this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2025
556 points (98.6% liked)

Europe

5187 readers
2470 users here now

News and information from Europe πŸ‡ͺπŸ‡Ί

(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)

Rules (2024-08-30)

  1. This is an English-language community. Comments should be in English. Posts can link to non-English news sources when providing a full-text translation in the post description. Automated translations are fine, as long as they don't overly distort the content.
  2. No links to misinformation or commercial advertising. When you post outdated/historic articles, add the year of publication to the post title. Infographics must include a source and a year of creation; if possible, also provide a link to the source.
  3. Be kind to each other, and argue in good faith. Don't post direct insults nor disrespectful and condescending comments. Don't troll nor incite hatred. Don't look for novel argumentation strategies at Wikipedia's List of fallacies.
  4. No bigotry, sexism, racism, antisemitism, dehumanization of minorities, or glorification of National Socialism.
  5. Be the signal, not the noise: Strive to post insightful comments. Add "/s" when you're being sarcastic (and don't use it to break rule no. 3).
  6. If you link to paywalled information, please provide also a link to a freely available archived version. Alternatively, try to find a different source.
  7. Light-hearted content, memes, and posts about your European everyday belong in !yurop@lemm.ee. (They're cool, you should subscribe there too!)
  8. Don't evade bans. If we notice ban evasion, that will result in a permanent ban for all the accounts we can associate with you.
  9. No posts linking to speculative reporting about ongoing events with unclear backgrounds. Please wait at least 12 hours. (E.g., do not post breathless reporting on an ongoing terror attack.)

(This list may get expanded when necessary.)

We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.

If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.

If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the mods: @federalreverse@feddit.org, @poVoq@slrpnk.net, or @anzo@programming.dev.

founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
 

Germany’s centre-Right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party and the centre-Left Social Democrats (SPD), which are holding coalition talks, have proposed a law that will block people with multiple extremism convictions from standing in elections.

https://archive.ph/yNQwE

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] oftheair@lemmy.blahaj.zone 28 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Wake us up when it's "have".

[–] sexy_peach@feddit.org 3 points 50 minutes ago

They're not gonna

[–] Jumpingspiderman@lemmy.world 6 points 7 hours ago

They know too well what happens when you let these fuckers get power.

[–] Disaster@sh.itjust.works 6 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

Then they'll ban far left politicians from running.

Then they'll ban anyone they don't like.

And eventually, they'll ban everyone who isn't them.

Right wing lunatics are repulsive in almost every sense, but this isn't the way you beat them. When you put the machinery in place to do something like this, it will inevitably be abused in the opposite direction in future.

[–] gazter@aussie.zone 0 points 15 minutes ago

It's pretty hypocritical. Banning people from running in elections is about as far right as you can get.

The left-right divide is not a straight line, it's a full circle.

[–] misteloct@lemmy.world 11 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

It's much harder to be abused when you ban the only party abusing it.

[–] Realitaetsverlust@lemmy.zip 4 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

The big issue with any form of attempted suppression will not suddenly sway their voters. It would be much smarter to not give people a reason to fall for populists.

But that would be too easy, I guess.

[–] gazter@aussie.zone 1 points 15 minutes ago

It's like banning marijuana and then expecting people to just not do it.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 11 hours ago

Does this have more backing than the motion to ban the AfD entirely did?

[–] Rawdogg@lemm.ee -1 points 7 hours ago

genocide supporting germanys already facist enough, I wouldnt trust them bringing laws of supression.

[–] Goldholz@lemmy.blahaj.zone 18 points 22 hours ago

Yes we could, but the inner security is stalling the investigation and the conservatives and liberals think they could get the nazi votes and lean heavily into the rethorik. Yeaaah doesnt work out. Never did

[–] Ithorian@lemmy.world -3 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (3 children)

Its amazing how things work, the defendors of the democracy are asking to ban a political party. Do this exercise with me, imagine a country where the majority of people want a "far-right" party to rule them, they voted for them on a free and clean election. It can be for a lot of reasons, security, education, social paradox, conservative economic reasons, emigration... whatever, you choose, what would you do? Deny the will of the majority of the people from that country or let them freely choose what they want like true defendors of free will? Im not judging im just curious, i know my answer but i want to ear yours

[–] phneutral@feddit.org 2 points 32 minutes ago

This is a paradox well described by Popper. The gist is: You can not be tolerant towards the intolerant.

[–] misteloct@lemmy.world 6 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

Yes. Would you allow a company to sell actual poison that is marketed as a health food? What if a study showed 50.1% of all people believed it was not actually poisonous because of a successful marketing campaign by the company? What if innocent babies and children were ingesting this poison because their parents believed it was safe?

