Nazi references, Part Deux

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yes, absolutely. Cos that really is all it was, a radio station.

Is there any evidence of direct calls for violence?

I really doubt they would have done the same with an Islamist radio station. It seems we have one set of laws for one people, and another for people that we don't like.

[al Roumi]

Is there any evidence of direct calls for violence?

I really doubt they would have done the same with an Islamist radio station. It seems we have one set of laws for one people, and another for people that we don't like.

I don't actually know about precise charges in this case, beyond reading the bbc article a couple of days ago. Are there pacifistic Neo-Nazis? Peaceful protest/marches are not something I'd immediately associate with Far right and neo-nazi movements, but I could indeed be prejudiced...

As to your different rules argument, I would strongly suspect that "Islamists" inciting violence would indeed be closed down. The UK's laws on incitement to hatred and violence were reviewed and beefed up exactly so that they could deal with Abbu Hamza among others. Ironicaly, Muslims are under particularily close surveilance in the UK so to say that the state bends over backwards -as you imply, for them is is superfluous. Lastly, these arrests and this radio station were focussed in Germany not the UK, so who you mean by "we" in the "we have different rules" I don't know...

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't actually know about precise charges in this case, beyond reading the bbc article a couple of days ago. Are there pacifistic Neo-Nazis? Peaceful protest/marches are not something I'd immediately associate with Far right and neo-nazi movements, but I could indeed be prejudiced...

Well if they aren't being violent then they are being pacifistic.

As for 'we', come on, I mean western democracies in general. Although Germany does admittedly have particularly stupid and un-liberal laws regarding it's treatment of the 'far-right' as it is called.

[al Roumi]

Well if they aren't being violent then they are being pacifistic.

I don't think it's quite as cut and dry as that, hence the UK's "incitement to hatred" thing. My understanding of neo and acme nazism is that it is anathema to pacifism, regarding it as a tool of the weak.

As for 'we', come on, I mean western democracies in general. Although Germany does admittedly have particularly stupid and un-liberal laws regarding it's treatment of the 'far-right' as it is called.

I'm not sure I'd call Germany's laws on this stupid, for the reasons I stated above -irrespective of their infringement of liberal free speech.

If you actually have evidence of the kind of bias you refer to then please do offer it up, otherwise this just sounds like a sweeping statement I've heard all to much from such groups as the EDL and BNP.

[Husar]

Well if they aren't being violent then they are being pacifistic.

I thought being pacifistic was being pro-peace and not being pro-gassing and pro-beating.

As for 'we', come on, I mean western democracies in general. Although Germany does admittedly have particularly stupid and un-liberal laws regarding it's treatment of the 'far-right' as it is called.

And other countries don't have stupid laws that have some historical reasons? If we allow completely free speech for them and they start talking to the press etc., can you imagine what that could mean? How that would change the image we have now after 60 years of hard work? And I bet a lot of people would blame us forgiving them more ground etc.

Other than that most neo-nazis are like nazis with a much worse dress code and even less brain. The ones with brain however have come up with some rather clever schemes to avoifd getting their organizations banned, but deep inside they're still very, very evil, I doubt this radio station was any different.

I thought you guys learned 70 years ago that appeasement doesn't work with nazis.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I thought being pacifistic was being pro-peace and not being pro-gassing and pro-beating.

Right now it's about their actions. If they have not been violent, then they have been peaceful. Is there any evidence at all of them being violent? Is there any evidence of them making direct calls for violence?

If they have, ban them. If not, can't we just have one law for everybody?

And other countries don't have stupid laws that have some historical reasons? If we allow completely free speech for them and they start talking to the press etc., can you imagine what that could mean?

I imagine the German people would probably find their neo-Nazi ideas pretty stupid, and that would be the end to the whole matter.

How that would change the image we have now after 60 years of hard work? And I bet a lot of people would blame us forgiving them more ground etc.

Other than that most neo-nazis are like nazis with a much worse dress code and even less brain. The ones with brain however have come up with some rather clever schemes to avoifd getting their organizations banned, but deep inside they're still very, very evil, I doubt this radio station was any different.

I thought you guys learned 70 years ago that appeasement doesn't work with nazis.

I thought you guys learned 70 years ago that banning free speech to promote a national image isn't the best way to go about things.

[Beskar]

I advocate Free speech as long as it is truthful, honest and the statements can be reasonably assumed. That is Freedom of Speech.

Sure, you can still have lots of disagreements with people under this and it doesn't stop opposing debates, it embodies everything good.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I advocate Free speech as long as it is truthful, honest and the statements can be reasonably assumed. That is Freedom of Speech.

That doesn't sound like freedom of speech to me. Who on earth decides what is "truthful"?

[Husar]

Right now it's about their actions. If they have not been violent, then they have been peaceful. Is there any evidence at all of them being violent? Is there any evidence of them making direct calls for violence?

Being peaceful is not being pacifistic as far as I'm aware. Whether those individuals are/were peaceful I do not know, there are certainly neo-nazis who chase immigrants down the street and beat them up. their message as a whole is not very compatible with pacifistic ideas I bet, they don't say it openly though because of laws against inciting hatred.

If they have, ban them. If not, can't we just have one law for everybody?

The laws against using Nazi symbology, inciting hatred and trying to get rid of democracy ARE for everybody and AFAIK they're the ones mostly used against Nazis, but also hate-preaching imams and other organizations.

I thought you guys learned 70 years ago that banning free speech to promote a national image isn't the best way to go about things.

If we learned that, it was more like 65 years ago, but we're not really banning free speech, we just dismantle evil organizations that break our laws and want to replace our democracy with a fascist dictatorship.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Being peaceful is not being pacifistic as far as I'm aware. Whether those individuals are/were peaceful I do not know, there are certainly neo-nazis who chase immigrants down the street and beat them up. their message as a whole is not very compatible with pacifistic ideas I bet, they don't say it openly though because of laws against inciting hatred.

Where is the evidence that they beat immigrants up? They were charged because of the radio station, not violence.

And as you said yourself, they haven't openly incited violence and so they haven't broken the law, so...

The laws against using Nazi symbology, inciting hatred and trying to get rid of democracy ARE for everybody and AFAIK they're the ones mostly used against Nazis, but also hate-preaching imams and other organizations.

As Gaelic's article said, the madrassas routinely deny the Holocaust, and nothing happens.

And OK the law against Nazi beliefs is for everyone, you could ban any specific belief then say it's fair since it applies to everyone, but that's not how things work.

If we learned that, it was more like 65 years ago, but we're not really banning free speech, we just dismantle evil organizations that break our laws and want to replace our democracy with a fascist dictatorship.

Which is another way of saying that you are banning free speech.