World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
What does it mean if a democracy bans a party that the voters want to elect? Better to ask what failure of the system made that party popular in the first place. We have a similar situation in the US fwiw.
To be fair, 80% of voters did not vote for AfD - and if 80% of voters want to ban a party? Well, that is democracy. Although it's a dangerous tool to use.
The US is way more fucked, as more people actually voted for Trump than not.
Yeah but that's an example of tyranny by the majority. Just because a majority of people want something doesn't make it right. In theory I like the idea od banning the AFD, but I'm scared of the potential backlash it could cause and what the consequences could be. In the modern day when people are so segregated in their own bubbles, I feel like this could make them more extremist (“Look, I was right, they're just trying to silence the truth")
True, but then again we have lived through that already and know that dangerous parties can be elected democratically. That is exactly the reason why we have this mechanism in place.
An anti democratic party has no right to be elected democratically.
Exactly. Democracy is famously the only system which allows to be dismantled through its own tools. That is why the German system is called "Wehrhafte Demokratie" (defensive democracy) to not end up like the Weimar Republic.
The biggest criticism of democracy is that it might become something else.
Usually when it tolerates the intolerant. That’s why we’re fucked in the US. I hope Germany came stop it before it’s too late, I speak some, and was gonna try and emigrate if the need arises.
Intolerance is only an issue when it is equated with violence. There's no real issue or paradox of intolerance if you equate intolerance with asserting boundaries nonviolently - this is the literal basis of unconditional love.
I fear, that many if not most people do not understand why AFD is an undemocratic party or why this would even matter for them.
I think that problem is closely related to the issue that people think it can not get much worse for them when in reality there is a long, long way down from even the poorest and least represented people in our German society to the poorest people in the worst societies that actually existed in history or even the worst society imaginable with modern technology combined with the rulers from those worst socities in history.
It doesn't matter what people think when they're wrong or pig-ignorant.
I understood the post you are replying to as saying "what will AfD voters do when their party is banned?".
In the case of the Nazis, we don't know because their party was never banned. We don't know what would have happened if the Nazi party had been banned.
I would be interested to know if we have historical cases of far-right parties that could have won the elections but were banned before they had the chance.
Well, let's hope we're about to see that. My guess is mass protests all over Germany and even more massive counter protests right next to them.
True. But who decides what is an anti-democratic party? And by what guidelines?
"Why is the AfD classified as extremist?"
First section in the linked article.
That's a way of defining it - but is that a legal standard?
The applicable law is Article 21 GG:
Key point here is "seek to undermine or abolish the free and democratic basic order", quoth the BVerfG:
It's their own definition so push come to shove they're going to add to it. Overall though the lines aren't new and haven't shifted, that's a quote from a judgement from 1952.
Paragraph 3 is new, that has been introduced after banning the NPD (now "Die Heimat") failed not because they would not be opposed to the free and democratic order, but because they were judged to be too impotent to do anything about it. Previously banned parties include the NSDAP, not under this law but by the allies, then the SRP as it was a successor of the NSDAP, and then the KPD not for being communist but for being run by the KGB and laying siege to parliament. Bans of the FAP and NL failed because the BVerfG said they're not parties so they were banned as associations, instead. Last case is the NPD, the first attempt failed because the state had so many moles inside that the court saw itself unable to distinguish between state and party actions, the second as already said because they're yes, hateful assclowns, but also pathetic. They've been excluded from state funds for six years, the case will have to be judged anew in 2030.
Ah, that's very interesting. Thanks!
The highest german court does. It's beholden only to the constitution. The guidelines are are quite strict and very specific:
"Parties that, in view of their aims or the behaviour of their adherents, seek to undermine or abolish the free democratic basic order or to endanger the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany must be declared unconstitutional (cf. Art. 21(2) first sentence of the Basic Law). According to the Federal Constitutional Court’s case-law, the mere dissemination of anti-constitutional ideas as such is not sufficient. To be declared unconstitutional, a party must also take an actively belligerent, aggressive stance vis-à-vis the free democratic basic order and must seek to abolish it. In addition, specific indications must suggest that it is at least possible that the party will achieve its anti-constitutional aims." From the website of the court
The constitutional court.
The same court that rules if laws are in accordance or in violation of the constitution.
