Should Golden Dawn, Jobbik, the NPD and other such neonazi parties be banned

[Alcon]

No.  Political speech should not be banned unless it advocates directly for unlawful action.

Do you guys not see something pretty dangerous about giving the majority the ability to restrict the political speech of anyone they find distasteful or troubling?  This only works so long as the majority opinion is aligned with values you find good.  Once it's not, the majority can completely take away your ability to even publicly advocate for your positions.

How many moral positions we now find important and obvious were once considered distasteful or dangerous by a majority?  How would have changing minds on those issues done had we illegalized doing so in public?

I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of expressing opinions I don't like, but I'm much more uncomfortable with the majority being able to suppress the expression of the minority.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Yes. Opponents of Democracy do not deserve ita protections.

These parties would argue that if you are going to ban parties that oppose democracy, you would start with those who support the usurpation of it by globalism and international institutions such as the EU.

Sure, that's exactly the kind of bullsh*t a neonazi would spew.

And can you give an objective argument why it is bullsh**t?  If your sole criteria is Democracy, I don't see why it's such a ridiculous claim.

[Intell]

Yes, they are violent groups, that do not deserve free speech and should be destroyed, along with other fascist and neo-nazi parties. This forum is too libertarian, saying that violent parties deserve to exist and be granted free speech.

[Crumpets]

Um, no? What harm does it do for people to label their ideologies and organize themselves based on those ideologies? Is a white supremacist any less terrible if they call themself a "white pride advocate"  than if they identify with the BNP or Jobbiks? If they are violent, arrest them for the violence. If they call for attacking a group of people, arrest them for that. But don't ban their party.

[TNF]

I have no special love for any of the aforementioned parties and am of the opinion that these groups should be snuffed out as the enemies of the working class that they are. However, I do not support the bourgeois state taking repressive measures against these groups, because they would inevitably lead to that same state taking repressive measures against those of us on the radical left. The solution is to smash those parties and their accessory organizations through the militant mobilization of the working class, not through reliance upon the bourgeois state, which will never follow through to the extent necessary to destroy these organizations (because ultimately these organizations will be called upon to protect that state when and if the class struggle reaches the stage of undisguised warfare).

[Alcon]

Yes, they are violent groups, that do not deserve free speech and should be destroyed, along with other fascist and neo-nazi parties. This forum is too libertarian, saying that violent parties deserve to exist and be granted free speech.

Why not limit this to speech that directly encourages unlawful violence, so as to avoid running into all of the problems associated with suppressing political speech?  You must recognize the problems with giving a 50%+1 majority the power to determine what kind of political speech is too problematic to allow.  There are plenty of morally just political/social positions that once had an overwhelming majority of people who thought they were distasteful/dangerous.

[Intell]

Um, no? What harm does it do for people to label their ideologies and organize themselves based on those ideologies? Is a white supremacist any less terrible if they call themself a "white pride advocate"  than if they identify with the BNP or Jobbiks? If they are violent, arrest them for the violence. If they call for attacking a group of people, arrest them for that. But don't ban their party.

Because by allowing, these parties to exist, engaging in violence, you are saying that you can be part of a violent party which is a harmful to society. Any party engaged in violent act, or calls for violent acts deserves to be banned, as these groups are harmful to society.

[Murica!]

Um, no? What harm does it do for people to label their ideologies and organize themselves based on those ideologies? Is a white supremacist any less terrible if they call themself a "white pride advocate"  than if they identify with the BNP or Jobbiks? If they are violent, arrest them for the violence. If they call for attacking a group of people, arrest them for that. But don't ban their party.

because they're fycking fascists you retard

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

First of all, you can't ban parties just for being "extremist" or distasteful. That's a standard way too arbitrary to be enforceable. It's also quite hypocritical to state that all political speech is protected under law, but that parties can be banned just for political speech. Now if the country doesn't have a protection for political speech, you can set a non-arbitrary standard, but it generally doesn't work. For example just look at Germany which has the toughest anti-Nazi laws in the world, yet the NPD is one of the parties mentioned. All they have to do is not say they are a neo-Nazi party or use the swastika.

Second of all banning parties never works. Can anyone cite an example in history where it did? All it results in whack-a-mole, the banned party just reforms under a different name and we're back we started. Look at how Belgium banned Vlaams Blok and they just came back as Vlaams Belang. Or how Turkey used to ban a Kurdish nationalist party every couple years only to see them reform. Or Thailand after every election. It's not like banning a party will make its members think "Ah dammit, now we can't participate in the political process. Guess we'll quit voting and drop out."

Now if the party actually is basically just a front for a violent criminal organization like Golden Dawn, well then yes the criminal aspect should be cracked down on (and note how most of Golden Dawn's leaders have been arrested). And seeing how extremist parties often tend toward this it often renders the question moot most of the time. But banning parties just for political reasons is something that's never going to be effective.

[Crumpets]

Um, no? What harm does it do for people to label their ideologies and organize themselves based on those ideologies? Is a white supremacist any less terrible if they call themself a "white pride advocate"  than if they identify with the BNP or Jobbiks? If they are violent, arrest them for the violence. If they call for attacking a group of people, arrest them for that. But don't ban their party.

because they're fycking fascists you retard

I don't know what question you're answering with that response, but banning right-wing parties does nothing to fight fascism.

[Murica!]

