ago there was an attempt made to ban the neo-fascist "Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands" (NPD), but it failed before court.

Your statement is implying that parties are banned on a regular basis here, but the facts are, that only two parties were banned back in the 50ies and the third attempt to ban a party failed recently.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Well, its nice to know that the most recent attempt to ban political competition in Germany has failed.

Why don't you try to get Belgium to drop its ban?

[Middle-aged Europe]

Well, its nice to know that the most recent attempt to ban political competition in Germany has failed.

Well, if I remember correctly the idea of banning the NPD was born in the late 90ies when Germany was shocked by a series of neo-fascist incidents... a few people were also killed etc. The government tried not to look completely helpless and to show that they do SOMETHING, they came up with the idea to ban this party.

Why don't you try to get Belgium to drop its ban?

Who do you mean with "you"? Me or "you Germans"? :-D

In the first case: I don´t know what I could do.

In the second case: I don´t think it´s a good idea to tell the Belgian courts what they have to do.

Anyway, I don´t feel competent enough to make judgements about the Belgians what they should do with the Vlaams Blok.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Excuse me, but in my country sensible people don't believe that the judiciary should suppress freedom of expression and engage in tyrannical rule.

I guess its different in 'old europe.'

[Middle-aged Europe]

Excuse me, but in my country sensible people don't believe that the judiciary should suppress freedom of expression and engage in tyrannical rule.

Yes, I guess in your country "sensible people" are only maintaining prejudices against other nations.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I cannot speak for others, but, my opinions on other countries are based either on matters of public record (I have cited several in previous posts) or my personal experiences.

There are a number of delightful people in europe.

Even some in France.

However, the scum are in the saddle in many western european countries and are using regulations to prevent competition.

[Middle-aged Europe]

I cannot speak for others, but, my opinions on other countries are based either on matters of public record (I have cited several in previous posts) or my personal experiences.

In that case I would strongly recommend that you´re looking for far better sources and that you reconsider your personal experiences again. Most of your statements are either highly exaggerated or simply not true.

To quote some of your earlier remarks:

--> "In much of western europe, elections are 'won' on a similiar basis by banning those who disagree with the idiotology of the 'politically correct.'"

--> "In both the Netherlands and Germany, banning parties that do not adhere to political correctness is done, just as in Belgium."

--> "Are you denying that parties in Belgium and Germany are banned if they don't toe the line on poltical correctness?"

As I already said there were two bans of a party in post-WWII Germany. Both cases took place 50 years ago. This does not sound exactly as if "elections are 'won' ... by banning those who disagree with the idiotology of the 'politically correct'".

I admit that my knowledge concerning the legal situation of party bans in Denmark or Belgium is somewhat limited, but considering the fact that YOUR knowledge about party bans in Germany is extremely insufficient it seems plausible, if not likely, that your information about the other countries mentioned is similarly distorted.


And if you are really concerned about the political freedoms of European neo-Nazis I´ll give you a full chronology of neo-fascist parties in post-fascist Germany.
Currently, there are three "major" neo-Nazi parties in Germany: the "Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands" (NPD), the "Deutsche Volksunion" (DVU), and "Die Republikaner (REP)" (not related to the American party with the same name). Of these parties the NPD is the most extremist, while the REP is the most "moderate", with the DVU being somewhere in the middle. Historical post-WWII Nazi parties include the "Deutsche Rechtspartei" (DReP), the "Sozialistische Reichspartei" (SRP), and the "Deutsche Reichspartei" (DRP).

My chronology:

1946 - The DReP is founded.

1949 - The DReP wins 5 seats in the German parliament (Bundestag). The SRP is founded by former members of the DReP.

1950 - The DRP is founded. The DReP merges with the DRP.

1951 - The SRP wins 16 seats in the parliament of Lower Saxony and 8 seats in the parliament of Bremen. The DRP wins 3 seats in the parliament of Lower Saxony.
 
1952 - The SRP is outlawed by the Contitutional Court. Most of its members join the DRP.

1955 - The DRP wins 6 seats in the parliament of Lower Saxony.

1959 - The DRP wins a seat in the parliament of Rhineland-Palatinate.

1964 - The NPD is founded. The DRP dissolves after most of its members joined the NPD.

1966 - The NPD wins 8 seats in the parliament of Hesse and 5 seats in the parliament of Bavaria.