No need to play one off against the other. Yes, there are many things that need to change systemically. Yes, the AfD is a real danger and needs to be banned. Simple as that.
The paradox of tolerance. Parties that violate the social contract of mutual tolerance deserve to be banned.
The paradox of tolerance isn't a helpful answer here. Banning the party won't make the bigots within it become unbigotted, which is the real goal.
In a similar way a straitjacket won't make the patient less suicidal but it will prevent them from cutting their own wrists. It is not meant as a long-term solution.
I don't disagree, but to lean into your analogy: I worry that we don't have any viable long term solutions here, and I'm very nervous about how that will affect the fallout from a ban. My own stay in a mental health ward comes to mind, because it took years after that point before I was able to get the kind of support that helps someone build wellness long term. The hospital stay did the job, in the sense that I'm still alive, but my mental health was probably worse in the initial aftermath.
(This comment brought to you from the UK, where the Reform party (not nearly as bad as the AfD, but still racist shits) made heavy gains in recent local elections.)
We had that situation in 1930s Germany and it was decided to address issues instead of banning Hitler’s Party even when they could.
There are other banned parties as well (such as the SRP, which was the new NSDAP basically), having large overlap with the AfD. It's not bad for democracy, if the requirements for banning are clear and enforced equally.
In the case of the US, it was propaganda by a hostile country, and by malefactors of great wealth whose interests aligned with that hostile country. In the former case, an act of war; in the latter, treason.
Completely agree. But wanted to note that by that definition the US should be at war with half the world after all the foreign government meddling it has been doing for the last century
https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy2766
It's BRICS, they want to control a new world currency, and they started WW3 for it. They convinced greedy oligarchs here that they would be in charge and important, "corporate monarchy," and the oligarchs ignored what happened to Jack Ma and all those Russian oligarchs
We had the dixiecrats whose entire position was wholly unconstitutional.
We have them still, but we had them before too.
That’s a good parallel - AfD like the Dixiecrats and now the GOP MAGA base have a geographical stronghold (in this case the “new states” of former East Germany)
An alternate future without German reunification is interesting to imagine, ditto one without a Aus Civil War where the south just seceded
Basically.
If we'd let the south secede, we'd have a glorious north, but poor Mexico would have to deal with methed-up rednecks attacking every time college-football season ended.
Ruling out foreign interference like astroturfing, genuine Opposition doesn't come from no where, it comes from suffering in most cases. Failure of elected governments to reflect on their own failure breeds it.
It buys us time to elect a party capable of making good changes. As long as a conservative or centralist government is in power I would agree with you that the root causes will not change, in fact with Friedrich Merz and the grand coalition things will get worse faster. But if we can buy the population some time not going fully into fascism we can hopefully point to the decline into fascism brought on by the CDU/SPD/FDP and elect politicians that actually care to serve Germans.
I think it's important to treat the rise of fascism, the growing wealth inequality, the new wave of media, as a flu we have to fight but also get through. We need to build up anti-bodies against these things. That means taxing wealth, strengthening unions, breaking up monopolies, etc.
That's a nice thought and obviously you know more about the AfD and German politics than I do, but on the US side I can say that the Democrats have learned absolutely nothing. Even after two terms of G.W. Bush (2000-2008), one of Trump (2016-2020), one lucky escape* (Biden 2020), and Trump now in a 2nd term, the Democrats make the same mistakes that they always have. It's a safe bet that 2028 in the US won't be any better.
It would be great to hear what kinds of remedies are under way in Europe to fix the status quo as you describe. If anything like that is happening, it doesn't make the news over here. I can say that nothing seems to be happening in the US beyond some meaningless posturing.
I think in the US we've seen a small rise in characters like Bernie pulling in new blood along the same ideological lines like AOC which didn't feel present 20 years ago. I also think Obama's tenure was sold to the public as a period of progress and change and I think in all actuality whatever good it did it wasn't enough to steer the boat. To me that was the sign that the US was likely too far gone from a political standpoint to recover. BUT if there is a chance, I think the past 25 years have been a clear enough signal to me that things must drastically change for things to get meaningfully better. Trump is the dark side of that "drastic change" coin and we've yet to see what the good side looks like but I would argue the US is running out of time to figure out which side of the coin is going to come up the winner.