What if all those people believed companies shouldn't be allowed to sell poison. But that this company should be allowed to sell their product because they mistakenly believe it's not poison.

If you agree with banning a child killing poison but not with banning a far right party, please explain how it's fundamentally any different.

[–] gazter@aussie.zone 1 points 7 minutes ago

I would allow that company to sell poison.

But I would not allow them to market it as health food.

If a party campaigns on far right ideals, and get elected, then fair enough, that's democracy. Sometimes you have to admit that your views are not wanted.

However, if a far right party campaigns on truth and love and free kittens for everyone, then instead is shown to be liars and haters and give out free guns, then I would have an issue.

[–] Miaou@jlai.lu 4 points 9 hours ago (2 children)
[–] gazter@aussie.zone 1 points 12 minutes ago

Free speech is only allowed if you agree with it, huh?

[–] Ithorian@lemmy.world 2 points 9 hours ago

There we go... Your arguments are indeed so strong that im speechless, you are a comunication guru my friend

[–] Spaniard@lemmy.world 8 points 23 hours ago

The CDU thinks they will get their votes but they won't.

[–] segabased@lemmy.zip 13 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This absolutely needs to be a thing in every country. Ban far right parties, ban far right media

Considering the CDU could be considered a far right party themselves, they just wanna eliminate their competition, so i wouldn't get my hopes up.

They literaly had an election poster with the slogan "You don't have to vote for the AfD to get what you want. There is a democratic alternative: the CDU!".

As long as privately owned press and corporate social media algorithms try to shift the overton window as far right as it can go that's not gonna happen.

[–] Metz@lemmy.world 57 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

I love how the commenters on that page hating all on the "far-left", despite the left has exactly nothing to do with that idea. dumb fucks as far one can see.

[–] azimir@lemmy.ml 28 points 1 day ago

It's classic whataboutism and trying to draw false equivalencies to muddy the waters. They want to put everyone else on defense about the decision to ban Nazis by making you waste time explaining why someone else isn't a Nazi.

To sum up: fuck them. Nazis are bad. Please continue punching them, both metaphorically, legally, and physically as needed to keep them in their hidey holes.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 36 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

Do it. Honestly I'm a little surprised you didn't do it 80 years ago

[–] kungfuratte@feddit.org 11 points 22 hours ago

In a way we did. Anticonstitutional parties are generally not allowed. The problem is that courts and judges must be absolutely convinced that a party is anticonstitutional to actually ban them.

While I understand the point, won't this just make politicians run on lies even more?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Duke_Nukem_1990@feddit.org 104 points 1 day ago (12 children)

This will 100% be used to suppress left politicians.

Just ban the fucking AfD already.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] hendrik@palaver.p3x.de 112 points 1 day ago (12 children)

Maybe also consider bribery convictions and we might get rid of a few CDU/CSU politicians as well πŸ™ƒ

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 24 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Less inequality and better education are really the only solution.

People reach for extremism when they feel let down by the existing system.

Less inequality and better education are really the only solution.

People reach for extremism when they feel let down by the existing system.

Whatever actual or perceived grievances a person may have (even though merely being born in Germany already constitutes winning the global class lottery) - that only ever causes vulnurability.
That person then turning to actively undermining democratic systems and the international community is something that only happens if some con artist used that vulnurability to convince the person that it constitutes a solution to their problems.

Equality and education are great. Letting con artists run around freely is a completely separate issue. Letting folk get scammed out of their life savings is just as detrimental to a healthy society as letting folk get scammed out of their vote.

[–] Zer0_F0x@lemmy.world 40 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Greece did something similar a few years ago.

The Golden Dawn far right wing party was declared a criminal organization (after some violence that lead to a few stabbings and at least one death) and their leaders were thrown in jail.

From the ashes of Golden Dawn and a few other populist/Christian conservative/nationalist parties rose a few new ones, with more careful rhetoric and open support from the now jailed golden dawn leaders and high ranking church ministers.

They are collectively holding 26 of the 300 seats in the parliament and are expected to get better results on the next election cycle.

You can ban them all you want, they can still reform into a "we are not far right, wink wink" party after the ban itself verifies their far right status and rise to power all the same.

[–] MaggiWuerze@feddit.org 35 points 1 day ago (7 children)

A party ban in germany results also in a pohibition to form follow up parties. That's why we should aim for the party and not single members

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] superkret@feddit.org 26 points 1 day ago (3 children)

You can ban them all you want, they can still reform

Then make them do that work.
And investigate any ties between the banned party and the new one. Ban the new one as well, if they're just the same people with a new name.
Every time they are forced to rename and reform, that's effort they can't use to further their other goals.
Every time they need to "wink wink" a little harder, they risk losing part of their extremist base.
Make them do the work!

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next β€Ί