1967 - The NPD wins 4 seats in the parliament of Schleswig-Holstein, 4 seats in the parliament of Rhineland-Palatinate, 10 seats in the parliament of Lower Saxony, and 8 seats in the parliament of Bremen.

1968 - The NPD wins 12 seats in the parliament of Baden-Württemberg.

1971 - The DVU is founded.

1983 - The REP is founded.

1987 - The DVU wins a seat in the parliament of Bremen.

1989 - The REP wins 11 seats in the parliament of Berlin and 6 seats in the European Parliament.

1991 - The DVU wins 6 seats in the parliament of Bremen.
 
1992 - The REP wins 15 seats in the parliament of Baden-Württemberg. The DVU wins 6 seats in the parliament of Schleswig-Holstein.

1996 - The REP wins 14 seats in the parliament of Baden-Württemberg.

1998 - The DVU wins 16 seats in the parliament of Saxony-Anhalt.

1999 - The DVU wins a seat in the parliament of Bremen and 5 seats in the parliament of Brandenburg.

2003 - The DVU wins a seat in the parliament of Bremen.
 
2004 - The DVU wins 6 seats in the parliament of Brandenburg. The NPD wins 12 seats in the parliament of Saxony.

However, the scum are in the saddle in many western european countries and are using regulations to prevent competition.

Who exactly do you mean with "scum"? The democratic parties? And who isn´t scum then? The Nazis or the communists or both?

[CARLHAYDEN]

How many times is banning of political opposition too many?

For me, one is too many.

I have cited specific examples of the banning, which you have not bothered to deny (because they are true).

How many bannings is too many for you?

I know you find this difficult to understand, but I believe what I have seen with my own eyes, not you tales.

Those who choose to ban other who disagree with them are scum.

[Lunar]

The American track record of tolerance for political views hit a black hole 50 years ago as well.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Lunar,

I cited specific examples of where the europeans have banned political competition.

I would appreciate it if you could cite similiar examples of where political parties have been banned in the United States over the past fifty years.

[Middle-aged Europe]

How many times is banning of political opposition too many?

For me, one is too many.

In Germany two parties were banned FIFTY YEARS ago and because of that Germany shall burn in hell forever or what?

I have cited specific examples of the banning, which you have not bothered to deny (because they are true).

So, because I didn´t "deny" them, I automatically agreed that your examples are "true" That´s a very flawed logic.

As I already said TWO TIMES I don´t know enough about the specific cases in the other countries mentioned to feel competent enough to discuss them. This does NOT mean that I automatically agree with you.

How many bannings is too many for you?

I know you find this difficult to understand, but I believe what I have seen with my own eyes, not you tales.

"Tales"? Are you saying I´m lying???

Those who choose to ban other who disagree with them are scum.

Did you know that the NSDAP was banned in 1945 on orders of the Allied military governors? By your logic, Dwight D. Eisenhower is "scum" too. Or more specific: Harry S. Truman is "scum", because Eisenhower just carried out the orders.
George W. Bush would also be "scum", because he banned the Baath party in Iraq. Or doesn´t that matter, because it didn´t happen in the United States itself, but in a foreign country?

[AuH2O]

It's not just banning parties. It's suing them, sabotaging them, arrested their members on false charges, putting government spies in their organization, etc.

Germany is an occupation regime. Every day it rules is a massive crime against humanity... Schroeder deserves nothing but the gallows. Many European nations are the same.

[Middle-aged Europe]

It's not just banning parties. It's suing them, sabotaging them, arrested their members on false charges, putting government spies in their organization, etc.

Germany is an occupation regime. Every day it rules is a massive crime against humanity... Schroeder deserves nothing but the gallows. Many European nations are the same.

This statement is so stupid, it isn´t even worth discussing it.

[CARLHAYDEN]

How many times is banning of political opposition too many?

For me, one is too many.

In Germany two parties were banned FIFTY YEARS ago and because of that Germany shall burn in hell forever or what?

I have cited specific examples of the banning, which you have not bothered to deny (because they are true).

So, because I didn´t "deny" them, I automatically agreed that your examples are "true" That´s a very flawed logic.

>Well, excuse me.  I gave examples from more than one country of the banning of political parties.  You try to say it is "rare."

When I gave you a specific example of a recent banning in Beligium, you try to weasel out of the subject.

I repeat the earlier question that you have failed to answer.  How many bannings is too many for you?