Um, no? What harm does it do for people to label their ideologies and organize themselves based on those ideologies? Is a white supremacist any less terrible if they call themself a "white pride advocate"  than if they identify with the BNP or Jobbiks? If they are violent, arrest them for the violence. If they call for attacking a group of people, arrest them for that. But don't ban their party.

because they're fycking fascists you retard

I don't know what question you're answering with that response, but banning right-wing parties does nothing to fight fascism.

It at the minimum keeps the deadliest ideology behind capitalism out of the bourgeoisie State.

[Maxwell]

Here's a question - if these party's are banned, where would these voters go? Would they just say "I have neo-nazi frustrations, but golly gee, the party is gone, guess I can't vent those frustrations in any other way."

[PJ]

As far as the actual question, I'm not going to actually advocate for the unbanning of Nazi parties in countries where it is already in place, but the precedent behind banning them is a dangerous one. The people who push for these bans tend to draw a false equivalency with communist and other far-left parties on the false premise that the reason fascism is bad is because it is extremist (which misses the point entirely).

e: spelling

[Goldwater]

Here's a question - if these party's are banned, where would these voters go? Would they just say "I have neo-nazi frustrations, but golly gee, the party is gone, guess I can't vent those frustrations in any other way."

Yeah, this is what I wonder too. I mean, if you ban a party, won't people ho hold those views just move to a different party?

[Alcon]

Because by allowing, these parties to exist, engaging in violence, you are saying that you can be part of a violent party which is a harmful to society. Any party engaged in violent act, or calls for violent acts deserves to be banned, as these groups are harmful to society.

You basically seem to be saying it's not enough to ban violent acts and encouragement to violent acts.  You should band groups of people from consorting and expressing their political beliefs if some subset of their members engage in violent acts or urge violence.  Is that correct?  I'd encourage you to think through that position before committing to it.

Also, your argument that they should be banned because "they are harmful to society" gets at the exact point I'm making: do you not see the glaringly obvious problems with allowing the majority of voters to dictate what political views (short of ones that urge imminent violence) are too harmful to be expressed?

[SATW]

Yes

[Cassius]

Um, no? What harm does it do for people to label their ideologies and organize themselves based on those ideologies? Is a white supremacist any less terrible if they call themself a "white pride advocate"  than if they identify with the BNP or Jobbiks? If they are violent, arrest them for the violence. If they call for attacking a group of people, arrest them for that. But don't ban their party.

because they're fycking fascists you retard

Whereas you simply call for the supporters of these parties to be 'destroyed'. How very democratic of you.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

No.  Political speech should not be banned unless it advocates directly for unlawful action.

Do you guys not see something pretty dangerous about giving the majority the ability to restrict the political speech of anyone they find distasteful or troubling?  This only works so long as the majority opinion is aligned with values you find good.  Once it's not, the majority can completely take away your ability to even publicly advocate for your positions.

How many moral positions we now find important and obvious were once considered distasteful or dangerous by a majority?  How would have changing minds on those issues done had we illegalized doing so in public?

I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of expressing opinions I don't like, but I'm much more uncomfortable with the majority being able to suppress the expression of the minority.

I don't find the prospect of banning fascism to be distasteful or troubling. This isn't an abstract position, it's actually very concrete in terms of the principle behind it: any party that advocates for the exclusion of some citizens from the polity or the discrimination of some citizens on the basis of race or ethnicity, should not be allowed to exist. This does not make me uncomfortable in the slightest because this proposition is rooted in a very particular logic that could not be used against any "minority" but rather political minorities.

Anyways, I'm opposed to this proposal because I don't think it works. If it did, I'd gladly support it. That said, I don't understand why you expect me to think that these laws are troubling. The KKK is troubling, lynch mobs are troubling, goons beating up racial minorities is troubling etc. Banning fringe far-right parties is not troubling, it's merely counter-productive.

[Clark Kent]

Absolutely not under any circumstances. If anything, we need more free speech. Freedom of speech is not just "freedom to hear what I like".

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

mah free speech for nazis

If you can take away free speech for Nazis, why not Communists? I certainly have no qualms about you being packed off to a reeducation freedom family camp in Alaska.

[Antonio the Sixth]

mah free speech for nazis

If you can take away free speech for Nazis, why not Communists? I certainly have no qualms about you being packed off to a reeducation freedom family camp in Alaska.

Nazism is inherently hateful and anti-democratic. Communism (in most of its modern incarnations) is not.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

mah free speech for nazis

If you can take away free speech for Nazis, why not Communists? I certainly have no qualms about you being packed off to a reeducation freedom family camp in Alaska.

Nazism is inherently hateful and anti-democratic. Communism (in most of its modern incarnations) is not.

So you're okay with banning all the revolutionary parties that espouse Soviet-era rhetoric and placing their supporters in reeducation camps?

[ElectionsGuy]

mah free speech for nazis

If you can take away free speech for Nazis, why not Communists? I certainly have no qualms about you being packed off to a reeducation freedom family camp in Alaska.

Nazism is inherently hateful and anti-democratic. Communism (in most of its modern incarnations) is not.

Yes it is. Most of the far lefties on here are in favor of locking up their "political enemies" in times of a revolution. Its a huge double standard and a huge slippery slope (what counts as "hateful" and "anti-democratic", I guess the state just gets to decide that).

[Oakvale]

...people think communism isn't inherently hateful and anti-democratic?

[OSR stands with Israel]

No as that would violate freedom of speech and banning the parties wont do anything as they would just join mainstream parties and make them more fringe.