Britain is seeing a minor rise in Wealth Inequality awareness. I think that knowledge could be the exact anti-bodies the world needs distributed to reverse this course. In Europe wealth taxes, capital gains taxes, etc are higher than in the US but still not enough. Unions are also more prevalent, at least in Germany. I like to compare it by saying both the US and Germany are on the same graph of declining living standards and for the exact same reason, Germany is just a decade or two behind the US. We still have a lot of power in the hands of the people, but it seems to me that the media is still able to whip up 30-40% of the population into being conservative despite their best interests and something like another 30% being too moderate to make a difference.
Right now we have a conservative government, things will only get worse while they're in power, but if the wealth disparity conversation continues anywhere in the world and billionaires are removed from the population, the entire world benefits. If the next progressive government enacts a tax plan like Die Linke's or takes step to removing land lords from existence or provides a UBI I think the results will speak for themselves rather quickly.
It's a big pendulum, right now in Germany and the US it's swung to the right (yours further than ours) but it all comes down to how effective the left swing can be. Take hold of all the power you can at the local level, form a union, conquer the state level offices, and educate people. That's the best advice I can give.
Thanks for the good thoughts and it's interesting (I guess not that surprisng) to hear that Trump and MAGA are, for now, even worse than the AfD if I understand what you're saying. I'm pessimistic about local activism here being good for anything at the moment. Changes have to made at the federal level, which for me mostly means kicking out the Democrat establishment. The idea of AOC running against Chuck Schumer in a primary would be an example of that, though I don't know if she would have a good chance of beating him. I'd say she has no serious chance of being elected president in 2028. Of course I'm open to being surprised.
They are not banned by the way... Just classified as far right...
This is an important step in the long and arduous process to disallow a party, though.
Politically, yes. When it comes to law, no. It's certainly convenient to have a 1000 page report to file as evidence but as far as opening proceedings is concerned the only requirement is that you're the government, have a majority in parliament, or a majority among states.
As you pretty much confirmed in your own reply, it's both an inherently political and legal process. While this isn't technically a mandatory step, it's effectively a necessary one.
It wasn't necessary for previous cases: The SRP (NSDAP successor) and KPD (run by the KGB, laid siege to parliament) had no political hand-wringing attached to them, legally they were also pretty much open and shut cases. Banning the NPD was never politically contentious, but needed some work for the legal part so it took a while for proceedings to be opened.
That is: It's not necessarily a long and arduous process.
The reason it's such a slog with the AfD is because it didn't start out as a Nazi party -- it slowly, over multiple internal putsches, turned into one. It got normalised, simply by people becoming accustomed to its presence, at about the same speed at which it radicalised. Had it started out with the programme it has now it would have long since been banhammered.
It does not have to ban it. Simply inspecting its foreign funding is enough.
Is it the result of a broken "system", or of one working as intended?
It means that a stopgap is needed before voters do something that they will only regret in hindsight.
Addressing issues is definitely important too, though part of the reason for extremist and populist parties like that becoming popular is that they have hijacked the public political discourse with fake issues (e.g. immigration, stirring up hate towards minorities,...) which essentially serve as a scapegoat for the voter's actual frustrations with the current system (e.g. wealth distribution, lack of affordable housing, lack of jobs for young people, fears that changes in the world will reduce their standard of living or anger that they already did,...)
Our founding fathers envisioned the electoral college as the counterbalance against someone dangerous taking power. The guardrails were always there, they just never really worked as intended.
because that being the reason for the existence of the electoral college is a propaganda myth. the real reason is that virginia wanted to play king maker and was the early united states' california. the reason virginia wanted to play kingmaker is that their economic power was built through slavery. the thing where the electoral college skews elections by giving more electoral power to states with more wide open land? yeah. that's not an accident. that was just the system that was most favorable to slave holding southerners. alexander hamilton just pitched to northerners that "well this is fine actually, see, we can use this system to prevent someone truly incompetent from taking office" and people ever since have misinterpretted that as being the point. it would be nice if we could propagandize it into the truth, but the last chance to do that has come and past, and it's time to confront that the electoral college was never going to save us because it was never meant to save us.
These people got Hitler in power once.