>Previously you had noted that I should believe what YOU post, not what I have seen for myself.  Well, again I repeat, "I know you find this difficult to understand, but I believe what I have seen with my own eyes, not you tales."


"Tales"? Are you saying I´m lying???

>When you try to limit your counterexamples to Germany, you are dissembling.

Those who choose to ban other who disagree with them are scum.

Did you know that the NSDAP was banned in 1945 on orders of the Allied military governors? By your logic, Dwight D. Eisenhower is "scum" too. Or more specific: Harry S. Truman is "scum", because Eisenhower just carried out the orders.
George W. Bush would also be "scum", because he banned the Baath party in Iraq. Or doesn´t that matter, because it didn´t happen in the United States itself, but in a foreign country?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

>I realize you have a great deal of difficulty in distinguishing a situation when an area is under martial law, and when normal legal processes prevail.

Matters which are totally unacceptable in peaceable situations may be acceptable under martial law.

Are you suggesting that martial law should prevail in peactime?

[Middle-aged Europe]

>Well, excuse me.  I gave examples from more than one country of the banning of political parties.  You try to say it is "rare."

When I gave you a specific example of a recent banning in Beligium, you try to weasel out of the subject.

I already explained several times why I "weaseled" out of the subject and I´m getting tired to do it over and over again. For a last time: My knowledge of this specific case in Belgium is too limited to say something "oh, that´s great!" or "oh, what the heck...". Can you accept this? I really don´t know what I should say about the Belgian case... without guessing?

I repeat the earlier question that you have failed to answer.  How many bannings is too many for you?

Oh, I thought this one was a rethoric question. I´ll try to give you a honest answer: I have no idea, but it should as close to zero as possible.

Was the ban of the SRP and the KPD in 1952 and 1956 justified? In retrospect: Most likely not. Did the German politicians of the 50ies who initialized these bans think that these parties are a serious threat to democracy? Probably yes. So, what? They´re all deceased by now.

>Previously you had noted that I should believe what YOU post, not what I have seen for myself.  Well, again I repeat, "I know you find this difficult to understand, but I believe what I have seen with my own eyes, not you tales."

Okay, which specific parts of my earlier statements find you hard to believe and which parts are contradicting with "what you have seen for yourself"? And what exactly "have you seen for yourself" (concerning Germany)?

>When you try to limit your counterexamples to Germany, you are dissembling.

I already explained that above. If you think that´s "dissembling" I´m sorry but I don´t know what I could say else.

>I realize you have a great deal of difficulty in distinguishing a situation when an area is under martial law, and when normal legal processes prevail.

Matters which are totally unacceptable in peaceable situations may be acceptable under martial law.

Are you suggesting that martial law should prevail in peactime?

Ah, at least you admit that the ban of party is justified under certain circumstances. Well, I could now argue that West Germany was technically still under "martial law" at the time the decision to ban the SRP and KPD was made, because the Allied occupation lasted till 1955 and until that all decisions of the West German government had to be approved by the Allied High Commission. Until 1955 it wasn´t even unusual that the occupation forces acted on their own against certain political parties.

[CARLHAYDEN]

So, lets recapitulae for the record.

You "know nothing, nothing" about the rest of europe outside of Germany?

Hmm, have you checked out the subject title of this thread?

Last time I checked, the Netherlands were NOT part of Germany.  Or are you going to tell me otherwise?

If you wish to limit your examples solely to Germany, the do NOT post on threads concerning matters outside of Germany.

[Middle-aged Europe]

So, lets recapitulae for the record.

You "know nothing, nothing" about the rest of europe outside of Germany?

I never said that.

Hmm, have you checked out the subject title of this thread?

Last time I checked, the Netherlands were NOT part of Germany.  Or are you going to tell me otherwise?

And Belgium isn´t a part of the Netherlands neither. So what?

If you wish to limit your examples solely to Germany, the do NOT post on threads concerning matters outside of Germany.

I didn´t start with Germany in this thread, so why do you blame me?

The only reason why I posted in this topic was your claim that elections in Germany are basically won by regularly banning parties. I tried to correct this and then you started to ask me about Belgium and the court rulings concerning the Vlaams Blok, something I really don´t know much about. So, what do you want to do now? Suing me for not being familiar with the current status of the Vlaams Blok?

If you disagree with me that´s fine, but please don´t become childish or make "rules" which you don´t follow yourself.