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

[Marokai Backbeat]

I agree wholeheartedly with Alcon and BRTD.

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.

This is such an important thing to remember, and it's scary how easy it is for people to forget it. Especially seeing it from people who I've seen call themselves liberal and skeptical for years.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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

Parties like PCF or Die Linke definitely aren't, and even most trot outfits embrace democracy by now.

And yes, I support banning the stalinist or maoist fringe groups that genuinely still reject democracy and call for murder, though they're obviously not nearly as dangerous as neo-nazis.

[OSR stands with Israel]

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

Should we ban communist parties Murica, which just like fascism  hate the idea of freedom and will result in lots of atrocities and millions of deaths. But both far left and right fringe extremist groups will always be apologists for Communists and fascism by saying that its not real Communism or Facism. I say because of freedom of speech we shouldnt ban these extremist groups , we should just let their members see the agony of never winning any government position and never getting more then 0.01% of the vote in elections .

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

When TNF and BRTD has two of the most sensible and reasonable posts in a thread you know something is derailing.

I'd just like to say I agree completely with Alcon's post. I don't trust any institution to make the decision on what opinions are alright and not alright, such power would ultimately be abused. We have to trust in our ability to defeat horrible opinions at the ballot box. If we can't entrust voters to make the right decision when it comes to upholding democracy and basic human rights how can we entrust them with much more complex issues?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Antonio, can you cite a single instance where banning a party successfully stomped out the movement and didn't just result in the party reforming under a different name, or its supporters going entryist into other parties or resorting to violence?

As Maxwell and Goldwater said, it's not like all the supporters of a banned party are just going to give up and quit voting.

[SWE]

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.

What do you think "revolution" means?

[ingemann]

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.

What do you think "revolution" means?

It means rich American teenagers wannabe communists would be the firsts against the wall.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The thing is with a lot of these parties - Dawn and Jobbik in particular - is that banning them would be more effective than banning say, Thaskin's party (whatever it's called nowadays) which is a personal machine. The appeal with these neo-nazi groups is with their branding. Members march their marches, wave their flags and arrange themselves into cells. That's what the Nazis did - create a flag, gave people a chance to wave it around subsume themselves into nazism. Almost quaint, were it not for the hate they preached. And of course, nobody here (I hope not anyway) would deny that after the war - free speech be damned! - the spectre of nazism had to eliminated entirely. Its organisations were disbanded, their members purged from institutions and its literature burnt. Banning Golden Dawn and its marches, paraphanalia and organised meetings would be no different from that, merely preemptive.

I see no harm in breaking that up - I'm a utilitarian and I see no greater good to society to allowing these organised thugs legitimacy in parliaments; much like I wouldn't care if other organised groups of criminals like the Mafia tried to form a political party and were banned.

[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.

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.

What do you think "revolution" means?

It means rich American teenagers wannabe communists would be the firsts against the wall.

RIP SWE

[SWE]

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.

What do you think "revolution" means?

It means rich American teenagers wannabe communists would be the firsts against the wall.

RIP SWE

But that doesn't describe me?

[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.

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.

What do you think "revolution" means?

It means rich American teenagers wannabe communists would be the firsts against the wall.

RIP SWE

But that doesn't describe me?

>15
>Lives in middle class America, making you better off than 99.9% of the world
>Doesn't get that he is rich

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

No "wannabee communist" about SWE my friend. He's the real deal.

[politicus]

The thing is with a lot of these parties - Dawn and Jobbik in particular - is that banning them would be more effective than banning say, Thaskin's party (whatever it's called nowadays) which is a personal machine. The appeal with these neo-nazi groups is with their branding. Members march their marches, wave their flags and arrange themselves into cells. That's what the Nazis did - create a flag, gave people a chance to wave it around subsume themselves into nazism. Almost quaint, were it not for the hate they preached. And of course, nobody here (I hope not anyway) would deny that after the war - free speech be damned! - the spectre of nazism had to eliminated entirely. Its organisations were disbanded, their members purged from institutions and its literature burnt. Banning Golden Dawn and its marches, paraphanalia and organised meetings would be no different from that, merely preemptive.

I see no harm in breaking that up - I'm a utilitarian and I see no greater good to society to allowing these organised thugs legitimacy in parliaments; much like I wouldn't care if other organised groups of criminals like the Mafia tried to form a political party and were banned.

Be nice to Dawn:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawn_(Iceland)

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The thing is with a lot of these parties - Dawn and Jobbik in particular - is that banning them would be more effective than banning say, Thaskin's party (whatever it's called nowadays) which is a personal machine. The appeal with these neo-nazi groups is with their branding. Members march their marches, wave their flags and arrange themselves into cells. That's what the Nazis did - create a flag, gave people a chance to wave it around subsume themselves into nazism. Almost quaint, were it not for the hate they preached. And of course, nobody here (I hope not anyway) would deny that after the war - free speech be damned! - the spectre of nazism had to eliminated entirely. Its organisations were disbanded, their members purged from institutions and its literature burnt. Banning Golden Dawn and its marches, paraphanalia and organised meetings would be no different from that, merely preemptive.

I see no harm in breaking that up - I'm a utilitarian and I see no greater good to society to allowing these organised thugs legitimacy in parliaments; much like I wouldn't care if other organised groups of criminals like the Mafia tried to form a political party and were banned.

Be nice to Dawn:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawn_(Iceland)

That alliance of parties never made sense to me.

[Simfan34]

All political parties should be banned and power vested in a hereditary monarch (normal).

Yes!

[Figueira]

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.

I basically agree with this. The other issue is, why is it not OK to discriminate based on race and ethnicity but OK to discriminate based on, say, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity or socioeconomic class?

