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.

  • Jeena@piefed.jeena.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    73
    ·
    1 month ago

    Banning one of the the biggest democratic parties to save democracy.

    I wonder how that would go. It’s the paradox that you have to be intolerant to intolerance.

    • Darkard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      78
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 month ago

      There is no paradox.

      Tolerance is a social contract that both guides and protects your actions. If you breach that contract by being a cunt then you are no longer afforded it’s protections for the same.

      Nazis demand you accept them while demonising others and will continue to take advantage of you being “tolerant” for as long as you allow it.

    • somenonewho@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      The last time they tried to ban a party in Germany was the NPD (another Nazi party) and at the end the Supreme Court decided the reason not to ban them, even though they were clearly unconstitutional , was because they were to few/insignificant (in the end they banned them from receiving party funding which still has a massive effect).

      So you couldnt ban them because they were to small and you can’t ban the AfD because they’re to big? Just because enough people vote for a party doesn’t mean they’re not unconstitutional.

    • Siegfried@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      We banned the fascist party in my country for 20 years. It accounted something like 55-60 % of the votes, back in the day.

      It didn’t work well.

        • Siegfried@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          Argentina. Peronism got proscribed for ~20 years (1955-1973). It’s a lot more complicated than that cause it actually was fascist vs conservatives*.

          Ellected governments had little to no real power cause +50% of the people were not allowed to vote, so the faction that started winning power was the military. Every excuse was a good one to take down the government and bring up another dictatorship.

          *refined fascists

          • Carrolade@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 month ago

            I’m not sure we can call Peronism fascist. While it was populist and nationalistic, it’s missing that hallmark blood-and-soil (this land for our bloodline) aspect that really marks out fascist ideologies.

            You can’t really call yourself fascist if you’re trying to say all your people are equal, you need to be trying to establish some sort of hierarchical order where these citizens are always better than those citizens.

    • celsiustimeline@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      The first half of your comment seems to be critical of banning a party, as if it damages democracy. But then in your second half, you reference the paradox or tolerance, which implies you are in favor of banning the AfD.

    • Fallenwout@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      You getting downvoted shows how hypocrite the internet collective is. Democracy for everyone unless they don’t like the result.