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.

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

      • Mrs_deWinter@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        2 months 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 months 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 months 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
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months 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 months 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.

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

                  And it’s nonsensical to claim we cannot ban them

                  Who is going to pull the trigger? Point to the opposition leader willing and able to try and dismantle a party with this many active supporters.

                  We have laws against undemocratic parties

                  Which are used to target unpopular fringe groups not regional majorities. The UK would have more luck banning the SNP.

                  That’s like a core mechanism of our democracy.

                  The core mechanism of democracy is to abolish political organizations wholesale?

                  • Mrs_deWinter@feddit.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    Who is going to pull the trigger? Point to the opposition leader willing and able to try and dismantle a party with this many active supporters.

                    Read the article. It’s already happening.

                    Which are used to target unpopular fringe groups not regional majorities.

                    You don’t seem to know a lot about the German constitution. The opposite is true. Unppular fringe groups are not banned because they are not actually a danger to democracy, as long as government positions are not in reach for them. That’s exactly how the german federal constitutional court has argued in the past. Successful bans ever only targeted actually successful parties.

                    The core mechanism of democracy is to abolish political organizations wholesale?

                    The core mechanism of democracy is to protect itself, and first and foremost that means protecting itself from facism. A political organisation that’s threatening democracy should obviously not be allowed, so it will be banned.

                  • PugJesus@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    Which are used to target unpopular fringe groups not regional majorities.

                    Oh, okay, they’re too popular to do anything about. Phew. For a moment there I thought there might have been a consistent opposition to fascism.

      • Don Piano@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months 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.