[DavidB.]

I basically agree with this. The other issue is, why is it not OK to discriminate based on race and ethnicity but OK to discriminate based on, say, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity or socioeconomic class?

If a party holds that all women, all transgenders, all bisexuals, or all working-class people need to be deported to concentration camps, then banning it would be a good idea as well.

[Figueira]

I basically agree with this. The other issue is, why is it not OK to discriminate based on race and ethnicity but OK to discriminate based on, say, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity or socioeconomic class?

If a party holds that all women, all transgenders, all bisexuals, or all working-class people need to be deported to concentration camps, then banning it would be a good idea as well.

So you're only in favor of banning parties if they openly advocate concentration camps?

Also, FYI, it's generally considered better to talk about "transgender people" or "trans people" rather than "transgenders."

[Alcon]

Does anyone besides DFB want to respond to the generalized speech concerns?  I think we're all of the same mind that these parties are gross and it would be nice if they went away.

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 rathe r political minorities.

But what is the logic behind disallowing people to argue for defining the polity in a way that's "discriminatory"*, besides that it's a position too sociopolitically dangerous for us to express?  How does it not open the gate for restricting other political speech that the majority thinks is sociopolitically dangerous?  The question is why the line you're drawing is anything but completely arbitrary.

(* - not scare quotes; I'm just using it that way because we haven't defined "discriminatory.")

[Intell]

Does anyone besides DFB want to respond to the generalized speech concerns?  I think we're all of the same mind that these parties are gross and it would be nice if they went away.

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 rathe r political minorities.

But what is the logic behind disallowing people to argue for defining the polity in a way that's "discriminatory"*, besides that it's a position too sociopolitically dangerous for us to express?  How does it not open the gate for restricting other political speech that the majority thinks is sociopolitically dangerous?  The question is why the line you're drawing is anything but completely arbitrary.

(* - not scare quotes; I'm just using it that way because we haven't defined "discriminatory.")

arbitrary lines, are better than no lines and unrestricted speech and distorted views, racism, discrimination and violence in society.

[Alcon]

arbitrary lines, are better than no lines and unrestricted speech and distorted views, racism, discrimination and violence in society.

Except this doesn't remove "distorted views, racism, discrimination, and violence" from society.  In fact, as soon as those views become politically viable, restrictions like this will obviously be repealed.  You think these laws would stand up in a political environment where these people had risk of gaining significant power?  These laws can only stand up in an environment where there is a strong majority rejection of a minority view as "dangerous," and what these laws accomplish is codifying that certain minority opinions are "too dangerous" to express.

Opening this gate don't prevent widely-held, evil opinions from gaining hold.  It prevents uncommonly-held, unpopular opinions (good or bad) from gaining access to the public discourse once a political majority has decided they are "too dangerous" to be considered.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

It prevents hate speech from being legitimised, I see no contradiction to my views.

[Intell]

arbitrary lines, are better than no lines and unrestricted speech and distorted views, racism, discrimination and violence in society.

Except this doesn't remove "distorted views, racism, discrimination, and violence" from society.  In fact, as soon as those views become politically viable, restrictions like this will obviously be repealed.  You think these laws would stand up in a political environment where these people had risk of gaining significant power?  These laws can only stand up in an environment where there is a strong majority rejection of a minority view as "dangerous," and what these laws accomplish is codifying that certain minority opinions are "too dangerous" to express.

Opening this gate don't prevent widely-held, evil opinions from gaining hold.  It prevents uncommonly-held, unpopular opinions (good or bad) from gaining access to the public discourse once a political majority has decided they are "too dangerous" to be considered.

Yes, but then these people won't have a party to express their violent, undemocratic views.

[Alcon]

It prevents hate speech from being legitimised, I see no contradiction to my views.

I didn't say there was a contradiction.  The fact that it's internally consistent doesn't mean it's a good idea.  Do you have any response to the concerns I'm raising?

arbitrary lines, are better than no lines and unrestricted speech and distorted views, racism, discrimination and violence in society.

Except this doesn't remove "distorted views, racism, discrimination, and violence" from society.  In fact, as soon as those views become politically viable, restrictions like this will obviously be repealed.  You think these laws would stand up in a political environment where these people had risk of gaining significant power?  These laws can only stand up in an environment where there is a strong majority rejection of a minority view as "dangerous," and what these laws accomplish is codifying that certain minority opinions are "too dangerous" to express.

Opening this gate don't prevent widely-held, evil opinions from gaining hold.  It prevents uncommonly-held, unpopular opinions (good or bad) from gaining access to the public discourse once a political majority has decided they are "too dangerous" to be considered.

Yes, but then these people won't have a party to express their violent, undemocratic views.

You're also not responding to the concerns I'm raising.  Your response amounts to "I like the particular outcome of this one use of free speech limitations," when my argument isn't that these parties are a good thing or have good points, so that's effectively non-responsive.  You also seem to be ignoring the fact that countries that don't limit this speech also have protections against inciting violence.  We're talking specifically about speech here that is undeniably political, but that you rightly find troubling and anti-democratic (whatever that means in this context).

[Simfan34]

I basically agree with this. The other issue is, why is it not OK to discriminate based on race and ethnicity but OK to discriminate based on, say, gender, sexual orientation or gender identity or socioeconomic class?

If a party holds that all women, all transgenders, all bisexuals, or all working-class people need to be deported to concentration camps, then banning it would be a good idea as well.

If we keep on expanding the definition of "unacceptable speech" beyond the "race and ethnicity" criteria  DFB mentioned, we enter increasingly subjective territory of what is and isn't "unacceptable".